In November 2017, plaintiffs Tan Hui and Lin Hui entered into a lease agreement with Baotian Xu to rent Xu’s property in Baldwin Park. The Huis alleged that Xu failed to disclose that the rental was an illegally converted patio behind the premises. The Huis sued the property owners, Baotian Xu and Angelli Xu, alleging that the Xus’ actions constituted negligence, a breach of warranty of habitability, a nuisance, a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence per se breach of contract. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that, during the Huis’ tenancy, until it ended in July 2018, Xu neglected to properly maintain the premises and permitted numerous uninhabitable conditions to exist, creating a nuisance. Counsel asserted that the problems included a serious cockroach infestation; no functioning kitchen; numerous drafts; and faulty windows and doors, which were not weatherproofed and allowed elements (including, but not limited to, water and air) to enter the unit. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that, shortly after moving into the premises, the Huis notified the Xus of the inhabitable conditions, but that the Xus ignored the request and started a pattern of intimidating the Huis by threatening to put them out on the street if they continued to complain about the condition of the premises. Counsel asserted that due to concern for their own safety, the Huis continued notifying the Xus of the inhabitable conditions throughout the Huis’ tenancy, which started in November 2017 and ended in July 2018. Counsel contended that each complaint was met with hostility and intimidation by the Xus and that the Xus refused to remedy any of the serious issues. Plaintiffs’ counsel maintained that during the Huis’ tenancy, the Huis became aware that the patio was converted into their place of residence, which was in violation of the city of Baldwin Park’s Municipal Code, and that the city of Baldwin Park ultimately conducted an inspection of the property on July 14, 2018, and noticed multiple violations with the Huis’ residence, specifically noting that the single-family dwelling had been converted or altered into a multi-family dwelling in direct violation of the city’s Municipal Code. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that instead of correcting the violations addressed in the city’s inspection and the other habitability issues the Huis raised throughout their tenancy, Mr. Xu and his family retaliated by shutting down the electricity to the unit for four days, leaving the Huis without access to air conditioning and water on one of the hottest weeks in California. Counsel also contended that the Xus refused to take steps to remedy the serious situation and that around that same time, Mr. Xu harassed and threatened to evict the Huis because Mr. Xu learned that Ms. Tan was expecting another child. The Xus denied the Huis’ allegations, and contended that the Huis were comparatively at fault for causing the alleged conditions that the Huis complained about., Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Ms. Hui was expecting the birth of her child, so the Huis contacted the police on July 14, 2018 because they feared for their safety and health after the Xus allegedly shut off the electricity. The Huis also contacted their friends to help them immediately move out of the unit. However, when the Huis’ friends came to the unit later that day on July 14, 2018 in order to assist in the move, Mr. Xu and his family members allegedly refused to allow the Huis’ friends to enter the unit. In response, the Huis contacted the police once again. The responding police officers helped the Huis’ friends enter the unit, and notified Mr. Xu and his family members that it is illegal to lockout the guests of the Huis, who were rightfully invited to the unit. The next day, Ms. Hui was hospitalized and she gave birth the following day, on July 16, 2018. The Huis claimed that they suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the Xus providing them with an uninhabitable residence, failing to make the necessary repairs to make the unit habitable, retaliating against them by shutting off their electricity, harassing them, and intimidating them by threatening to evict them if they reported any further issues with the unit. Additionally, Ms. Hui claimed that she suffered from prenatal and postpartum depression, gave birth prematurely, and endured a postpartum recovery period, which was emotionally and physically taxing, as a result of the Xus’ actions. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the Huis vacated the unit out of fear for their own safety and health, their children’s safety and health, and, more importantly, their yet-to-be-born baby’s safety and health. However, the Xus allegedly refused to return the security deposit. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that, fortunately, the Huis’ newborn was born healthy and suffered no harm from the premature delivery. The Huis sought recovery of damages for their emotional pain and suffering.