On Sept. 28, 2017, plaintiff’s decedent Adrian Antunez, 12, a student, was playing football in the parking lot of the Villa Margaritas Apartments, located on Recreation Avenue, in Fresno. The apartment complex’s management required tenants’ children to play in that area. However, the football accidentally went over the apartment complex’s concrete block wall and landed in the area between the wall and the neighboring property’s chain-link fence. Adrian jumped over the wall and attempted to retrieve the ball, but while he was between the wall and the fence, Adrian came into contact with electrified metal conduit. He was electrocuted and died four days later. His mother, Victoria Antunez, was present at the scene and witnessed the electrocution. Antunez, acting individually and as Adrian’s successor in interest, and Pedro Diego, who was not biologically related to Adrian, but raised him alongside Antunez, sued the owner and operator of the apartment complex, JMY Properties I, LLC; the only members of the LLC, Jason Yamada and Chisato Janice Matsuyama Yamada; a property management company, Regency Property Management; the property manager, Frances Echevarria; a maintenance worker, Jesus Hernandez; and a company hired to install surveillance cameras on the premises, Beyond Tech Solutions Inc. Antunez and Diego alleged that the wiring that caused Adrian’s electrocution was used to power surveillance cameras on the premises. The also alleged that the defendants failed to properly install, repair and/or maintain the wiring, creating a dangerous condition that led to Adrian’s wrongful death. Adrian’s biological father, Nicolas Patistan Perez, was brought into the case as an unwilling plaintiff pursuant to C.C.P. Section 382. Perez had legal standing to be a plaintiff in a wrongful death case involving his son, so he was listed as a nominal defendant, but he never responded to the suit. In addition, it was determined that while Regency managed the subject property following Adrian’s electrocution, it did not take over management of the property from Echevarria until after the subject incident. As a result, it was dismissed from the case. JMY and Beyond Tech filed cross-claims against each other, each seeking indemnification. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Echevarria asked Hernandez to install the wiring on the property, even though Hernandez was not a qualified electrical contractor, and that Hernandez told Echevarria that the wiring should be underground, but that she refused to have it installed underground. Counsel also contended that the defendants failed to get the proper permits or inspections, as required by city, county and state regulations and that Hernandez was trying to get the job done cheaply. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, Hernandez told Echevarria that the wiring he installed was only temporary, but neither Echevarria nor her employer, JMY, did anything to replace the wiring or make it safe. In addition, counsel contended that JMY, the Yamadas, Echevarria and Hernandez failed to warn tenants about the faulty wiring. Defense counsel for JMY, the Yamadas, Echevarria and Hernandez maintained that JMY and the Yamadas should not be held liable for the incident because Echevarria was not acting as their managing agent. Plaintiffs’ counsel countered that Echevarria was a managing agent because she was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the property and maintained substantial discretionary authority. The court ultimately found that Echevarria was the managing agent for JMY and the Yamadas. JMY and the Yamadas claimed that they didn’t know the unqualified Hernandez had installed the wiring, and the Yamadas maintained that they should not be held personally liable for the accident because JMY was the actual owner of the apartment complex. However, the court issued an order disregarding the corporate entity under the alter ego doctrine of JMY — making the Yamadas personally liable for the plaintiffs’ damages. Beyond Tech’s counsel maintained that Beyond Tech did not perform any of the electrical work on the property and that Beyond Tech does not employ licensed electricians. Counsel also maintained that the company’s contract with JMY called for the latter to hire someone to install the wiring. Beyond Tech’s counsel moved for summary judgment, which the plaintiffs’ counsel did not oppose, but which JMY did oppose. JMY’s electrical engineering expert opined that Beyond Tech should have noticed the faulty wiring when it installed the cameras. However, despite JMY’s opposition, the court granted Beyond Tech’s summary judgment motion., Adrian sustained an electric shock and was rendered unconscious. Police and emergency responders then extracted him from the space between the wall and the fence, and placed him in an ambulance. Adrian was transported to Community Regional Medical Center, in Fresno, where he was put on life support. Adrian remained in a coma for the next four days and he was pronounced dead on Oct. 2, 2017. He was 12 years old. Adrian’s estate sought recovery of past medical expenses and damages for the pain and suffering that Adrian sustained from the time of the electrocution to the time of his death. Antunez and Diego sought recovery of wrongful death damages. Antunez also sought recovery of damages for the negligent infliction of her emotional distress related to the trauma she allegedly endured as a result of seeing her son get electrocuted. In addition, Antunez and Diego sought recovery of punitive damages. Defense counsel asserted that Diego could not collect wrongful death damages because Diego never legally adopted Adrian.