On Dec. 15, 2017, plaintiff Richard Franco Jr., 30, a construction worker, was driving a vehicle and being pursued by Corporal Mike Weathermon, of the city of West Covina Police Department. Weathermon shot at Franco. The gunshot struck Franco’s head and incapcitated him. Franco’s van rolled forward. Franco survived, but he claimed that he suffers residual damage of his brain. Franco sued Weathermon; Weathermon’s employer, the city of West Covina; and the chief of police, Marc Taylor. Franco alleged that Weathermon’s actions constituted battery, negligence, negligent use of force, negligent pre-shooting tactics, a violation of the Bane Act, and excessive force in violation of his civil and constitutional rights. Franco also alleged that Weathermon was negligent for denying him medical care and that the city and Taylor were negligent in their failure to properly train Weathermon. Franco further alleged that the city and Taylor were negligent in their ratification of Weathermon, and their unconstitutional custom, practice and policies. In addition, Franco alleged that the city was liable for Weathermon’s actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Taylor was ultimately let out of the case. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that after a brief vehicle pursuit, Weathermon fired two shots, aiming at Franco’s head, without giving Franco a warning that deadly force would be used. The dashboard video camera in Weathermon’s police vehicle captured the shooting, and the video allegedly showed Franco raising his right arm immediately before the shots. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Franco was unarmed at the time of the shooting and that there was no information that Franco had a firearm during the incident. Counsel also contended that Weathermon had no information that Franco had committed any crime involving death or serious bodily injury prior to the shooting. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the shooting was excessive and unreasonable because Franco was unarmed and did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to any person at the time of the shooting. Counsel also asserted that basic police training and the city of West Covina’s own policy teaches that an officer should not shoot at a vehicle or its driver unless a person is about to be struck by the vehicle and there was no opportunity to get out of the way, which was not the circumstance in the subject case. The city’s counsel contended that the City of West Covina Police Department received a call reporting an attempted residential burglary on the date of the incident and that the reporting party provided a description of the van that the suspects used to flee the scene. Shortly thereafter, Weathermon spotted a van matching the description and pulled him over. The van was driven by Franco. Defense counsel asserted that Franco pulled over to the side of the road and stopped his vehicle, but then hastily drove away, leading to a dangerous, high-speed vehicle chase on the streets of West Covina. Counsel contended that Franco’s vehicle reached speeds up to 92 mph, ran a red light, almost hit other cars, and drove up to 45 mph through a Vons parking lot. Counsel noted that Franco eventually became boxed in due to traffic and that Franco was forced to temporarily stop his van before releasing the brakes and beginning to again drive away, as captured on the dash cam. Defense counsel asserted that Weathermon had exited his car when Franco’s vehicle became boxed in and yelled at Franco to put up his hands, but that when Franco’s vehicle began to drive away again, Weathermon fired his weapon to stop Franco’s dangerous disregard for the safety of the public. Defense counsel denied Franco’s contentions, and filed motions for summary judgment as to all of the causes of action. Counsel also contended that Weathermon’s patrol car dash cam showed that Franco fled from the police, drove his van with reckless abandon and wanton disregard for the safety of other drivers and pedestrians, and was attempting to again drive away and cause similar threats of serious bodily injury or death to other motorists, if Franco was permitted to flee custody. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), was the basis of Weathermon’s pending motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. (That case similarly involved a dangerous, high speed vehicle pursuit that eventual resulted in officers shooting at the suspect as the suspect sped away. It was determined that the officers in that case were entitled to qualified immunity, as they acted reasonably in using deadly force since an officer’s attempt to stop a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if the fleeing motorist is at risk of being injured.) Defense counsel contended that Weathermon’s actions in the subject matter were similarly justified and appropriate to stop the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death that Franco would have posed to the surrounding community, if Franco was permitted to flee, as demonstrated by his past, recent and reckless behavior, which was observed by Weathermon. Defense counsel denied that Franco put up his hand prior to the shooting and, instead, contended that Franco took his foot off the brake, began to flee from the police in his van again, and was seen with a hand on the steering wheel. The city had a pending motion for summary judgment based on its position that there was no evidence of any unconstitutional policies, customs or practices that would support the federal civil rights claim against it. In addition, counsel for all of the defendants contended that the state court tort claims would fail due to applicable immunities and a lack of evidence to support a breach of duty., Franco sustained a gunshot wound to the head, resulting serious physical , including a traumatic brain injury and declining cognitive impairment. He was taken from the scene and brought to a hospital for treatment. Franco claimed he suffered a loss of earnings, and now has a reduced earning capacity as a result of the shooting. Franco sought recovery of past and future medical expenses and attendant care; past and future loss of earnings; and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. His wife, Yvonne Franco, presented a derivative claim seeking recovery for her loss of consortium. According to defense counsel, the Francos presented a life care plan of over $9 million and an estimated wage loss of approximately $1 million, as well as sought recovery of general damages, punitive damages, loss-of-consortium damages and attorney fees. Defense counsel disputed the Mr. Franco’s alleged residual mental and physical , and the extent of Mr. Franco’s alleged future medical care.