In January 2016, the plaintiff, a 9-year-old fourth-grade student at Slater Elementary School, in Fresno, was caught talking during class. Her teacher, Michelle Coyne, sent her to Joshua Gehris’ classroom. To discipline her, Gehris made the student do push-ups and leg lifts in front of the other students. The fourth grader’s mother confronted the school’s principal the following day after her daughter complained to her about the incident. The student, by and through her guardian ad litem, sued Gehris, Coyne and the Fresno Unified School District. Coyne was ultimately dismissed from the case, and the school district was granted a directed verdict after the court found that there was no negligent hiring, supervision and/or retention. Thus, the matter continued against Gehris only. The plaintiff claimed that other students laughed at her when she was forced to exercise in front them and that after the incident, Gehris ordered her to go back to Coyne’s class to apologize. Other students testified that multiple students were subjected to the same form of discipline from Gehris. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Gehris was negligent in his form of discipline and in the manner in which it was carried out. Defense counsel contended that, under California law, teachers are held to the standard of in loco parentis, whereby teachers stand in place of parents and can do anything a parent would do, except for corporal punishment. Counsel argued that since the plaintiff was not harmed by the incident, Gehris was not negligent under the standard of in loco parentis. Defense counsel also argued that the plaintiff needed to be disciplined and that teachers should discipline students in order to obtain order in the classroom. Counsel further argued that the exercises are not unlawful or against the district’s policies for students. In response, plaintiff’s counsel contended that no other teacher at the school discipline students by ordering them to do exercises., The plaintiff claimed that she was humiliated by having to perform exercises in front of the class, which laughed at her. She claimed that as a result, she needed to see a therapist once a week for two years. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that two different treating therapists confirmed the diagnoses of a depressive disorder, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder related to a traumatic event. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award the plaintiff $912,500 in noneconomic damages for her past and future emotional pain and suffering. Defense counsel denied that the plaintiff was harmed in any way. The defense’s child psychiatry expert testified that she performed an independent medical exam and diagnosed the plaintiff with an unspecified anxiety disorder with possible low-grade depression, but opined that the plaintiff’s condition was not caused by the subject incident.