On Sept. 30, 2015, plaintiff Yanping Tan, a professor of biology and a researcher, learned that his personal property was being removed from a sublet in San Francisco’s Parkmerced complex. Tan previously resided and taught in Wuhan, China, but came to the United States in 2015 on an academic exchange program to teach graduate students and conduct research at San Francisco State University, in San Francisco. When he came to the U.S., he obtained a sublet through a renter who had a lease with Parkmerced. Although the rental agreement prohibited subletting, there was conflicting opinion about Parkmerced’s official policy. The lessee testified at her deposition that when she rented the apartment, the leasing agent told her that she could sublet, but that she should not inform management of that fact because she would be evicted. When Parkmerced learned that the lessee was subletting the apartment, it served the lessee a three-day notice to pay or quit. As part of the unlawful detainer action, Parkmerced and the lessee agreed that she would surrender possession of the apartment on Sept. 30, 2015. However, due to internal communications errors, Parkmerced’s independent contractors inspected the apartment and believed that the unit had been vacated. Since the contractors believed the property was abandoned, they proceeded to clear the unit of all personal belongings. Tan sued Parkmerced Investors Properties LLC, Parkmerced Owner LLC, and Sutro Management Group, Ltd. Tan alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted negligence, conversion, harassment, nuisance, and wrongful eviction. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Parkmerced did not allow Tan to return to his home and that, instead, left Tan and his child in a state of homelessness. Counsel also noted that Parkmerced’s director of operations (employed by Sutro Management) later admitted that there had been a “mistake in protocol.” Defense counsel contended that Tan was not a tenant and, therefore, not entitled to compensation., Tan claimed that his personal belongings that were removed from the apartment included irreplaceable photographs of family trips around the United States, Tan’s child’s toys and belongings, graduate students’ research, data on a USB drive, clothing and other household goods, and a research manuscript that Tan was required to publish as a condition of his exchange program and grant funding. He alleged that he and his minor child were returning home from church when his personal belongings were being removed from the apartment and that Parkmerced’s director of operations initially refused even to even acknowledge his presence. Eventually, she returned some of his belongings, but that Tan and his child were now homeless. Tan sought recovery of approximately $19,000 for the total declared value of his lost personal property, plus the undeclared value of the lost photographs, toys, and research data. He also claimed that he suffered emotional distress as a result of the incidents and having to have his child stay with friends until they were able to move into a new location four days later. Thus, he sought recovery for his emotional pain and suffering. In addition, Tan sought treble damages under the rent ordinance and attorney fees. Defense counsel asserted that Tan refused to provide documentation of the time it would take to re-create the research papers previously created by Tan and his students. Counsel also asserted that Tan violated a court order, refused to travel to the mandatory settlement conference, and would likely have been sanctioned had the case not resolved. Defense counsel contended that Parkmerced’s director of operations initially refused to acknowledge Tan’s presence because Tan was not a lessee, a resident, or an authorized tenant. Nevertheless, the director of operations was able to return some of Tan’s belongings after determining that the contractors had not yet disposed of the items. However, the director of operations testified that many items were discarded, consistent with California law relevant to abandoned property, but that the items valued at less than $700. Defense counsel asserted that the defendants did not know that Tan had no credit cards nor an ability to obtain housing for five days following the removal of the property and that Tan did not ask for his personal property from Parkmerced when he visited the office with his friend. Counsel also contended that once the error was discovered, Parkmerced offered the alleged value of Tan’s property, approximately $19,000, prior to any discovery being conducted, but that Tan still filed a verified complaint, sought a preliminary injunction, and took and defended depositions.