Joseph Lee Woods

Condescending, dismissive and annoyed by my simply requesting a return call. He seemed to have no awareness of my case, put ME on the defensive for asking why he wouldn’t hire expert witnesses as part of contingency, and resorted to “mansplaining” things he neither researched nor understood about the... defendants. He had the audacity to say nobody has ever won a case with structural deficiency-based low frequency claims (among so many other code violations) in their complaint, and presenting evidence of such would “weaken my case.” I asked ChatGPT to pull case law with precedents and here’s what it said: “Yes, California tenants have won cases regarding low-frequency noise (such as industrial hums, equipment vibrations, and severe bass) by pursuing claims for nuisance and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Landlords have a legal obligation to provide a habitable property and address conditions that substantially interfere with daily living. While specific, published California appellate court rulings rarely mention the precise colloquial term "low-frequency thrumming," tenants have won landmark cases under the broader umbrella of vibrations, low-frequency bass, and structural mechanical humming. In residential law, these are litigated under breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and nuisance. Tenants win these cases because courts rule that a landlord's failure to address intrusive physical or acoustic disruptions constitutes a "constructive eviction" (making the unit legally unlivable).” Fendley v. City of Anaheim (1930) 110 Cal.App. 731 Varjabedian v. City of San Joaquin (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285 Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903 And here’s what the LA Housing Department City Planning site itself had to say: The "dBA" vs. "dBC" Trap: Most city police departments measure noise using the "dBA" scale, which mimics human hearing and filters out low frequencies. Tenants who lose cases usually rely on police reports that say "no violation found." Tenants who win bring independent acoustic experts who measure in dBC or Hertz, proving the thrumming bypasses walls and physically shakes the air inside the home. So in short, not only is Joseph naive to case law, but he’s also untruthful. Caveat emptor.