In August 2012, plaintiff Mi Hee Baik learned that her neighbors, Eric Hansen and Marisol Hansen, who owned the abutting property, addressed a problem of overgrown eucalyptus trees and a deteriorating “slump stone” fence that separated the two properties. Baik’s property was located at Jolette Avenue, in the Granada Hills area of Los Angeles, and the Hansen’s property was located directly to the west of Baik’s property, on El Oro Way, a road that ran parallel to Jolette Avenue. The backyards of the two properties were adjacent to each other. In between the two properties was a 50-foot-wide right of way owned by the city of Los Angeles that used to be used for a road, but now accommodates a sewer line and a storm drain. Also located on the right of way were the eucalyptus trees, a stone fence, and a tennis court, which Baik constructed and controlled on her side of the fence. The Hansens ultimately entered the right of way in August 2012, cut down the trees and addressed the deteriorating “slump stone” fence located between their property and Baik’s property. Baik sued the Hansens and the city of Los Angeles. Although the tennis court was technically located on the city’s right of way, Baik claimed that the Hansens trespassed on her property and caused damage to her “sports court” and other property. She alleged that the total amount of damages amounted to $356,000. Baik also claimed that the city abandoned, or vacated, the right of way and that she made improvements to the vacated property, including the construction and continual use of a “sports court.” She also alleged that she continued spending money improving the vacated property and that the city was estopped from claiming the right of way was not vacated. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that in 1991, the city vacated the property based on the city’s engineer’s report, which recommended the vacating of a portion of the right of way adjacent to the El Oro Way property two parcels to the south of Baik’s property. Thus, Baik claimed a prescriptive easement. The Hansens’ counsel filed a demurrer, alleging that the backyard easement was unavailable per California Law, and it was sustained. The Hansens claimed that they had a right to enter the property and cut down the trees, as both the trees and fence were a hazard to their family due to falling branches from the trees and falling stones from the fence. The city’s counsel contended that under California law, to effect an abandonment of a public right of way, the intention to abandon the right of way must be clearly manifested. Mere nonuse of the right of way, which is what Baik alleged, was not enough to establish an abandonment and that the city had an easement, counsel argued. The city’s counsel also argued that prescriptive easements are not available against a public entity, as they are prohibited under California Civil Code §1007, and that the easement to the west of Baik’s property was never vacated because the 1991 city engineer’s report recommending the vacation was not approved by the Los Angeles City Council. Moreover, counsel argued that the portion of the right of way that was the subject of the 1991 proposed vacation was not the portion of the right of way that was the subject of this litigation. Thus, the city’s counsel contended that estoppel against a public entity was not appropriate where it would circumvent public policy and that, in this instance, the legislature established procedural safeguards that must be complied with before a portion of the right of way can be vacated. Counsel contended that if the city’s right of way could be lost on an estoppel theory, that would circumvent the procedural safeguards established by the legislature that must be complied with before a right of way can be vacated, which would be contrary to public policy., Baik claimed that she suffered $356,000 in property damage to her sports court and other property. She also claimed that the incident caused her emotional distress. In addition, Baik sought recovery of punitive damages in excess of $236,000.