Follow us!

    Re: Another Mold Settlement

    Posted by ff on 11/26/07

    On 11/26/07, Mike B. wrote:
    > >
    > Not a single word was said, nor has any evidence been offered,
    > the mold growing in these apartments was the result of some
    > pesticide lable prohibitions. As a matter of fact, there is no
    > discussion whatsoever about the use of pesticides (which, by
    > definition, includes fungicides) to control or abate the growth of
    > the mold in these apartments.

    So what?

    > Now, what do you mean by your comment "you may want to seek
    > professional advice on preservation of capital and investment?"

    So you wouldn't waste your $1.3 million?


    > On 11/26/07, ff wrote:
    >> Would you please explain why you think my post referencing
    >> IAQ/Toxic Mold was unrelated to the article about your lawsuit
    >> and settlement? Also, you may want to seek professional advice
    >> on preservation of capital and investment?
    >> ff
    >> On 11/23/07, Mike B. wrote:
    >>> Wow, you're actually trying to impress us by pointing out that
    >>> Oakland is in Alameda County. From what source material did
    >> you
    >>> copy the rest of your blabber that is wholly-unrelated to the
    >>> article I posted?
    >>> You're a trip.
    >>> On 11/22/07, ff wrote:
    >>>> Alameda County, I always take note of this. It was one of
    >>>> the areas in the US where problems with systemic fungicides
    >>>> surfaced early on, to a degree that could not be ignored.
    >>>> Application there is prohibited on the label, and has been
    >>>> for decades.
    >>>> It is my position that documentation pointing out that
    >>>> fungal resistance was merely an academic concept prior to
    >>>> the introduction of systemic anti-fungal compounds in the
    >>>> 70's, sheds light on the question so many ask today - "what
    >>>> changed".
    >>>> The emerging patterns of resistance, and a shift to
    >>>> dominance by toxin-producing species, coincides with the
    >>>> increase in IAQ/Toxic Mold problems today.
    >>>> ff
    >>>> On 11/19/07, Mike B. wrote:
    >>>>> What are ya'll doing wrong with your litigation?
    >>>>> Apartment Mold
    >>>>> Oakland, CA: (Nov-18-07) Twelve immigrant families who
    >>>>> lived in a dilapidated, unheated, mold and cockroach
    >>>>> infested apartment, brought charges against their
    >>>> landlord,
    >>>>> Roosevelt Owyang, accusing him of not providing a
    >>>> habitable
    >>>>> dwelling at the complex. The suit also alleged breach of
    >>>>> contract. The former tenants stated that rain water leaked
    >>>>> into their apartments from windows and ceilings so the
    >>>>> apartments were constantly damp and mold was thick.
    >>>>> Cockroaches were everywhere, and stairway railings and
    >>>>> floorboards were often broken. Several plaintiffs claimed
    >>>>> that they developed asthma along with the 39 former and
    >>>>> current residents who are party to the suit. Several
    >>>> others
    >>>>> claimed that they suffered from chronic sinusitis and
    >>>> upper-
    >>>>> respiratory problems as a result of staying at the
    >>>>> apartment. The complaint was filed in state Superior Court
    >>>>> in Alameda County. As part of a settlement reached, the
    >>>>> twelve immigrant families received a $1.3 million payout,
    >>>>> resolving the lawsuit. [INSIDE BAY AREA: APARTMENT MOLD]

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.