On July 8, 2012, plaintiff Austin Calhoun, 16, was intoxicated when he left a party in Santa Clara and walked to a fire station near Homestead Road and Kiely Boulevard, in Santa Clara. He then called 911 and claimed that someone was going to hurt themselves with a knife. In response, Santa Clara police officers arrived at the scene. However, when the officers confronted Austin, he placed a knife to his throat. Officers Mike Horn and Nathan Crescini ultimately devised and executed a plan whereby Horn shot Austin with polyurethane-based impact baton rounds from a SAGE device. The rounds struck Austin in the thigh and head, causing Austin to fall to the ground. Crescini then released a K-9 unit on Austin. After the incident, criminal charges were filed against Austin, who pleaded guilty to a violation of California Penal Code § 148(a). Austin sued Horn, Crescini and several other responding officers (all individually and in their respective official capacities as police officers for the City of Santa Clara Police Department). He also sued the officer’s employer, the city of Santa Clara. Austin alleged that the officers’ actions constituted negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California Civil Code § 52.1. Austin claimed that he fell to the ground unconscious after Horn after shot him in the thigh and head with polyurethane impact baton rounds. He also claimed that he was still unconscious when Crescini released the police dog and it ferociously attacked him. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that both the deployment of the SAGE device with polyurethane impact batons and the deployment of the K-9 were inappropriate and contrary to the basic training of Santa Clara Police Department officers. Counsel contended that, instead, Horn and Crescini should have allowed an officer with Crisis Intervention Training time to de-escalate the situation, as the officers were taught in basic training. The matter was originally filed in the United States District Court, Northern District, on July 15, 2013. However, on Sept. 14, 2015, Judge Haywood Gilliam issued an order in response to defense counsel’s summary judgment motion, finding that there were material issues of fact as to the whether the officers used excessive force that could amount to battery under California law. Gilliam also granted defense counsel’s motion to dismiss the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress as to several of the officers, but denied the motion as to Horn and Crescini. He further denied defense counsel’s motion to dismiss the § 52.1 claims against Crescini and Horn, but granted the motion as to the other officers. In addition, Gilliam found that all of the officers, except Crescini, were qualifiedly immune under § 1983. With only one federal cause of action left, defense counsel filed a notice to appeal as to Gilliam’s ruling on the § 1983 claim against Crescini. In an effort to move forward with the remaining state law claims, Calhoun, then noted as A.C., moved to voluntarily dismiss Crescini’s § 1983 claim. On Oct. 15, 2015, the ninth circuit issued an order, which granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal and issued an order accordingly. That same day, Gilliam issued an order that stated that the court declined to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Calhoun’s pendant state law claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice. Thus, the matter was transferred to the Santa Clara County Superior Court, where Calhoun alleged that Horn was negligent in using excessive force against him and that the city was liable for Horn’s actions. (All other defendants were out of the case.) Defense counsel contended that a negotiator was called in, but that Horn and Crescini were forced to act when Austin came toward the officers. The officers claimed that they fired two polyurethane projectiles from a SAGE launcher, that Austin fell to the ground, and that Austin was then handcuffed. Thus, defense counsel argued that the officers had to use force to restrain Austin because Austin took two steps in the direction of an officer while he was standing 35 feet away., Austin sustained blunt force trauma to his head, resulting in a fractured skull and brain trauma with swelling. He claimed that he was rendered unconscious upon being struck in the head. He also suffered a seriously swollen and bruised left eye. In addition, Austin suffered several lacerations to his left shoulder and back from the K-9 biting him. The police dog’s attack caused four lacerations and scarring to the left side of Austin’s rib area, which were later measured to be 8 inches in length. The attack from the K-9 also left four smaller scrapes in the same area of Austin’s rib area, each 4 inches in length. Austin was subsequently transported to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, in San Jose. Upon his arrival at the emergency room, Austin was found to be unresponsive and his Glasgow Coma Scale was 4 by one physician’s account and 3 by another. Reports also noted two circular puncture wounds to Austin’s upper, left shoulder area that measured approximately 3 to 4 millimeters in circumference. CT scans performed that day revealed a left, depressed, commuted, temporal skull fracture and a left subdural hemorrhage. The scans of the head and brain without contrast also revealed a large, left, convexity subdural hematoma that measured up to 10 millimeters in thickness with 11 millimeters of left to right midline shift. It also revealed that the left ventricle was mildly effaced and the right temporal horn was trapped. In addition, it was determined that Austin had swelling on his brain due to a blood clot caused by blunt force trauma to the head from the officers’ bullets. As a result, he required multiple brain surgeries. Initially, in the Intensive Care Unit, Austin underwent brain surgery to remove the clot by having part of his skull removed to alleviate the swelling. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the bite wounds healed, but that Austin was left permanent scarring. Counsel also contended that Austin suffers from cognitive deficiencies, chronic headaches, memory loss, and an inability to retain new information. Counsel asserted that as a result, Austin had to learn to walk again and has a permanent skull deformity, as his head is misshapen. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that Austin had trouble understanding and accepting his limited capabilities, given the impact of his , and that Austin’s decision-making skills have been seriously impaired. Counsel alleged that as a result, Austin has become introverted and emotionally unstable. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that while Austin has made a dramatic recovery in his motor functions, Austin’s recovery from the traumatic brain injury and his motor deficits will require motor rehabilitation. Counsel also asserted that academic and vocational planning will also be necessary to treat Austin’s cognitive deficits, which affect his ability to read and learn new information. Counsel further asserted that, given clear historical and clinical signs of a depressive disorder, Austin will require psychological treatment consisting of individual and group psychotherapy, and, likely, psychotropic medication. To this end, Austin will need to be provided the opportunity for weekly individual and group psychotherapy for the next two years, and lifelong psychotherapy as needed. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Austin should be evaluated by a psychiatrist for psychotropic medication and that lifelong psychiatric medication monitoring will need to be provided on an as needed basis. Thus, Austin sought recovery of $36,875.95 in past medical costs, $214,241.76 in future medical costs and additional amounts for his other past and future economic damages. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. In addition, he sought recovery of punitive damages against Horn.