On Jan. 15, 2007, plaintiff Philip Markowitz was at his residence in the Hollywood division of Los Angeles when several Los Angeles police officers arrived to take him into custody and turn him over to the Pasadena Police Department. Markowitz was previously dating a woman who lived in Pasadena. However, she eventually called the Pasadena Police Department to report that Markowitz had been calling her all night and threatening that he was going to kill her. She also informed the police that she knew that Markowitz owned guns, so she was concerned that he would follow up on his threats. As a result, the police came to the woman’s house and verified the calls, and even answered another call from Markowitz to the woman. Markowitz allegedly used profanities and hung up, and the woman verified to the police that the person who called was Markowitz. The Pasadena Police Department subsequently called the Los Angeles Police Department to ask them to pick up Markowitz and bring him to the Pasadena Police Department. Within two hours, Los Angeles officers arrived at Markowitz’s house, went on a loudspeaker, and called Markowitz outside. After five to six minutes, Markowitz went outside, stood behind a fence on his front porch, and said, “Is this about that b–ch?” When the officers asked how to open the fence, which appeared to be locked, Markowitz told them that it was not locked, and instructed them on how to open it. Markowitz was then handcuffed. Given that Markowitz was wearing only bikini-brief-style underwear, the officers asked if he wanted to put on some clothes, and Markowitz stated that he would. The officers then did a sweep of his house to ensure their safety prior to entering. Markowitz was ultimately transported to Hollywood station and picked up by Pasadena police officers, who took him to the Pasadena Police Station to be booked. However, no findings of fact were made, and the charges against Markowitz were ultimately dropped. Markowitz sued Los Angeles police officers Magallon, Sergeant Torres, and Sergeant Ventura; the officers’ employer, the city of Los Angeles; Pasadena police officers Tucker, D. Duran, M. Dahlstein, Christian, Sergeant Delgado, Sergeant Rojas, and Sergeant Art Chute; and those officers’ employer, the city of Pasadena. Markowitz alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted a false arrest and improper seizure. The city of Pasadena, its’ police officers, and all of the initially named police officers, including those with the Los Angeles Police Department were dismissed on summary judgment. Thus, the matter continued against the city of Los Angeles regarding the actions of seven previously unmentioned officers from the Los Angeles Police Department. Markowitz claimed that the officers had no right to arrest him on the enclosed porch without a warrant and that he was forced to open the gate at gunpoint. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that there were no exigent circumstances that would allow the officers to enter the secured patio area to arrest Markowitz. Counsel further contended that the Los Angeles police officers attended roll call for 45 minutes and waited for a shift change with the watch commanders before tending to the task of going to Markowitz’s home. As such, counsel argued that the police did not see the situation as being an emergency or an exigent circumstance. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that even the Pasadena Police Department sent a fax saying ‘consensual search OK [sic],’ which is what is required when there are no exigent circumstances. Defense counsel contended that there were exigent circumstances that allowed the arrest. Counsel contended that Markowitz walked outside of his house to the front porch, which was not part of the house, and that even if the porch was considered a part of the house, there were still exigent circumstances for Markowitz’s arrest. Counsel added that there was no use of force by the officers and that Markowitz even told them how to enter the gate., Markowitz claimed that he suffered from nightmares after the incident and became afraid of police. He testified that he received counseling for other issues before the incident and that he did see a counselor a few times after the incident, but it was to treat his emotional distress from having multiple firearms, including several shotguns, pointed at him during the arrest. Thus, Markowitz sought recovery of damages as a result of the Los Angeles police officers’ intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defense counsel argued that because Markowitz was already seeing a counselor for other issues, it was hard to tell where his alleged emotional distress originated from. Counsel contended that evidence showed that only one officer had a shotgun on the subject date, but that it was pointed at the balcony of the house and not at Markowitz. Counsel also contended that the shotgun was pointed at the balcony in case there were any other individuals at the house that would flee or reactive negatively to police presence.