On Oct. 10, 2010, at approximately midnight, plaintiff Frederick Ortega, 49, was at his residence when officers from the Ontario Police Department arrived to investigate a report of a stolen trailer in his driveway. Upon arrival and confirming the trailer was stolen, the officers met Ortega’s wife and indicated that they wished to speak to her husband. Ortega’s wife then informed her husband of the officer’s desire to speak with him, but Ortega communicated to her that he did not wish to speak with them. Ortega’s wife ultimately agreed that the officers may enter the residence, but she indicated that she first desired to remove her granddaughter from inside the home. However, before Ortega’s wife was able to remove her granddaughter, the officers entered the home and confronted Ortega, during which a trained police canine bit Ortega on his bicep. Ortega was ultimately arrested and charged with possession of stolen property, but the case against him was dismissed. Ortega sued Officers Nick Lefler, Ryan Holmes, Ruben Espinoza, Joseph Barron, Kristie Harris and Ryan Ronveaux, as well as Sergeant Caldera, Corporal Odell and Officer Mikkelsen. Ortega also sued the officers’ supervisor, Chief of Police Eric Hopley, and their employers, the city of Ontario and the City of Ontario Police Department. Harris was later dismissed out of the case. Ortega claimed that the officers lacked consent to enter his residence, lacked probable cause to arrest him, and employed excessive force against him. He alleged that the officers wrongfully entered his residence even though his wife expressly told them they could not enter until after she removed her granddaughter. He also alleged that he was lying down and showing his hands when the officers proceeded to enter the room, but one of them jumped on his bed. Ortega alleged that as a result, he rolled over on top of his granddaughter to shield her from the officers as they shocked him twice with a Taser and struck him more than 20 times before his granddaughter was then removed from his arms. He alleged that thereafter, he was handcuffed, but that the police canine was deployed on him, biting him, while he was still handcuffed. Thus, Ortega claimed the defendants’ actions constituted negligence, assault and battery, conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of his civil rights under §§ 1981, 1983 and 1986. Defense counsel noted that Ortega’s wife had made the initial report about the stolen trailer. Counsel contended that the officers considered a number of factors before determining that Ortega’s wife could not re-enter her residence and before they entered the home armed with the necessary non-lethal weapons. The officers claimed that they found Ortega in his bedroom with his granddaughter, but that he made no clear indication of surrender. The officers also claimed that Ortega appeared to position his granddaughter between himself and them, and that after removing the child, Ortega continued to physically refuse to surrender. Thus, defense counsel contended that the officers were required to escalate force to gain control of Ortega, which included the use of a Taser, distraction blows, and the deployment of a canine. Counsel also contended that Ortega’s wife provided valid consent to enter the premises and that the officers employed reasonable, appropriate force in response to the physical threat posed by Ortega. Counsel further contended that as a result, the officers had probable cause to arrest Ortega., Ortega sustained a bite injury to his bicep and Taser burns. He claimed he requires plastic surgery to treat his bite wound. Thus, Ortega sought recovery of $6,000 for his total past medical costs, $15,000 for his future medical costs that would include plastic surgery, and an unspecified amount of damages for his pain and suffering.