On April 6, 2013, plaintiff’s decedent Viet Tran, 38, a registered nurse, was standing in the parking lot of a commercial warehouse at 2000 Senter Road, near Wool Creek Road, in San Jose. The warehouse, which was directly southeast of Wool Creek Road, was occupied by a number of commercial tenants, including Sound Image, an illegal nightclub that was being operated out of a car audio shop space that was leased out to a tenant, Sound Image Car Audio. While Tran was in the parking lot, intending to enter the nightclub, shots rang out from an unknown assailant or assailants. As Tran and others ran from the parking lot, he was struck by three bullets and killed. Viet Tran’s parents, Ba Tran and Anh Ngoc Tran, sued the corporate owner of the commercial warehouse where Sound Image was located, 2000 Senter Road LLC, and 2000 Senter Road’s individual owners, Tan Lu and Anh Du. The decedent’s parents also sued the individual owners of Sound Image, Tam Van Tran (also known as Tommy Tran) and Lien Tran; Tommy Tran’s’ girlfriend, whose name was on the Sound Image lease, Hoang Anh Le; a sub-lessee of Tommy Tran’s’ leased property, Vinh Vo; and a corporate entity that was believed to be at least partly owned by Tommy Tran and had allegedly received payments from Sound Image accounts, TK Holding Inc. The decedent’s parents alleged that Tan Lu and Anh Du were the alter egos of the company 2000 Senter Road and were liable for Tran’s’ death. They also alleged the owners of Sound Image, Tommy Tran and Lien Tran, were negligent in the operation of the illegal nightclub and also liable for the wrongful death of Viet Tran. Hoang Anh Le and Vinh Vo were voluntarily dismissed from the case, and Tommy and Lien Tran did not respond to the suit and, according to defense counsel, could not be located. In addition, defense counsel for 2000 Senter Road LLC, Tan Lu, Anh Du, and TK Holding Inc. filed pretrial motions to bifurcate the trial on the issues of liability, and whether or not Tan Lu and Anh Du were the alter egos of 2000 Senter Road LLC. The court granted the motions to bifurcate the trial. In addition, Viet Tran’s father, Anh Ngoc Tran, settled his claim with 2000 Senter Road LLC for $25,000 before trial (due to the defense’s allegation that Anh Ngoc Tran had not been involved in his son’s life). Thus, the matter proceeded to trial with the claims of Viet Tran’s mother, Ba Tran, against the sole remaining defendant, 2000 Senter Road LLC. (The owners of 2000 Senter Road LLC still attended the trial, but they were not defendants because the court had to determine whether or not 2000 Senter Road LLC was negligent and liable. If the court did find that 2000 Senter Road LLC was liable, a second trial would address the individual owners’ liability under the alter ego theory.) Counsel for Viet Tran’s mother contended that 2000 Senter Road knew about the nightclub, but failed to terminate Sound Image’s lease or remove it from the premises. Thus, counsel argued that 2000 Senter Road knowingly allowed the illegal nightclub to operate from the warehouse as early as December 2011 even though the club did not have the required building, plumbing or electrical permits; did not possesses a liquor license; and illegally transformed the second floor of the space into a 2,000-square-foot nightclub. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the nightclub operated seven nights a week, and employed five full-time waitresses, three busboys, a cook, and approximately 15 strippers on any given night. Counsel also contended that that the club served an average of 50 patrons on weeknights and about 100 guests on weekends. Counsel further contended that the club operated on a cash-only basis and had an average nightly income of five figures. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that 2000 Senter Road was negligent in its ownership and maintenance of the warehouse and that it knew, or should have known, that an illegal night club was operating from the premises. Counsel contended that the property manager for the entire commercial warehouse, the son-in-law of Tan Lu and Anh Du, was present on March 29, 2013, for an inspection that was being done for a pending sale of the property and that the real estate agent who was at the inspection testified that Sound Image’s space was clearly being used as a nightclub. The plaintiff’s property management expert opined that 2000 Senter Road’s property manager should have realized there was this nightclub operating in the midst of the subject business complex and alerted the proper authorities and/or evicted Tommy Tran before the shooting occurred. The plaintiff’s expert in real estate law testified that it would have been relatively easy to shut Sound Image’s operations down sooner. 2000 Senter Road’s 86-year old owner, Tan Lu, claimed that he only intermittently visited the property for short periods of time during the week to sign checks and do paper work while the property manager (also his son in law) collected rent, took care of landscaping needs, and responded to tenant complaints. Thus, 2000 Senter Road’s counsel denied that 2000 Senter Road had any prior knowledge of Sound Images’ illegal operations or alterations to the property. Counsel contended that any alterations to the space were performed without 2000 Senter Road’s knowledge or consent. Counsel also asserted that the property manager worked normal business hours and the club was open late from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., so the property manager could not have known about the nightclub under the circumstances. Defense counsel further asserted that the nightclub’s operator knew the other tenants would not be on the premises late at night, so he ran his business when he knew other tenants would not be there. Defense counsel for 2000 Senter Road argued that the decedent, Viet Tran, had visited the nightclub at least two times before he was shot, knew the club attracted a shady crowd, and was aware of any risks posed by visiting the premises. Counsel also argued that prior to the incident, several complaints of illegal activity at the premises were anonymously reported to the San Jose Police Department, but the police allegedly did not disclose any investigations of the complaints to 2000 Senter Road, Tan Lu, or the property manager. Defense counsel entered into evidence records of construction work that Tommy Tran and Sound Image discretely performed allegedly without other tenants and the landlord having knowledge about it. Evidence presented to the jury included materials from construction work done by Tommy Tran when he allegedly secretly constructed the bar/nightclub space, which was originally a large, open, 11,000-square-foot space that a vehicle could have fit inside, but was transformed into a two-story venue. The defense’s expert in real estate law testified about the challenges of attempting to evict a tenant without hard evidence of violations. The defense’s police practices/security expert, a former San Francisco police commander, testified about how it is difficult for police to shut down or evict illegal, late-night clubs because of the secrecy involved and lack of police resources to establish probable cause to evict., Viet Tran was shot three times, sustaining gunshot wounds to his back, neck, and side of the body. He was ultimately pronounced dead near the scene of the shooting. He was 38 years old. Tran’s mother, Ba Tran, testified about how she had lived with her son, who was a Registered Nurse, and claimed that her son had planned to live with, and care for, her for the rest of her life. The plaintiff’s expert economist projected that Ba Tran would suffer an economic loss for her household services of approximately $1,087,531. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel recommended that the jury award damages of more than $5 million for Ba Tran’s loss of her son’s love, comfort, and society, and for her loss of household services. Defense counsel for 2000 Senter Road argued that there was evidence that the decedent had plans to leave the country two weeks after the date of the incident and that the decedent was not going to live with his mother for the rest of her life. Counsel also argued that Ba Tran and her son were not as close as she claimed and that Ba Tran’s claim that she relied on her son for security was a farfetched notion. Thus, defense counsel argued that Ba Tran did not sustain any economic damages and suggested that Ba Tran’s general damages should not exceed a range of $100,000 to $200,000.