In August 2010, plaintiff Earl Coleman, a road repair worker for the city of Los Angeles, was at the residence of his friend, Sean Aguair, when they became involved in an altercation. Subsequently, the two claimed bodily . Coleman sued Aguair, alleging assault and battery. Coleman contended that Aguair came after him with a butcher knife and stabbed him on his left side. He claimed that as a result, he grabbed a frying pan to use in self-defense and swung it at Aguair, striking him and the kitchen cabinet. Aguair contended that Coleman had been drinking excessively and attacked him with a frying pan. He claimed that as a result, he grabbed a butcher knife to block Coleman’s blows, as Coleman had hit him on the head a number of times, making him concerned that he would be knocked unconscious. Thus, Aguair admitted to striking Coleman on the left side, but claimed it was in self-defense. Defense counsel contended that Coleman had issues at the time and overdrank. Counsel also contended that Coleman’s credibility was in dispute, as there was no evidence of the alleged blows from Coleman to the kitchen cabinets, which had just been remodeled, along with the rest of Aguair’s kitchen, before the incident. Thus, defense counsel argued that Coleman was so intoxicated that his memory could not be trusted and that the type of Coleman sustained were due to someone else defending themselves, and not caused by an aggressor., Coleman sustained a deep stab wound on his left side. He was subsequently taken to a hospital, where it was decided to open the wound to check for damage to the internal organs. As a result, Coleman remained hospitalized for a week. Coleman was left with a 2-inch scar. Thus, he sought recovery of approximately $100,000 for his medical costs and alleged lost income. Defense counsel contended that because Coleman’s blood pressure remained high, it showed that Coleman had not suffered any internal bleeding. Thus, counsel argued that Coleman should not have been opened up at the hospital. Defense counsel also argued that Coleman should not be awarded for any lost income, as at the time of the injury, Coleman was already suspended from work due to an alcohol-related accident that he was previously involved in. In addition, counsel contended that since the subject incident, Coleman has returned to work and Coleman’s life has changed for the better.