On April 21, 2015, at approximately 11 p.m., plaintiff Justin Palmer, 36, an African American pharmacy technician, was charging his electric vehicle at a 24-hour electric car charging station on the premises of Virginia Avenue Park, in Santa Monica, when he was approached by two police officers. Palmer claimed the two city of Santa Monica police officers, R. Fujita and E. Navarro, instructed him to leave the premises because it was after 11 p.m., a violation of the Santa Monica Municipal Code park closure ordinance. When Palmer refused to do so, the officers requested a copy of his state driver’s license. Palmer claimed that when he refused to produce a copy of his identification, the officers threw him to the ground and sprayed him with pepper spray. He also claimed that while he was on the ground, the officers placed him in a figure-four leg hold and that he lost consciousness. Palmer was arrested and charged with violating the Santa Monica Municipal Code park closure ordinance and with resisting arrest. Shortly after his arrest, the officers took Palmer to the emergency department at UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, where he underwent minor treatments and was released to police custody. During the early morning of April 22, 2015, approximately 10 hours after Palmer’s arrest, a city of Santa Monica prosecutor rejected the charge, and Palmer was released from police custody. Palmer claimed to his head and a shoulder as a result of the incident. Palmer sued Officer E. Navarro and Officer R. Fujita, in their respective official and individual capacities; the officers’ employer, the city of Santa Monica; and the officers’ supervisor, the city’s chief of police, Jacqueline Seabrooks, in her official and individual capacity. Palmer alleged that the actions of Navarro and Fujita constituted excessive force, and assault and battery. He also alleged that Seabrooks and the city were liable for the actions of Navarro and Fujita. Prior to trial, plaintiff’s counsel voluntarily dismissed the assault and battery claims, as well as dismissed the city of Santa Monica and Police Chief Seabrooks as parties in the case. Additionally, the court granted defense counsel’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the arrest happened after the park was closed and that, therefore, the officers had probable cause to arrest Palmer. Thus, the court ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. As a result, the matter proceeded to trial with only the excessive force theory against the two officers. At trial, two eyewitnesses testified that Palmer was not resisting the police officers’ attempt to arrest him at the time of the incident. Palmer’s counsel contended that Navarro and Fujita used excessive force in executing Palmer’s arrest, especially since Palmer was not resisting the arrest. Counsel argued that the police officers did not have a legitimate reason for instructing Palmer to leave the charging station or for his arrest. The plaintiff’s expert in police practices and procedures opined that the level of force used by the officers was excessive and that the officers violated the city of Santa Monica Police Department’s policies regarding recording, writing, and reporting an individual’s arrest. Specifically, the expert testified that the officers waited 18 minutes before turning on the police vehicle’s audio and visual recording devices, which are required to be turned on before an arrest is executed by their employer. Defense counsel maintained that Palmer refused to leave the park despite numerous requests by the officers to do so and that Palmer refused to provide his identification so that the officers could issue him a citation. Counsel further maintained that Palmer then resisted the officers’ attempts to place him under arrest. Thus, defense counsel argued that the level of force used in Palmer’s arrest was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The defense’s expert in police practices and procedures opined that the officers’ arrest was appropriate and that the officers followed all applicable arrest and control procedures, given Palmer’s active resistance once the officers attempted to place him under arrest. However, according to plaintiff’s counsel, the defense’s expert in police practices and procedures conceded that if Palmer’s version of events and eyewitness testimony were to be believed, than the officers’ use of force was excessive., Palmer claimed that he sustained a concussion, a mild traumatic brain injury, post-concussive syndrome, and a tear of his right, dominant shoulder’s glenoid labrum. He was subsequently taken by the officers to UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, where he complained of pain to his head and right shoulder. Palmer then underwent minor treatment before being released to police custody. On April 23, 2015, two days after the incident, a relative drove Palmer back to UCLA Medical Center’s Santa Monica emergency room for further evaluation. During the second emergency room visit, Palmer complained of a pounding headache and head pain, and he was instructed to follow up with his family physician. All MRIs and CT scans performed that day, and thereafter, were normal. Approximately two weeks later, Palmer commenced a regimen of conservative treatments, which were rendered two-to-three times per week and included physical therapy exercises, balance therapy, pain medication, and steroid injections to his shoulder. After five months of aggressive rehabilitation exercises, Palmer underwent another MRI and was ultimately recommended for a surgical procedure. In October 2015, nearly six months after the incident, Palmer underwent an arthroscopic surgery to repair the tear of his right shoulder’s labrum. He then resumed physical therapy for an additional three-to-four months. Palmer, who dislocated his right shoulder as a teenager in high school, claimed that he developed cognitive impairments, short-term memory deficits, and chronic headaches that require prescription medication, Imitrex. He also claimed that he was diagnosed with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Palmer alleged that the incident was the proximate cause of his physical and psychological , the latter of which require ongoing and future treatment from neurologists and psychologists. He also alleged that as a result of the incident, he was required to take up holistic exercises — including yoga, meditation, and stretching exercises — to address the residual effects of his . Thus, Palmer sought a total recovery of $6.2 million dollars for his compensatory damages. He also sought recovery of punitive damages against Navarro and Fujita. Defense counsel argued that Palmer’s were no more than minor strains and sprains. The defense’s expert neurologist opined that Palmer did not suffer a traumatic brain injury and did not suffer a cognitive impairment either. The expert also opined that, at most, Palmer sustained a mild concussion that should have resolved entirely within a few months of the incident. The defense’s orthopedic surgery expert opined that Palmer’s shoulder injury was minor and that Palmer’s post-incident arthroscopic surgery was caused by Palmer’s numerous shoulder dislocations, which led to restricted range of motion prior to the incident. The parties ultimately stipulated that Palmer’s compensatory damages totaled $850,000.