On Labor Day weekend in 2008, plaintiff Teresa Lipot and her three teenage sons, plaintiffs Samuel Lipot, Zachary Lipot and Jared Lipot, moved into a rental property at 110 South Tablerock in Anaheim. Theresa Lipot’s boyfriend, Richard Blazina, rented the property. The Lipots and Blazina claimed there were multiple habitability issues that existed at the rental property beginning in February 2010, and that these issues included water leaks, flooding, mold, and rat infestation. They claimed they were ultimately constructively evicted by being forced to evacuate the property due to health concerns in August 2011. The Lipots and Blazina sued the owners and landlords of the property, Ghadir Kinawy and Khaled Ramadan (originally sued as Khaled Kinawy). The Lipots and Blazina alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted a breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Lipots also alleged that they sustained personal injury as a result of habitability issues that existed. The Lipots and Blazina claimed that they were subjected to 1.5 years of oppressive living conditions and that Kinawy and Ramadan were put on written notice more than 12 times regarding habitability issues at the rental property. They also claimed that the defendants hired an unlicensed handyman to attempt repairs and do mold remediation, but that they were forced to complain to the Orange County Health Care Agency and the city of Anaheim Building Inspector. The Lipots and Blazina further claimed that after they filed their complaints, Kinawy and Ramadan retaliated against them by raising their rent and serving them with a three-day eviction notice when they attempted to pro-rate their rent. In addition, they claimed that they attempted to mitigate their damages by hiring a professional mold remediation company, but that Kinawy and Ramadan refused to give any consent to permit the mold remediation and that only after their constructive eviction did Kinawy and Ramadan hire a professional mold remediation company. Kinawy and Ramadan denied all of the plaintiffs’ liability allegations, and claimed that the plaintiffs had deplorable housekeeping skills. Defense counsel contended that the documentation in the case showed that the plaintiffs complained of a handful of items in February 2010 that were remedied by early March 2010. Counsel also contended that the documents showed that the plaintiffs were unhappy about the rent increase that went into effect in June 2011. In addition, defense counsel presented emails between the two parties, which counsel argued showed that all of the plaintiffs’ complaints post-May 2011 were designed to entice Kinawy and Ramadan to let them remain in the property at the previously reduced rate., Samuel, Zachary and Jared Lipot claimed allergies, allergic rhinitis, and aggravations of pre-existing eosinophilic esophagitis, which is an inflammation of the esophagus. Teresa Lipot claimed diverticulitis, urinary issues, and incontinence from the mold. Thus, Samuel, Zachary and Jared Lipot sought recovery of past and future medical costs in excess of $650,000. Teresa Lipot sought recovery of $7,490 in personal property damage and $4,149,914 for her emotional distress. Blazina sought recovery of $72,000 in rent abatement, property damage, and assorted repairs. Defense counsel disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiffs’ alleged damages. Counsel contended that Samuel, Zachary and Jared Lipot’s eosinophilic esophagitis began two years before they moved into the subject property and that there is no medical literature to support the illness being caused/aggravated by mold exposure. Counsel also contended that Samuel Lipot was shown not to be allergic to mold and that Zachary Lipot’s records showed that he suffered seasonal allergies that were no different in the home than when he was out of the home. Defense counsel further contended that none of the plaintiffs’ treating physicians supported the claims that the Lipots’ illnesses were caused by any condition in the property.