On Sept. 30, 2016, plaintiffs’ decedent Reginald Thomas, 35, a stay-at-home father, experienced a mental or medical emergency and called 911 six times for assistance. Thomas was standing at the front door of an apartment, in Pasadena, where his girlfriend, Shainie Lindsey, resided. When the police arrived, they found Thomas holding a fire extinguisher in both hands and a pirate style knife under his left armpit. The officers subsequently deployed their Tasers, used their batons and otherwise used force in their attempts to restrain Thomas. A hobble restraint was eventually placed on Thomas’ ankles and was connected to the handcuffs on Thomas’ wrists. However, after a few minutes Thomas was determined to be nonresponsive, so the officers attempted to resuscitate him. Thomas ultimately died at the scene. Blood test results showed phencyclidine, or PCP, and methamphetamine in Thomas’ system. However, the autopsy report was “undetermined” as to the cause of death, and the coroner could not rule out asphyxiation. Thomas’ eight minor children, through their respective guardians ad litem, sued the officers’ employer, the city of Pasadena; the officers’ supervisor, Pasadena Police Chief Phillip Sanchez; and Officers Mathew Griffin, Jeffrey Newlen, Thomas Butler, Robert Griffith, Michael Orosco, Philip Poirier, Raphael Santiago, Aaron Villacana, Sergeant Javier Aguilar, and Corporal Susan Gomez. Thomas’ family claimed that the defendants’ actions constituted excessive force, causing Thomas’ wrongful death. Sanchez was ultimately dismissed from the case on a motion for summary judgment, and Officers Newlen, Griffin, Aguilar and Gomez were also dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter only continued against the city, Villacana, Butler, Santiago, Poirier, Orosco, and Griffith. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that officers arrived and grossly over-used their Tasers on Thomas. Counsel also contended that the officers beat Thomas with batons and fists, and kicked him in the head repeatedly. Counsel further contended that after a hobble restraint was placed on Thomas’ ankles and connected to the handcuffs on his wrists, the officers pressed their body weight onto Thomas torso, causing him to suffocate and die at the scene. The plaintiffs’ use of force expert would have testified that Thomas was handcuffed and hobbled from 2:50 a.m. until 2:55 A.M., when it was broadcast that the hobble was being removed. The expert claimed that it appeared that from the initial Taser shocks (2:48 a.m.) until the removal of Thomas’ hobble and handcuffs, that Thomas had no less than six officers kneeling on him, placing body weight on him, shocking him with Tasers, striking him, and forcing him into a prone position. The expert claimed that Thomas exhibited signs of intoxication, but never uttered a threat or aggressed on any officer, and opined that there was no urgent need to rescue anyone in the apartment. Thus, the plaintiffs’ expert opined that in the set of facts, at the initial encounter at the door, nothing further than ‘Officer Presence – Verbal Skills’ appeared as reasonable, but the expert was not critical of a coordinated tactical application of a Taser or pepper spray to temporally disarm Thomas’ possession of the fire extinguisher, which he held in both arms, and the knife, which was allegedly tucked under his armpit. However, the expert found that the gross intensity and methods of force documented in the record was clearly excessive, in his opinion. The plaintiffs’ use of force expert further noted that the autopsy reported trauma to Thomas’ head, which appeared consistent with blows or kicks to Thomas’ head. The expert claimed that officers are trained to know that blows to the head can result in serious injury and death, and are not to use blows to the head absent the protection of life. With six officers present, and Thomas on the ground, the expert found that no officer’s life was in danger. Thus, he opined that any kicks or blows to the head of Thomas were out of policy, reckless, and excessive. It was uncontested in the record that Butler and Orosco inflicted repeated multiple cycles of shocks from their Tasers into Thomas. The duration and number of the Taser cycles by Butler and Orosco have been disclosed as 12 separate cycles, totaling 57 seconds. Butler fired his Taser six times for a total of 26 seconds over a 64 second period. Orosco fired his Taser six times for a total of 31 seconds over a 44 second period. When personnel from the Pasadena Fire Department arrived and treated Thomas, who was unresponsive, their report stated that there were no less than three different Taser lines emanating from Thomas’ body. The plaintiffs’ expert opined that police agencies need to be cognizant of how positional asphyxia may exacerbate the condition of any individual who had received an electronically conducted weapons (“ECW”) application, also known as Tasers. Positional asphyxia is a death that occurs when a subject’s body position interferes with breathing, either when the chest is restricted from expanding properly or when the position of the subject’s head obstructs the airway. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that positional asphyxia has been mentioned as a possible contributing factor in a number of cases in which subjects died after one or more ECW applications. Thus, counsel asserted that police personnel should be trained to use a restraint technique that does not impair a subject’s respiration following an ECW application. The plaintiffs’ use of force expert further opined that Orosco’s and Butler’s gross departure from the standards was reflective of the custom and practice of the Pasadena Police Department to endorse the gross over-dependence on the Taser weapon when other far more reasonable and appropriate methods of force (if actually necessary) should be deployed. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Thomas called 911 for medical help, was abruptly confronted by Pasadena police officers, and was not combative, assaultive, or uttering any threats to any officer. Thus, the plaintiffs’ expert determined that Thomas did not fall under the “active combatant” rubric. Although Thomas had a knife wedged in his armpit and was holding a fire extinguisher, he allegedly did not make any sudden moves toward the officers or make any alleged attempt to handle the knife. In addition, the expert opined that the use of a Taser in that instance grossly deviated from the Police Officer Standards & Training (“POST”) and federal training that Orosco and Butler had allegedly participated in and completed. Defense counsel contended that prior to the officers arriving, there were alleged reports that Thomas had sprayed a fire extinguisher in an apartment, including in the face of his minor stepson. Counsel also contended that even though the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner-Coroner’s Office found that the manner of death was “undetermined,” the deputy medical examiner who conducted the autopsy claimed that Thomas had lethal levels of methamphetamine in his system, as well as PCP. Thus, defense counsel disagreed with the plaintiffs’ version of the incident and asserted that the officers’ use of force was reasonable under the totality of circumstances. Specifically, counsel asserted that Thomas was actively resisting the officers by being violently combative and resisting all commands. In addition, defense counsel contended that the officers’ actions did not cause Thomas’ death, as reflected in the toxicological findings and the conclusions of the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner-Coroner’s Office, as well as the Taser download analysis performed on the officers’ Tasers., Thomas died at the scene. He was affectionately known as “Daddy Daycare,” as he was allegedly very close to his children. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel noted hundreds of pictures with Thomas and the kids dressed up for Halloween, with Thomas cooking pancakes and being goofy with the kids. The Thomas’ eight children sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of their father. Defense counsel contended that Thomas had a history of mental illness, incarcerations, PCP usage, chest pains, and lived for a period of time as a transient.