On Aug. 10, 2009, plaintiff Sona Vartanian, owner of the boat dealership Pacific Marine Center Inc., was approached on the premises of the dealership, located at 10452 Highway 41 in the county of Madera, by Scott Silva, an investigator for the Department of Motor Vehicles; Tom Wilson, a supervisor in the investigation department for the Department Motor Vehicles; Edward Essegian, a deputy sheriff for the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department; and other officers. As a result, Vartanian was presented with a search warrant. Vartanian claimed that the DMV did not have the authority to investigate her company or order a search. She also claimed that when she attempted to open the cash register in response to a request from one of the law enforcement officers, Essegian brandished his unholstered weapon at her and told her, “I would not do that if I were you.” She claimed that Silva, Wilson, Essegian and other unknown persons then ransacked the entire business office, threw files and records in disarray, seized certain records of the center and carried those records away in approximately 30 boxes. Vartanian, on behalf of herself and Pacific Marine Center, sued Silva, Wilson, Essegian and other enforcement officers, which included Chris Wagner, Dan Ayala, Kevin Buchanan, Gideon Coyle, George Imirian and Dan Horsford. She alleged that the defendants violated her Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and that Essegian subjected her to excessive force. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the DMV did not have the right to order a search of Pacific Marine Center, especially after an insurance investigation had previously investigated the company and found no illegal behavior. Counsel also claimed that much of the records seized were not recorded on the property receipt and have never been seen again. Plaintiff’s counsel alleged that Silva, Wilson and Essegian took Vartanian’s personal records, including materials used in her teaching at a local college, i.e. lesson plans, grading sheets and student records, and took her personal laptop computer, but did not record the taking of those records or the laptop computer on the property receipt. Plaintiff’s counsel also contended that Essegian and Wilson searched the personal vehicles of Vartanian and her brother, and that it was unknown what items were taken from those vehicles, except for the registration. In addition, counsel contended that the search warrant did not include the search of any vehicle or vessel. After the search warrant had been executed and the seizure of Vartanian’s and Pacific Marine Center’s property, Wilson told the press, “We have no evidence to say at this point that the actions [of fraud] have occurred.” The defendants contended that they had reason to believe that the center sold warranties to customers, but never provided those warranties and had stolen money from their customers. Defense counsel noted that on Aug. 5, 2009, Silva obtained a warrant to search the premises, as there was proof that there was probable cause that there was stolen or embezzled property, and property or things that were used as a means of committing a felony, as well as property or things that consist of any item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony. Wilson claimed that, prior to the issuance of the search warrant, the DMV investigators had gathered enough information of warranty theft and other criminal activity at the center to obtain a search warrant for the center. The matter ultimately proceeded to trial against Essegian only on the claim of excessive force in violation of Vartanian’s Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All other defendants were granted summary judgment and let out of the case prior to trial. At trial, Vartanian claimed that Essegian used excessive force by pointing his gun in her face as she attempted to access the cash register. Essegian denied ever drawing his weapon on Vartanian and claimed that he never confronted the plaintiff in this manner., Vartanian claimed emotional distress as a result of the incident. Thus, she sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress and resulting loss of her business at the boat dealership.