On May 12, 2015, plaintiff Timothy Sharp, a small business owner, was sitting in his car in El Monte, outside of the El Monte courthouse, when Detectives Ray Larriva and J. Anastasia approached his vehicle. Larriva then knocked on the vehicle’s window and told Sharp that he was under arrest for distribution of illegal fireworks and conspiracy to distribute illegal fireworks. Sharp was at the courthouse earlier that day to support his friend and landlord, who was on trial for illegally possessing and distributing approximately 10 tons of fireworks. In that case, the judge granted a motion to suppress the fireworks evidence as a result of an unlawful search. Just after the criminal trial had recessed for the day, Larriva arrested Sharp. Larriva claimed the arrest was based on additional video evidence that was produced by the defendant in the criminal matter, which allegedly showed Sharp being part of the illegal fireworks distribution. Sharp was charged with nine felonies and one misdemeanor. He spent two days in jail, and he became a co-defendant alongside his friend and landlord. All charges against Sharp were ultimately dropped. Sharp sued Larriva; Anastasia; and the believed employers of the detectives, the city of El Monte, the El Monte Police Department, the city of Los Angeles and the county of Los Angeles. Sharp alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted violations of his civil and constitutional rights to be free from an unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The matter ultimately continued against Larriva only. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that during Sharp’s brief criminal trial, Larriva claimed that he told the district attorney about the many hours of security camera evidence that he had allegedly reviewed in the months between the videos being produced by the defense and the arrest of Sharp. Larriva also claimed that he believed it showed Sharp loading fireworks into a truck for distribution, among other things. However, plaintiff’s counsel noted that Larriva admitted that he could not make out faces in the video recordings. Plaintiff’s counsel further noted that, in a police report, Larriva alleged that he had discussed the videos with Los Angeles County Prosecutor Linda Chilstrom and that Sharp’s arrest stemmed from a mutual agreement between them, but that during the criminal trial, Chilstrom stated on the record that she did not recall that conversation. Counsel argued that since faces could not be made out in the video recordings, and since Chilstrom claimed that she did not recall agreeing to have Sharp arrested and charged in the fireworks matter, there was no reason to arrest or imprison Sharp. Larriva claimed that while he could not make out faces in the video recordings, it was a judgment call based on Sharp’s physical build and clothing. He also claimed that he had probable cause to arrest Sharp based on information provided from a confidential informant. In response, plaintiff’s counsel noted that during the trial, Chilstrom denied that any confidential informant existed., Sharp claimed that after criminal charges were filed against him, vendors refused to work with him, even though the charges were later dropped. He alleged that as a result, he was forced to move and live with his sister. Sharp also claimed that he suffers from emotional distress as a result of the events.    Sharp sought recovery of lost wages, and damages for his emotional pain and suffering. He also sought recovery of punitive damages against Larriva for his alleged misconduct.