At around 1:40 a.m. on March 5, 2015, plaintiffs’ decedent Sergio Navas, 35, was stopped by Los Angeles City Police Officers Michael Estrada and Brian Van Gordon. The officers initiated a traffic stop after observing Navas’ car going 80 to 100 mph in a 35 mph zone. Navas initially submitted to the traffic stop, but once the officers exited their patrol unit and approached Navas’ stopped car, Navas sped away. The patrol unit, driven by Estrada, subsequently engaged Navas in a high-speed pursuit, which terminated at a dead-end in a residential neighborhood in the city of Burbank. Van Gordon, who was riding as a passenger in the patrol car, fired six rounds at Navas. However, when Van Gordon’s pistol malfunctioned after the sixth round, Navas, who was shot, ran a short distance away from the officers. Navas was ultimately apprehended and restrained on the ground by multiple officers before handcuffing him. Navas later died at the scene from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. The decedent’s parents, Rosa and Alfredo Navas, and his five minor children sued Van Gordon and Van Gordon’s employer, the city of Los Angeles. The decedent’s family alleged that Van Gordon’s actions constituted excessive force and caused the decedent’s wrongful death. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that after the decedent’s car stopped in a cul-de-sac, the patrol vehicle stopped alongside it with the unit’s front, passenger side door next to the front, driver’s side door of the decedent’s car. Counsel contended that Van Gordon then fired six rounds at Sergio Navas, at close range, through the closed passenger side door of the police unit. Counsel acknowledged that Navas ran a short distance away from the officers after being shot, but asserted that during the course of apprehending Navas, who had already been shot and was being restrained on the ground by multiple officers, the officers delivered additional blows to Navas’ head before handcuffing him. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that Van Gordon’s use of deadly force was excessive and unreasonable under the circumstances because Van Gordon never saw a weapon in Navas’ hands and could not even see Navas’ hands at the time of the shooting. Counsel further asserted that the pre-shooting tactics fell below the professional standard of care for reasonably trained peace officers. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that the Use of Force Review Board and the Board of Police Commissioners determined that Van Gordon’s use of deadly force was out of policy and not objectively reasonable. In addition, counsel noted that Estrada and Van Gordon were directed to undergo retraining in response to some of the pre-shooting tactics that were employed during the incident. Estrada claimed that as the pursuit progressed, Navas turned down a dead-end street and stopped abruptly in a cul-de-sac. Estrada claimed that as a result, the patrol unit was going too fast to stop behind Navas’ vehicle without hitting it, so he turned to the left to avoid striking Navas’ car, causing the patrol unit’s front, passenger side door and side mirror to strike the front, driver’s side door of Navas’ car. The officers claimed that Navas then opened his driver’s side door and used his body weight to hold it open against the front, passenger side door of the patrol unit, trapping Van Gordon inside. According to Van Gordon, after Navas stopped his car, Navas had time to flee, but he did not. Van Gordon also claimed that from his seated position in the front, passenger seat of the patrol unit, he saw Navas stand up and look directly at the officers. Thus, Van Gordon claimed that although he could not see Navas’ hands, he believed that Navas was going to ambush Estrada and him by producing a gun and firing on them. He alleged that as a result, fired multiple rounds at Navas in defense of his and Estrada’s life., Sergio Navas sustained gunshot wounds as a result of being fired upon at close range. He ultimately died at the scene as a result of a gunshot wound to the abdomen. He was 35 years old. Navas was survived by his parents and five minor children, all of which did not live with him. Thus, Navas’ family sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of Navas.