At around 11 p.m. on Jan. 1, 2015, plaintiff Richard May Jr., 62, a retired sound engineer, scaled an 8-foot chain link fence to enter a construction site on a private property in Half Moon Bay. The site had “Keep Out” signs posted and was protected by a video-surveillance system. May climbed over the fence to enter the site with his neighbor, 73, to look for her lost cat, Domino. A private security company in Sacramento was monitoring the property over a video feed, and an employee saw May and his friend moving about the property. The security company subsequently reported the incident to police as a commercial burglary with two to three suspects. The police dispatcher then radioed the reported commercial burglary in progress, and several police units responded to the residential site. Deputies John Sanchez, Chris Laughlin and Eric Michel spotted May on the site and one of the deputies, Laughlin, ordered his San Mateo County police canine, Riggs, a German Shepherd, to bite May on the legs. May was ultimately arrested and taken to the Half Moon Bay sheriff’s substation for interrogation before being brought to a hospital for treatment of the to his legs as a result of the canine bites. The cat, Domino, ran from the dog and eventually made it home safely. Although the incident was reported to police as a commercial burglary, May was ultimately cited for trespassing and “resisting, obstructing, or delaying” a law-enforcement officer. Both citations were misdemeanors. However, the San Mateo district attorney declined to press charges. May sued Deputies Sanchez, Michel, and Laughlin; the deputies’ supervisor, Sheriff Greg Munks; and the deputies’ employer, San Mateo County. May alleged that the deputies violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force and that Munks and the county were liable for the deputies’ actions. May also alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted negligence, assault and battery, false arrest and imprisonment, and a violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 for their interference with the exercise of an individual’s rights by threat, intimidation or coercion. All of the individual defendants, except Laughlin, were either voluntary dismissed by the plaintiff or dismissed as a result of a summary judgment. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against only Laughlin and the county, which remained liable solely on the basis of vicarious liability. May and his neighbor claimed that they heard Domino meowing from inside a building at the construction site, near the apartment home of May’s friend. According to May, no security guards were at the site and attempts to call a phone number posted at the site went to a medical supply company in Ohio. As a result, May and his female friend climbed the fence to look for Domino. May claimed he heard no warnings from the deputies and when he saw them, he thought they were security guards. He alleged that as a result, he thought he would go speak to them about Domino, but that instead, Laughlin ordered his canine, Riggs, to attack him. May said the bites seemed like “minutes,” and witnesses claimed that Riggs bit May multiple times on both legs and that the attack lasted for as long as a minute. May further claimed that instead of taking him to the hospital, Laughlin took him to the Half Moon Bay sheriff’s substation for interrogation and that, later, at the hospital, Laughlin took a photo of him with a sticker that Laughlin placed on his chest that read, “I met Riggs.” The plaintiff’s police practices and canine handling expert opined that the use of the dog during the subject incident was clearly improper given the lack of immediate threat. The expert also opined that Laughlin’s tactics were improper and that the canine warnings were insufficient. The deputies alleged that, prior to deploying the canine, May refused to comply with multiple warnings and commands. They claimed that when they first saw May, they were approximately 75 to 100 yards away. Laughlin testified that at that time, he announced, “Sheriff’s canine! Stop right there! Show me your hands! Get on the ground or you’re going to get bit by the dog!” Laughlin claimed that, almost immediately after he gave the “Sheriff’s canine” warning, he saw May go towards the fence in a manner that he understood was an attempt to flee in response to the canine warning. He alleged that as a result, he sent the canine, Riggs, to apprehend May. Laughlin claimed that on the first deployment, Riggs did not bite May, but “nudged” May’s arm without causing injury before returning to the deputies. He claimed that by that time, three deputies had closed the distance to May, so he gave May one or two more loud verbal warnings to get on the ground or Riggs would bite. According to Laughlin, May was not complying with orders to show his hands and get on the ground, and, instead, was keeping his hands under his baggy shirt, at his waistband, and was backing up toward the fence line. He contended that since, at that time, May was “a few steps” from the fence and “about a car length away from” him and another deputy, he decided to release Riggs a second time, giving the command to “bite and hold.” He claimed that as a result, Riggs ran to May and bit his left leg. Laughlin claimed that he then pulled May to the ground and issued commands to May to show his hands and stop kicking at the canine and that when he believed that May had complied with the commands, he called Riggs off the bite. The deputies estimated that the bite lasted 15 to 20 seconds. The defense’s police practices and canine handling expert opined that the use of the dog during the subject incident was appropriate and within the deputy’s discretion. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Laughlin only ever saw May “standing up and moving slowly,” so it was questionable for Laughlin to claim that May was fleeing. Counsel also argued that May did not resist the deputies and that Laughlin testified that once Riggs had bitten May’s leg, May was not “resistive,” but he flailed while Riggs was biting him. Plaintiff’s counsel further noted that even the defendants recognized that flailing happens in such situations., May claimed he received multiple to his legs as a result of the canine bites. Specifically, he claimed he sustained moderate to severe bite wounds, predominantly to his right leg. The deputies subsequently called for medical attention, and May was treated by an emergency medical technician at the site. He was then cleared for transportation. At the hospital, May received seven stitches. The wounds ultimately required four medical visits during 2015. However, by December 2015, May’s right leg was swelling again and it was still unresolved. The plaintiff’s police practices and canine handling expert opined that the dog bite wounds were severe. While May testified he was healed after a year, friends of his testified that they noticed changes in May’s gait and that his physical activities have remained lessened after the incident. Thus, may sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. He also sought recovery of punitive damages against Laughlin. May did not seek recovery of any past or future medical expenses. Defense counsel disputed the number of bites that May received, as well as severity of May’s alleged . The defense’s police practices and canine handling expert opined that the dog bite wounds were minor.