At around 2 a.m. on May 19, 2013, plaintiffs Adam Lawrence, 37, a location sound mixer, and Gabriel Blanco, 27, a producer, were traveling in the number two lane of southbound Interstate 405, also known as the San Diego Freeway, in Los Angeles. Blanco was operating the vehicle, which was traveling at approximately 50 mph. When they were just north of the Mulholland Drive exit — where southbound lane numbers three, four and five were coned off for construction — their vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Alisi Mataele, who had changed from the number one lane to the number two lane. Lawrence claimed to his back and pelvis, and Blanco claimed to his neck and a shoulder. Mataele was traveling at approximately 65 mph at the time of the lane change. She was subsequently booked for Vehicle Code § 23152, driving under the influence of alcohol. Lawrence and Blanco sued Mataele, alleged that Mataele was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that Mataele’s blood alcohol content was 0.13 percent at the time of the incident. (California law prohibits operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher.) Lawrence and Blanco claimed that Mataele was negligent for driving under the influence of alcohol for making an unsafe lane change at an excessive rate of speed. Mataele admitted negligence, but denied that her actions constituted malice, oppression or fraud, or that her conduct was considered despicable., Lawrence claimed to his lower back. He subsequently treated with a chiropractor for approximately three months, during which he allegedly experienced severe pain in his lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint. Lawrence claimed that the chiropractic treatment improved his condition, but that he continues to experience lingering pain at a baseline of one-out-of-10 to 2-out-of-10 in his lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint. He alleged that as a result, has had occasional chiropractic visits over the subsequent few years. He also alleged that he was forced to take prescription-strength medicine due to his chronic pain. Lawrence claimed that as a result of his , his ability to exercise and ride bicycles have diminished. He also claimed that he was forced to choose jobs based on break allowances and the weight of equipment that he was required to operate. Thus, Lawrence sought recovery of past and future medical costs, past and future loss of earnings, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Blanco was diagnosed with cervical facet syndrome. He subsequently underwent about three months of chiropractic care, during which he allegedly experienced severe pain in his cervical spine and thoracic spine, as well as left shoulder pain and numbness. He then underwent occasional follow-up treatment, which included nine months of rehabilitation treatment for moderate pain and one course of physical therapy a couple of years after the collision. Blanco claimed that despite treatment, he continues to experience residual pain, soreness, and tightness on an almost daily basis. He also alleged that his pain ranges between a one-out-of-10 and a two-out-of-10, and, on occasion, up to a five-out-of-10. Thus, Blanco sought recovery of economic damages for his medical costs, and non-economic damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that Mataele’s actions constituted despicable conduct and/or constituted malice, oppression or fraud. Thus, counsel argued that Mataele was subject to punitive liability based on her conduct. Defense counsel argued that the plaintiffs’ were neither ongoing nor chronic. Counsel also argued that Blanco did not have cervical facet syndrome and that Blanco’s may have been caused by a subsequent incident. In addition, defense counsel argued that Mataele should not be subject to punitive liability.