From February 2010 to June 2011, plaintiff Michael DeCarlo Wright, a man in his late 50s, lived in apartment 507 of the Essex Hotel, located at 684 Ellis St., in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco. In addition to renting rooms to the public, the hotel, owned and managed by Community Housing Partnership, a non-profit organization, offered permanent housing to former homeless individuals by renting single-room occupancies (a total of 84). Wright alleged that soon after moving into the hotel, he noticed an infestation of mice in his room, which prompted him to complain to the property management. He claimed that despite repeated complaints, either no action was taken or not enough measures were implemented, causing him to continue catching rodents in his own traps. In early 2011, Wright issued a complaint with the city’s Department of Public Health, which dispatched a health inspector to Wright’s room and noted the infestation. Wright claimed that he continued to complain to the hotel through June 2011, at which time he was transferred to another room in the hotel. Wright made no further complaints about mice, thereafter. Wright, on behalf of himself and several unidentified individuals, sued Community Housing Partnership, as well as several hotel employees, including the board of directors, tenant services janitor, manager, desk clerk clerks, directors, and supervisors. Wright alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted negligence, premises liability, and breach of implied warranty of habitability. The undefined plaintiffs were dismissed and the specific hotel employees’ names, as well as other individual defendants were added to the action and then also let out of the case. Thus, the matter proceeded with Wright’s individual claims against community Housing Partnership only. Wright, appearing pro per, argued that Community Housing Partnership was negligent in its ownership and operation of the property and that it allowed the property to be infested with mice, thus making it non-habitable. Wright claimed that, other than sending a pest-control technician to his room every month and sealing holes in the walls and floors, the property owner should have implanted poison in the building’s walls. Community Housing Partnership maintained that the property was not infested with mice and that Wright habitually interfered with its ability to manage the building and eradicate any rodents. According to defense counsel, Wright repeatedly refused the building’s regular pest-control services. In addition, a pest-control technician testified that Wright would always deny him entry into his room and, on other occasions, a placard on Wright’s door indicated that services were not required. Defense counsel asserted that Wright was repeatedly cited for overcrowding his room with belongings, which was one of the presumed reasons why Wright denied anyone access, and that this culminated in the property management’s issuing a complaint with the department of public health, in 2011, prior to Wright’s complaint. The heath inspector who investigated the hotel’s complaint confirmed that a citation was made against Wright for overcrowding his apartment and that he was ordered to administer immediate clean-up measures, which Wright eventually followed. The defense’s expert in property management testified that Community Housing Partnership adhered to the industry’s standard of care in properly addressing Wright’s complaints and in maintaining an infestation-free building, in accordance with city codes., Wright claimed that the period of alleged infestation exacerbated his pre-existing post-traumatic stress disorder, as he suffered heightened levels of stress and anxiety, loss of sleep, fear, and an inability to focus. The plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist and family-medicine doctor both testified that, when they saw Wright during the time he lived in apartment 507, he seemed more distressed than other times. Thus, Wright sought recovery of $30 million in total damages, consisting of $10 million in damages for each of his three claims. Defense counsel maintained that Wright was unable, medically, to causally relate any mental injury to the incident.