In October 2009, plaintiff Lauren Oiye, 22, a student, reported to the San Jose Police Department that she was sexually molested, inclusive of intercourse and oral copulation, by the father of one of her friends, James Fox. She claimed that this began when she was 13 and continued on a regular daily/weekly basis in Santa Clara County until she reached the age of 18. She claimed that, thereafter, from age 18 to 22, a sexual relationship continued sporadically between her and Fox. Shortly before his arrest, Fox transferred the deed to his home to himself as trustee of the James Fox Residential Trust. Fox ultimately pleaded nolo contendere to multiple felony counts of California Penal Code §§ 288(a) and 288(c), which was for lewd and lascivious acts upon a child. He was then given a prison sentence. Oiye brought a civil action against Fox, both individually and in his capacity as trustee of the James Fox Residence Trust. The matter proceeded to trial, where the jury was instructed on four penal code sections, including the two that Fox pleaded no contest to in the criminal case, which prohibit child molestation; intentional infliction of emotional distress; sexual battery, during adulthood; and whether the acts were done with malice/oppression for punitive damages. The jury was not instructed on any affirmative defenses. At trial, Fox denied that any of Oiye’s allegations occurred, including any kind of inappropriate relationship or illegal conduct. Instead, he claimed that over the years, he and his family had been very generous to Oiye, who did not have a good home life. Thus, Fox argued that Oiye had fabricated her claims for the sole purpose of obtaining money from him., Oiye, who is now 24, claimed that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, anorexia nervosa and depression as a direct result of Fox’s prolonged sexual abuse. She noted that she was hospitalized more than once for these illnesses and secondary conditions, including weight loss and illness. She alleged that when she was 18, she began asserting control over her eating/nutrition by restricting and, later, by purging. She also alleged that at age 20, she entered her first residential treatment program to treat her eating disorder. Although she is doing much better, Oiye’s recovery from PTSD and Anorexia is ongoing. She claimed she requires future, periodic therapy and care. The plaintiff’s expert in child/adolescent psychiatry and eating disorders testified that Oiye suffered from PTSD and anorexia, and opined that those conditions were caused by sexual abuse. The expert also opined that Oiye would require treatment in the future. The plaintiff also relied on the testimony of a retired law enforcement officer who specialized in the investigation of child sex crimes and is recognized as an expert in the recognition of behaviors consistent with the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome in victims of childhood sexual abuse. The syndrome was developed by Dr. Roland Summit, a renowned psychiatrist in the field of childhood sexual abuse. The expert testified that aspects of this case were consistent with those in other childhood sexual abuse cases that he had investigated during his career and written about in Dr. Summit’s writings. However, he acknowledged that he was not involved in the criminal investigation of Fox. Thus, Oiye sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress. Defense counsel argued that Oiye’s eating disorder, if it occurred at all, was caused by other stress factors unrelated to Fox. He contended that if Oiye suffered an eating disorder or PTSD, it stemmed from her competitive synchronized swimming career and failed attempt to make the U.S. Olympic team, as well as a prior incident of sexual abuse that occurred when she was 3 years old. The defense’s expert psychiatrist also opined that Oiye’s eating disorder could have stemmed, at least in part, from the stress of her competitive synchronized swimming, her relationship with her mother and/or the prior incident at age 3. Defense counsel also called the plaintiff’s expert in Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome to testify about his impressions of the recorded pretext telephone call with Fox, which was set up by the police between Oiye and Fox during the criminal investigation. According to the defense, the expert indicated concerns about the pretext of the call and how it was handled, including the unusually long length of it and that Fox never directly admitted to any of the alleged activities claimed by Oiye. According plaintiff’s counsel, the expert in Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome testified that Fox’s statements during the telephone call did not amount to an admission of a crime and that police officers are trained to illicit a more direct response/comment to the alleged crimes than what transpired during Oiye’s call.