On the night of July 8, 2009, plaintiffs’ decedent Jeremy Lum, an unemployed 29 year old, left his home in Lathrop with his dog wearing nothing but a basketball shirt and basketball shorts. He then attempted to enter a neighbor’s house through a locked, front, screen door, insisting to the neighbor that someone he knew lived there and that he had been there before. The neighbor recognized that something was wrong with Lum, and talked calmly to him through the screen door while the neighbor’s wife called the police. Lum and his dog eventually wandered away and went across the street, first into a bar and then to stand on the edge of a park. Three San Joaquin County deputy sheriffs, including two sergeants riding together, showed up in response to the 911 call. One of the sergeants took the dog back to Lum’s residence a couple of blocks away while Lum was arrested and charged with being drunk. However, no testing was performed. At the county jail, seven miles away in French Camp, the junior-most deputy, Davis, handed over Lum to the processing jailer, Felipe Mendoza, who locked Lum in a cell with other arrestees. Mendoza admitted that when he checked on Lum, he saw him trying to open imaginary doors and “climbing the walls.” Lum was eventually released from the jail at 7 a.m., the next morning. Although he had arrived at the jail with no shoes, he left with somebody else’s shoes. Lum then walked out with no money, no cell phone, and no ability to get home. Lum was later reported missing, and the Sheriff’s Department assisted in the search for him. Lum was next seen three days later, floating dead in a canal a few miles from the jail. An autopsy revealed that Lum had drugs in his system, most notably MDMA, also known as Ecstasy. It is unknown how he got the drugs since he had no money and never made it home, and since nobody ever admitted to seeing him alive after he went out the jailhouse door. The decedent’s parents, plaintiffs Jerry Lum and Dorothea Timmons, sued the three responding deputy sheriffs, Deputy Davis, Sergeant Ray Waters and Sergeant Steven Pease; the processing jailer, Officer Felipe Mendoza; and their employer, the county of San Joaquin. The decedent’s parents alleged that their son was arrested in violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights to be free from unlawful search and seizure; that their son was arrested and incarcerated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132; that their son was deprived of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; and that the officers’ negligence resulted in their son’s wrongful death. Defense counsel filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, which were granted in part, thus eliminating portions of the case and dismissing the city of Lathrop, which was initially named as a defendant. Counsel for the remaining defendants then appealed certain rulings on the basis of qualified immunity for the officers. The 9th Circuit denied the appeal and sent the matter back for trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the decedent was a lifelong resident of Lathrop, where his family has lived for generations and owns several businesses and buildings, including the building that houses the police station. Counsel contended that on the night in question, the decedent left his home without money, a mobile phone or shoes, and was only wearing a basketball shirt and basketball shorts. Plaintiffs’ counsel maintained that when the decedent attempted to enter the neighbor’s house, the neighbor recognized that something was wrong and assumed that the decedent might have been high on drugs, since he did not detected an odor of alcohol on him. Counsel also maintained that while the decedent was standing on the edge of a park, an off-duty bartender passed by and exchanged pleasantries, while noticing nothing to indicate that the decedent was drunk. In addition, counsel maintained that the reporting neighbors claimed that they asked what was wrong and that one of the officers told them, “He’s just off his meds.” However, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Davis brought the decedent to jail without testing him and without mentioning anything about the decedent’s mental condition or his medications to Mendoza, the processing jailer. Counsel also contended that Mendoza knew the decedent from high school, where the decedent had been a star athlete, and that the decedent told Mendoza that he was bipolar, under a doctor’s care, and did not have his medications, but that Mendoza testified that he did not know what bipolar meant. Counsel contended that as a result, Mendoza negligently locked the decedent in a cell with other arrestees. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Mendoza was supposed to check on the decedent every 15 minutes, but that Mendoza admitted that he did not and, instead filled out a log sheet saying that he did. In addition, counsel argued that although two nurses wrote reports claiming that they examined the decedent and that he was in fine condition, videotape inside the jail substantiated neither nurse’s claim of examining him. In fact, counsel argued that one of the nurse’s reports said that she examined the decedent 30 minutes after he was shown to have been released from the jail at 7 a.m. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the decedent’s death resulted from the negligence of the defendants in ignoring his condition and taking him to jail, rather than a mental health facility. Counsel also argued that the decedent’s death also resulted from the negligence of the defendants in failing to have him properly evaluated once he was in jail and in releasing him into a situation made dangerous by his medical condition without first having him receive proper medical attention. Defense counsel contended that the defendants initially tried to talk with the decedent, but that the decedent was staggering in the street and essentially incoherent. Counsel also contended that the decedent had vomit on his shirt and smelled of alcohol. In addition, counsel contended that the decedent said nothing about being on medication. Thus, defense counsel argued that the officers properly arrested the decedent because it reasonably appeared that he was drunk. The decedent was staggering in the middle of the street near midnight, incoherent, with no shoes on, vomit on his shirt, bloodshot eyes, and an odor of alcohol. Counsel contended that under those circumstances, where a person is so drunk he is unable to care for himself, California law directs that he be brought into custody for his own safety. Defense counsel maintained that the officers located the decedent’s father’s cell phone number and telephoned him, but that he did not answer the call. However, the officer left a detailed message, stating that they had the decedent and wanted the father to come get him, but that the father did not return the message. Defense counsel contended that earlier in the evening, the decedent’s father saw the decedent and believed that he might be in distress, but did nothing about it. Counsel also contended that the officers tried to get other family members’ numbers from the decedent, but that the decedent was unable to give them any numbers. In addition, counsel contended that the officers searched their mobile computers and located some numbers, which they called, but that they were unable to make contact with any family members. Thus, defense counsel argued that the officers made diligent efforts to locate family members, but none responded. Defense counsel contended that the decedent was ultimately arrested because the officers believed that he was drunk and unable to care for himself and because the officers could not locate family to take the decedent. As a result, Davis brought the decedent to the county jail to sober up. Once at the county jail, Davis delivered the decedent to the jail, advising that he was arrested because he was drunk in public and unable to care for himself. Defense counsel argued that while in the jail, the decedent continued to exhibit signs of intoxication early in his stay. Mendoza even admitted that when he checked on the decedent, he saw him trying to open imaginary doors and “climbing the walls.” Defense counsel contended that as a result, the decedent was examined on multiple occasions by nurses and then by a release officer, all of whom concluded that the decedent was sobering up and was eventually sober enough to be released. Counsel contended that when the nursing staff checked on the decedent multiple times, they noted that the decedent was in fine condition and sleeping most of the time. Counsel also contended that the decedent was examined again by nursing staff, just before his release, and that he was fine. In addition, a release officer examined the decedent to determine if he was ok to be released and that he noted that the decedent was fine to be released. Defense counsel maintained that the decedent, who had no shoes on when he was arrested, took another inmate’s shoes on his way out. Counsel also maintained that the decedent did not use the lobby pay phone to make a collect call to have someone pick him up or request a bus pass that would have allowed him to board a bus at the nearby bus stop for free transportation home. Thus, defense counsel argued that the chain of causation was broken after the decedent was released from jail. Counsel noted that although it is unknown how the decedent got the drugs, it is known that the decedent was a user of recreational drugs. So, sometime in the three days after his release, the decedent apparently located drugs. Judge Morrison England Jr. ultimately ruled that there was no liability as to the defendants’ decision to release the decedent from jail., Jeremy Lum was found dead, floating in a canal a few miles from the jail. An autopsy revealed that he had drugs in his system, most notably MDMA, also known as Ecstasy. The decedent was 29 years old. He was a big-wave surfer in Hawaii who was unemployed at the time, but previously worked in auto financing. The decedent was the oldest of four children and while his parents are divorced, he remained close with both of them, seeing one or the other on a near-daily basis. Thus, the decedent’s parents sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of their son.