On Dec. 29, 2010, plaintiffs’ decedent Vinh “Tony” Bui, 46, was at his home in San Francisco’s Portola neighborhood while his 15-year-old niece was hosting a gathering for more than a dozen classmates. However, Bui had an emotional disorder that caused him to become agitated and sometimes violent upon hearing loud noises and the slamming of doors. As a result, when one of the niece’s friends slammed the bathroom door, Bui became upset, went to the bathroom door, and followed the friend out when she exited. He then stabbed the friend in the back with a small razor-sharp X-ACTO knife. After the stabbing, San Francisco police officers were summoned to Bui’s home by a 911 call. When the officers responded, they confirmed that a crime had occurred and attempted to arrest Bui, who was located somewhere inside the house. San Francisco Police Officers Timothy Ortiz and Austin Wilson eventually located Bui in a back room and asked him to come out of the room. Instead, Bui advanced toward the officers while armed with a knife. After refusing to drop the knife, Bui was shot twice in the chest. He subsequently died 45 minutes later. The decedent’s parents, Chien Van Bui and Ai Huyhn Bui, sued Ortiz; Wilson; and the officers’ employer, the city and county of San Francisco. The decedent’s parents alleged that the officers used excessive force in violation of the decedent’s civil rights and caused the decedent’s wrongful death. They also alleged that the city and county of San Francisco were liable for the officers’ actions. Defense counsel argued that the officers were protected by qualified immunity, but the District Court denied the qualified immunity claims. As a result, the defendants made an interlocutory appeal of the District Court’s denial. The Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ultimately affirmed the district court’s decision in part and reversed it in part. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that Ortiz and Wilson were entitled to immunity on the Fourteenth Amendment familial interference claim because there was not enough evidence to prove that they acted with conscious or reckless disregard by shooting the decedent. However, it also found that Ortiz and Wilson were not automatically immune from liability in regard to the Bui family’s excessive force claim. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial on the family’s excessive force claims against the police officers. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the house was calm and that no one was in danger when the officers arrived. Thus, counsel argued that the officers had plenty of time to understand the situation, come up with a plan and consider alternatives to shooting the decedent, which could have saved the decedent’s life. The plaintiffs’ police practices and procedures expert opined that the police tactics leading up to the shooting were negligent. Defense counsel contended that the officers did not know of the decedent’s mental diagnosis and that the decedent was only shot after he refused to drop the knife, continued to advance toward the officers, and threatened the officers and others with great bodily injury or imminent threat of death. Specifically, counsel contended that the officers retreated as they repeatedly told the decedent to drop the knife, but that the decedent refused. Counsel also contended that the officers walked backward down a 15-foot hallway, pointing their guns at the decedent, as they continued to order him to drop the knife, but that the decedent continued to advance toward them down the hallway. Defense counsel argued that it was only when the officers ran out of room to retreat and the decedent advanced to within 5 feet of them that they fired their guns, killing the decedent. The defense’s police practices and procedures expert opined that the police tactics used by the officers leading up to the shooting were reasonable. The expert also opined that the police exhausted all available means to apprehend the decedent and that the police’s use of force was reasonable and consistent with their training and policy., Vinh Van Bui, 46, sustained two gunshot wounds to his chest and died 45 minutes later. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Bui was a beloved member of a close-knit family. Bui was born in Vietnam as the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War was escalating. His father was a soldier in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, allied with the U.S., as his mother took care of Bui and his four siblings. In 1975, the Vietnam War ended, so Bui’s father was out of a job. In order to scrape by, the family sold handwoven baskets that Bui helped deliver. However, five years later, his parents began to worry that Bui would be drafted. As a result, family members living in the U.S. were able to sponsor Bui’s immigration, and Bui and one sister moved to San Francisco by way of a refugee camp in Thailand. Bui was then a busboy for several years while his family members worked to sponsor immigration for his parents. Eventually, the extended family was reunited and living in their three-bedroom house. Thus, the decedent’s father, Chien Van Bui, and his mother, Ai Huyhn Bui, sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of their son.