On July 1, 2017, plaintiff Daniel Linley was forced to vacate his apartment, located in an apartment building on Sloat Boulevard, in San Francisco. Linley previously moved into the property in October 2011, after signing a lease with Adriana Leiva. At the time of the signing, Linley paid Leiva a security deposit of $1,100, which Leiva then forwarded to the property owners, Denise Bartlett and Dennis Bartlett, as they allegedly wanted to be in charge of what was going on financially at the subject property. On June 1, 2017, Linley received a letter from Leiva that stated that the utilities would be turned off at the end of June and that Linley’s tenancy was declared “terminated” as of June 30, 2017. Linley sent a letter to the Bartletts objecting to the fact that the utilities would be shut off, and claiming that he was being wrongfully evicted from his home. Linley never received a response from the Bartletts. On July 1, 2017, Linley was evicted. Linley sued Leiva and the Bartletts. Linley alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted negligence, fraud, and violations of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and Civil Code § 1950.5 (no accounting or refund of security deposit). Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Leiva was a friend of the Bartletts who lived in the upper unit at the subject property and that when Leiva moved in, she entered an agreement with the Bartletts that she would pay a certain amount of rent every month, which would cover the Bartletts’ mortgage payment for the subject property. Counsel also contended that there was an expectation that the downstairs units would be rented at all times and that the Bartletts would tell Leiva how much she should list each unit. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the Bartletts had the arrangement with Leiva in an attempt to avoid being subject to the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the Bartletts knew Linley was a tenant at the subject property, as the Bartletts had visited the property several times to inspect the units, had met Linley, and had communicated with Linley regarding repairs. Counsel also contended that the Bartletts even told their realtor that other tenants besides Leiva were living at the subject property. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the Bartletts decided to sell the subject property and had been allegedly told by their realtor that they could sell the subject property for more if it was vacant. Counsel asserted that as a result, the Bartletts told Leiva that they were selling the subject property and that everyone needed to move out by July 1, 2017. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the Bartletts asked Leiva to write a letter to Linley and that Ms. Bartlett provided Leiva with a draft of the letter when Leiva requested one. Counsel further contended that the Bartletts eventually sold the subject property for $1.7 million by the end of July 2017 and gave Leiva $25,000 from the sale of the property to help her and her family with living expenses. However, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that even though the Bartletts returned the security deposit of the tenant that lived in the other downstairs unit, they never returned Linley’s security deposit, which was a violation of Civil Code § 1950.5. Leiva claimed that the Bartletts directed her to serve Linley with a notice terminating Linley’s tenancy. The Bartletts claimed that Leiva was a master tenant for the entire home and that Linley was living in Leiva’s unit with Leiva, Leiva’s husband and Leiva’s three children. Therefore, the Bartletts’ counsel asserted that Linley’s apartment was not subject to the eviction protections afforded by the San Francisco Rent Ordinance., Linley claimed that he had no intent to leave his apartment and that he was forced to leave the home he loved. He alleged that he would have lived in his home at the subject property for, at a minimum, another 15 years. At the time he was evicted from his home, Linley was paying $1,150 in rent for his home, which was allegedly worth $1,950 per month. He claimed that the Bartletts and Leiva did not return his security deposit after he was forced to leave his home. Linley sought recovery of damages for the present value of his loss of use and for his emotional pain and suffering. He also sought recovery of penalties allowed under Civil Code § 1950.5.