In 2014, plaintiff Dale Duncan, a woodcraftsman and cabinet maker, and his wife, plaintiff Marta Mendoza, a preschool teacher, learned that their apartment building at 71 Hill Street, in San Francisco, was purchased by Anne Kihagi; her sister, Christina Mwangi; and their company, Zoriall LLC. Duncan and Mendoza claimed that shortly after the property was purchased, they had their housing services — such as electric service, garbage service, on-site storage, on-site laundry, and common areas — decreased and interrupted by their new landlords. Mwangi then filed an “owner move-in” eviction on April 17, 2015. As a result, Duncan and Mendoza were allegedly evicted in 2015. Duncan and Mendoza sued Kihagi, Mwangi and Zoriall LLC. Duncan and Mendoza alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted harassment and wrongful eviction, in violation of San Francisco’s rent-control law. Duncan and Mendoza’s case was later consolidated with other claims against the defendants, which were made by two other tenants from two other units in the same building and who also made claims of harassment and wrongful eviction. However, immediately prior to trial, the court severed Duncan and Mendoza’s case from the claims made by the other two tenants/units. The matter concerning the two other tenants is still pending for trial, while Duncan and Mendoza’s case proceeded to trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Mwangi filed a fraudulent “owner move-in” eviction against Duncan and Mendoza. Counsel noted that the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office found that Kihagi is allegedly among the most notorious landlords currently operating in that jurisdiction and that Kihagi has allegedly orchestrated harassment campaigns against large numbers of tenants in San Francisco and has successfully displaced rent-controlled tenants from many properties in which she has taken a major financial stake. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that at the Hill Street property, Kihagi had Mwangi purport to take a partial-ownership interest in the property shortly before initiating her eviction against Duncan and Mendoza, only to return and dispossess herself of the ownership once Duncan and Mendoza had moved out. Defense counsel argued that the owner move-in was allowed by the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and that Duncan and Mendoza did not vacate the property within the 60-day notice period, but continued to stay in their apartment for 2.5 more months. Defense counsel also contended that Mwangi only moved into the property after there were remodeling- and construction-related delays and that the tenants made up the claims of harassment and decreased services., Duncan moved into the subject property in early 1994 and lived there for 21 years. Mendoza later joined him when they were married. However, Duncan, Mendoza, and their 9-year-old daughter had to move after they were evicted. They are now renting a larger, single-family residence in San Francisco. Thus, Duncan and Mendoza sought recovery for the economic loss of the rent-controlled tenancy and for the decreased services prior to the eviction. They also sought recovery of general emotional-distress damages.