Facts

Safi Nairobi complained to her landlords, Kirk Watkins and Cindy Watkins, of a roof leak that occurred in her studio apartment during a rainstorm. The Watkinses fixed the leak and replaced the carpet. After the leak was reported, Nairobi complained that she smelled mold. The Watkinses hired Mycodry Restoration Systems to investigate the smell of mold and remediate the studio. Despite these efforts, Nairobi claimed that the Watkinses failed to remediate the studio and she was still exposed to toxic mold. Nairobi filed complaints with the Oakland Rent Board and the Oakland Building Department claiming the studio was not certified for occupancy and it was uninhabitable at the time she first rented from the Watkinses. The city of Oakland advised the Watkinses the studio did not have a certificate of occupancy and that the studio would have to be removed from the market. After vacating the studio, Safi Nairobi brought an action against her landlords, Kirk Watkins and Cindy Watkins, alleging they failed to repair, a breach of contract, breach of warranty of habitability, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, violations of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the defendants failed to repair and breached the warranty of habitability when defendants did not properly remediate the studio of toxic mold. Plaintiff contended the defendants breached the contract when they failed to provide her a habitable studio. Plaintiff contended that defendants violated local and state laws when the studio was not certified for occupancy and it was uninhabitable. Further, plaintiff contended that she suffered from mold toxicity and mycotoxin poisoning. Plaintiff contended that her expose caused her physical injuries.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all of the contentions. Defendants contended they retained professionals to fix the roof leak and replace the carpet as well as retaining a professional to remediate the studio once plaintiff complained of the smell of common household mold. Defendants also contended that plaintiff suffered little or no health effects from being exposed to low levels of common household mold during her tenancy. Defendants also argued that there was no evidence of the presence of mycotoxins. Defendants argued that plaintiff had lived in the unit since 2009, and had made minimal complaints until a roof leak occurred during heavy rainfall in Fall 2014. Despite plaintiff's claims that the unit was uninhabitable, she refused to vacate the studio when defendants attempted to remove it from the market to comply with the City of Oakland's mandate.
Defendants further contended that plaintiff's treating doctors at UCSF, who treated her both during her tenancy and after, found no indication of severe mold related illness, found that she was not immunocompromised, and that tests for cognitive and memory problems came back normal. In addition, plaintiff's treating doctors did not observe many of the symptoms she claimed she suffered from during the tenancy.
Defendant argued that years after the tenancy, plaintiff sought treatment from "environmental health" doctors in Southern California and Texas in order to support her claims of mold related injury. Defendants contended that these doctors "Board Certifications" were not recognized by the A.M.A. and that they did not practice evidence based medicine.

Injuries

Plaintiff alleged she suffered from a severely compromised immune system, skin lesions, dermatitis, sore throat, cognitive, memory problems, and severe emotional distress.

Result

The jury found for plaintiff on her breach of contract, premises liability and breach of warranty of habitability claims. The Jury found for defendants on plaintiff's claims for IIED, concealment, and punitive damages. The jury awarded plaintiff $93,290.00, consisting largely of restitution of all rent Plaintiff had paid since 2009 because the unit did not have a certificate of occupancy. The jury also found plaintiff 15 percent comparatively negligent, which reduced the verdict to $79,296.50. Following the verdict, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial and plaintiff's motion for attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code Section 1942.5. The court found that defendants were the prevailing party for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, Defendants submitted a cost bill for $97,943.58 in costs. Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs is still pending.