On Nov. 19, 2017, plaintiff Juan Murillo Guerrero, 48, a contractor, was working with his son, plaintiff Edwin Murillo Ceja, 16, performing minor renovations at a commercial property in Santa Ana. While they were utilizing a dumpster at the property by filling it with debris, the got into an altercation with three males, including Mark Marquez and Albert Marquez, who were handymen and independent contractors working for Walsworth Property Management Inc., and an unidentified male named "Ricky." Murillo Guerrero claimed that the males assaulted him and that William Walsworth, the manager at the property who was in the course and scope of his employment with Walsworth Property Management, looked on during the incident. Edwin, who was caught up in the altercation, claimed that he also witnessed the assault and that he suffered emotional distress as a result of witnessing the fight. Murillo Guerrero claimed head from the assault. Murillo Guerrero and his son, Edwin, sued Walsworth Property Management Inc.; Walsworth; Mark Marquez; Albert Marquez; and the owner of the property, Sandra Marill Chandler. Murillo Guerrero and Edwin alleged that Murillo Guerrero was assaulted and battered at the direction of Walsworth and that Walsworth Property Management was vicariously liable. They also alleged that Walsworth and the handymen were not adequately supervised. Edwin dismissed his claims after settling with Walsworth Property Management. The individual defendants were also dismissed from the case, and the matter continued with Murillo Guerrero’s claims against Walsworth Property Management only. Murillo Guerrero claimed that Walsworth initiated the fight, as he was allegedly upset about the dumpster being used, and that Walsworth asked Mark Marquez and Albert Marquez to assault Murillo Guerrero. He also claimed that Walsworth failed to stop the fight. Defense counsel contended that Murillo Guerrero and Edwin started the fight and that Walsworth did not summon Mark Marquez and Albert Marquez to the location., Murillo Guerrero was taken to a hospital. He claimed he suffered a traumatic brain injury. Murillo Guerrero alleged that he suffered from vision problems, including light sensitivity and a dilated pupil, due to his TBI and that his conditions are permanent. Murillo Guerrero sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering only. Defense counsel contended that, according to medical records, Murillo Guerrero suffered from the dilated pupil even before the subject incident. Counsel also denied that Murillo Guerrero suffered a TBI, and maintained that Murillo Guerrero only sustained a concussion, at most. The defense’s medical experts noted that Murillo Guerrero had a Glasgow coma scale of 15/15 at the scene, the maximum score for a fully awake individual. Defense counsel also noted that body camera footage showed Murillo Guerrero alert and oriented minutes after the incident. In addition, defense counsel noted that Murillo Guererro had a negative head CT scan and negative brain MRI in the emergency room, which counsel contended showed that there was no permanent brain injury.