At around 1:30 p.m. on April 13, 2015, plaintiff Jose Verdusco, 33, a custodian employed by the Superior Court of California, was inside a closed and locked courtroom within the San Mateo County Hall of Justice, which contains Superior Court facilities as well as county of San Mateo facilities. While court was not in session, Verdusco was speaking with a courtroom clerk and a court reporter when Andy Mar, a sheriff’s deputy assigned to the courtroom as a bailiff, entered. According to Verdusco, they were discussing two recent police brutality incidents — one in San Bernardino, Calif., and another in Charleston, S.C. — when Mar unholstered his loaded duty firearm and allegedly said, “Do you want some South Carolina Justice?” Verdusco reported the matter to the Superior Court of California Human Resources. The matter was also reported to the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office at approximately 4 p.m. As a result, Mar was immediately removed from the courtroom, and the Sheriff’s Office immediately commenced an internal investigation, during which sheriff’s deputies interviewed Verdusco. At approximately 8 a.m. the following day, Verdusco reported the matter directly to the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office. He then went to work believing that Mar had been reassigned away from the courthouse. However, when Verdusco was eating in the courthouse cafeteria, he saw Mar. Verdusco claimed that as a result, he felt traumatized again, left work that day, and never returned. The District Attorney’s Office conducted an independent criminal investigation and, eventually, the district attorney charged Mar with one misdemeanor count of brandishing a weapon in violation of Penal Code § 417. However, a criminal jury found Mar not guilty of the offense. Verdusco sued Mar and Mar’s employer, the county of San Mateo. Verdusco alleged that Mar’s actions constituted assault, false imprisonment, and intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. He also alleged that the county was liable for Mar’s actions while in the course and scope of his employment. Verdusco claimed that, immediately before the incident, he was discussing two recent police brutality incidents with the courtroom clerk and a court reporter when Mar, without warning or provocation, suddenly unholstered his loaded duty firearm. Verdusco also claimed that Mar aimed the loaded gun at his head for approximately five seconds and said, in a menacing tone, “Do you want some South Carolina Justice?” He also claimed that when a sergeant with the sheriff’s office came to relieve Mar of his duties for the day, Mar allegedly stated, “I know why you are here. I did it.” In addition, Verdusco alleged that he reluctantly came to work the next day because he believed that Mar had been reassigned away from the courthouse, but that when he was eating in the courthouse cafeteria, he saw Mar staring at him with his hand on his holster. He alleged that as a result, he was re-traumatized. Mar admitted that he unholstered his firearm in the courtroom, but he claimed he pointed the gun at a spot on a wall located about 4 feet to the left of Verdusco, rather than at Verdusco’s head. Mar also denied saying “I did it” or anything similar to anyone. He also denied starring at Verdusco the following day or putting his hand on his holster that day. The county’s counsel noted that the court held, on multiple occasions, that Mar’s conduct, as alleged, was outside the scope of employment and, thus, asserted that the county could not be held liable for Mar’s actions. The county’s counsel also noted that Mar was removed from the court on the day of the incident, placed on administrative leave within 24 hours of the incident occurring, and did not ever return to work in the courts. Counsel also contended that Verdusco came to work the next afternoon based on a statement a fellow court employee allegedly made to him about Mar being reassigned away from the court. Thus, the county’s counsel asserted that Verdusco incorrectly believed that Mar would not be present within the Hall of Justice that day. In addition, counsel asserted that Verdusco was eating in the public Hall of Justice cafeteria when only he saw Mar standing in line for the cashier., Verdusco claimed that he was traumatized by the incident in the courtroom with Mar and that he was retraumatized the next day, when he saw Mar in the courthouse’s cafeteria. Verdusco claimed that as a result, left work on April 14, 2015, after the cafeteria incident, and never returned. Several months later, he found a job with a new employer. Verdusco claimed he was an unusually susceptible to emotional distress because he sustained a gunshot wound from a drive-by shooting several years earlier and because he was shot during a separate event prior to the courtroom incident on April 13, 2015. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the plaintiff’s psychology expert and the county’s psychology expert agreed that post-traumatic stress disorder was a proper diagnosis for Verdusco. Thus, Verdusco sought recovery of past loss of wages, future loss of wages, and general damages for his past and future emotional pain and suffering due to his alleged complex post-traumatic stress disorder. The county’s counsel disputed Verdusco’s lost wages claims. Counsel contended that Verdusco’s new job provided increased compensation and expanded responsibilities that Verdusco had previously sought, but been unable to attain, during his employment with the Superior Court. Mar denied ever pointing a gun at Verdusco. So, Mar’s counsel denied that Verdusco was traumatized, injured, or damaged in any way by Mar’s alleged conduct.