Beginning in February 2011, the plaintiff, a 17-year-old member of L.A. Fitness, allegedly began an unlawful sexual relationship with another fitness club member, Derek Marks, a 31-year-old California highway patrolman. The teenager claimed she saw Marks at the club, they exchanged eye contact, and then met outside in the parking lot, where Marks approached her and started a conversation that ended up with him putting his phone number into her cellphone. She alleged that the second time she met Marks, she was still a minor, but he unlawfully touched her vaginal area and ultimately persuaded her into an unlawful sexual relationship, which included instances of forced sexual encounters with Marks over the course of several months. The alleged statutory rape lasted until an anonymous letter written to the California Highway Patrol in June 2011 resulted in Marks’ arrest, the break-up of the illegal sexual activity, Marks’ termination from his job, and Marks’ conviction for felony sexual contact with a minor. The teenager claimed that because there was a prior 2006 complaint to L.A. Fitness that Marks was flirting with two female members, L.A. Fitness should have revoked his membership and prevented Marks from meeting and having a relationship with her. The teenager sued Marks; his employers, the state of California and the California Highway Patrol; the owner and operator of L.A. Fitness, Fitness International LLC; and L.A. Fitness International LLC, which was doing business as Fitness International LLC. The state and California Highway Patrol were ultimately let out of the case on summary judgment. Subsequently, a few days prior to trial, Marks settled out of the case. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against the Fitness International defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that in April 2006, Marks, then 26, was caught taking pictures of two females in compromised positions while they were working out at L.A. Fitness. One of the females was a minor. Counsel contended that when the females complained to someone, Marks got enraged, cursed at them, and then assaulted them by throwing his phone or another object at them. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that L.A. Fitness managers testified that such conduct from a member is subject to immediate termination and revocation of their membership. However, plaintiff’s counsel noted that Marks’ membership was not suspended or terminated and that, instead, a “member note” was made to the member’s electronic file and a warning letter was sent to Marks. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Fitness International’s failure to remove a known, dangerous condition (Marks) from the facility following a prior assault of young female members was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s . Counsel also argued that Fitness International was on notice in 2006 that Marks was a sexual predator with violent tendencies and that had the company put the interest of its customers ahead of its profits, it would have terminated Marks and, thus, Marks would never have had the opportunity to harm the plaintiff. Defense counsel denied that Fitness International had any liability for the actions of Marks at its gym and contended that there were no other incidents involving Marks on record since 2006. Counsel also argued that Marks’ sex with the plaintiff was consensual and that, in any event, Fitness International was never aware that they were having sex, as none of the encounters occurred within L.A. Fitness, although some sex occurred in the fitness center’s parking lot. Thus, defense counsel argued that Fitness International acted reasonably by sending a warning letter to Marks following receipt of the 2006 complaint, after which Fitness International received no further complaints regarding Marks. Counsel also argued that Fitness International was not liable because it did not have a duty to prevent two members from engaging in a secret, consensual relationship off of its premises, where it did not know about the relationship, where it did not receive any complaints from the plaintiff regarding Marks, and where its conduct was not a substantial factor in causing any harm to the plaintiff as a result of the consensual sexual relationship., The plaintiff claimed that she suffered emotional and psychological as a result of the predatory acts of Marks and the failure of Fitness International for not terminating Marks’ membership after the 2006 incident. Thus, during closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award the plaintiff $18,550 in past psychological expenses, $127,400 in future psychological expenses, $250,000 in damages for her past pain and suffering, and an unspecified amount of damages for up to 20 years of (gradually improving) future pain and suffering. Fitness International’s counsel denied that the plaintiff was harmed in the relationship and contended that the relationship was consensual. Counsel also provided expert opinions and supporting percipient witness testimony claiming that the plaintiff’s alleged emotional arose from not wanting the relationship to end as a result of her involvement in the criminal investigation and prosecution.