In the early morning hours of June 22, 2017, plaintiff’s decedent Armando Garcia, 17, a student, was spending time with two other teenage boys in Palmdale. While they were playing music, someone contacted the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to make a noise complaint. When the sheriff’s deputies responded to the noise complaint at the general location of the 38500 block of East 10th Street, in Palmdale, they encountered the three boys as well as an unrestrained pit bull, which ultimately bit one of the deputies on the leg. As a result, the deputies ordered the boys to restrain the dog, which they did by chaining it to a tree. The deputies then exited the property to call for animal control. As they were returning to allegedly take video and photographs of the dog to document the deputy’s bite, they observed the pit bull coming toward them down the driveway. In response, the deputies pulled out their handguns and started firing at the dog. However, Armando, who was in the driveway behind the dog, was shot. He died at the scene. Armando’s mother, Roberta Alcantar, acting individually, as Armando’s successor in interest and as representative of Armando’s estate, sued the deputies’ employers, the county of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Alcantar alleged that the deputies negligently fired their weapons and that the deputies’ actions constituted excessive force in violation of Armando’s civil and constitutional rights. She also alleged the deputies’ actions caused Armando’s wrongful death and that the county and sheriff’s department were liable for the deputies’ actions. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the deputies deviated from accepted and reasonable law enforcement practices from the start. Counsel contended that, despite not having a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances, the deputies bypassed the front units of the property upon their arrival and proceeded directly down the driveway toward the center carport, where they assumed the loud music was originating. Counsel contended that when the deputies reached the carport, they observed three teenage males, including Armando, and that the boys immediately complied with the deputies’ instructions to turn the music off. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained that the deputies then observed the unrestrained pit bull, but made no attempt to restrain the dog or to obtain necessary information to assess the situation, such as whom the dog belonged to, in order to determine the nature of the situation or if they could handle it. Counsel contended that, instead, one of the deputies walked directly over to the dog in order to “play” with it and that as a result, the dog perceived the deputy as a threat and quickly snipped at him, biting him on the leg. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the situation of a potentially dangerous animal on the premises is one that requires deputies to attempt to restrain the dog and ensure that the scene is secure. Counsel also asserted that such a situation requires deputies to remove all individuals from the potential danger posed by the animal, but that the deputies in the subject incident failed to do all those things. Counsel contended that, instead, the deputies ordered Armando and the other boys to restrain the dog, and made no attempt to secure the scene or remove the boys from the potential threat. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that even though the dog did not belong to them, the boys immediately complied with the deputies’ orders and restrained the dog by chaining it to a tree. The deputies then exited the property to call for animal control. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that although the deputies had no reason to remain on the property once the music had been turned off and the dog had been restrained, the deputies re-entered the property without waiting for assistance from animal control. Counsel also contended that as the deputies started to walk down the pitch black driveway, heading back to the front of the property, they observed the dog “trotting” down the driveway. Counsel asserted that the presence of so many deputies, combined with the fact that they were shining a light in the dog’s face, agitated the dog. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that deadly force is justified as a “last resort only,” to be used in the most extreme circumstances when all other reasonable measures are unavailable or have been exhausted. However, counsel contended that even though the deputies had just seen Armando in the driveway behind the dog, and even though the deputies had non-lethal and less lethal weapons on their person, the deputies each immediately pulled out their handguns and, without a single warning, started firing down the dark driveway at the dog, fatally shooting Armando in the process. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the actions of the deputies violated proper procedure, and deviated from all accepted and reasonable law enforcement practices, as well as deviated from the policy and procedures of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Constitution of the United States. Defense counsel disputed plaintiff’s counsel’s allegations, and asserted that the deadly force used was reasonable in response to the danger posed by the dog., Armando sustained a single gunshot wound to his chest. He ultimately died at the scene. Armando was survived by his mother. Armando’s mother, Alcantar, sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of her son.