On Aug. 1, 2008, plaintiff Cheronn Johnson started living in a three-bedroom house with her three children in San Francisco. Johnson rented the home from Warren Foster. The lease was valid through July 31, 2009, and thereafter became a month-to-month tenancy. Johnson claimed that uninhabitable living conditions forced her and her children to move out on or about July 19, 2012. Johnson sued Foster, alleging that Foster’s actions constituted a breach of warranty of habitability (based on a tort and/or contract), a nuisance, a negligent violation of statutory duty, negligence, unfair business practice, tenant harassment, and constructive eviction. Foster subsequently filed a counter-claim against Johnson, alleging breach of contract, nuisance, conversion, and negligence. Johnson claimed that Foster failed to repair window frames, electrical wiring, kitchen cabinetry and/or heating. She also claimed Foster failed to provide uninterrupted electricity. As such, Johnson’s counsel contended that Foster caused the unit to be uninhabitable, resulting in the constructive eviction of Johnson and her daughters. Foster claimed that Johnson was on Section 8 vouchers to be used for government subsidized housing and, as such, Johnson’s unit received pre-approval by the San Francisco Housing Authority, which certified that the unit was habitable. Foster claimed that through continued participation in the Section 8 program, the house was inspected annually after Johnson moved in to insure that it was habitable. However, he claimed Johnson caused severe damage to the carpeting throughout the unit by neglect, failing to clean it, and illegally subletting the unit and violating the occupancy restriction of that unit. In addition, Foster claimed that when Johnson left, she took the smoke detectors and a refrigerator that belonged to the unit., Johnson claimed that she suffered emotional distress due to being forced to live in a unit that was dilapidated and where the electricity was repeatedly disconnected due to the landlord’s failure to pay the utility bills. She also claimed that her cat was injured by crawling through a broken window, causing her to have to pay $50 on a $1,600 veterinarian bill for her injured cat. Johnson claimed that rent should be abated, in part, for each month she endured dilapidations and that Foster should pay for the veterinary costs. Thus, Johnson sought recovery of roughly $348,000 in total economic and non-economic damages. Foster sought recovery of damages related to Johnson’s alleged breach of contract, nuisance, conversion, and negligence.