White landlord sues Black tenant who
complained of racism and denial of
housing services
September 11 2022
All about racism practiced by Hi Point 1522 LLC
Updated July 15, 2021
Los Angeles.
Landlord and Management Company
Lose Case against Black tenants
Los Angeles property owner Walter Barratt (Hi Point Apts LLC) and his management company Power Property Management Inc have lost their bid to stop a Black tenant from complaining about housing services. Small claims Superior Court Judge Emma Castro denied the owner’s complaint for $10,000. The owner claimed the Black tenant had caused him to lose rent monies. Unfortunately the same Judge refused to grant the tenant (plaintiff) any money after the tenant paid over $72,000 in rents and still cannot get certain housing services like repairs and extra parking. The court sadly does not recognize tenant rights. Why do we need the courts?
This is the court case where Black tenants have been asking for intercom repair and an extra parking stall since 2014. The tenants have asked for damages or a rent reduction also. The court was asked to order the housing services restored but the Judge did not address this. Sad.
Partly because of COVID caused delays, this case took nearly two years to get before the Judge. If you are thinking of suing your landlord, this may be an example of what you will go thru. In the meantime, complaints are still pending with the DFEH against the owner and management company. In the meantime, the building has been sold to new owner Hi Point 1522 LLC, managed by Hi Point 1522 Managers LLC, managed by Hi Point 1522 Managers LLC, managed by Hi Point 1522 Managers Holdco LLC, managed by Todd Jacobs, associated with Hi Point 1522 TJ Entity LLC, managed by Anthony Jaffe. The property management company for this site is Power Property Management which is at the same address as the other 1522 Hi Point LLC entities above. In the meantime, the new owner has been contacted as to the need for housing services at this location. The DFEH (and new owner) has been advised of the new owner contact information.
Watch for commentary and a review of court exhibits soon!
Updated June 12, 2021
Subject: Amended. Parking Issues at 1522 Hi Point St – Reference DFEH Case Number 202104- 13236514- Continuing Performance duties of Hi Point Apts LLC
From: G Johnson
To: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; hcidla.rso.central@lacity.org; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.ridley-thomas@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org
Cc: info@housingrightscenter.org; walter.barratt@gmail.com; highpoint1522@gmail.com; cynthia@powerpropertygrp.com; 09e41e7459a05677911c@powerpropertygroup.mailer.appfolio.us; brent@powerpropertygrp.com; attorneygeneral@dojca.gov
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 01:38 PM PDT
To whom it may concern:
At the Friday, May 14 court hearing on this matter Walter Barratt, employer of Power Property Management Inc., told the court that he was willing to provide us with a tandem parking stall if we paid $50.00. He basically regurgitated this from 2014 because from 2014 to now, he admitted that he negligently had not responded to my inquiries about parking, essentially telling me by his silence that the tandem parking was not available.
Let’s examine the parking problem, for the sake of negotiation. (1) The state housing discrimination laws prohibit a landlord from refusing to rent housing services by telling a tenant the services are not available (tandem parking) and the same laws prohibit a landlord from singling out a tenant for unfair treatment and setting different terms and conditions for such tenant. Walter Barratt has done all these things and thus has violated the fair housing laws. (2) Retaliation because I complained is unlawful. By not assigning our unit 9 an available tandem parking stall with no extra charge, he has continued to unlawfully retaliate against me because I complained. Walter Barratt works with his agent, resident manager Kassandra Harris. (3) The rent agreement shows that the cost of parking is included. There is no indication there will be an extra charge for parking. Therefore, Walter cannot charge $50.00 for parking. (4) Walter has filed with the City rent registry documents that show that for all units at 1522 Hi Point St, parking is included in the rent. There is no indication in these documents that any tenant is being charged a separate fee for parking. Thus, Walter has singled me out for unfair treatment. It is true he could post a sign in the common area that “tandem parking is $50 extra” but that would be incongruous because (1) many tenants already have rent agreements in which they may already have a tandem stall at no extra charge and (2) it would not apply to tenants where tandem parking was available at the inception of their tenancy. But of course, no such sign is posted.
Property Owner Barratt Says
He Feels Harassed
When Reading Articles on the Internet
Of course, if I was to pay $50 under these circumstances, I would be infringing upon my right to claim discrimination and I would waive my right under the LAMC: that a landlord can charge an additional fee for housing services only if the service was not available at the inception of the tenancy.
Contrary to what the biased and retaliatory city employees have stated, tandem parking in 2010 was “available” at the inception of unit 9 tenancy. I have pictures of unit 9 parked in tandem stall 14 and another tenant parked at stall 8; the city employees refused to admit that another tenant was assigned to stall 8, proving that unit 9 was assigned to stall 14, the rent agreement being a clerical error.
In summary, the landlord is without authority to charge unit 9 $50 for tandem parking because it would constitute unlawful different terms and conditions; it is not agreed to in our rental agreement, and the landlord is without authority to charge $50 for tandem parking because such fee would violate the LAMC that does not allow an added fee for services that were available at the inception of the tenancy.
Property owner Barratt Says Blacks
Not Entitled to Housing Services
I am surprised the owner brought this $50 up last week because I disposed of his argument years ago. Even when sued in federal court 2015, he never filed an “answer” to the complaint and never alleged the $50 fee. Of course, he still does not admit the fee would be unlawful. I told the court on May 14 that unit 9 already pays the $50 because parking is included in the rent.
Walter at the hearing spent a lot of time saying he felt harassed by reading articles on the internet. He complained about seeing the words “Racism at Hi Point Apts” on the internet and that such sites were directed at him. I have attached a Google page showing that there are numerous apartments with the name or similar “Hi Point Apts” and some are out of state. I also remind the parties that many of the documents that Walter may be reading on the internet are documents published to the internet by the Los Angeles City Clerk’s office. I guess Barratt will now sue the City government for harassment. There is a cause and effect, that Walter seems unable to comprehend, that if he had provided the intercom maintenance and tandem parking in 2015 as requested, I would not have grounds to complain now.
Walter said in court that I, as a tenant (Black) am not entitled to fair housing or housing services. I disagree because the “entitlement” comes from federal, state, and local fair and civil rights housing laws as well as the rental agreement.
All rights reserved.
Geary J. Johnson
reference: Power Property Group, PO Box 472, Culver City, CA 90232. reference: Power Property Management obligations per their 1/10/19 letter:
“… full-service management company…responsible for collecting rents, coordinating repairs…all matters/repairs must go thru our office.”
reference: Civil Code section 52 provides:
“(a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6. “
reference: jurisdiction of code violation inspectors from H & S code: “including but not limited to…any building or portion thereof…general dilapidation or improper maintenance… the welfare of the public…inadequate sanitation”. Code enforcement inspectors Marcel Nicolas and Luis Tolentino said they refuse to enforce the H & S code in this regard. I have talked with city fire department employees who told me the city inspectors do have authority to inspect multifamily dwelling intercom systems.
Attachment Google search for “Racism Hi Point Apts”- 1 page
(Editor note: this email has been redacted. As told to the Los Angeles mayor and council as this is a matter of Public Interest. As told to the state Department of Fair Employment under Governor Gavin Newsom.)
May 21, 2021
Subject: New Intake Filed against PPM- Memorialize Court case JOHNSON V POWER – In the Public Interest- DFEH Case 202104-13236514
From: G Johnson
To: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; info@housingrightscenter.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; hcidla.rso.central@lacity.org; councilmember.ridley- thomas@lacity.org
Cc: walter.barratt@gmail.com; 09e41e7459a05677911c@powerpropertygroup.mailer.appfolio.us; cynthia@powerpropertygrp.com; highpoint1522@gmail.com; brent@powerpropertygrp.com; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
Date: Monday, May 17, 2021, 03:51 PM PDT
Walter Barratt Testifies that City
Employees told him to
deny Housing Services to Black Tenants
Dear Power Property Management, Inc.(“PPM”) et al:
1. Due to your filing of the cross-complaint in case 19STSC14394, I have asked the DFEH to investigate you for unlawful retaliation. In my opinion, the DFEH can take up to a year to investigate. I will still retain the right to file court action within the 3 year statute of limitations.
2. At the court hearing May 14, 2021, Walter Barratt testified that city government housing employees told him to deny housing services to Balck tenants. Barratt also testified that city employees said they routinely deny/ignore housing violation complaints from Black tenants.
3. Walter Barratt admitted that the intercom unit 9 has not been maintained since 2014. Exhibits to the court show that Barratt replaced the entire building intercom system in 2015 but stopped short of replacing intercoms of units 9, 8, and 5, even though the box on the outside of the building implies that unit 9,8,5 have working intercoms.
4. Barratt testifled that it is his intention that unit 9 tenants have a working intercom. He indicated the intercom would be replaced as a result of the THP he filed with the city. Exhibits showed that Barratt filed the THP in 2015; no repairs have been made to the intercom in over six years in spite of the THP.
5. Barratt testified that the intercom unit 9 cannot be replaced unless the entire (apartment) unit is re- wired but gave no proof of that. I disagreed with his statement.
6. I have viewed various articles online and none of them indicate a complete re-wire is needed to replace an intercom, that is much like replacing a garbage disposal unit or smoke detector. The intercom in unit 9 sits near the front door and about 20 feet from the front of the building intercom main box.
7. There is no indication in my rent agreement that routine maintenance of the intercom would require a complete re-wire of the unit.
8. According to court documents, defendants Kassandra Harris and Cynthia Reynosa stated under penalty of perjury that they had a business relationship with myself from 2014-2018; as this is untrue, I believe this constitutes a false statement, actionable under criminal law.
9. At the court hearing Kassandra Harris testified that I had told her not to talk to me, in spite of numerous emails to her from me that she did not respond to in writing as requested. I request that Harris provide me with proof that shows I told her not to talk to me. Otherwise, I believe Harris has made a false statement under penalty of perjury. I believe that Harris may be a government operative who is also liable under a government code of ethics.
10. When a management company, or resident manager, take responsibility for managing a building, they assume responsibility for all matters pending at the time of the takeover, thus Power Property Management as well as Harris are responsible for any maintenance complaints that were pending after 2015.
11. State law states that a reasonable time to make repairs is 35 days. It is well over 35 days since the intercom unit 9 has needed repair. (Civil Code section 1942.4).
12. Conduct of the defendants at the hearing show that they are guilty of fraud, oppression, and malice. (California civil code section 1942.5)
13. The defendants indicated they were going to file a motion(s) with the court, in an unlawful exparte communication with the Judge to be set after the hearing, and were not going to serve me with a copy of the motion, a violation of my due process rights.
14. (This recall is meant to be indicative, but not all inclusive.)
15. Walter Barratt, to support his cross complaint for harassment, voiced his objection to me having the right to file code violation and racial discrimination complaints. All defendants appeared not to be willing to comply with federal and state fair housing laws.
16. Barratt said that because of my complaints about housing and racism, that numerous banks had turned him down for loans. He did not provide a list of the banks.
17. Barratt said he had lost tenants because of my complaints about racism but he did not name the tenants by name or building.
18. Even though Barratt claimed that he would repair the intercom unit 9 thru the THP, he admitted that he has never communicated with me in any way, and admitted that he (nor his agents) had ever told me he would replace the intercom.
19. Defendants continue to violate the provisions of Civil Code section 1942.4(a).
20. I testified that there are continuing damages, continued breach of the rental agreement, and continuing performance issues with the landlord.
21. Neither Barratt nor his agents gave a date as to when the intercom replacement will occur.
22. According to exhibits, the duty of PPM is to “coordinate” maintenance. PPM and the resident manager have negligently failed their duty to coordinate maintenance for the intercom in unit 9.
23. Since the owner has admitted that the intercom needs repair, his frustrations seem to validate that my legally protected complaints are neither harassing, retaliatory, vexatious, or frivolous.
24. As regards parking, Barratt testified that there are 18 units and 18 parking stalls. I testified and gave evidence (“CFO”) that there are 18 units and 27 parking stalls.
25. Barratt said that unit 9 could have a tandem parking stall for $50 more per month; I testified and gave evidence that the cost of all parking is included in the rent and that no tenant is paying $50 extra for tandem parking. There are 13 single stalls and seven tandem stalls.
26. Contrary to what city housing employees allege, tandem parking was available at the “inception”of the rental agreement: available is defined as ready immediately or ready at some future date. At the future date, we were assigned tandem parking by the manager. Barratt should have honored this agreement but he refused. The biased city employees refused to identify what tenant was assigned to stall #8 for four years, because during that time unit 9 was assigned to tandem stall #14. When the owner forced us in 2014 to vacate stall #14, there remained six tandem stalls that remained empty and unused for at least 2 months.
27. If the court does not order housing services by a certain date, it may be an option to file another court action to establish a date for specific performance.
The court decision is pending. All rights reserved.
Geary Juan Johnson
Reference: See any of my latest CPRAs filed with the City clerk and published to the Internet by the City clerk. Latest request #21-668. Filed January 2021.
(Editor note: this email has been redacted. As told to the Los Angeles mayor and council as this is a matter of Public Interest. As told to the state Department of Fair Employment under Governor Gavin Newsom.)
February 19, 2021
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE. LOS ANGELES –
A landlord is counter- suing a rent control tenant for $10,000 after the tenant repeatedly asked for intercom repairs and extra parking. The landlord claims the tenant complaints caused him lost rents. The tenant is Black, the landlord is white.
After years of tenant complaints, the owner still refuses to make repairs and provide extra parking to the tenant. But while the landlord is also claiming the tenant “harassed” him, no reason is given why the owner and management felt harassed in 2014 and did not complain about it until 2020.
“…The offices of the state attorney
general, county district attorney, and
city attorney have been asked to join
in the lawsuit…”
The Superior court case is Johnson vs Power Property Group, 19STSC14394, filed December 16, 2019. The landlord is Walter Barratt of Hi Point Apts LLC. The offices of the state attorney general, county district attorney, and city attorney have been asked to join in the lawsuit.
The property at 1522 Hi Point St 90035 was the subject of media attention in a full page ad in Random Lengths news (online out of San Pedro), p. 17, February 22, 2018, “Why racism thrives in America: unfair housing”.
(Counter-defendants are Brett Parsons (Ph. 310-593-3955), Cynthia Reynosa ( (Ph. 310-593-3955), Kassandra Harris (213-908-8008), Walter Barratt/Hi Point Apts LLC (310-895-6693), and Power Property Group (management company) (Ph. 310-593-3955).
Frequently asked questions
Updated Feb 19, 2021
What is the core lawsuit about?
The plaintiff is suing for lack of intercom repair, negligence, denial of tandem parking, bad faith, nominal and general damages, specific performance. The complaint alleges about $8,000 in damages and stems back three years.
What is an intercom?
Many older box apartment buildings or condominiums require front door to unit intercom (“call box”) systems to alert tenants in safe manner. Newer buildings may require the intercom system to be connected to a fire alarm system. Hundreds or thousands of builings in Los Angeles have intercom systems. The lawsuit alleges that the intercom system of two Black tenants needs repair (since 2014).
What is tandem parking?
Tandem parking is where two cars park behind each other. The building in question has about 13 single parking stalls and 7 tandem stalls. There are eighteen one bedroom units. The lawsuit alleges that since 2016, the owner has at least 2 extra parking stalls but refuses to assign Black tenants an extra or tandem parking stall. The city has valued parking stalls in high density areas at $200 per stall per month.
Who are the defendants?
Walter Barratt, property owner; Hi Point Apts LLC; Power Property Management Group, management company, Brett Parsons, employee of Power Property; Cynthia Reynosa, Power Property employee who cashes the checks, and resident property manager Kassandra Harris.
Why are the defendants cross suing the
plaintiff?
The defendants claim “retaliation, harassment, prior small claims case 14S03695 litigated 2014; Defamation, Frivolous lawsuit claims with the City; other frivolous lawsuits; vexatious litigant”. The defendants are claiming loss of rental income.
(Note: Hi Point Apts made similar allegations in a 2016 court case and the court denied their claims. Most of the defendants were not the same. It is highly suspected by many that the cross complaint is retaliation because the Black tenant claimed racial discrimination. The plaintiff has made previous complaints to code enforcement and rent control. The statute of limitation on personal injury is three years.)
On February 19, 2021, the court case was continued at defendant’s request due to lack of available Judge. (The defendants would not consent to the case being heard by a commissioner or temporary Judge).
Beware of renting from
Walter Barratt and
Power Property
Management Group
For more info on Hi Point St click Killing Hi Point
For info on LA COURT CORRUPTION CLICK HERE
(Editor note: In these major disaster COVID times, what could be more important than the health and safety of a working intercom and for those who are confined to their residence? Parking is also critical as many who are not working have to find a parking spot for their car on the street amid safety concerns and having to avoid street sweeping tickets. Parking is a valuable housing service but so is an intercom system. Hundreds of buildings across the city have intercoms. Did you know that lack of window screens is a code violation or even a hole in a screen? If you live in a multi-family dwelling, are there securely fitting screens on all windows? (Not legal advice.) One of the most important phrases IMO in any housing law and lease/rental agreement is “including but not limited to”. This is also included in rent control laws defining housing services. This means that a landlord cannot arbitrarily exclude items needing repair because they feel the maintenance is not necessary for that item. Also see state health and safety code (CA) section 17920.3(a) “Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to… and (a)(14) “general dilapidation or improper maintenance” and (c) “any nuisance”. Further, if you suffer as tenant a one time injury from the landlord and then you move out, you are probably not suffering from continuing damages. But if you remain a tenant, and the injury does not continue but the damages continue (i.e you continue to pay rent or you incurred costs mailing the landlord a certified letter), then you may be entitled to sue the landlord repeatedly if the damages are continuing; there is law to support this in that one law entitles the tenant to maximum two months rent per year for housing repairs not done. That is just one law. Not legal advice. )
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 