In June 2014, plaintiff Alexa Curtin, 22, was at her then-boyfriend’s home, in Dana Point, when the couple got into an argument. As a result, sheriff’s deputies arrived at the scene. An on-duty sheriff’s deputy, Nicholas Caropino, eventually offered to drive Curtin to her car, which was parked nearby. Once there, Caropino allegedly made inappropriate comments about Curtin’s underwear, which he found in her car. Caropino ordered Curtin to stay in her vehicle as he left and returned in his vehicle a short while later, out of uniform. Caropino then got into the passenger seat of her car, and raped her. Curtin sued Caropino and Caropino’s employer, the county of Orange. Another deputy, “Epson,” was initially named in the suit, but the deputy was ultimately dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter continued against Caropino and the county only. Judge Stephen Wilson explained to the jury during the civil trial that there was no evidence to dispute Curtin’s testimony because, when he was asked about the incident, Caropino invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Thus, Wilson told the jurors that there was no question that the rape occurred and that their job, instead, was to determine if the sheriff’s department’s policy contributed to it. As a result, the trial was bifurcated, with the first phase, as to liability, set to determine whether or not the county’s policy was a moving force behind the rape and the second phase set to determine damages. During the liability phase, plaintiff’s counsel noted that in February 2014, a San Juan Capistrano woman made similar accusations against Caropino, alleging that Caropino came to her home following her release from jail in September 2013 and sexually assaulted her there. Counsel contended that the sheriff’s department’s policy to toll internal investigations allowed Caropino to remain on patrol duty and remain in contact with the public, even as he was under criminal investigation for the first sexual assault allegation. A District Attorney criminal investigation into Caropino’s conduct resulted in no charges, but in August 2015, the sheriff’s department issued a notice of dismissal to Caropino. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the county was responsible for Caropino’s alleged assault on Curtin due to the sheriff’s department’s policy, which stalled the department’s internal probe while a criminal investigation was underway. Counsel contended that the policy meant that Caropino was not placed on leave until nine months after the first sexual-assault allegation and allowed Caropino to remain on-duty. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the department’s policy was a moving force in causing the alleged sexual assault. The county’s counsel argued that Caropino was not in uniform during the incident and was not acting in his capacity as a sheriff’s deputy during the alleged assault. Counsel further argued that the county’s policy to toll internal investigations was sound and was not a causal factor in the alleged assault., Curtin contended that the rape severely impacted her life and caused her to suffer from anxiety, panic attacks, and night terrors. She also contended that she continues to struggle with trusting men and people in a position of authority, specifically law enforcement officers. Thus, Curtin sought recovery of damages for her pain, suffering, and emotional distress.