On May 28, 2008, Alberto Gutierrez was arrested by Los Angeles police for allegedly threatening his wife, Mayela Gutierrez Gil. On June 2, 2008, Gil obtained a restraining order against Gutierrez. A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department detective, Phillip Solano, then began investigating an alleged violation of the restraining order, which allegedly occurred on June 13, 2008. On Sept. 11, 2008, Solano and another detective took Gutierrez into custody as a result of the alleged restraining order violation. In March 2009, Gutierrez reported to a Sheriff’s Department deputy, Russell Verduzco, that Gil had threatened him at a local gas station and that it was captured by security video cameras. Gutierrez claimed that he and Verduzco subsequently visited the gas station and viewed the video footage, confirming that Gil made the threats. Verduzco then interviewed Gil at her home, where she informed Verduzco that Solano was investigating her claims against Gutierrez, prompting Verduzco to call Solano. Gutierrez claimed that he received a call from Verduzco and was threatened with retaliation if he didn’t leave Gil alone. He further claimed that Verduzco failed to pursue charges against Gil at the behest of Solano. In April of 2010, a criminal trial took place, in which a jury acquitted Gutierrez of the charges related to the restraining order violations and the judge dismissed the other pending charges. Gutierrez filed a federal suit against Solano, Gil, Verduzco and their employer, the county of Los Angeles. He alleged, under 42 USC § 1983, that Solano arrested him without probable cause; that Solano and Verduzco failed to disclose material impeaching evidence; that Solano, Verduzco and Gil conspired to violate his due process right; and that the county permitted the deputies to have intimate personal relationships with victims. Prior to trial, the county of Los Angeles moved for summary judgment. The court determined that a custom/practice of the deputies engaging in improper relationships with victims did not exist. Thus, it granted the summary judgment motion, and the county was dismissed from the case. Gutierrez contended that during the criminal trial, it was disclosed for the first time that Solano and Gil were “friends” on Facebook, and that Solano sent Gil a message written in Spanish that read, “How are you, precious. I miss you a lot.” He also contended that Gil admitted she sent Solano a text message after her testimony at the criminal trial, warning him that the Facebook message had come out during her cross examination. Gutierrez claimed that during the investigation of the alleged restraining order violations, there were approximately 50 phone calls and 50 text messages between Solano and Gil. Thus, Gutierrez’s counsel argued that Solano lacked probable cause to arrest him in September 2008, and that Solano failed to disclose the Facebook messages and various phone calls and text messages between him and Gil. Counsel also argued that Verduzco failed to disclose what he had seen on the gas station video tape, and that Solano, Gil and Verduzco had conspired to violate Gutierrez’s due process rights and have him illegally imprisoned. Defense counsel argued that Gutierrez’s claims were barred because his arrest was based on probable cause. They further argued that the claim was barred because Gutierrez was not convicted in the criminal trial. Defense counsel also argued that Solano and Verduzco were entitled to qualified immunity., Gutierrez claimed that he had to endure 18 months of criminal proceedings, with the possibility of imprisonment looming. He also claimed that during the May 2008 arrest, he was jailed in the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail and strip-searched. Gutierrez contended that the fear of having to suffer such dehumanizing conditions for three years caused him great anxiety. He also contended that the thought of being away from his three young daughters for three years was intolerably painful. Thus, he sought recovery of compensatory and punitive damages.