In November 2007, plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van went to a Wal-Mart store in Milpitas with her 12-year-old son. While in the store, Van’s son allegedly found an open, damaged Lego box and began to play with its contents. He eventually brought it into the restroom to continue playing. When Van’s son left the bathroom, he was apprehended by two security guards at the store, Michael Salano and Noe Leon, and taken to the security office. Van claimed her son was accused of theft and interrogated without her being present. She also claimed that when she presented to the security office, she too was interrogated. She claimed she was ultimately told she had to pay a fine and sign paperwork in order for her and her son to leave the store, which she did. Van sued Salano; Leon; and their employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Van alleged that Salano and Leon falsely imprisoned her and her son, and discriminated against them due to their race. Van also alleged that Wal-Mart was negligent in the hiring, supervision, training, and retention of the guards. She further alleged that Wal-Mart violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Federal Civil Rights Act. Salano and Leon were ultimately dismissed from the case. Van claimed that her son brought two of his Lego figures on the trip to the store and that although her son played with the contents of an open, damaged Lego box, he did not open it or try to steal anything. However, she claimed that after the guards apprehended her son and took him to the security office, they asked him if he was Vietnamese. She also claimed that while her son was alone in the security office with the two guards, he was harshly interrogated and berated for about six minutes. Van alleged that the guards pointed and made hand gestures at her son and that when she attempted to contact her son on his cell phone, the guards would not let him answer it. She alleged that as a result, her son cried during the incident. In addition, Van claimed that once she presented to the security office, she was also berated by the two guards and that she was told the police would be called if she did not pay a $500 fine and sign an agreement to not enter any Wal-Mart property in the future. Thus, she claimed she was basically forced to sign the paperwork. Counsel for Wal-Mart contended that Van’s son’s apprehension was proper, as he had opened merchandise in the store, concealed it in his pockets, taken it into the bathroom, and flushed it down the toilet. Counsel also contended that once her son was apprehended, Van was paged to collect her son. However, Wal-Mart’s counsel argued that neither Van nor her son were berated, nor were they interrogated. In addition, counsel contended that while Van was provided paperwork that indicated that she was restricted from returning to the store, Van admitted that she was told she could return anytime and that her son could return as long as he was accompanied by an adult. Counsel noted that Van and her son did, in fact, return to the store on a number of occasions. Counsel further noted that neither Van nor her son were ever arrested, fined or charged and that the police were never called., Van claimed she suffered emotional distress as a result of the incident. She alleged her psychological included depression, anxiety, terror and loss of sleep. Van subsequently treated with a counselor. Wal-Mart’s counsel introduced evidence that alleged showed that Van suffered severe emotional distress from other sources.