In the early morning hours of Aug. 26, 2006, plaintiff Antonio Steward, 17, a student, was with his two friends, sitting on a nearby apartment stairwell outside the apartment house complex he lived at on Arrow Boulevard in Fontana. A group of about 10 males were drinking and partying nearby. At around 12:30 a.m., a security guard, employed by Stratus Security Services Inc., which provided security for the complex, approached the group of men and allegedly told them about a noise complaint and then walked away. When the guard went to his car to write a daily activity report, Roosevelt Turner, a member of the local Crips gang, tried to get a cigarette from Antonio, but then shot him multiple times. Turner is currently serving two consecutive life-with-possibility-of-parole prison sentences stemming from the shooting. Antonio and his parents, Steve Steward and Annie Bessie Camp, sued Stratus Security Services Inc.; A&A Protective Services Inc.; Sherif Antoon; Saly Antoon; CF Aventerra, LC; DFT Inc.; Picerne Management Co. Inc.; and C.F. Aventerra, L.P. CF Aventerra, LC, DFT Inc., Picerne Management Co. Inc. and C.F. Aventerra, L.P. were ultimately dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter proceeded to a trifurcated trial against the remaining defendants. The first phase was an “Alter Ego” trial, followed by a trial on liability and then a trial on damages. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Stratus Security; its owner, Saly Antoon; A&A Protective Services; and its owner, Sherif Antoon, were all essentially one and the same entities, with significant co-mingling and overlapping of assets, employees and effort. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Turner was part of the group of men partying nearby and that the party consisted of alleged gang members. Counsel also contended that after the security guard told the group of men about the noise complaint, Turner approached Antonio and shot him nine times. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the security guard should have told Antonio and his friends to go inside because it was too dangerous. Counsel also argued that the security guard failed to perform the duties that were required of him by not breaking up the party, by not identifying who the 10 individuals were visiting, and by not calling 911 to report what he believed to be gang members partying on the premises. Counsel further argued that the security guard failed to remain in the area to observe and report and that when he left the area by walking past Antonio, the security guard failed to warn and advise Antonio that he was not permitted to loiter on the stairs after 10 p.m., per apartment rules. Stratus Security and A&A Protective claimed that they were separate corporations and that all corporate formalities were followed. Stratus Security’s counsel contended the Stratus security guard was only a “courtesy patrol,” and was only there to report improper activity to the management, and not to prevent crime. Counsel also contended that the security guard’s only duties were to be the “eyes and ears” of management at the complex and to do various minor activities, such as closing both the pool and laundry room at 10 p.m. Defense counsel disputed that the individuals the security guard had approached at the outdoor party were the same individuals that shot Antonio. In addition, defense counsel argued that the shooting was unforeseeable and that it was an unpreventable, random act of violence., Antonio sustained nine gunshot wounds, his chest, stomach, testicles, scrotum, shoulder and foot. He was subsequently taken by ambulance to a hospital. As a result of a lack of blood flow to the limbs, a complication of the gunshot wounds, Antonio developed gangrene and had to have both of his legs amputated above the knee that same day. He also underwent 56 additional surgeries, during which more than 40 percent of his stomach was removed. Antonio continues to suffer from pain to his shoulder, back, stomach and rectum, as well as phantom pain from his missing limbs. He also must eat a very restrictive diet and suffers from extensive digestive issues. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that as a result, Antonio will battle numerous infections and will need at least 40 more surgeries, as well as need constant care for the rest of his life. Counsel also contended that the effectiveness of the care and therapy will determine how long Antonio has to live. Despite his wounds, Antonio was able to walk across stage with prosthetics in his delayed graduation from Alta Loma High School in 2009. However, his prosthetic legs broke in a fall a few years ago and now no longer fit. In addition, his prosthetic legs have not been replaceable since an insurance change with his 21st birthday. Antonio is now 24 years old and lives with his parents in an apartment unequipped for his disabilities. Antonio also volunteers at Loma Linda University Medical Center, where he counsels new amputees. Thus, Antonio sought recovery of $545,022.34 in stipulated past medical costs, $3,488,767 for his future life care plan, $159,473 for his past loss of earnings, and $1,306,787 for his future loss of earnings. In addition, he sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed Antonio’s residual damages. Thus, defense counsel argued that Antonio’s damages actually consist of $165,248 in past lost earnings, $870,537 in future loss of earnings and $2,143,114 for his future life care plan.