In 2004, plaintiffs Ray and Renee Malgradi, a married couple, constructed a pool and entertainment center in the backyard of their large, single-family dwelling in Brentwood. The entertainment center, where the Malgradis entertained mainly family members, consisted of a palapa (Mexican style hut), an outdoor kitchen and bar area, and tiki lights. The Malgradis claimed that after they constructed the entertainment center in their backyard, their next door neighbor, Lawrence Moglia, constantly yelled and acted inappropriately toward them. They claimed they made continuous efforts to work with Moglia to resolve their problems, but it allegedly did not stop Moglia’s complaints and actions. The Malgradis claimed that as a result, they moved to a different home in 2011, but that subsequent tenants of the property have also had problems with Moglia’s continued harassment. Mr. and Mrs. Malgradi sued Moglia, alleging that the defendant’s actions constituted a nuisance, an interference with contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Malgradis claimed that since 2004, Moglia shook their fence, yelled profanities at them and their guests, slammed doors and windows, and lit cardboard and garbage to purposefully fan excessive amounts of smoke into their property in an attempt to drive them out of their backyard. They also claimed Moglia trespassed onto their backyard and lassoed their barbecue to the fence adjoining both properties. The Malgradis further claimed that they made continuous efforts to resolve the issue, including moving the palapa, spending $5,000 to purchase and install trees to increase Moglia’s privacy in his yard, and offering to build a sound-reducing wall between the properties. However, they claimed they ultimately became so distraught over Moglia’s actions, and their inability to use their backyard, that they moved to a different home in 2011, but continued to own and rent the subject Brentwood property to new tenants. However, the Malgradis alleged that the new tenants experienced the same behavior from Moglia and broke their three-year lease after just nine months and that the subsequent tenants also had to call the police due to Moglia’s continued harassment. Moglia contended that his requests to keep noise to a reasonable level were done in an appropriate way. He claimed the noise from the Malgradis’ backyard was exacerbated by the construction of the outdoor entertainment level above grade, which caused noise to cascade into his yard and be audible within his house. Moglia further claimed that the alleged smoke-out was actually smoke from lighting his barbecue, which was located two feet from the property line, with paper in a charcoal chimney and that it was not excessive or unreasonable. In addition, Moglia contended that the Malgradis violated city setback and Building Code ordinances, and invaded his privacy. Thus, he claimed that his complaints about the construction of the outdoor entertainment area to the city building officials were protected speech under the First Amendment. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Moglia also violated city building code ordinances for structures in his own backyard., Mr. and Mrs. Malgradi claimed that they suffered emotional distress as a result of Moglia’s actions, requiring multiple psychotherapy, counseling and psychiatric sessions. Thus, the Malgradis sought recovery of $264,900 in total damages. Of the total amount sought, they each sought recovery of $79,200 in past general damages and $10,800 in future general damages. They also sought $1,500 in damages for the past interference with a contract and each sought recovery of $30,000 in nuisance damages. In addition, the Malgradis each sought recovery of $11,700 in future economic damages for their individual psychotherapy, couples counseling, and individual psychiatric consultation and medication. Defense counsel contended that the Malgradis had no medical treatment for stress or anxiety prior to trial. Counsel also argued that the plaintiffs’ expert psychologist’s attribution of the Malgradis’ anxiety disorder failed to take into account other, more significant, stressors in their lives. In response, the Malgradis claimed that they could not afford medical treatment for their stress and anxiety prior to trial. The plaintiffs’ expert psychologist also testified that the other stressors alleged by defense counsel were only discrete events in the Malgradis’ lives and were not the main cause of their ongoing distress.