In early 2010, plaintiffs Jose Moreno, 55, a factory worker, and his wife Rita Moreno, 56, a house cleaner, signed various documents with Michael Herrera and his companies in an attempt to refinance their home. The Morenos, who both had a second grade education and only spoke Spanish, were in foreclosure and had previously heard an advertisement on the radio indicating that Herrera and his various companies could rescue people in foreclosure through a refinance. As a result, the Morenos paid Herrera and his companies $34,000 for refinance services and, believing they achieved a refinance, paid $2,534 for 33 months thereafter. However, the Morenos claimed that the “refinance” was a scam and that the paperwork they signed was actually a quit claim deed, which would thereby transfer the ownership rights in their home to one of Herrera’s many alter ego companies, and all payments went to Herrera. The Morenos sued Herrera and several of Herrera’s companies, H&S Holdings Co. LLC, The Herrera-Sindell Group, and Wilde Holdings LLC. The Morenos alleged that the defendants’s actions constituted a breach of contract and violations under the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Herrera ran the scheme by acquiring real property, primarily family homes, from Spanish-speaking families and that Herrera utilized numerous entities to accomplish the scheme, including H&S Holdings Co. Thus, counsel argued that the transaction the Morenos entered into was per se illegal under the California Business and Professions Code. Defense counsel contended that the parties entered into a valid and legal lease-option contract and that one of Herrera’s companies, H&S Holdings, purchased homes from distressed borrowers. Counsel contended that the Morenos owed approximately $408,000 at the time the defendants purchased the Morenos’ property and that following the defendants’ purchase of the home, the Morenos signed a lease agreement with the option to buy back the subject property for $300,000. However, defense counsel argued that the Morenos stopped paying their rent, as owed pursuant to the lease agreement, so the defendants proceeded to evict the Morenos, who ultimately stipulated to vacate the property, but that following their eviction, the Morenos brought suit against the defendants. Defense counsel contended that the Morenos never stated to Herrera or his companies that they expected to refinance their home, nor was a refinance advertised or promised by the defendants, despite the fact that the Morenos claimed at trial that they were promised a refinance because that was what was advertised as one of the defendants’ services. Defense counsel further argued that the Morenos made numerous conflicting statements, including a claim that they did not receive a principal reduction on their mortgage loan that was promised to them, even though documents produced at trial showed that the Morenos did receive a principle reduction. In addition, counsel argued that no evidence was provided supporting a finding that the contract was per se illegal., Mr. and Ms. Moreno claimed that they were defrauded out of $117,622, which was composed of $34,000 in initial payments and additional payments of $2,534 per month for 33 months. They alleged that as a result, they ultimately lost their family home of 20 years and have been living in transient housing ever since. In addition, they alleged that they suffer from emotional distress. Thus, the Morenos sought recovery of $117,622 in economic damages and an unspecified amount of emotional distress damages.