On April 11, 2012, at approximately 11 a.m., plaintiff Sergio Arreola, 27, a rookie in the Los Angeles Police Department’s Central Division, finished a graveyard shift on patrol and headed to Pomona to pick up his wife. While he was driving, his wife called and asked Arreola to meet her in a nearby residential area, where her sister-in-law’s car had two flat tires. Upon arrival at the intersection of Bluegrass Place and Phillips Drive, in Pomona, Arreola saw Eric Hamilton, an officer with the Pomona Police Department, at the scene investigating question Arreola’s wife about what appeared to be an accident. Arreola parked his car approximately 40 feet away and called over to his wife. Hamilton questioned why Arreola was there and Arreola tried to explain that he was an officer with the LAPD. Arreola then retrieved his LAPD jacket and badge from his trunk in order to show the Pomona Police Department officer. After the brief interaction, Arreola was asked to move his vehicle, and he ultimately complied. Worried that he was losing control of the situation, Hamilton put out a “Code 3” call (a call asking responders to proceed immediately with lights and sirens) over the radio, asking for assistance to deal with an LAPD officer. Pomona Police Department Corporal William Tucker arrived on scene, followed by other officers. Hamilton briefed Tucker of the situation and Tucker decided to pat Arreola down. At the end of the pat-down, both Tucker and Hamilton physically took Arreola to the ground and arrested him. Arreola claimed that once they were on the ground, the officers punched him repeatedly. He also claimed Hamilton violently bent his left arm back and Tucker placed him in a choke hold. Arreola was charged by the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office with violations of Penal Code § 69 (resisting arrest with use of force or violence) and Penal Code § 148 (resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duties) based on the police report submitted by Hamilton and Tucker. As a result of the arrest, Arreola was released from the LAPD. A criminal trial eventually ensued, and Arreola was acquitted. Arreola sued Eric Hamilton; William Tucker (who was erroneously sued as “Chris Tucker”); and their employer, the city of Pomona. Arreola alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted false arrest, excessive force, First Amendment retaliation, racial discrimination and malicious prosecution in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Arreola denied being hostile toward any of the officers, and claimed that it was Hamilton who was initially hostile. Arreola alleged that as he arrived at the scene, he saw Hamilton yelling at this wife and asked what was going on, to which Hamilton responded by angrily swearing at him. He claimed that he identified himself as an off-duty LAPD officer, but that Hamilton demanded to see his badge, so he went to his trunk to pull out his jacket, where he had pinned his badge, and lifted it up for the officer to see. He further claimed that once the other officers arrived at the scene, Tucker commenced a pat-down and intentionally pulled him off balance while he was being frisked. Arreola denied ever resisting the officers, and claimed that he complied with the pat-down procedure and responded to all questions asked, but that when he stumbled during the pat-down, the offers used it as an excuse to take him to the ground. In addition, Arreola claimed that once on the ground Hamilton and Tucker used excessive force by punching him, bending his arm back and putting him in a chock hold, all while he was not resisting and telling them that he wasn’t resisting them. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that during the incident, Hamilton had activated his belt recorder device. Counsel then presented a recording of Hamilton saying, after the force and arrest, “Yeah, I almost broke his f–king arm. I wanted to break his arm.” He was also heard saying to Arreola’s wife, “I’m going to make sure your husband is never a police officer in the state of California again. I’ll call Chief Beck (the LAPD Chief) myself personally.” Tucker was also heard saying on the recording, while laughing, “I choked his a– out.” Both the plaintiff’s and the defense’s experts agreed that choking someone is a violation of Police Officer Selection Test and that “wanting” to break someone’s arm violates that test. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel noted that although Hamilton and Tucker were recorded as basically saying that pain compliance techniques were used on Arreola’s arm and that a choking maneuver was used, neither of those use-of-force applications was documented in the Pomona police report, even though such maneuvers must be documented under Pomona Police Department policy. Hamilton maintained that Arreola showed up on scene, stopped his vehicle in the middle of the roadway, was aggressive and agitated, and attempted to show the his LAPD jacket and badge from a distance of 40 feet by going into his trunk when he was not asked to do so. He claimed that he was so suspicious of Arreola’s actions that he unclasping the safety lock on his gun holster and kept a grip on his weapon as Arreola moved toward the trunk of his car. He alleged that as a result, he called for immediate assistance because he was afraid he was losing control of the situation. Hamilton further claimed that even though he asked Arreola to move his car from the middle of the roadway, it took three requests before Arreola eventually complied. Tucker claimed that after he arrived on the scene, while he was being briefed by Hamilton, he noticed that Arreola’s demeanor was “extremely angry.” He alleged that as a result, he decided to pat Arreola down for reasons of officer safety, since he was not sure whether Arreola was, in fact, an off-duty police officer or whether Arreola was armed. However, Tucker claimed that during the pat-down, Arreola resisted and attempted to punch Hamilton. Defense counsel argued that Arreola had unlawfully interfered with an on-going traffic accident investigation and that Arreola then resisted, delayed and obstructed the officers during the investigation. Counsel further argued that during the pat-down search, Arreola refused to follow the officers’ instructions and resisted the officers’ efforts to handcuff or otherwise restrain him by twisting, tensing up, and pulling his arms from the officers’ grasp., Arreola claimed he suffered abrasions, bruising and other associated with the physical takedown and struggle. He testified that he thought he was going to die during the application of the carotid restraint. The day after Arreola’s arrest, he was given the option of resigning or being terminated by the LAPD. When he refused to resign because he believed he had done nothing wrong, Arreola was terminated. Thereafter, he was unemployed in any capacity for 13 months, before eventually being reinstated after the criminal acquittal. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that they contacted the LAPD after Arreola was acquitted, and Arreola was consequently returned to the LAPD as a full-time officer. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Arreola was literally subjected to “torture” for 75 seconds during the struggle with the officers and that as a result, Arreola was deserving of a large verdict. Thus, counsel asked the jury to award Arreola between $11.5 million and $13.5 million. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Arreola’s loss-of-earnings claim alone was $65,000. Defense counsel contended that if the defendants were found negligent, than something in the neighborhood of $95,000 to $162,500 would be just, fair and reasonable.