21AVCV00268

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/14/2021 01:01 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Rojas,Deputy Clerk
Assigned for all purposes to: Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Stephen Morgan

1 LAW OFFICE OF BRENT J. BORCHERT

Brent J. Borchert (CSBN 223917)
2 [email protected]
2930 Westwood Blvd., Suite 204
3
Los Angeles, CA 90064-4100
4 Telephone: (310) 991-8635
Facsimile: (310) 773-9230
5
Attorney for Plaintiff
6 RONALD AUSTIN
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
(North District - Michael D. Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse)
11
RONALD AUSTIN Case No.
12 (Unlimited Civil Case)
Plaintiff,
13 vs. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:
14 TIMOTHY JAMES KIGAR; AND
1. Slander of Title;
15 DOES 1 THROUGH 10, 2. Intentional Interference with Prospective
Economic Relations;
16 Defendants. 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress;
17 4. Trespass
18
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
19
20
21 COMES NOW Plaintiff RONALD AUSTIN and hereby alleges as follows:

22 PARTIES

23 1. Plaintiff RONALD AUSTIN (herein “Austin”) is an adult and a resident of

24 Los Angeles County in the State of California.

25 2. Defendant TIMOTHY JAMES KIGAR (herein “Kigar”), date of birth

26 March 16, 1965, California Driver’s License Number C2185640, Social Security Number

27 XXX-XX-4543, telephone number (760) 995-5557, e-mail address

28 [email protected] is an adult and a resident of Los Angeles

-1-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 County. Kigar resides upon Los Angeles County Parcel Number 3314-012-030, having the
2 street address of 14115 E Avenue G, Lancaster, CA 93535-8961.
3 3. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 10 are unknown to plaintiff,
4 who therefore sues these defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to

5 allege the true names and capacities of these DOE defendants when ascertained. Plaintiff is
6 informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that DOES 1 through 10 are each responsible in
7 some manner for the events herein alleged, and that plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were
8 proximately caused by their conduct. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges,
9 that at all times mentioned each of the defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, were the
10 agents and employees of each of the remaining defendants. In doing the things hereinafter

11 alleged, Defendants acted within the scope and course of such agency, except as to any
12 defamation, harassment and/or retaliation by individual defendants, which are actions or
13 omissions outside of the scope of employment, but statutorily give rise to liability against both
14 the individual defendants and their employer. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that at all
15 times relevant hereto, each of the defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, acted in concert
16 with one another and in furtherance of each other’s interests.

17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18 4. All claims asserted herein arose in Los Angeles County, California and therefore
19 this court has jurisdiction over Defendant and all causes of action since, as alleged below
20 Defendants inflicted their harm upon Plaintiff in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
21 5. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles pursuant to California Code of
22 Civil Procedure Section 393, because the acts and omissions complained of herein occurred in

23 the County of Los Angeles and the subject real properties underlying this instant litigation are
24 situated in the County of Los Angeles.
25 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
26 6. Plaintiff RONALD AUSTIN (hereinafter “Austin”) is the sole owner of Los
27 Angeles County Parcel Number 3314-012-024 (herein Parcel 3314-012-024 or the subject
28 property), having the following legal description:

-2-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 LOT 80 OF RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECORDED IN BOOK 74, PAGES 44
2 AND 45 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF
3 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 8 NORTH, RANGE 9 WEST, S. B. B. & M.
4 Several depictions of Parcel 3314-012-024 are attached as EXHIBIT “A”.

5 7. Plaintiff Austin has succeeded to all rights, interests, title and claims of his
6 predecessor in title, EAGLE DESERT VISTA CORPORATION (herein “EDVCORP”, or
7 “former owner”), relating to Parcel 3314-012-024, in that EDVCORP in April of 2021 has sold
8 and conveyed and transferred title of the subject property to Plaintiff Austin and in addition has
9 assigned to Plaintiff Austin all of its rights, interests, title and claims as former owner relating to
10 Parcel 3314-012-024, including but limited to all claims of EDVCORP for damages and other

11 relief against defendant TIMOTHY JAMES KIGAR (hereinafter “Kigar”) relating to Parcel
12 3314-012-024, as well as all other claims of EDVCORP against defendant Kigar unrelated to
13 Parcel 3314-012-024 itself.
14 8. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant
15 Kigar owns Los Angeles County Parcel Number 3314-012-030 (herein Parcel 3314-012-030),
16 having the following legal description:

17 LOT 110 OF RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECORDED IN BOOK 74, PAGES 44

18 AND 45 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF
19 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 8 NORTH, RANGE 9 WEST, S. B. B. & M.
20 Several depictions of Parcel 3314-012-030 are also attached within EXHIBIT “A”.
21 9. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
22 that: On February 15, 2021, OLOJIO ALVAREZ (hereinafter “Alvarez”), a sales representative

23 of EDVCORP, was showing the subject property Parcel 3314-012-024 to prospective buyer
24 SANCHEZ (hereinafter “Sanchez”) when they were confronted by defendant Kigar who was
25 behaving in a highly aggressive and confrontational manner towards them. Entering without
26 invitation onto Parcel 3314-012-024 where Alvarez and Sanchez were standing, defendant
27 Kigar screamed at them to get off “his” property and told them that they were “trespassing” on
28 “his” property. Kigar stated that his two sons were police officers and that he would call his two

-3-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 sons to arrest Alvarez and Sanchez unless they left “his” property immediately. Kigar also
2 falsely asserted to prospective buyer Sanchez that he himself, defendant Kigar, owns the subject
3 property Parcel 3314-012-024 on which they were standing, thereby slandering the lawful title
4 and ownership rights of EDVCORP as to the subject property Parcel 3314-012-024 and creating

5 fear and apprehension in the mind of prospective buyer Sanchez that EDVCORP might not own
6 the subject property, thereby placing any purchase at risk.
7 10. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
8 that: Defendant Kigar further asserted to prospective buyer Sanchez and to Alvarez that he
9 himself, defendant Kigar, owns not only Parcel 3314-012-024 but also all eighty (80) acres
10 surrounding Parcel 3314-012-024 as well as his Parcel 3314-012-030. A depiction of the eighty

11 (80) acres surrounding Parcel 3314-012-024 as well as his Parcel 3314-012-030 is attached as
12 EXHIBIT “B”, which indicates on the face of the map who actually owns each of the 32
13 parcels. These surrounding eighty (80) acres comprise thirty-two (32) parcels each of two- and
14 one-half acres (gross, 2.5 acres each) and only one of these 32 parcels – a small lot of only 1.78
15 acres net -- is in fact owned by defendant Kigar. Kigar’s grandiose assertion that he “owns all
16 80 acres here” is false, it slanders the title of about thirty lawful neighbors including EDVCORP

17 and others, and it overstates by more than forty-fold the tiny acreage the delusional defendant
18 Kigar actually owns.
19 11. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that because of
20 this slander of title by defendant Kigar and because of this tortious intentional interference with
21 prospective economic relations by defendant Kigar, sales representative Alvarez was unable to
22 conclude the sale of Parcel 3314-012-024 to prospective buyer Sanchez, thereby causing actual

23 loss and damages in the amount of eight thousand five hundred dollars ($8,500) according to
24 proof to be presented at trial, plus punitive damages, for loss of this sale.
25 12. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
26 that: On February 15, 2021, the President of EDVCORP, DR. GAVIN M. ERASMUS
27 (hereinafter “Dr. Erasmus”), himself an attorney (California State Bar Number 125238), spoke
28 by telephone with defendant Kigar and cautioned him to cease and desist in his false assertion

-4-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 that Alvarez and sales clients were “trespassing” on Parcel 3314-012-024 and/or otherwise
2 maligning the ownership or title of EDVCORP to the subject property. Dr. Erasmus pointed
3 out to defendant Kigar that Parcel 3314-012-024 has three hundred thirty-three feet (333.10 feet)
4 of frontage directly onto paved 140th Street East, so the allegation of defendant Kigar made no

5 sense that Alvarez had “trespassed” across the property of defendant Kigar (which is located
6 hundreds of feet distant) to enter onto Parcel 3314-012-024, when obviously Alvarez had
7 entered directly from the paved street frontage where his car was parked. Conceding then that
8 Alvarez had not trespassed, defendant Kigar however further reiterated to Dr. Erasmus his
9 false claim that he defendant Kigar owned the eighty acres surrounding the subject property and
10 suggested that EDVCORP should sell Parcel 3314-012-024 to him rather than to anyone else.

11 Defendant Kigar also stated to Dr. Erasmus that the price which he would pay would be low on
12 the ground he stated that he “knows about tax sales.” Indeed, Kigar may be familiar with tax
13 sales in connection with the numerous recorded liens placed against him personally in the past
14 decade by the Los Angeles County Tax Collector for delinquent taxes on his own property, but
15 the subject property was not purchased on a tax sale. EDVCORP declined to conduct any sales
16 discussions with defendant Kigar.

17 13. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
18 that: On February 26, 2021, sales representative Alvarez took a new prospective buyer named
19 SANTIAGO BUENROSTRO (hereinafter “Santiago Buenrostro”) to view the subject property.
20 He offered to buy Parcel 3314-012-024 for the undiscounted price of fourteen thousand dollars
21 ($14,000), and specified that title be held in the name of his daughter VANESSA
22 BUENROSTRO (hereinafter “Vanessa Buenrostro”). Sales representative Alvarez made a full

23 disclosure of the aggressive past behavior of defendant Kigar on February 15, 2021, and a
24 discount of three thousand dollars ($3,000) was agreed to take account of this troublesome
25 neighbor, reducing the price to eleven thousand dollars ($11,000). Prospective buyer
26 Buenrostro paid a $1,000 down payment, and undertook to pay the full balance by March 31,
27 2021.
28

-5-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 14. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
2 that: On or about March 20, 2021, Vanessa Buenrostro went with her mother and her father
3 Santiago Buenrostro to view Parcel 3314-012-024 which she was in the process of purchasing
4 in her name. Defendant Kigar came from his nearby house and confronted them very

5 aggressively, first himself entering uninvited onto and trespassing upon Parcel 3314-012-024,
6 then shouting at them to get off "his" property, accusing them of trespassing on "his" property
7 and threatening them. Vanessa Buenrostro and her mother have stated that they both felt
8 extremely threatened and upset by Kigar’s conduct, so much so that Vanessa Buenrostro
9 decided afterwards to cancel her purchase of Parcel 3314-012-024, thereby causing actual loss
10 and damages in the amount of eight thousand five hundred dollars ($8,500) according to proof to

11 be presented at trial, plus punitive damages, for the loss of this sale of Parcel 3314-012-024.
12 15. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
13 that: In light of the unabated unreasonable and excessive aggression and confrontations which
14 are ongoing and continue to be perpetrated by defendant Kigar, EDVCORP has sold the subject
15 property to plaintiff Austin for the highly discounted price of five thousand five hundred dollars
16 ($5,500). Sales representative Alvarez made a full disclosure of the ongoing aggression of

17 defendant Kigar, and this very substantial discount was agreed to take account of this immensely
18 troublesome neighbor. Because Austin cannot sell the property with the incessant harassment
19 Kigar visits upon every potential buyer of the property, Austin intends to raise his horses on the
20 subject property which is zoned for such use. Also, as part of the consideration for this
21 transaction, EDVCORP has assigned to Plaintiff Austin all of its rights, interests, title and
22 claims as former owner relating to Parcel 3314-012-024, including but limited to all claims of

23 EDVCORP for damages and all other relief against defendant Kigar relating to Parcel 3314-
24 012-024, as well as all other claims of EDVCORP against defendant Kigar which are unrelated
25 to Parcel 3314-012-024 itself.
26 16. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
27 that: In or about March 2021, defendant Kigar trespassed on the subject property, removed
28

-6-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 corner stakes which had been carefully positioned by Alvarez, and threw the stakes in the
2 bushes. Trespass seems, in Kigar’s view, to be something which only others commit.
3 17. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
4 that: During his confrontations, defendant Kigar has repeatedly preached about violations of

5 code enforcement requirements should any buyer wish to develop their new property. Yet on his
6 own property, defendant Kigar is himself committing multiple code violations, for example,
7 having large unpermitted trucks and containers there in violation of codes. Code violations
8 seem, in Kigar’s view, to be something which only others commit.
9 18. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
10 that: During each of his confrontations with these prospective purchasers, defendant Kigar has

11 repeatedly accused these buyers of coming into the area to grow marijuana on their property and
12 of being marijuana farmers, without any basis in his mind other than their brown skin and their
13 Mexican ancestry. Defendant Kigar has never previously met any of these prospective buyers
14 and previously knew nothing about any of them, certainly not even their names, so he and his
15 reckless and false allegations are irrational and have no foundation. It is especially outrageous
16 when defendant Kigar makes such an accusation against Vanessa Buenrostro who is a gentle

17 young woman only 21 years of age and focused on her education and on building her
18 future. Until she had the misfortune of being so viciously verbally attacked by defendant Kigar,
19 she had been trying with great pride to start out her adult life by making her first-time property
20 investment at an early age. She works at a hospital, where she is training to be a nurse, and she
21 devotes herself to the care of others. Instead of the respect she deserves for her human
22 compassion and her maturity and her investment responsibility, this foul-mouthed defendant

23 Kigar berated her and humiliated her and threatened her with his racist accusations, in a situation
24 where she was feeling particularly vulnerable, especially because she was in an isolated location
25 in the desert being subjected to the disgraceful behavior of this aggressive defendant Kigar and
26 his cowardly gross disrespect towards her. Vanessa Buenrostro deeply resents the baseless and
27 defamatory accusation of defendant Kigar that she is a law-breaking marijuana farmer when
28

-7-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 completely to the contrary she is in fact a responsible and law-abiding citizen whose career as a
2 nurse is devoted to helping and serving the sick and the suffering in our community.
3 19. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
4 that: The excessively confrontational acts of defendant Kigar are not limited to aggression

5 towards persons above-named attempting to purchase property in “his” neighborhood. Reports

6 are widespread throughout the neighborhood that defendant Kigar engages repeatedly in
7 confrontational behavior towards many others, for example, standing near County water spigots
8 in the neighborhood and without any credible foundation accusing passersby of “stealing” water
9 from “his” neighborhood water spigot. Overwhelmingly or exclusively the people whom
10 defendant Kigar (a Caucasian male) confronts with irrational aggression are “brown-skinned”

11 and the clear undertone of his vituperative invective is that he is a racist who is apparently
12 obsessed with ridding “his” neighborhood of these Latino “invaders” whose presence he will not
13 tolerate on “his” grand “80-acre” estate. He has no respect for the civil rights of those whom he
14 so racistly persecutes.
15 20. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
16 that: Kigar’s pattern of harassment of those he perceives as growing marijuana in “his”

17 neighborhood has included his making false and/or misleading reports to numerous government
18 agencies including LA County law enforcement and LA County Code Enforcement, as well as
19 inducing and encouraging other local residents to engage in outright criminal conduct. As but
20 one example, on September 24, 2020 Kigar made a false report to the Los Angeles County
21 Sheriff’s Department in Lancaster that two individuals were engaged in “theft of utilities” by
22 stealing Kigar’s water. Two Hispanic individuals were arrested in connection with this false

23 allegation but, as it turned out, these individuals were only using a key lawfully provided to them
24 to obtain water from a public water dispenser that they were lawfully authorized to use. On
25 information and belief, Austin has been informed that these individuals and others who have
26 been harassed by Kigar on an ongoing basis since 2020 are in the process of preparing their own
27 lawsuit against Kigar for harassment and malicious prosecution.
28

-8-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 21. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
2 that: In early March of 2021 Kigar engaged in a conspiracy with neighbor JOHN GLASGOW
3 (hereinafter “Glasgow”) to vandalize Los Angeles County Property, i.e., the public water
4 dispensers used authorized residents who have been issued a key. On March 7, 2021 Glasgow,

5 acting in concert with and at the behest of Kigar, injected superglue into the lock of said public
6 water dispenser and watched from nearby as two Hispanics who in lawful possession of a key for
7 the operation thereof were unable to obtain water. Los Angeles County was thus forced to
8 perform emergency repairs at County taxpayer expense. As this incident is currently under
9 criminal investigation, further evidence cannot be presently stated in this instant Complaint that
10 would interfere with said investigation. However, clear and convincing evidence of this criminal

11 conduct by these particular named individuals will be produced at the time of trial.
12 22. Plaintiff Austin is informed and believes and thereupon alleges the following,
13 that: Perhaps most astonishing of all is that the deranged and hypocritical Kigar has publicly
14 admitted that he himself is a marijuana farmer, which fact itself demonstrates that Kigar’s
15 conduct in his ostensible crusade against local marijuana cultivators is a thinly transparent cover
16 story for his racially motivated conduct. For example, in his 56 postings an online blog in "420

17 Magazine,” https://www.420magazine.com/community/members/dadinpain.25447/ , defendant

18 Kigar admits that he himself has illegally grown marijuana on his own property both outdoors
19 and indoors, admits that he has painted the exterior glass of his house to obscure an indoor grow,
20 admits that he has hooked up electrical wiring against County codes to provide intense lighting
21 for indoor grows, has bought and cultivated clones of marijuana plants, has encouraged others to
22 send marijuana parcels on Greyhound buses as he himself has done, and numerous other

23 violations of federal and state law as well as County codes. Kigar has also grown and held and
24 is at present growing marijuana and holding marijuana paraphernalia on his property, including
25 but not limited to inside the three large unpermitted trucks and containers at the rear of his
26 property located at 14115 E Avenue G, Lancaster, CA 93535-8961, known as Los Angeles
27 County Parcel Number 3314-012-030, in violation of the law and of County codes. Illegal
28

-9-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 marijuana growing operations seem, in Kigar’s view, to be something which only others
2 commit.
3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Slander of Title– Against All Defendants)

5 23. Plaintiff Austin incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1

6 through 22 as though fully set forth herein.
7 24. Defendants and each of them, by their acts or omissions, have slandered
8 Plaintiff’s Property’s title by making the statements set forth hereinabove, which contain
9 materially false information, i.e., that Kigar is the true owner of Parcel 3314-012-024.
10 25. Said statements were without justification, false, malicious, and made with

11 malice, as Kigar knew or should have known said statements were false. In so doing, Kigar
12 caused unprivileged disparagement of Plaintiff’s title to his real Property, resulting in pecuniary
13 loss of the value of his Property. Defendants have invaded Plaintiff’s interest in the
14 marketability and/or vendibility of his Property as a result of their actions, directly disparaging
15 Plaintiff’s title. See Miller and Starr California Real Estate 3d, Recording Priorities, 108-109
16 and Albertson v. Raboff 46 Cal.2d 375 (1956).

17 26. Slander of title occurs when a person, without privilege to do so, communicates a
18 false statement that disparages title to real or personal property and causes pecuniary loss. (Truck
19 Ins. Exchange v. Bennett 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84 (1997); Howard v. Schaniel 113 Cal.App.3d
20 256, 263 (1980). The gravamen of the [slander of title] cause of action is protection of the
21 transferability of property. (Truck Ins. Exchange, supra, at p. 84.) Actionable conduct is based
22 on whether the person creating a cloud on title could reasonably foresee that the false

23 communication might determine the conduct of a third person lender, buyer or lessee, and is not
24 based on whether a legal cloud has been created on the owner's title. Id.
25 27. Defendants’ conduct was malicious, oppressive and fraudulent warranting
26 punitive damages.
27 / / /
28 / / /

- 10 -
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations– Against All Defendants)
3 28. Plaintiff Austin incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1
4 through 27 as though fully set forth herein.

5 29. EDVCORP entered into prospective economic relations with each of Sanchez,
6 Santiago Buenrostro, Vanessa Buenrostro and her mother in an attempt to sell Parcel 3314-
7 012-024 and actually was successful in securing a contract to do so with Vanessa Buenrostro.
8 30. Kigar knew of the prospective economic relations, i.e., EDVCORP’S attempt to
9 sell Parcel 3314-012-024 to various individuals including Sanchez and Vanessa Buenrostro as
10 evidenced by Kigar’s statements that EDVCORP should sell the property to him rather than

11 anyone else.
12 31. By engaging in the conduct set forth hereinabove, Kigar intended to disrupt the
13 marketing of Parcel 3314-012-024 by EDVCORP to any and all prospective buyers that he did
14 not see fit to be his future neighbors.
15 32. As a direct result of the Kigar’s conduct, Plaintiff Austin was harmed in an
16 amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff Austin will continue to be damaged unless Kigar is

17 restrained from the conduct set forth hereinabove.

18 33. Defendants’ conduct was malicious, oppressive and fraudulent warranting
19 punitive damages.
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Against All Defendants)
22 34. Plaintiff Austin incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1

23 through 33 as though fully set forth herein.

24 35. The conduct as described herein of Kigar has been outrageous.

25 36. Kigar acted not just with reckless disregard of the probability that Alvarez,

26 Sanchez, Austin, Santiago Buenrostro, Vanesa Buenrostro and her mother would suffer

27 emotional distress. Said conduct as described throughout this Complaint was actually designed

28 with malice aforethought to inflict emotional distress upon the past and present owners, as well

- 11 -
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 as any potential purchasers of Parcel 3314-012-024 through a pattern of ongoing and severe
2 harassment for the purpose of disrupting and preventing the sale of said property.

3 37. Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress at the prospect that he cannot

4 market his property or even go near it without Kigar and/or other agents acting at the behest of

5 Kigar making physical and verbal threats of the type set forth hereinabove.

6 38. The conduct of Kigar complained of in this cause of action is the cause of

7 Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress.

8 39. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the aforementioned intentional infliction

9 of emotional distress inflicted upon him by Kigar in an amount to be proven at trial.

10 40. Defendants’ conduct was malicious, oppressive and fraudulent warranting

11 punitive damages.

12 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13 (Trespass – Against All Defendants)

14 41. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 40 above as though fully set forth and

15 rewritten herein.

16 42. Kigar’s repeated entry onto Parcel 3314-012-024, owned by Plaintiff, for the

17 purpose of disrupting Plaintiff’s attempts to market the property constitutes a continuing trespass

18 on Austin’s land caused by the actions, inactions and omissions of the Defendants, whereby the

19 Defendants have acted negligently, intentionally and tortiously in causing such trespass and have

20 acted negligently, intentionally and tortiously in failing to abate and enjoin such trespass.

21 43. As a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants and each of them, a

22 continuing trespass exists and continues to exist resulting in damage to the Plaintiff on an

23 ongoing basis.

24 44. As a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered

25 and will continue to suffer general, compensatory and consequential damages inclusive of but

26 not limited to any and all amounts incurred or to be incurred, the diminution in value of the

27 Subject Property, the loss of use and loss of rent from use of the Subject Property, and all other

28 amounts to be determined in the Courts with proof at trial, all of which have not yet been fully

- 12 -
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 ascertained but which will more specifically be shown in accordance with proof at the time of

2 trial.

3 45. Plaintiff has requested and continues to request to have the Defendants abate and

4 enjoin the alleged trespass, but the Defendants have failed and refuse to do so and the trespass

5 continues to exist. Plaintiff requests a mandatory and/or prohibiting injunction be issued

6 requiring the Defendants and each of them to enjoin and abate the alleged trespass.

7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

8 WHEREFORE, Austin prays for judgment by this Court as follows:

9 1. For actual damages in the amount of $8,500 (Eight Thousand Five Hundred

10 Dollars), according to proof at the time of trial;

11 2. For punitive damages, in the amount of $100,000 (One Hundred Thousand

12 Dollars);
,.,
13 .) . For a restraining order prohibiting defendant Kigar from being within three

14 hundred feet (300 feet) of Parcel 3314-012-024;

15 4. For declaratory relief and injunctive relief;

16 5. For costs of suit;

17 6. For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Code section 3334 and

18 Code Civ. Proc. section 1021.9;

19 7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

20

21 Dated: April 13,2021

22 By: ~/!4rf5~
BRENT J. BORCHERT
23 Attorney for Plaintiff Ronald Austin
24

25

26
27

28

- 13 -
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1

2 Plaintiff Austin hereby demands a Jury Trial in this matter on all issues so triable.
,.,
.)

5
Dated: April 13, 2021
ByB~ac~~
Attorney for Plaintiff Ronald Austin
6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 l
VERIFICATION
2
I, Ronald Austin, declare:
3
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action.
4
2. I have read the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know the contents
5
thereof. The facts stated in said Complaint are either true and correct of my own personal
6
knowledge, or I am informed and believe that such facts are true and correct, and on that basis I
7
allege them to be true and correct.
8
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
9
foregoing is true and correct.
10
Executed on April 13, 2021, in Los Angeles, California.
11

12

13 Ronald Austin
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

26
27

28

- 15 -
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Exhibit A
 ➤

N
© 2021 Google 1000 ft
 ➤

N
© 2021 Google 2000 ft
Exhibit B