On Oct. 22, 2011, plaintiffs’ decedent Michael Nida, 31, a Puerto Rican/Caucasian drywaller, was on a date with his wife, plaintiff Naily Nida, celebrating his birthday, when he stopped at an ARCO gas station on the corner of Imperial Highway and Paramount Boulevard in Downey. After pumping gas, Mr. Nida went across the street to buy cigarettes at a tobacco shop, while his wife waited in their car. However, as Mr. Nida exited the tobacco shop, Downey Police Officer Blanca Jazmin Reyes stopped him and asked him to sit on the curb and show his identification. Downey police officers were previously responding to a Bank of America ATM robbery that occurred a few blocks from where the Nidas were. The caller identified the suspects as two black males that were wearing hoodies. As a result, Reyes attempted to stop Mr. Nida as he exited the tobacco shop, but Mr. Nida ran before getting down on the ground in response to commands made by Officer Steve Gilley. However, when Mr. Nida again attempted to run, Gilley shot him in the back, on the left side, with a submachine gun. Mrs. Nida saw her husband limping toward the intersection with two police officers chasing him on foot when more officers arrived on the scene. During the incident, Mr. Nida may have been shot in the chest, after which he was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead on arrival from multiple gunshot wounds. Mrs. Nida, acting individually and as guardian ad litem for her four minor children, sued the city of Downey, the Downey Police Department and Officer Gilley. Officers Reyes and Michael Powell were later added to the case. Mrs. Nida alleged that the officers’ actions constituted excessive force, causing her husband’s wrongful death, and that the city and police department were vicariously liable for the officers’ actions. Mr. Nida’s non-biological parents, Gerald Thaxton and Lois Jean Thaxton, were originally named as plaintiffs, but were ultimately removed from the case and replaced by Mr. Nida’s biological parents, Maritza Odell and Michael Lee Nida. Defense counsel also moved for summary judgment, and it was granted in part, dismissing all causes of action against for the city and Powell. In addition, the Downey Police Department was never a proper defendant and also dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter continued against Gilley and Reyes only. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that that when the decedent encountered Reyes prior to his death, the decedent reached for his identification and began to run across the street to a nearby residence out of fear of being racially profiled. Counsel contended that the decedent then called his wife on his cell phone while hiding in a backyard to say that he was scared that the police were chasing him. Counsel contended that Downey Police Officers subsequently surrounded the area, found the decedent and told him to get on the ground. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the decedent complied at first, but when Gilley put his foot on the decedent’s buttocks to push him down, the decedent became scared of being assaulted by the officer and, instead, got up and ran toward the intersection of Imperial Highway and Paramount Boulevard. Counsel noted that as the decedent ran, Gilley retrieved an MP5 submachine gun from his patrol car and deployed it, shooting him in the back. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the officers had no reason or probable cause to detain the decedent at the tobacco shop because he did not fit the description the 911 caller gave of the robbery suspects, two black males wearing black hooded sweatshirts. Counsel noted that the decedent was Puerto Rican/Caucasian and was wearing a blue and yellow striped polo shirt at the time of the incident. Plaintiffs’ counsel also contended that the decedent was unarmed and that Gilley wrongfully used the submachine gun by pointing the weapon at the decedent’s head while stepping on his back and threatening to blow the decedent’s head off. In addition, counsel contended that the officers did not warn the decedent that they were about to shoot him nor did they see the decedent drop anything prior to shooting him. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the officers used excessive force by shooting the decedent in the back multiple times without warning. The plaintiffs’ forensics expert reconstructed the shooting scene and opined that at the time of the shooting, the decedent was not facing or turning away from the officers and the decedent’s back was to Gilley. The expert, after reviewing the autopsy report and determining the trajectory of the bullet through the entry and exit wounds, also opined that the decedent had his left arm up, as if he was running forward, and that the decedent could not have been reaching for his waistband. In addition, Mrs. Nida asserted that she was wrongfully detained by the Downey police officers at the scene for over three hours on suspicion that she too was a suspect in the robbery. Defense counsel contended that the officers reasonably believed that the decedent was a robbery suspect, and that the decedent made a threatening and turning move at the time he was shot. Thus, defense counsel asserted that the officers acted appropriately., The decedent, Michael Nida, was taken to a hospital after the shooting, but upon arrival, was pronounced dead from multiple gunshot wounds. He was 31. The decedent was survived by his wife and four minor children; two daughters and two sons. Thus, the decedent’s family sought recovery of wrongful death damages as a result of the incident.