On Oct. 7, 2009, plaintiff Tatiana Lopez, 25, a student, was a front seat passenger in a vehicle operated by her fiancé, plaintiff Miguel Amarillas, 27, an oil field electrician. As they were traveling west on Imperial Highway in the city of Downey, a traffic stop was executed by sheriff’s deputies. Prior to encountering Lopez and Amarillas, the deputies were told by an informant that there were drugs in Amarillas’ vehicle. As a result, Deputy Francisco Enriquez, Deputy Ron Slagle and Slagle’s partner, Deputy Javier Martinez, began following Amarillas and eventually executed the traffic stop at an ARCO gas station. Lopez and Amarillas were ultimately arrested on suspicion of being under the influence of a controlled substance and were taken to a sheriff’s station in separate patrol cars. Enriquez reported that he found a plastic bag containing nine bindles of methamphetamine in his patrol car, which he claimed Lopez was put into earlier. Since Amarillas was on parole for a prior offense, both his vehicle and his apartment were searched. As a result, Enriquez claimed he found drugs in Amarillas’ dresser matching the drugs he found in his patrol car. Lopez later filed a complaint against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, claiming that there were no drugs in their apartment or in Amarillas’ vehicle, and that there was no reason for their arrest. Lieutenant Chris Branuelas, whose supervisory capacity was several levels above the Narcotics Strike Team, was assigned to investigate Lopez’s complaint. However, the District Attorney ultimately filed charges of felony possession for sale against Lopez. During criminal discovery, Lopez’s attorney sought the police radio communications that were broadcast during the arrest of Lopez and Amarillas. However, Detective Scott Kalassay, who acted as the D.A.’s Investigating Officer claimed the broadcasts, which are universally required in law enforcement, did not exist. Lopez’s attorney ultimately uncovered a radio communication broadcast during the time of the arrests in which the deputy stated that he was transporting a female prisoner, “10-15” in local police jargon, and broadcast his beginning mileage and the time of day, as was required. At the other end of the trip, the deputy again broadcast his time and mileage, as was also required. Lopez’s attorney claimed that the end trip broadcast was at the critical time and place where the drugs were allegedly found in the backseat of Enriquez’s patrol car. Slagle ultimately confirmed that it was his voice on the broadcasts, which revealed that Slagle actually transported Lopez to jail. Thus, Lopez’s attorney claimed that putting it all together proved that Lopez was not transported to the police station by Enriquez and that the drugs Enriquez imputed to her could not have been as he claimed they were. Once the D.A. was confronted with the evidence, the D.A. called Enriquez, Branuelas and Kalassay in to explain it, but they could not. As a result, Lopez moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds of retaliatory prosecution, which the D.A. did not oppose. All criminal charges against the couple were eventually dismissed. Almost four years after the incident, on July 17, 2013, Enriquez was charged by the District Attorney’s Office with filing a false report and perjury related to the arrests. Enriquez is awaiting a preliminary hearing and, if convicted, could face up to four years and eight months in prison. Lopez and Amarillas sued Enriquez, Martinez, Kalassay, Branuelas and their employer, the county of Los Angeles. Lopez and Amarillas alleged that the defendants’ by planted drugs on them, and that the defendants’ actions constituted unlawful detention, unlawful arrest, and malicious and retaliatory prosecution in violation of their civil rights. The county won partial summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ Monell claims, torts in essence, and liability under the Bane Act. Lopez and Amarillas claimed that when the traffic stop was executed, the deputies could not find any drugs in Amarillas’ vehicle. However, they claimed that since Amarillas was on parole for a prior offense, the deputies also searched Amarillas’ apartment, but no drugs were found there either. They claimed that as a result, Enriquez planted narcotics on them by claiming he found methamphetamine in his patrol car and later claiming he found drugs in Amarillas’ dresser at the apartment during the probation search that matched the drugs he found in his car. Lopez and Amarillas further claimed that when the charges against them were dropped, the other deputies attempted to press charges against them in retaliation for filing their administrative complaints. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that it was proved that Enriquez planted narcotics on both Lopez and Amarillas. It was undisputed that Martinez never wrote any reports, never discovered any drugs, and never participated in any of the allegedly tortuous conduct, save for his presence. However, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Martinez drove Amarillas’ Lexus to the police station after Lopez and Amarillas were arrested, and knew, or should have known, that Enriquez did not transport Lopez in his patrol car. Counsel also contended that even though Kalassay claimed to have elicited a confession of drug possession from Lopez and Amarillas, he actually never talked to either of them. Counsel further contended that Branuelas conspired to have the plaintiffs framed, since he was present in the plaintiffs’ apartment for the probation search, during which Enriquez wrongfully claimed to have found drugs matching the drugs he found left in his patrol car, and since he attempted to talk the plaintiff’s out of filing their complaints. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that after Branuelas was assigned to investigate Lopez’s complaint, instead of investigating the deputies involved in the arrests, he tried to talk Lopez and Amarillas out of their complaints and conspired with the other deputies to press charges against the plaintiffs in retaliation for making their administrative complaints. Counsel contended that as a result, Branuelas threatened Lopez with felony sales charges if she did not withdraw her complaint and that when she refused, Enriquez and Kalassay, at Branuelas’ direction, changed their reports and persuaded the D.A. to file charges of felony possession for sale against Lopez. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Branuelas whitewashed his internal investigation of Lopez’s complaint, concluding there was no evidence of wrongdoing by any of his subordinates. Enriquez claimed that there was probable cause to make a traffic stop of the plaintiffs’ vehicle and that there was reasonable cause to detain Lopez and Amarillas for a drug investigation as a result of information provided by a confidential informant. Moreover, he claimed drugs were found on the night of the incident. Kalassay claimed that the entire operation was supported by reasonable suspicion and that he, Enriquez and Martinez, as well as the other unnamed deputies involved, were acting in good faith in the enforcement of the law. Kalassay, Martinez and Branuelas claimed that they reasonably relied on Enriquez’s alleged discovery of narcotics, and that their reliance was supported by other information provided to them through confidential informants. They further claimed that they all still believe that Lopez and Amarillas were, in fact, dealing drugs on the date of the incident. Branuelas denied any wrongdoing with respect to his investigation of the plaintiffs’ complaint and denied that he was involved in, or had any input into, the decision to re-file charges against the plaintiffs. The county contended that it had policies and procedures in place regarding the standards of appropriate employee conduct, and that the individual defendants involved in the case were trained on these policies., Lopez and Amarillas claimed that they each suffered extreme emotional distress caused by their arrests and by Enriquez maliciously informing the Department of Family and Child Services that Lopez was an unfit mother dealing drugs. Thus, Lopez and Amarillas sought recovery of damages for their emotional distress, as well as recovery of the costs of defending the felony accusations and permanent felony booking record.