On March 15, 2013, plaintiffs’ decedent Jason Hallstrom, 41, was a passenger in a Nissan sedan operated by plaintiff Travis Mock, 28. When they were near the Santa Ana Freeway, also known as Interstate 5, in Santa Ana, Police Officers Peter Picone and John Rodriguez, who were members of the since-disbanded “Strike Force” SWAT team, tried to stop the car for a nonfunctioning taillight. However, since Mock knew the vehicle was stolen, he did not yield to the officers. As a result, the officers continued to follow the car until Mock lost control of the vehicle trying to avoid driving down a one-way street in the wrong direction. As a result, the vehicle stopped when it became stuck in a hedge near the intersection of Cabrillo Park Road and Fourth Street. When Hallstrom and Mock exited the car, Hallstrom attempted to run east while Mock attempted to run north. Hallstrom was then shot twice by Rodriguez and Mock was shot once by Picone. Hallstrom ultimately died from his , while Mock sustained a through-and-through bullet wound and survived. Hallstrom’s mother and two minor daughters sued Rodriguez; Picone; and the officers’ employer, the city of Santa Ana, the operator of the Santa Ana Police Department. Hallstrom’s family alleged that the officers’ actions constituted battery, and unreasonable and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. They also alleged that city was liable for the officers’ actions and that the defendants were all liable for Hallstrom’s wrongful death. Hallstrom’s mother later amended her complaint to include Chief Carlos Rojas, Detective Leo Rodriguez, and Corporal Anthony Bertagna as defendants. She alleged that Rojas, Bertagna and Rodriguez were negligent for refusing to allow her to visit her dying son in the hospital. Mock brought a separate suit against John Rodriguez, Picone, and the city. He also alleged that John Rodriguez and Picone used unreasonable and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the city was liable for the officers’ actions. The matters were ultimately consolidated. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that although Mock knew the car he was driving was stolen, the officers did not know this, as they had checked the plate number and it had come back clean. Counsel also contended that both Hallstrom and Mock were unarmed. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that there was no reason to believe Hallstrom or Mock committed any crime, with the possible exception of them failing to stop their vehicle and attempting to run away. Counsel for Hallstrom’s family contended that John Rodriguez admitted that Hallstrom’s hands were visible, that there was nothing in them, and that he never saw anything that looked like a weapon. Counsel asserted that Hallstrom’s hands had never actually gone inside his waistband and, in fact, were in a normal running motion, as described by a credible civilian witness, and that Hallstrom’s hands necessarily moved alternately from his chest toward his waistband as part of this non-threatening motion. Counsel also asserted that the testimony from the civilian witness, the physical evidence, and a diagram drawn by John Rodriguez during his initial statement made it clear that Hallstrom was running away from John Rodriguez when the shots were fired. Counsel also noted that there was surveillance video showing Hallstrom continuing to run along the sidewalk with his arms in a running motion for a few seconds after the shooting. Thus, counsel asserted that John Rodriguez shot at Hallstrom from behind and that Hallstrom was struck twice in the back while he was running away from the officers. Mock claimed that as soon as he heard gunshots, he dove to the ground, but that he still sustained a through-and-through bullet wound to his upper back. Mock’s counsel disputed Picone’s claim that he fired a shot when Mock turned sideways, and contended that Mock’s wound was only possible because Mock’s body was in a plane parallel to the ground. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that John Rodriguez and Picone attempted to justify the shootings by interjecting various subjective beliefs and opinions regarding Hallstrom’s and Mock’s actions and motivations during the vehicle pursuit. However, counsel noted that the officers did not broadcast any of their alleged important observations over the police radio and that the officers only claimed in later interviews that they tried to use the police radio, but that they were unable to do so. Counsel also contended that John Rodriguez and Picone never mentioned most, if not all, of their alleged observations and opinions during their initial statements to investigators and that when the officers’ did articulate them later, they contradicted each other and their own prior statements. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that subjective opinions made by the police officers were irrelevant and inadmissible under Graham v. Connor. In addition, counsel contended that despite internal policies requiring a shooting review board to determine whether each use of deadly force was within policy and training, it was discovered that no such review had been conducted in this case, despite the passage of multiple years. Picone and John Rodriguez claimed that they began to follow the subject Nissan because of a nonfunctioning taillight, but that once they started to do so, they noticed that the vehicle’s occupants had tattoos and that such cars are commonly stolen. They also claimed they continued their pursuit when driver (Mock) failed to stop for them. They further claimed that they attempted to broadcast their observations over the police radio, but were unable to do so. John Rodriguez claimed that he ultimately shot Hallstrom because Hallstrom’s hand went toward his waistband area. He also claimed that Hallstrom’s upper body was facing him when he shot. Thus, he claimed that he feared for his life and that his actions were appropriate. Picone claimed that Mock turned his body sideways and reached for his waistband. He alleged that as a result, he feared for his life and the life of others, so he fired a shot at Mock. Thus, he claimed that his actions were appropriate., Hallstrom sustained two gunshot wounds and was subsequently taken to a hospital, where he remained there for eight days. He eventually succumbed to his on March 23, 2013. He was 41 years old, and he was survived by his mother and his two minor daughters. Hallstrom’s family claimed that they were profoundly affected by the loss of Hallstrom’s life. His mother also claimed that she was devastated by her inability to visit her son as he lay dying in the hospital. Although Hallstrom’s parole had recently been discharged, the Santa Ana Police Department held him on an alleged nonexistent, no-bail parolee-at-large warrant. Hallstrom’s mother, as well as his brother and uncle, made several attempts to visit Hallstrom, but were refused any information, let alone visitation, by both the hospital and various Santa Ana Police Department personnel under the auspices of “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.” Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the same Santa Ana Police Department officers later denied any memory or knowledge of the calls, and that during interrogatory responses, the Santa Ana Police Department was unable or unwilling to provide any reasons why visitation was denied. Hallstrom’s custody was ultimately transferred from the Santa Ana Police Department to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, which permitted members of his family to visit him in the hospital. Hallstrom’s mother brought a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause, alleging that the shooting deprived her of her familial relationship with Hallstrom. She also claimed that various Santa Ana Police Department personnel improperly deprived Hallstrom of visitors, including his mother, at the hospital in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, she sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress in connection with the loss of the familial relationship with her son, as well as her inability to visit him in the hospital. Hallstrom’s daughters sought recovery of survival damages for Hallstrom’s conscious pain and suffering, wrongful-death damages for the life-long loss of their father, and statutory attorney fees. Mock sustained a through-and-through gunshot wound and was subsequently taken to a hospital. Although he had numerous wounds, only one bullet struck him in the upper back, on the right side on his shoulder blade. Mock had bandages placed on all his wounds, and he was ultimately released. The wounds healed on their own, but Mock was charged and jailed for evading the police. He was sentenced to seven years, but due to Proposition 47 being passed in California, his other charges should be reduced and he should be able to leave jail sooner.