On May 29, 2015, plaintiff Pedro Zuniga, 31, a granite installer, was arrested at his home in El Cajon. Earlier that day, California Highway Patrol Officers David Bigalk, Paul Anzalone, Brian Silber and Thomas Hester were involved in a pursuit with a truck registered to Zuniga. The truck stopped outside Zuniga’s home, and the suspect got out of the vehicle and took off on foot. They chased him for a time before losing sight of him. The officers returned to the Zuniga home, where the CHP officers and a group of officers from the El Cajon Police Department, including officer Michael Murphy, took Zuniga into custody. Hester identified Zuniga as the suspect who had fled on foot. Hester read Zuniga his Miranda rights, and Zuniga’s truck was impounded. Zuniga was charged with reckless driving and evading arrest. Zuniga’s wife, Alicia Medina, and children Ian, Jasmine and Sally Zuniga, were home at the time of the arrest. After Mr. Zuniga was placed in handcuffs, CHP officer Brian Pennings evaluated him at the scene for possible drug and alcohol use. Pennings determined that Mr. Zuniga was not under the influence. Sergeant Kenneth Jolly was also present at the scene and oversaw the arrest. Zuniga was released that night and then re-arrested on July 25, 2015. The charges against him were ultimately dropped. He claimed that the officers who arrested him used excessive force and that he was wrongfully placed into custody. Zuniga sued the operator of the El Cajon Police Department, the city of El Cajon; the operator of the California Highway Patrol, the state of California; Sergeant Jolly and Officers Murphy, Bigalk, Anzalone, Silber, Hester and Pennings. He also sued the operator of the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, the county of San Diego; and three of its employees, Glenn McAllister, Jesus Rodriguez and William La Fond. Mr. Zuniga brought claims of assault and battery, false imprisonment, civil rights violations under the Bane Act, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also originally filed a racial discrimination claim under the Ralph Act, but he discontinued that claim prior to trial. Zuniga’s wife and chidreb also sued the same defendants, alleging that they were traumatized by seeing Mr. Zuniga arrested. However, they ultimately discontinued their claims prior to trial. The claims against the city of El Cajon and Murphy were voluntarily discontinued by Mr. Zuniga before trial. In addition, counsel for the county of San Diego, McAllister, Rodriguez and La Fond filed two demurs, and his clients were subsequently dismissed from the case. Thus, the trial only dealt with the allegations against the state of California, by and through the CHP, and its officers. Mr. Zuniga claimed that he was slammed to the ground during his arrest and that the officers put the handcuffs around him tightly. He also claimed that he was not the driver of the truck who led police on the pursuit. Instead, he alleged that someone had stolen his vehicle prior to the chase. Zuniga testified that when he was released on May 29, 2015, he thought it was because the police had determined that he was not the driver of the truck and that he did not know until his second arrest that the district attorney still planned to pursue the case against him. The plaintiff’s police practices expert opined that the officers used excessive force when they put Zuniga on the ground during the arrest. The expert further opined that the officers did not have probable cause for an arrest and, instead, should have investigated the incident further once Zuniga made it clear that he was not the driver of the truck. The state’s counsel argued that there was no evidence the officers in question used excessive force and that even if Zuniga was thrown to the ground and handcuffed tightly, it may have been the El Cajon officers who did this, not the CHP officers. The defense’s police practices expert opined that the officers had probable cause for an arrest and that it was appropriate to have the suspect lay on the ground as he was being handcuffed. The state’s counsel further argued that Zuniga’s second arrest was justified. Counsel presented evidence that Zuniga was released on May 29, 2015 due to a paperwork error and that Zuniga was re-arrested on the same charges in July once that issue had been resolved., Zuniga claimed that his left shoulder and wrists were sore following his arrest. He alleged that the pain in his wrists lasted a few days and that the pain in his shoulder lasted a few weeks with continued flare-ups up until the time of the trial. However, he did not seek any medical treatment for his . Zuniga also claimed that the trauma of the arrest caused him emotional distress. He alleged that as a result of the incident, he had a fear of the police and suffered from anxiety and difficulty sleeping. The plaintiff’s expert psychologist evaluated Zuniga and opined that after the arrest, Zuniga had post-traumatic stress disorder, which has since resolved. However, the expert opined that Zuniga still has another specified trauma- and stressor-related disorder and that Zuniga would benefit from therapy in the future. Zuniga sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. He also sought recovery of the fees he paid his criminal attorney and the fees he paid to retrieve his truck after it was impounded. Defense counsel argued that Zuniga showed no physical signs of injury after the arrest. The defense’s expert psychiatrist opined that the plaintiff’s expert did not have sufficient information to make the diagnoses she made. The defense expert explained that there was no evidence of either PTSD or any other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorders. Thus, the defense expert opined that Zuniga required no further treatment. Plaintiff’s counsel countered that the defense expert did not examine or speak to Zuniga prior to testifying.