On July 8, 2002, plaintiff Alberto Pulido, a state parole agent in his 30s, went to a Gentle Giant Moving Company warehouse, in El Segundo, in pursuit of a parolee-at-large that was reported to be working there. The El Segundo Police Department K9, a Malinois named Kai, and his handler, Officer Jeff Leyman, were called to the scene to assist in locating the parolee. When a search of the interior warehouse did not lead to an apprehension, the search moved to the loading dock area. While in the search area, Pulido was approached by Kai, which resulted in him getting bitten on the left arm. Pulido sued the city of El Segundo; the El Segundo Police Department; Jack Wayt, the Chief of Police; and Officer Leyman. Pulido alleged that Leyman was negligent in the handling of the dog and that the city, police department and chief of police were liable for Leyman’s actions. Pulido also sued Adlerhorst International Inc., the K9 training academy in Riverside that Kai and Leyman graduated from, and David Reaver, the head trainer and owner of Adlerhorst. Pulido alleged that Adlerhorst and Reaver were professionally negligent in the training of the K9 and handler. The city, police department, Wayt and Leyman all successfully moved for summary judgment on liability and were dismissed from the case prior to trial. The matter then proceeded to trial against Adlerhorst and Reaver only. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the police K9, Kai, was improperly trained in the “find and bark” system of training and deployment. He contended that this allowed Kai to search for the parolee alone, out of sight of Leyman, which resulted in Pulido being attacked in the subject search area. Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that Kai should have always been in Leyman’s sight and should have been called back by the officer when the dog went out of sight. Counsel for Adlerhorst and Reaver argued that Pulido should have left the search area after being warned by officers to do so on three occasions. He also argued that Kai was trained to only attack an escaping or aggressive subject and that if Pulido had stood still — as he was instructed by a perimeter officer — the attack never would have happened. Defense counsel further argued — and Pulido admitted — that instead, Pulido began backing up when approached by Kai and made a bigger mistake of raising his forearm at the dog, which prompted the attack. Reaver testified regarding the use of the “find and bark” method of training and deployment, as opposed to a “find and bite” method, as far as his knowledge and experience in using the former method for over 40 years in the business, as well as testified regarding the “officer safety” reasons for that method of deployment. He also testified to his experience with the selection and training of military dogs and to the difference between their mission and deployments, countering the plaintiff’s witness, who admittedly had no experience with the training or deployment of civilian police dogs., Pulido sustained puncture wounds to his left arm from the single dog bite. He claimed the police dog had to be pulled off of him. He subsequently went to a local hospital, where he was treated and released. Pulido claimed he experiences residual numbness in his left arm and hand from the attack. He did not claim any economic damages, as all of his medical costs were covered by worker’s compensation benefits. Thus, he only sought recovery of $30,000 in damages for his pain and suffering. Counsel for Adlerhorst and Reaver argued that the puncture wounds were relatively minor and that the dog was not pulled off of Pulido, as that would have resulted in greater laceration-type to Pulido’s left arm.