On the night of April 8, 2007, plaintiffs’ decedent Richard DeSantis, a bi-polar man, told his wife, plaintiff Patricia DeSantis, that he heard noises in the attic of his residence. Sometime thereafter, he fired a weapon into the ceiling. Mrs. DeSantis subsequently called 911 for assistance. She reported that she needed help because her husband was bi-polar and had fired shots into the ceiling. Additional shots were then fired while the officers were en route. Soon after the six police officers arrived at the residence, Mr. DeSantis and his wife, holding their two year-old daughter, Dani, came out of the house and onto the front porch. The officers then ordered Mr. DeSantis to approach them and lie on the ground. Mr. DeSantis eventually got on the ground, but he did not stay down. As a result, he was fatally shot by Sergeant Rich Celli. Mrs. DeSantis, acting individually and as successor in interest for her deceased husband, and as guardian ad litem for Dani and Timothy Farrell, both minors; and the decedent’s mother, Adrianne DeSantis, sued Celli; Sergeant Jerry Soares; Officers Travis Menke and Patricia Mann; and their employer, the city of Santa Rosa. The plaintiffs alleged that the officers’ actions constituted excessive force and that the city was liable for their actions. The court granted a directed verdict in favor of the city on the plaintiffs’ remaining Monell claims, including a claim based on a de facto policy of failing to discipline the officers for their use of excessive force. The plaintiff also dismissed the fourth amendment claim, their request for punitive damages, and defendants Menke and Mann, prior to submission to the jury. Soares was also dismissed early on in the case. In addition, the decedent’s adopted son, minor plaintiff Timothy Farrell, was removed from the case. At trial, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the officers used excessive force that was unnecessary and/or unreasonable. Counsel noted that Soares had a less lethal weapon called a SAGE, which utilized rubber bullets; another officer had a trained police dog; and all of the officers were trained in defensive tactics and also had Tasers and batons. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, Soares expected to fire another rubber bullet and other officers also expected the one of six rubber bullets available, or expected the release of the police dog to be used, but that, instead, Celli fired the kill shot before any less lethal tactics could be deployed. Defense counsel contended that Mr. DeSantis rose from the ground after being ordered to lie down, and then charged at the officers. Counsel asserted that at that point, Soares fired a non-lethal projectile, which was later determined to have broken DeSantis’ arm, but which did not stop him from advancing. Defense counsel contended that as a result, Celli, Menke and Mann fired their weapons, one of which was a rifle. Two of the shots struck Mr. DeSantis’ upper torso, causing his death. Defense counsel noted that there was no dispute that Mr. DeSantis got up and charged the officers. The city contended that Celli, Menke and Mann fired in self-defense and in defense of the other officers at the scene because they believed that Mr. DeSantis was still armed. Defense counsel also reiterated that it was undisputed that there was a two-minute window from when the officers arrived on scene until they were forced to fire shots upon the decedent. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that the case was appealed pre-trial on the issue of qualified immunity, and both the full Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that the case should be tried., Mr. DeSantis was shot and died at the scene. He left behind a wife, a minor daughter and a minor son, whom he had adopted. The decedent’s wife, minor daughter and his mother sought recovery of general wrongful death damages for their loss of comfort and society as a result of Mr. DeSantis’ death. They also sought recovery of damages for their loss of earnings, as well as for funeral and burial expenses. In addition, they sought recovery of punitive damages. Defense counsel contended that the decedent’s family were not entitled to recover any damages.