On Aug. 16, 2015, plaintiff Eliel Paulino, 27, a construction worker, was driving home when he was pulled over near his apartment complex on Cadillac Drive, near the intersection with Winchester Boulevard, in San Jose. Police Officers Marco Cruz, Gerardo Silva and Gurbaksh Sohal worked the traffic stop, which turned into a driving-under-the-influence investigation after Paulino admitted he had been drinking earlier. Paulino claimed that the officers became combative when he told his father, who saw the stop from their apartment, to lock his truck if he was arrested. Paulino also claimed that he sustained to his upper, right arm during the altercation. Paulino was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and resisting arrest. However, the district attorney’s office later dropped the charges after a video of the incident surfaced. Paulino sued Cruz, Silva and Sohal, alleging that the officers used excessive force. Paulino filed one claim of excessive force, under U.S.C. § 1983, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and one claim of battery under California state law. Paulino claimed that as he was standing near the front, quarter panel of a patrol car, Cruz grabbed him, swung him around, and threw him to the ground, hitting him three times with a baton in the process. He also claimed that Cruz kneeled on his back and that Sohal struck him another 11 times while he was on the ground. Paulino alleged that during the altercation, his left hand became pinned beneath him, causing his right, dominant arm to take all the blows. Although he only claimed two of the officers struck him, Paulino contended that Silva was liable because Silva did nothing to stop the altercation despite the fact that officers are trained to intervene when they see excessive force being used. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that police officers have a duty to prevent the use of excessive force and that even though only two officers struck Paulino with batons, all three officers were responsible for the incident. In addition, counsel played a video for the jury that caught part of the incident. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the video showed Paulino being cooperative and non-combative with the officers before Paulino was thrown to the ground and beaten. The plaintiff’s police practices expert opined that the officers’ use of batons was unnecessary and that, based on the video and a civilian witness’ statement, Paulino was at no point a threat to the officers. The officers claimed that Paulino was being unruly and combative and that the use of force was legal and justified. The defense’s expert in police practices and procedures opined that the officers acted appropriately., Paulino sustained lacerations and significant bruising to his right, dominant arm. He was subsequently taken to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, in San Jose, where he had four staples placed in his upper, right arm to treat the lacerations. The staples were ultimately removed two weeks later. Paulino claimed he had no residual effects from the incident. Thus, he sought recovery of damages for his past pain and suffering and for the violation of his civil rights. He also sought recovery of punitive damages against each of the police officers.