In January 2013, plaintiff Vonnell Adams, a retired 58 year old, decided to look into the possibility of selling a motorcycle that his brother-in-law allegedly custom built for him in 2006 and attempted to obtain a vehicle verification from the Department of Motor Vehicles prior to any potential sale. However, the DMV advised him that there was a discrepancy between vehicle identification number listed on the Certificate of Title issued to him in 2006 and the one on the Harley Davidson motorcycle in his possession. As a result, the DMV advised Adams to take the motorcycle to the California Highway Patrol’s Torrance station for a further VIN inspection. Adams scheduled the VIN inspection in April 2013, and met with the CHP’s VIN inspection officer, Brian Marzorini, who confirmed the VIN discrepancy. Marzorini informed Adams that based on the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System search of the motorcycle’s VIN number, Adams was not the registered/legal owner of the vehicle. As a result, Marzorini requested that Adams turn over the keys and vehicle cover, which Adams did, and to leave the vehicle with the CHP while the investigation continued regarding the registration discrepancy so that Adams would not be responsible for any impound fee. When Adams later made an inquiry as to what was going on with the motorcycle, the CHP advised him that Harley Davidson Credit was the lien holder and that a third-party owner was the last registered owner. Due to this finding, Marzorini asked Adams to provide documents that evidenced ownership of the motorcycle. In May 2013, Adams engaged the services of his counsel in an attempt to have the motorcycle returned to him, and his counsel sent correspondence to the CHP and Marzorini on May 17, 2013. In a letter dated May 24, 2013, which was from Captain T.D. Lukkes of the CHP and addressed to Adams’ attorney, the CHP acknowledged that Adams’ motorcycle remained in the CHP’s possession and that the motorcycle would remain there “until a complete and thorough investigation” was completed. In June 2013, after allegedly not receiving any satisfactory evidence of ownership, the CHP determined that the rightful owner was the lien holder, Harley Davidson Credit. The lien holder then auctioned off the motorcycle for $6,100 in September 2013. Adams claimed that Harley Davidson Credit had no right to the motorcycle’s component parts because the alleged VIN number issue was only with the motorcycle’s frame, as the other components were added when the motorcycle was custom built. However, the CHP claimed that the third-party was “entitled to a whole motorcycle,” rather than just an individual frame. On Oct. 18, 2013, less than two months after Adams’ counsel was notified for the first time that defendants had disposed of Adams’ motorcycle, Adams filed a claim with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. On Oct. 22, 2013, the claims board acknowledged receipt of the claim and advised plaintiff’s counsel that the claims board staff believed that the court system was the appropriate means for resolution of the claim “because the issues presented are complex and outside the scope of analysis and interpretation typically undertaken by [the board].” Thus, Adams sued the California Highway Patrol and Marzorini. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Adams was a good faith purchaser of the motorcycle and all of its component parts. Counsel also contended that Adams held the title to the motorcycle since its creation and that Adams spent thousands of dollars on the motorcycle and proudly displayed it to his friends and family. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendants’ actions constituted a violation of Vehicle Code § 10751, which provides a statutory procedure for cases wherein a vehicle or component part thereof has a different registration number than that assigned or approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the defendants did not advise Adams or his attorney that any criminal investigation of Adams’ motorcycle had commenced from the date of seizure until Sept. 16, 2013. Counsel noted that it was only on Sept. 16, 2013, in the letter that Captain T.D. Lukkes sent plaintiff’s counsel, wherein, for the first time, the CHP advised Adams and his attorney that the defendants were “not at liberty to release any form of information and/or documentation associated with an ongoing investigation, which is outside of [the CHP’s] investigatory purview.” Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the CHP and Marzorini failed to comply with the duties imposed upon them by Vehicle Code § 10751, as Adams was never provided the notice of impoundment required by Vehicle Code § 10751, was never provided a post-seizure hearing by the court that had jurisdiction, and was deprived of his due process rights despite the fact that he had provided the defendants with evidence that he was a good faith purchaser of the motorcycle and its component parts. Additionally, counsel argued that the CHP and Marzorini disposed of Adams’ property in violation of Vehicle Code § 10751. Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that by disposing of Adams’ property in or about August 2013, or early September 2013, without the mandated court hearing, the defendants intentionally avoided the mandatory burden — imposed upon them by Vehicle Code § 10751(e)(3) — to establish that the serial or identification number had been removed, defaced, altered, or destroyed, as well as the burden to establish that Adams could not present satisfactory evidence of ownership to the court at the post-seizure hearing. Defense counsel contended that the CHP’s investigation was conducted pursuant to Vehicle Code § 10851, which deals with the unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, and not § 10751, because the Certificate of Title presented by Adams did not match the motorcycle in his possession. Counsel further contended that Adams never provided satisfactory evidence of ownership., Adams claimed that he was very proud of the motorcycle and that he was distressed at its loss. He also claimed that he suffered depression and anxiety from all the time and money he put into his motorcycle, only to have it taken away from him. Thus, he alleged that he suffered emotional distress as a result of the events. In addition, Adams alleged that he suffered additional emotional distress as a result of being insulted by Marzorini routinely mocking how he spoke and going out of his way to correct his grammar and vocabulary. Defense counsel disputed Adams claim of emotional distress as a result of losing the motorcycle after all the time and money he put into it, arguing that Adams was going to sell the motorcycle in exchange for $15,000 of home remodeling work.