At approximately 4 a.m. on Sept. 6, 2013, plaintiffs’ decedent Michael DeLuca was reclined in the driver’s seat of his pickup truck at Hueneme Beach Park when city of Port Hueneme Police Officers Robin Matlock and Christopher Graham arrived. DeLuca sat up in response to the police presence and got out of his vehicle. Matlock then deployed her Taser, allegedly within seconds of DeLuca exiting his truck. The officers then fired a number of shots, fatally wounding DeLuca. No gun was found at the scene and there were no eyewitnesses to the account other than the officers. DeLuca’s adult sons, Michael James DeLuca and Vincent DeLuca, sued Matlock; Graham; and the officers’ employer, the city of Port Hueneme. The decedent’s sons alleged that the officers’ actions constituted excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also alleged that the officers’ actions constituted battery and negligence, under state law, and sought recovery of wrongful death damages. In addition, they alleged that the city was liable for the officers’ actions. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Matlock and Graham approached the decedent’s pickup truck after observing the decedent reclined in the driver’s seat while parked in a parking lot at Hueneme Beach Park. Counsel also contended that the officers shocked the decedent with a Taser within seconds of him exiting the truck and then fired their guns within five seconds later. Thus, counsel asserted that the officers, without provocation or justification, fired a number of shots, fatally wounding the decedent. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, Matlock admitted to shooting the decedent within five seconds of deploying her Taser. Counsel noted that the cycle of a Taser deployment lasts for five seconds, if both prongs attach themselves to a person, and that during that time the Taser causes involuntary muscle contractions in the person being shocked. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that since Matlock admitted that she shot the decedent within five seconds of deploying her Taser, she is essentially admitting that she did not allow any time for the decedent to comply and that she shot the decedent at the same time as he was being shocked. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel contended neither officer ever saw a gun or any object in the decedent’s hands, or anywhere on his person. Counsel further contended that after being shot, the decedent was immobile, bleeding profusely, and in critical need of emergency medical care, but that the officers did not timely summon medical care or allow medical personnel to treat the decedent. The officers claimed that they were responding to a service call concerning a single-vehicle collision near the beach in Oxnard when they observed a pickup truck on the sand with the decedent reclined in the driver’s seat. They claimed that the decedent sat up in response to their presence, but that the decedent did not obey their orders to remain in the truck. The officers also claimed that the decedent told them that he had a gun. According to Matlock, the decedent ignored orders to remain in the truck, causing the decedent to be shocked with a Taser after he exited the truck. Matlock claimed that as a result, the decedent fell to the ground and was on one knee, attempting to stand back up, when she fired her gun. According to Graham, the decedent made a leap toward them, executing some sort of flip, but landed on his back. He claimed that while on his back on the ground, the decedent lifted one arm up over his head and pointed his hand at each of the officers as if he had a gun. Thus, Graham claimed that upon seeing the decedent move his hand toward them, he fired his gun. He alleged that it was only later that they saw that the decedent did not have a gun. In addition, Matlock and Graham denied the decedent’s family’s claims about denying treatment after the decedent was shot., DeLuca sustained gunshot wounds and ultimately died from his . His sons claimed that upon their father being shot, the decedent was immobile, bleeding profusely, and in critical need of emergency medical care, but that the officers did not timely summon medical care or allow medical personnel to treat him. Thus, they claimed that the delay in medical care caused the decedent to suffer extreme physical and emotional pain and suffering, and that this delay was a contributing cause of his death. The decedent’s adult sons, Michael James DeLuca and Vincent Peter DeLuca, sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of their father.