On Nov. 27, 2010, plaintiff Miguel Contreras, a journalist, was visiting his cousin, plaintiff Miguel Vazquez, a customer services manager, and his roommate, Danielle Carrera. At 2 a.m., they heard a disturbance next door and went outside to look. They encountered police officers David Faris and Michael Hynes, who were confronting several citizens, including Vazquez’s friend. The confrontation grew more heated, and Contreras and Vazquez ultimately became involved in the confrontation. Specifically, Vazquez asked why his friend was being detained, and words between him and Faris ensued. Faris then allegedly approached Vazquez and shoved him. Ultimately, Faris allegedly began hitting Vazquez with a baton. Contreras then approached Faris and told him to stop beating his cousin. Hynes eventually approached Contreras and proceeded to beat him at least 19 times with a baton. Contreras suffered a fractured left elbow. Vazquez claimed that Hynes then walked over and stomped on his right hand, breaking his fifth finger. Contreras was handcuffed and charged with resisting arrest, while Vazquez was arrested for allegedly assaulting Faris and resisting arrest. Neither had any criminal record, or was ever arrested before the incident. Contreras’ charges for allegedly resisting arrest were dismissed, and Vazquez’s charges for the alleged assault and resisting arrest were dismissed. Contreras sued Faris, Hynes, and the officers’ employer, the city of Long Beach. Contreras alleged that the officers used excessive force, falsely arrested him, and engaged in conspiracy in filing false reports about the incident. Vazquez filed a separate suit against Faris; Hynes; the city of Long Beach; and the officers’ supervisor, Robert Knight. Vazquez also alleged that the officers used excessive force, falsely arrested him, and engaged in conspiracy in filing false reports about the incident. He also alleged that Faris violated his First Amendment rights by assaulting him when he asked Faris why his friend was being detained. Vazquez let Knight out of the case, and the matters were ultimately consolidated for trial. At trial, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Vazquez went outside, found Faris yelling at three people who were kneeling on the sidewalk, and saw that one of the people kneeling was Vazquez’s friend. Vazquez claimed that he asked Faris what was going on and tried to explain that one of the people on the ground his friend. However, words between them ensued. He alleged that Faris then walked over to him and pushed him, stating “I’ll touch you any time I want, you understand!” Faris then allegedly threw Vazquez to the ground and began hitting him with a baton. Various citizen witnesses also testified to seeing Faris beat Vazquez with a baton. Contreras claimed that he witnessed Faris clubbing Vazquez and told Faris to stop, but that Faris continued to hit Vazquez. Contreras alleged that Hynes then approached him from behind and, without saying a word, struck him at least 19 times with a baton, with blows to his left arm that fractured his elbow. He also claimed that although he wasn’t resisting, he was struck on his back and legs while Hynes told him to get down, even though he was already down on the ground, and to roll over, which he could not due to his fractured elbow. Then, while Vazquez was allegedly already lying prone on the ground, Hynes walked over and allegedly stomped on his hand, breaking his right fifth finger. Vazquez’s roommate and other independent witnesses testified that they started shouting to the officers to stop hurting the cousins. One witness also testified to calling 911 to report the beatings and asked for police assistance, but was told that the police were already at the scene. Plaintiffs’ counsel presented video of the incident, and contended that Faris assaulted Vazquez and that Hynes assaulted Contreras and Hynes. Counsel also contended that the officers’ use of weapons was unauthorized and out of policy. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the officers fabricated their arrest reports to justify their use of excessive force. Specifically, Contreras claimed that after Hynes hit him at least 19 times with a baton, causing massive , Hynes attempted to frame him on a resisting-arrest charge. Defense counsel contended that Faris and Hynes told the truth and did nothing wrong. Thus, counsel argued that the officers’ use of force was within policy and not excessive., Contreras sustained a fracture of his left elbow. He was subsequently transported to the emergency room at a community hospital, where he underwent immediate surgery to install hardware to hold the elbow fractures together. Contreras then underwent a second surgery three years later to remove the hardware and relocate a nerve. Contreras claimed that he is partially disabled from the baton blows and that he still does not have full use of his left arm. He alleged that he is permanently injured by the baton strikes and that he suffers nerve damage from the incident. He also claimed severe emotional distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety. Contreras subsequently underwent counseling, which he continues to undergo. As a result of his , Contreras claimed he can no longer work, as he is unable to use his left hand on the keyboard. Thus, Contreras sought recovery of $175,000 in past medical costs and $31,000 for the cost of defending the allegedly contrived criminal accusations brought against him by the Long Beach Police Department in reprisal for his complaints to internal affairs. He also sought recovery of future medical costs for his ongoing counseling, past and future loss of earnings, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Vazquez sustained a fracture of the fifth finger on his right hand, a sprain of an ankle, and bruising and swelling caused by the baton blows. He also claimed that he suffers from emotional distress as a result of the trauma caused by the incident. Thus, Vazquez sought recovery of medical costs, the cost of defending the allegedly contrived criminal accusations, and psychological damages from having to defend against the allegedly fabricated charges.