Security Deposit Legal Action

I’d like to know if I could sue cirrus management because SAMO apartments withheld my deposit

SAMO is in Santa Monica

If I copy and paste a formal demand letter can you give me your opinion on it

Formal Demand for Payment: Assertion of Tenant Claims Against Cirrus/SAMO Vano Abesadze, Asserting my claim against Cirrus and SAMO, as landlord successors liable for predecessor NMS's actions, for breach of obligations regarding improper ERAP fund application and wrongful withholding of security deposit benefits (statutory payments). As you are aware, I applied for rent forgiveness through ERAP in *. My account was partially credited with ERAP award funds after wrongful security deposit withholding. Although I received a statement of security deposit deductions in *, the calculation was incorrect. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section *.*, landlords are required to provide tenants with an accurate itemized statement of security deposit deductions. The incorrect calculation constitutes a breach of this obligation. Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure Section *.* requires landlords to provide documentation showing the application of rental assistance funds, such as ERAP. Although Cirrus/SAMO provided a ledger reflecting ERAP award funds, it failed to include proper itemization linking these funds to the specified rental periods of April * through August *, as applied for under my ERAP application. Additionally, Cirrus/SAMO improperly applied my security deposit to rent payments during the COVID-* pandemic period without my consent, violating California Civil Code Section *.*(m). Notably, this violation occurred despite my status as a tenant who self-evicted during the pandemic due to COVID-*-related financial hardship. As a self-evicted tenant, I am still entitled to the protections afforded by California law, including the prohibition on using security deposits to pay rent without written consent. The actions of Cirrus and SAMO constitute unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code Section *. As established in Alvarez v. Seidell (*) * Cal.App.5th *, a landlord's successor in interest is liable for refunding a tenant's security deposit, even if the successor did not collect the deposit. This ruling emphasizes that landlord successors, such as Cirrus and SAMO, assume the obligations of their predecessors, including the duty to provide accurate itemized statements of security deposit deductions and to refund security deposits in accordance with California law. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section *(*), the *-year statute of limitations for my claim begins from *, when the ERAP payment was made and landlord actions caused wrongful withholding of security deposit benefits. I acknowledge receipt of the goodwill check for $*,*.*. However, this payment does not resolve the underlying dispute regarding the wrongful withholding of my security deposit. I reserve all rights to pursue further claims, including statutory damages and treble damages, as permitted by law. I request that Cirrus and SAMO take immediate action to rectify this situation, provide necessary corrected documentation, and make statutory payments pursuant to California Civil Code Section *.*, including interest or penalties. If I do not receive a satisfactory response, I will be forced to explore further action to protect my rights. Please be advised that I am preserving all relevant documents and records pertaining to this claim. This email serves as formal notice of my claim assertion. Sincerely,