On the morning of July 6, 2015, plaintiffs’ decedent John Berry, was seated in his BMW, which he parked on the front lawn of his family home, in Lawndale. John Berry’s brother, plaintiff Chris Berry, a federal police officer, suspected that something was wrong when John Berry, who was struggling with a recently diagnosed mental illness, refused to come inside the house. As a result, Chris Berry placed a service call to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for help getting John Berry evaluated by a Mental Evaluation Team unit and/or transported to a medical facility. In response, three Los Angeles County patrol units sped down the Berrys’ residential street. As the sheriff’s deputies were responding to the scene, John Berry moved his BMW off of the lawn and into the street. Deputies then attempted to prevent John Berry from leaving by using their patrol units to block the BMW. As a result, the BMW and one of the patrol units collided at the curb. The deputies then immediately exited their vehicles and began yelling orders at John Berry to get out of the car, but John Berry still refused. As a result, additional units arrived, five deputies surrounded the car, and several deputies opened both the BMW’s passenger and driver’s side doors. The deputies then used pepper spray, batons, a flashlight, and a Taser as the BMW began to move. As the vehicle moved backward, the deputies opened fire and ultimately shot John Berry several times. He died at the scene. The shooting was witnessed by John Berry’s mother, plaintiffs Susan Berry, and John Berry’s siblings, Melissa Berry and Chris Berry. The incident was also contemporaneously perceived by John’s minor niece, another plaintiff, who was inside the house. The decedent’s family sued the county of Los Angeles; the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; Sheriff Jim McDonnell, Sergeant James Jobling; and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies Michael Bitolas, Anthony Johnson, Grant Oberle, Eric Saavedra, Sergio Santoyo and Robert Solorio. The decedent’s family alleged that the deputies’ actions constituted unlawful detention, excessive force, denial of medical care in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and interference with familial relations in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also brought state law wrongful death claims of negligence and battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Bane Act. In addition, they alleged that the deputies’ supervisors, Sheriff Jim McDonnell and Sergeant James Jobling, and their employers the county and the Sheriff’s Department, were liable for the deputies’ actions. The Sheriff’s Department and Santoyo were ultimately dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter continued against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the decedent was pulling off the lawn and into the street as speeding patrol units were responding to the scene and attempting to block him in. Counsel asserted that as a result, the vehicles accidentally collided. Counsel also contended that while John Berry was still seated in the driver’s seat, the deputies used excessive force by deploying pepper spray directly into his face, striking him multiple times with their batons, and deploying their Taser at him. Counsel further contended that while this was going on, a sheriff’s sergeant, Jobling was on scene, watching. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that while the deputies were using force to extract the decedent from his car, the BMW began rocking forward and backward. Counsel asserted that the BMW then rolled backward at a slow rate of speed, causing two of the deputies who were inside the open “V” of one of the car doors to move out of the way, but after approximately 10 to 15 feet, the vehicle stopped when its rear, passenger-side wheel hit the curb. However, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that as the car moved backward, the deputies fired 33 rounds into the car, killing John Berry. Defense counsel contended that the deputies responded to the subject incident location based on a disturbance call indicating that there was a mentally ill person inside his vehicle in front of the subject location. Counsel asserted that upon the deputies’ arrival, the decedent immediately drove his car into a deputy patrol car. Counsel contended that as a result, assisting deputies arrived at the scene and attempted to arrest the decedent while he was still seated in his car, but that the decedent became uncooperative and assaultive. Specifically, counsel asserted that the decedent was kicking the deputies from the driver’s seat while he continued to refuse to exit his car. Defense counsel asserted that as a result, the deputies attempted to subdue the decedent, who continued to assault the deputies, by using various, less-lethal applications, including OC pepper spray, a baton, a flashlight and a Taser, as well as various control holds and hand strikes. However, defense counsel asserted that the decedent put his vehicle into drive in an attempt to push his vehicle into a deputy patrol car and that the decedent suddenly put his vehicle in reverse, which made the vehicle’s side door bend backward. Counsel contended that as a result, the bending door appeared to be crushing a deputy, who was pinned between two vehicles. Defense counsel asserted that as a result, several deputies opened fire because they saw one of the other deputies appear to be sucked underneath the BMW and run over. Thus, counsel asserted that the deputies fired their weapons because they thought one of their fellow deputies was being killed. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that still images from a rough video that was taken by a neighbor with a cellphone showed parts of the incident and appeared to contradict the deputies’ accounts. Counsel asserted that the video showed that no deputy was being run over, about to be run over, or in the car’s path at the time of the gunshots. However, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the video did show a deputy crouched near the ground at the time of the gunshots, but that the still images also showed that the deputy was within a few feet, and in clear view, of the shooting deputies at the time of the gunshots and that the video showed the deputy stand up, uninjured, as the other deputies continued to fire., John Berry sustained multiple traumatic as a result of the gunshot wounds and he subsequently died at the scene. He was survived by his mother, Susan Berry; a sister, Melissa Berry; a brother, Chris Berry; and a minor niece. The decedent’s mother and siblings watched the incident from the front lawn of their home, just a few feet away. Chris Berry and Susan Berry both yelled at the decedent to get out of the car, and Chris Berry pleaded with deputies to let him talk to his brother. However, they claimed the deputies ordered all three of them to get back. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that as a result, the family witnessed the decedent shot and killed in front of them. Thus, the decedent’s family sought recovery of wrongful death damages.