Limon Complaint - 8-10-2022 - 2

1 VINCENT MILLER (SBN 291973)
[email protected]
2 MICHAEL MILLER (SBN 112751)
[email protected]
3 NICK SAGE (SBN 298972)
The Law Offices of Vincent Miller
4 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 625
Encino, CA 91436
5 Telephone: (213) 948-5702
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robin Limon
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY - CENTRAL DISTRICT
8
ROBIN LIMON, ) CASE NO:
9 )
) COMPLAINT FOR:
10
) 1) UNLAWFUL RETALIATION:
11 Plaintiff, ) LABOR CODE § 1102.5
) (WHISTLEBLOWER LAW);
12 v. ) 2) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
) FEHA (CAL. GOV. CODE SECTION
13 ) 12940 et. seq,);
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal ) 3) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
14 entity, ALEX VILLANUEVA, an individual, ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
JOHN SATTERFIELD, an individual, and ) 4) DEFAMATION/SLANDER PER SE
15 DOES 1-10, individuals, ) 5) FALSE LIGHT
) 6) FOR MALICIOUS AND
16 Defendants. ) UNLAWFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE
) PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER’S BILL
17 ) OF RIGHTS (POBR) UNDER cal.
) Gov. Code sections 3300-3309.5;
18 ) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ONE-
) YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
19
) UNDER Cal Gov. Code 3304;
20 )
)
21 )
22 Jury Trial Demanded
23
24
25
26
27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 1
28
1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. Defendant County of Los Angeles (“County”) is notorious for being riddled with
3 corruption. The County has a huge whistleblower problem. Since 2019, an unending stream of
4 whistleblowers have stepped forward and reported rule and law violations by the County’s
5
Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”).
6
2. Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected by state and federal statutes and are
7
supposed to be safe from retaliation. However, the whistleblowers are not safe in LASD and are
8
not protected by the County.
9
3. When whistleblowers report misconduct, LASD and its sheriff, Defendant Alex
10
Villanueva (“Villanueva”) do not conduct fair and honest investigations into the misconduct.
11
Instead, the sheriff and LASD immediately move to attack the whistleblowers. As a standard,
12
routine strategy, the sheriff and LASD lie about the whistleblowers and try to discredit them with
13
fake allegations, reprimands, and criminal and administrative investigations, conducted with no
14
foundation.
15
16 4. Rather than focusing on criminals and keeping the streets safe for residents,
17 Villanueva and LASD have been and are focused on fighting whistleblowers. One of those
18 whistleblowers is Plaintiff Robin Limon. By all objective accounts a highly competent and ethical
19 Assistant Sheriff, the Plaintiff repeatedly spoke up about corrupt and unethical conduct in the
20 Villanueva administration. Matters came to a head when Villanueva’s cover up of use of excessive
21 force came to light in the media.

22 5. On March 29, 2022, Villanueva retaliated against Plaintiff Limon. Villanueva told
23 Plaintiff to retire immediately; within an hour, or be demoted down by 4 ranks, with her career
24
permanently destroyed under either scenario. Ms. Limon has not returned to work, for several
25
months, since Villanueva took this action against her, forcing her out of the department.
26
28
1 6. Villanueva retaliated against Plaintiff and other whistleblowers after they exposed
2 Villanueva’s cover up of the use of excessive force by Deputy DOUGLAS JOHNSON against an
3 inmate, ENZO ESCALANTE.

4 7. The reasons for the Sheriff’s misconduct were twofold, to retaliate against the
5
Plaintiff for being a whistleblower on several instances of illegal and other wrongful conduct and
6
to further his cover up of an excessive use of force incident.
7
8. Defendant Chief John Satterfield (“Satterfield”) joined in defaming and framing
8
the Plaintiff. Villanueva has repeatedly engaged in defamation against the Plaintiff and continues
9
to do so up to the filing of this complaint. As part of his cover up, Villanueva has lied repeatedly
10
about Plaintiff to try to make it look like she and others committed his crimes of obstruction of
11
justice and fraud. Despite cease and desist demands from Plaintiff, Villanueva continues to make
12
what he knows to be false statements about Plaintiff.
13
14
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15
16 9. This Court has jurisdiction over all state causes of action. Venue is proper because
17 Defendants are located in the County of Los Angeles, and all the events, actions, or omissions
18 giving rise to these claims occurred in the County of Los Angeles.
19 PARTIES
20 10. Plaintiff Robin Limon was an Assistant Sheriff in LASD, before being illegally
21 forced out by Villanueva; Ms. Limon reported the unlawful conduct of Defendant Sheriff and was
22 retaliated against by the County and the Defendant Sheriff.
23 11. Defendant Los Angeles County is a municipal entity that operates and operated
24
LASD, which is an agency of the County.
25
26
28
1 12. Defendants SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA and John Satterfield are employed
2 by LASD and the County and are residents of Los Angeles County. The County is liable for all
3 their wrongful conduct and the misconduct of all its other employees’ misconduct against the
4 Plaintiff.
5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6
13. Sheriff Villanueva routinely overlooks police misconduct to protect himself and
7
those within his circle. One Deputy Douglas Johnson achieved infamy for having taken and
8
publicized photos of the body parts of basketball star Kobe Bryant after he and his daughter died
9
in a tragic helicopter accident.
10
14. Instead of disciplining Deputy Johnson for the incident, Villanueva promised no
11
discipline if Johnson would destroy the evidence, the photos. Subsequently, Johnson was not held
12
accountable for his conduct and was given -no discipline whatsoever. Deputy Johnson would later
13
be put under criminal investigation by the Sheriff’s Department’s Internal Criminal Affairs Bureau
14
(“ICIB”) for alleged involvement in a gambling and prostitution ring. Villanueva and LASD still
15
16 did not relieve Johnson of duty.
17 15. Villanueva’s refusal in holding Deputy Johnson accountable led to Johnson
18 committing further misconduct. When the previous ICIB investigation was initiated, Johnson
19 should have been relieved of duty during the course of the investigation. If Johnson has been
20 properly disciplined and relieved of duty, he would not have been on duty on March 10, 2021.
21 March 10, 2021, marked day two of the trial of Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin, who
22 would soon be convicted for murdering George Floyd. Chauvin murdered George Floyd by cutting
23 his air off with a knee on the back of his head and neck.
24
16. On March 10, 2021, Inmate Enzo Escalante was pushed or guided to a wall by
25
Deputy Douglas Johnson at the San Fernando Courthouse. Escalante then assaulted Deputy
26
28
1 Johnson, hitting him several times. Deputy Johnson and other deputies took Escalante to the
2 ground and subdued and restrained him. That should have been the end of the incident.
3 Unfortunately, for about three minutes after Escalante was restrained and passive, Johnson held
4 his knee onto Escalante’s neck and restricted his breathing, in a fashion like Derek Chauvin did to
5
George Floyd. Escalante struggled to breathe but did not die.
6
17. On the same day, Captain Robert Jones at the West Bureau called Commander
7
Allen Castellano about the Use of Force (“UOF”) incident after he reviewed the video of Deputy
8
Douglas Johnson’s treatment of inmate Enzo Escalante. Castellano notified his supervisor, Chief
9
LaJuana Haselrig, who then viewed the video with him. Castellano and Haselrig asked the Plaintiff
10
to view the video and she concurred that this appeared to be an excessive and dangerous use of
11
force, and as such a breach of proper protocols. The three discussed how the maneuver by Deputy
12
Johnson looked wrongful and dangerous and that it bore similarity to the one used by Officer Derek
13
Chauvin against George Floyd.
14
18. Plaintiff was concerned about illegal conduct, the excessive use of force, being
15
16 committed at LASD. Ms. Limon knew that, for the safety of residents, Deputy Johnson should be
17 relieved of duty pending a fair and thorough investigation over the UOF. She also knew that all
18 deputies at LASD needed to be reminded about the laws and rules on use of force and be given
19 sufficient training to prevent a reoccurrence of this illegal, dangerous conduct, to protect residents
20 as well as deputies. Plaintiff agreed with Haselrig and Castellano that Villanueva should be shown
21 the video promptly and informed of the UOF incident, and that the video could be made public at
22 some point. Plaintiff knew that for the sake of the safety of residents, it was imperative for the
23 Sheriff to address this matter right away and reinforce policies against excessive uses of force by
24
deputies.
25
26
28
1 19. Proper protocols, well known by Villanueva, meant a referral for administrative
2 investigation through the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”), combined with a consultation with ICIB
3 to determine whether a criminal investigation is needed. Commander Castellano and Chief

4 Haselrig agreed that they would proceed with an IAB investigation and an ICIB consultation,
5
knowing that the severity of the UOF would result in the case going eventually and quickly to
6
ICIB.
7
20. Lieutenant April Carter confirmed that on the same day of the UOF incident, on
8
March 10, 2021, Captain Robert Jones received instruction from the Assistant Sheriff, the Plaintiff
9
to proceed with the ICIB consultation. In addition, on the same day, Castellano informed Captain
10
Jones that an IAB investigation and ICIB consultation shall be immediately initiated. (About 3
11
weeks later, Jones was transferred out by Villanueva and replaced by Captain Jacqueline Sanchez.)
12
On or around March 15, 2021, as soon as Plaintiff received the video from Chief Haselrig of the
13
Escalante incident, she brought the DVD to Villanueva’s office. There, Sheriff’s aide, Lieutenant
14
Anthony Blanchard, took the DVD from Plaintiff and showed the video, on his (Blanchard)
15
16 computer, to Sheriff Villanueva and Undersheriff Timothy Murakami with Plaintiff present.
17 21. Murakami and Villanueva, as well as Blanchard joined Plaintiff in finding the
18 apparent illegal use of excessive force troubling. Villanueva also made note of the failure of the
19 two supervisors, Deputies Brantley, and Rodriguez, to intervene in the incident to stop the
20 excessive use of force.
21 22. Days later, during a meeting with the top executives, Plaintiff advised Villanueva
22 to remove Brantley from the sergeant’s promotional list, because of his pending status of being a
23 subject of an administrative investigation due to this UOF incident. Villanueva then properly
24
removed Brantley from the list.
25
26
28
1 23. After viewing the video, Villanueva told Murakami, Blanchard, and Plaintiff that
2 “we” (LASD) “do not need bad media at this time.” Villanueva told Plaintiff that he would “handle
3 the matter,” leading her to believe that the Sheriff would do the right thing and follow proper
4 protocol. Plaintiff informed Castellano and Haselrig that she showed the video to the Sheriff.
5
24. However, by “handling the matter,” Villanueva really meant that he would proceed
6
to obstruct justice and direct a cover up of the incident.
7
25. It is now clear that when Villanueva stated that he did not need bad media at this
8
time, he was thinking about the optics of his deputy committing the same type of excessive force
9
used by Chauvin to murder George Floyd, in the middle of the Chauvin trial. It is also clear that
10
Villanueva was concerned about bad publicity for him resulting from the fact that he had not held
11
the same Deputy Johnson accountable for previously publicizing photos of Kobe Bryant’s remains.
12
Bryant’s widow had filed a lawsuit over the photo sharing scandal and called out Villanueva for
13
destruction of evidence.
14
26. Villanueva subsequently also moved to block an ICIB investigation and the filing
15
16 of assault charges against inmate Escalante, even though proper procedure required for that to
17 happen promptly. Fearing that if assault charges were filed against the inmate, his defense attorney
18 would have gotten access to the video and the public could see it, Villanueva blocked a criminal
19 investigation into the matter, lied about the incident and later claimed he did not watch the video
20 until November 2021 to fit a fake timeline.
21 27. Meanwhile, Villanueva targeted and retaliated against the Plaintiff for blowing the
22 whistle on the illegal excessive use of force and Villanueva’s cover up of the UOF.
23
24
25
26
28
1 LONG HISTORY OF PLAINTIFF BLOWING WHISTLE ON MISCONDUCT IN LASD
2 28. Villanueva also targeted and is targeting the Plaintiff because of a long history of
3 the Plaintiff reporting and raising concerns about wrongful and illegal conduct, including
4 Villanueva’s own illegal retaliation against whistleblowers. During Plaintiff’s tenure as Assistant
5
Sheriff, she has witnessed and endured abusive, racist, and sexist language used by the Sheriff on
6
various Department members, elected and appointed officials, and members of the public. Ms.
7
Limon witnessed Villanueva use homosexual and transgender slurs, calling people he dislikes
8
“trannies.”
9
29. Over the past three years, Plaintiff has pleaded with the Sheriff to collaborate with
10
the Board of Supervisors and Office of Inspector General to be transparent, ethical, collaborative,
11
and provide only the best of services to the residents of Los Angeles County. The Sheriff had
12
declined Plaintiff’s requests and continuously verbally berates and attacks these entities and
13
individuals by calling them various names and using derogatory language, as he abuses power.
14
30. Also, over the last three years, Plaintiff continuously urged the Sheriff to allow
15
16 Department executives (Captains, Commanders, Chiefs and Assistant Sheriffs) the ability to
17 develop, mentor and promote members qualified for positions within the Department. However,
18 the Sheriff insisted that it is “His Department!” and “He and Vivian” (his wife; not officially
19 employed by the department) will select people as they see fit because Vivian “is a very good
20 judge of character.” Unfortunately, the quality of character of applicants does not seem to be
21 considered by Vivian Villanueva as to whom she approves of and disapproves of for hiring and
22 promotions. Plaintiff and various department executives witnessed the Sheriff take photos of
23 promotional and transfer lists and send them to his wife for approval or disapproval. Plaintiff also
24
witnessed names removed from the lists and denied earned promotions at the order of Vivian
25
Villanueva in retaliation against whistleblowers, a practice that is improper and illegal.
26
28
1 31. Despite reports and concerns by the Plaintiff, the Sheriff has repeatedly promoted
2 individuals who are not qualified for the positions and have been found to have committed
3 wrongful acts or are under investigation for having done wrongful, even illegal acts.
4 32. Plaintiff consistently opposed Villanueva’s promotions of unqualified candidates
5
up the ranks of LASD and raised the ire of the sheriff by doing so. On one occasion, Ms. Limon
6
adamantly disagreed with the promotion of a Lieutenant to the rank of Captain. Plaintiff expressed
7
serious concerns regarding this employee’s prior founded administrative investigations and
8
numerous allegations of sexual misconduct at his currently assigned station, but Villanueva still
9
promoted him to Captain over Plaintiff’s objection.
10
33. On another occasion, Plaintiff adamantly disagreed with the promotion of another
11
Lieutenant to the rank of Captain, one well known by various Department executives and listed as
12
a suspect of very serious criminal charges, yet the Sheriff promoted him to the rank of Captain,
13
over the objections and report of the Plaintiff. After the Plaintiff reported on the impropriety of the
14
matter, this Captain was eventually removed by LASD from his command and relieved of duty.
15
16 34. On another occasion, Plaintiff adamantly disagreed with the promotion of yet
17 another Lieutenant to the rank of Captain, one listed as a suspect in a very serious criminal charge
18 involving a minor, yet Sheriff Villanueva promoted him when according to the protocols the
19 serious allegations required the Lieutenant to be relieved of duty pending a serious investigation.
20 35. Villanueva was angered when the Plaintiff adamantly opposed the promotion of a
21 notoriously corrupt Lieutenant Yvonne O’Brien to the rank of Captain. O’Brien is widely known
22 for conduct causing herself and the County to be repeatedly sued by deputies for retaliation. In one
23 such instance, (but not known to Plaintiff at the time) O’Brien was reported by a whistleblower
24
for fraudulent payout of government monies to other employees. As has happened so often since
25
2019 when Villanueva took power, he obstructed an IAB investigation into O’Brien and abruptly
26
28
1 cancelled the IAB despite the merit to the allegations. Villanueva later promoted O’Brien to a
2 position of power over the whistleblower. It is alleged that O’Brien then moved swiftly to destroy
3 the whistleblowers’ career, put false allegations on her, block her earned promotion, and relieve
4 her of duty.
5
36. Plaintiff advised the Sheriff that besides the credible allegations of fraud against
6
O’Brien, she also had not met the requirements for Captain and the application process had already
7
been closed. Yet, the Sheriff improperly instructed staff to reopen the application period for the
8
captain position again so O’Brien could apply. O’Brien was subsequently placed as an Acting
9
Captain, so she could assist Villanueva in his corrupt hiring and promotion practices.
10
37. O’Brien was just one of a multitude of unqualified and incompetent employees
11
promoted up the ranks by Villanueva and his wife. Villanueva’s legacy as sheriff will be known
12
as much for incompetence as corruption. It will take years for any future sheriff to clean up the
13
mess.
14
38. O’Brien would later become the subject of a yet another grievance and an
15
16 administrative investigation for numerous issues including violating laws under FEHA and for
17 helping orchestrate a lieutenant promotional exam cheating scandal. The Sheriff has indicated he
18 plans to eventually promote O’Brien to an Assistant Sheriff position as a reward.
19 39. In another instance, Plaintiff advised the Sheriff of a lieutenant was not performing
20 to standards and would be placed on a unit level performance mentoring program. The Sheriff
21 retaliated against the current station captain and transferred him and promoted the unqualified
22 employee to replace him. This employee has since been promoted to Commander, despite concerns
23 raised by Plaintiff.
24
40. Undersheriff Timothy Murakami, talking to employees, used a derogatory racial
25
slur in Japanese to describe Black people, the equivalent of the “n” word. An Equity Oversight
26
28
1 Panel review discovered that a Sergeant heard Murakami’s slur and failed to report it. The panel
2 determined the Sergeant should receive discipline for failure to report. Plaintiff advised the Sheriff
3 of the panel’s findings and proposed discipline for both the Sergeant and Murakami. Sheriff stated
4 that Murakami would not be disciplined or even investigated. Plaintiff disagreed with the Sheriff
5
and stated that it was unfair for Murakami not to be disciplined if the Sergeant was disciplined for
6
not reporting his wrongful act. The Sheriff angrily dismissed the Plaintiff’s concerns.
7
41. Commander Eli Vera (now retired) fell out of favor with the Sheriff for providing
8
opposing viewpoints during his administration and advising the Sheriff to start to engage in ethical
9
conduct and focus on public safety. Vera went on an approved medical leave of absence. The
10
Sheriff stated to the Plaintiff he wanted Vera to retire and not come back to work. Plaintiff advised
11
the Sheriff to not illegally retaliate against Vera.
12
42. Vera returned to work after his approved leave. The Sheriff told the Plaintiff that
13
he wanted Vera out of the Central Patrol Division because he had “too much of a following with
14
the deputies.” The Plaintiff advised the Sheriff that Vera should be allowed to remain in Central
15
16 Patrol. The Sheriff disagreed and had Vera transferred to the Technology and Support Division.
17 The Plaintiff soon realized that Vivian Villanueva had wanted to retaliate against Vera and have
18 him moved and urged the Sheriff to do so.
19 43. Plaintiff was tasked with handling contract renewal negotiations with the Los
20 Angeles Community College District (LACCD). After numerous discussions and meetings with
21 LACCD representatives, Plaintiff informed the Sheriff of the status of the negotiations and
22 recommended terminating the contract. Plaintiff had concerns with the staffing model and the
23 safety of LASD employees, faculty, and students with the requested cuts to the contract by
24
LACCD. The Sheriff agreed with the Plaintiff and her assessment of the concerns. Days later, the
25
Plaintiff received instruction from the Sheriff to continue with the contract negotiations.
26
28
1 44. Plaintiff learned from the Sheriff that his campaign manager (Javier Gonzalez) had
2 been illegally involved in ongoing discussions with an LACCD board member. The Sheriff sent
3 Plaintiff text messages “from my campaign guy regarding CCB” “Until we win our reelect ppl will
4 test us. Can I tell them you all will counter propose and maybe set some triggers? He said cut a bit
5
and they will sign it.” It was clear to the Plaintiff that the Sheriff had his campaign manager
6
improperly take over negotiations. Plaintiff advised the Sheriff that it may be illegal to involve his
7
campaign in negotiations for a Los Angeles County contract. The Sheriff angrily dismissed the
8
Plaintiff’s concerns.
9
45. Vera later announced his candidacy for Los Angeles County Sheriff, and the Sheriff
10
began to plot how to demote him by any means to punish him for running for office. Plaintiff
11
advised the Sheriff not to demote Vera because there were no performance issues. Sheriff tried to
12
fabricate administrative issues to demote Vera for but could not easily come up with any.
13
Frustrated, Villanueva simply demoted Vera for running a campaign for sheriff against him. The
14
Sheriff did this despite the advice of the three Assistant Sheriffs, including the Plaintiff, and
15
16 against the Constitutional Policing Advisor and county counsel’s advice. Plaintiff’s attempt to
17 guide the sheriff to follow the law and engage in ethical conduct continued to raise the ire of
18 Villanueva. Vera was subsequently demoted to the rank of commander and transferred to a less
19 desirable position at Court Services Division.
20 46. Plaintiff also spoke out about Villanueva’s retaliatory transfer of a Captain, initials
21 E.H, who was tasked with finding administrative violations on a Detective (J.S.). This Detective
22 did nothing wrong and it was obvious to all of those around the Sheriff. Detective J.S. was the
23 investigator on a stolen gun case in which Vera’s wife had been the victim. The thief was caught,
24
confessed, and got convicted. When E.H. stated the previous investigation of Detective J.S. found
25
no administrative violations and questioned the reason for another (obviously fake) administrative
26
28
1 investigation, E.H. was then transferred in retaliation. It was revealed that Villanueva targeted J.S.
2 in the far-fetched hope that his fake investigation could falsely claim wrongful conduct by Vera.
3 Villanueva was obsessed in harming Vera for running against him, he was okay with destroying
4 the life and career of J.S. through illegal means.
5
47. A Sergeant, initials J.R., was selected to a bureau as a team leader. This was
6
approved and vetted through the chain of command through the Chief and the Plaintiff. J.R. had
7
been training with the bureau, given a start date, purchased uniforms, given all equipment and a
8
vehicle. Plaintiff gave the Sheriff a folder with J.R.’s background information, for final approval,
9
as the Sheriff’s standing order of approving every transfer in the department. The Sheriff
10
improperly denied his transfer because he had previously worked at Century Station and simply
11
based on that was labeled a friend of Eli Vera. Villanueva was dismissive of the Plaintiff’s
12
concerns over the illegal retaliation.
13
48. A Lieutenant, Joseph Garrido, was qualified and approved and vetted up through
14
the chain of command through the Chief and the Plaintiff for a promotion to a coveted position.
15
16 Lt. Garrido attended the required training, but was then improperly removed from the selection
17 process, by the Sheriff in retaliation, because Lt. Garrido blew the whistle on LASD officials
18 hiding and lying about information and causing a loss of $3 million in pay to LASD employees.
19 LASD had to pay out the $3 million because of Lt. Garrido’s report. In addition, the Sheriff
20 discovered Lt. Garrido donated money to Eli Vera's campaign and sought revenge for Lt. Garrido
21 exercising his First Amendment rights. The sheriff then placed Garrido under a fake criminal
22 investigation through ICIB, fabricating that he “stole gasoline” to take a company vehicle out of
23 town. The corrupt ICIB investigation also reportedly involves attempts by ICIB investigators to
24
bribe Garrido’s neighbors, and defamatory statements by ICIB investigators, about Garrido to his
25
neighbors, to make it falsely appear he stole a vehicle.
26
28
1 49. In early July 2021, the Sheriff insisted on promoting a sergeant, initials H.F. to a
2 highly coveted lieutenant position over Plaintiff’s proper objection, despite there being no position
3 to promote him into at that time. Approximately two months later, while H.F. was on a
4 probationary period, he was arrested by the Beverly Hills Police Department for committing
5
domestic violence against his wife, in public, while drinking alcohol with his firearm on him. H.F.
6
was relieved of duty per department policy and protocol. The following week, during a meeting
7
with the Sheriff and other Department executives, the Plaintiff again raised concerns about the
8
employee, and the Sheriff was dismissive and said that the Sheriff’s wife, Vivian Villanueva,
9
talked to the employee’s wife and it was “a big nothing.” The Sheriff then told the Plaintiff to sign
10
off on the employee coming back to work. The Plaintiff disagreed and said that the Department
11
should wait until the criminal monitor and IAB investigation is complete. This angered the Sheriff.
12
50. Chief Chris Marks and then Commander Holly Francisco approached Plaintiff
13
separately, numerous times, to pressure Plaintiff to bring H.F. back to work. Plaintiff refused to
14
go along with the impropriety and stated her position that he would not be brought back to work
15
16 until the completion of an IAB investigation. On February 28, 2022, the Sheriff called Plaintiff
17 asking about the case. Plaintiff told the Sheriff that she would not bring the employee back until
18 the IAB investigation was completed as required by policy and protocol. On March 10, 2022, the
19 Plaintiff was called into the Sheriff’s office. The Plaintiff reiterated that she would not reinstate
20 the employee until completion of the IAB investigation due to the numerous policy violations.
21 However, the Sheriff ordered Plaintiff to reinstate the employee the following Sunday, yelling at
22 Plaintiff, “I am ordering you!”
23 51. The Plaintiff warned and advised the Sheriff against naming Captain John Burcher
24
his new Chief of Staff. Burcher had been lurking around the Sheriff’s office and not tending to
25
his work at his assignment. While he was the Captain at Transit Services Bureau, Burcher tried to
26
28
1 cover up a deputy stalking a resident female from his patrol car. The deputy ran the resident’s
2 license plate to find her home address and sent a card to her house to try to ask her out on a date.
3 When the lady refused to go with him, the deputy asked the mother out on a date. Burcher tried to
4 minimize the deputy’s discipline without an investigation, but Plaintiff intervened and got the
5
matter referred to the Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau for criminal investigation.
6
Eventually, investigation led to a 25-day suspension for the deputy.
7
52. Although assigned to the Community Partnerships Bureau, Burcher proudly claims
8
he is the Commander for the Sheriff’s Community Advisory Council (CAC) and works full-time
9
on the Sheriff’s re-election campaign, while illegally being paid by the County. It is alleged upon
10
and belief that what Villanueva is doing is theft of public monies, about $350,000 annually in
11
public dollars to pay Burcher to work for him personally and not for LASD and the County.
12
53. The Plaintiff urged the Sheriff to put a hold on Burcher’s promotion to Chief of
13
Staff and raised concerns over a corrupt and incompetent worker being promoted, but the Sheriff
14
ignored her concerns.
15
16 54. Burcher’s poor work performance was continuously reported by the Plaintiff and
17 others to the Sheriff directly. Burcher does not report to the office as scheduled; he missed various
18 meetings and was ineffective in staff work. Plaintiff reported this to the Sheriff, who dismissed the
19 reports saying Burcher’s work with the CAC and re-election were more important.
20 55. On June 18, 2020, Resident Andres Guardado, a security guard, was killed by
21 deputies who shot him in the back, claiming he reached for his gun. Chief of Staff Burcher began
22 improperly posting on social media disparaging and expletive filled remarks, alleging the killing
23 was rightful despite an investigation into the shooting not being completed.
24
56. On March 21, 2022, two female employees who work and report directly to the
25
Sheriff, reported to the Sheriff they were subjected to harassment and multiple repeated violations
26
28
1 of the Policy of Equality by Burcher. Burcher is well-known for staring at female employee’s
2 breasts. Yet, the Sheriff did nothing to protect those employees. When Undersheriff Murakami
3 was confronted by the Plaintiff about this, she was told Burcher was admonished to stay away
4 from the alleged victims. Burcher did not stay away from the victims. Burcher has since been
5
named by Villanueva as the Special Projects Commander reporting directly to Murakami and
6
continues to openly work on the Sheriff’s re-election campaign during work hours when he is
7
supposed to be working for LASD. The Sheriff ignored Plaintiff’s concerns this conduct was
8
illegal, a theft of massive amounts of public dollars. Burcher is not the only employee involved
9
with Villanueva in the crime of theft of public monies.
10
57. The Plaintiff warned the Sheriff numerous times about a certain Lieutenant, who
11
utilized various Department resources and during county time worked on various efforts of the
12
Sheriff’s re-election campaign. Using the guise of the LASD Community Advisory Council
13
(CAC), this employee and Burcher during work hours organized political campaign activities in
14
violation of Department policy, and possibly in violation of the law. The Plaintiff warned the
15
16 Sheriff numerous times regarding these violations, but the Sheriff disregarded these warnings.
17 58. The Plaintiff continuously opposed the Sheriff’s improper use of Department
18 resources for his personal gain. The Sheriff consistently improperly utilized Department resources
19 to further his re-election political campaign. Homeless Outreach Services Team (HOST), Mental
20 Evaluation Team (MET) and beach patrol teams were deployed into areas not patrolled by LASD.
21 The Plaintiff and other Department executives warned the Sheriff against this practice, as it was a
22 use of County dollars and resources for work LASD should not be doing without invitation from
23 LAPD. The Sheriff’s campaign manager helped come up with the idea that it would help with
24
raising money for Villanueva’s re-election campaign and secure votes by making it look like he
25
was cracking down on homeless people and solving the homeless problem.
26
28
1 59. The Sheriff stated that he would deploy LASD deputies to tourist destinations
2 because “that’s where the money is at.” Venice, Santa Monica, Hollywood, and Olvera Street
3 areas were selected by the Sheriff and his campaign manager. The Plaintiff continuously urged
4 against this practice, as it was depleting resources from contract cities and county areas whose
5
residents need LASD’s protection. The Sheriff ignored these warnings by the Plaintiff.
6
60. In November 2021, the Sheriff requested to view disturbing, criminal activity,
7
surveillance videos from Transit Services Bureau’s Metro lines. He then stated he was going to
8
hold a press conference and release the videos to the media, figuring this would be helpful for his
9
re-election campaign. Plaintiff informed him surveillance video was the property of Metro and
10
could not be released by him. The Sheriff dismissed Plaintiff’s warning. It was not until Plaintiff
11
pleaded with him to not re-victimize the victims which included two violent sexual assaults that
12
the Sheriff did the press conference without showing the videos.
13
61. During Memorandum of Understanding MOU negotiations with an employee
14
union, of which Plaintiff was tasked to attend on behalf of Sheriff Villanueva, Plaintiff was
15
16 directed by Undersheriff Timothy Murakami to improperly offer to give additional bonus pay to a
17 class of employees, because the Sheriff demanded it. Plaintiff refused because such an offer would
18 be illegal and considered “direct dealing” without the union proposing it.
19 62. Undersheriff Murakami, acting on the Sheriff’s direction, gave permission for a
20 former employee to receive statistical information from a civilian employee to be used for political
21 activity against District Attorney Gascon. When the Plaintiff became aware she quickly stopped it
22 from being provided and informed the Undersheriff it was unethical and against policy.
23 63. By the end of 2021, after two years of Plaintiff raising concerns and reporting law
24
and rule violations and doing her best to stop illegal conduct by the sheriff, Villanueva had grown
25
weary of the Plaintiff’s ethics.
26
28
1 64. As stated above, Plaintiff is also a first-hand witness with personal knowledge of
2 Sheriff Villanueva blocking and stalling an investigation into an excessive Use of Force (“UOF”)
3 incident to obstruct justice and avoid bad publicity for his re-election campaign.
4
5
SHERIFF VILLANUEVA’S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND COVER UP OF
6
EXCESSIVE FORCE AND FRAME UP AND ILLEGAL TERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
7
65. Plaintiff, Chief Haselrig, and Commander Allen Castellano were all very troubled
8
by the UOF incident committed by Deputy Johnson on March 10, 2021. Castellano, and Haselrig
9
immediately took steps to make sure proper investigations were done into it. Captain Robert Jones
10
was responsible for carrying out the referral for consult to ICIB, and Castellano told Jones to make
11
the referral. April Carter confirms that Plaintiff also told Jones on March 10, 2021, to make the
12
ICIB referral. However, Jones and his successor, Captain Jacqueline Sanchez, did not make the
13
referral. Villanueva replaced Jones with Sanchez about 3 weeks after the UOF incident, and
14
Sanchez became responsible for making the referral for ICIB consult.
15
16 66. It is alleged upon information and belief that Villanueva told Captain Sanchez to
17 not follow procedure, and to ignore the efforts by Plaintiff, Castellano, and Haselrig, to send the
18 matter to ICIB, conveying to the captains that it was “all a big nothing.” But the issue is the proper
19 handling of possible excessive uses of force, and the requirement to properly investigate, to avoid
20 further misuses of force of the future, and to ensure justice is done. Villanueva obstructed justice
21 here.
22 67. On the day following the UOF incident, March 11, 2021, Captain Jones sent
23 Castellano an email entitled, “Request for investigation or Criminal Monitor,” verifying his
24
conversation with Castellano, as well as Plaintiff, on the need for a consultation with ICIB.
25
26
28
1 68. The initiating of an IAB investigation was did not begin until March 31, 2021, and
2 there was still no ICIB consult at that time, despite the fact the Plaintiff had brought the video to
3 Villanueva and watched it with him, Murakami, and Lt. Blanchard on or about March 15, 2021.
4 On about March 15, 2021, the Sheriff moved to quash the investigation into the UOF, as he feared
5
the exposure would be fallout for his re-election campaign.
6
69. In the first months after the UOF incident, the Plaintiff was unaware that Villanueva
7
was aggressively covering up the excessive use of force by blocking the ICIB investigation.
8
Villanueva even blocked a referral of inmate Escalante to the District Attorney for prosecution for
9
the assault on Deputy Johnson. Villanueva was deeply concerned that if the inmate got a criminal
10
attorney to defend him on the assault, the attorney would get access to the video of the UOF, and
11
video would be released to the public and media.
12
70. In the Spring of 2021, Castellano and Haselrig had multiple conversations with
13
each other concerning Deputy Johnson’s excessive use of force, as Castellano repeatedly reviewed
14
reports on the incident and sent notes on corrections needed to be done by staff. In June 2021,
15
16 Chief Haselrig and Plaintiff discussed the delay in the filing of the criminal case against inmate
17 Escalante, and Plaintiff became increasingly alarmed.
18 71. Plaintiff and Castellano were also concerned when they found out that the UOF
19 case with Johnson was improperly separated from a UOF case against another inmate who was
20 involved in the same incident with Escalante. The other deputy used less aggressive and apparently
21 appropriate force with the other inmate. It is alleged upon information and belief that Villanueva
22 directed the two UOF cases to be split, so the softer one could be the one in the LASD computer
23 system that would be seen by the Inspector General Max Huntsman if he were alerted to the
24
Escalante matter and were to review UOF cases, while the Deputy Johnson matter would be buried
25
26
28
1 and hidden from scrutiny as long as possible. This splitting of the case was done without the
2 knowledge of Plaintiff, Castellano or Haselrig.
3 72. Due to retaliatory actions and cover ups from Villanueva, there was a shuffling of
4 Captains over West Bureau. Remarkably and unprecedentedly, within an 8-month span, West
5
Bureau had three different captains, four captains within calendar year 2021, and as of April 2022,
6
5 captains within 16-months. Captain Jones was moved to another division and Captain Jacqueline
7
Sanchez became the new unit commander on April 4, 2021. On June 8, 2021, Sanchez held a staff
8
meeting to address issues, including “Unreasonable Force and Duty to Intervene,” especially in
9
light of the George Floyd incident.
10
73. On June 16, 2021, West Bureau sent back responses to Castellano’s questions about
11
the UOF package. Castellano immediately notified Chief Haselrig of the concerns that he had that
12
the investigation was being steered from others outside the Division – at that time, Castellano
13
inferred this was being done by Villanueva himself, as the Sheriff would have been either
14
personally making orders or directing someone else in his office to do so. After 3 months of
15
16 Villanueva’s delays, Haselrig and Castellano stepped up their whistleblowers efforts on the UOF
17 as they were alarmed by violations of laws and policies, the lack of accountability, and the fact
18 that Deputy Johnson’s UOF was still not reviewed by ICIB.
19 74. Plaintiff grew increasingly concerned about Villanueva’s conduct. Plaintiff had
20 witnessed the Sheriff on multiple occasions engage in improper and even illegal conduct. Plaintiff
21 believed that if the Sheriff was delaying the criminal investigation, he was putting residents’ lives
22 at risk. The UOF by Johnson should have been investigated promptly and completely and if Deputy
23 Johnson engaged in wrongful conduct, he needed to be held accountable. If this potential method
24
of use of force was being used by other deputies, the Sheriff needed to train them and make sure
25
the practice was stopped.
26
28
1 75. The Sheriff has tried to make light of the UOF incident, stating that the inmate did
2 not die. However, after Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, law enforcement agencies were
3 enlightened about this particular type of use of force used by Chauvin and Johnson. What had been
4 an accepted practice in some agencies in the past was no longer seen as appropriate. Law
5
enforcement agencies now recognized that this tactic could prove to be lethal. Villanueva should
6
have acted on this excessive UOF immediately and protected the County’s residents.
7
76. The Sheriff’s non-action encouraged future excessive uses of force by deputies. In
8
April 2021, another troubling use of force occurred, this time against a disabled resident who was
9
doing nothing wrong and was passively backing slowly away from deputies. Deputy Konrad
10
Thieme, who worked out of the same station as Deputy Johnson, throat punched the resident, and
11
tased her three times as she lay on the ground, not resisting. Thieme then grabbed her by the hair
12
and threw her face down into the patrol car. Thieme was later arrested and indicted by the District
13
Attorney for assault and battery against the resident and for filing a false police report. Arguably,
14
this attack on the disabled resident would not have happened had Villanueva acted properly on the
15
16 UOF by Deputy Johnson.
17 77. On or about June 16, 2021, Lieutenant Steven Ruiz, who was an aide to the Plaintiff,
18 requested a copy of the incomplete force package (including videos, reports, etc.) to review from
19 Castellano. This request was done without the knowledge or approval of the Plaintiff. Castellano
20 scrutinized Ruiz about the request for an incomplete force review since no previous requests of
21 this nature had ever come from the Plaintiff’s office. Nonetheless, the incomplete package was
22 compiled, including a color copied, unapproved routing slip, and was received by the Assistant
23 Sheriff’s Office on June 18, 2021. Ruiz never explained this conduct. Shortly thereafter, the Sheriff
24
promoted Ruiz to Captain of the Major Crimes Bureau, one of the most coveted, highly sought-
25
after positions in the Detective Division. Plaintiff, months, later learned Ruiz had requested the
26
28
1 force package, (he left behind upon his promotion) and sought to gain possession of blank
2 stationary from Plaintiff’s office, apparently to forge notes from her.
3 78. Defendants tried to cover up police brutality by also covering up the inmate’s
4 wrongdoing. On June 16, 2021, Chief Haselrig shared Castellano’s concerns with Plaintiff about
5
Captain Sanchez refusing to submit the case against inmate Enzo Escalante to the DA’s Office for
6
prosecution. Sanchez has admitted that she did not send the case to the district attorney, despite
7
the video being such strong and obvious evidence of the inmate committing assault against the
8
deputy. Sanchez said it would “open a pandora’s box” to send the Inmate’s case to the DA. The
9
Pandora’s Box would reveal the cover up by Villanueva and obstruction of justice.
10
79. Castellano was increasingly troubled when as of June 2021, ICIB consultation on
11
Johnson's actions and referral to DA for filing against Inmate Escalante had both not been done.
12
On June 21, 2021, Castellano contacted Lieutenant Roberto Hernandez and told him he disagreed
13
with the position to not file a criminal case against Escalante and directed him to have the case
14
submitted for prosecution.
15
16 80. Sanchez continued to not move the referral to ICIB forward, despite her knowing
17 and admitting that Deputy Johnson used the same maneuver that Derek Chauvin used to murder
18 George Floyd. For sure, due to the machinations of Villanueva, the breakdown of proper protocols
19 and procedures failed at West Bureau despite the persistent efforts of Plaintiff, Castellano, and
20 Chief Haselrig, to move the cases forward.
21 81. Haselrig and Castellano at all times followed proper procedures in this matter.
22 Castellano sent Force Packet Corrections to West Bureau, April 27, 2021, May 4, 2021, June 2,
23 2021, June 23, 2021, and approved force review on July 13, 2021, only for the efforts of Castellano,
24
himself, Haselrig, and Plaintiff to be stymied by Villanueva. The need for an ICIB referral of the
25
UOF incident was not a “judgment call” by Plaintiff, Castellano, and Haselrig. Others in the
26
28
1 department concurred there were problems with the UOF applied by Deputy Johnson. A sergeant
2 investigating the matter determined that Johnson applied pressure to Escalante’s head for an
3 “unreasonable amount” of time and a lieutenant called the restraint tactic unnecessary as Escalante
4 “no longer offered any resistance.”
5
82. By July 2021, Castellano and Haselrig knew it was time to begin to fully blow the
6
whistle on obstruction of the investigation. Subsequently, in his final use of force package written
7
in July 2021, Castellano created a paper trail of the cover up. In his final report, Castellano noted
8
the irregularities and possible crimes being committed by LASD personnel and supported an
9
investigation into the incident. Castellano hoped his report would alert and jump start a proper
10
handling of the Escalante use of force matter. Chief Haselrig shared the same hope that their
11
blowing the whistle would prompt everything to be righted and be put on proper track. Haselrig
12
reviewed the July 2021 package and signed off on it. However, Castellano’s report did not generate
13
the response they hoped, as Villanueva continued to quash the investigation.
14
83. Meanwhile, Sheriff Villanueva’s other acts of retaliation began to catch up on him
15
16 and backfire and expose his corruption. Captain Angela Walton reported Villanueva’s blatant
17 violation of state laws on COVID, and then on or about August 2021, she reported retaliation by
18 her supervisor. Three days later, Villanueva sabotaged his cover up of the UOF here by retaliating
19 against Walton and, while she was on a family vacation, moving her to West Bureau, making her
20 the 4th Captain in one year over that bureau. Moving a person with integrity and competence over
21 to this Bureau was a huge tactical blunder by Villanueva.

22 84. In October 2021, in the normal course of her duties, after receiving a call from an
23 IAB sergeant, Captain Walton came across the Escalante use of force video and was troubled by
24
what she viewed. Captain Walton called Castellano and told Castellano that ICIB had not been
25
consulted during the process yet. Castellano was outraged to be informed that ICIB had still not
26
28
1 been consulted after he had given direction to the previous two captains, and he directed Captain
2 Walton to consult with ICIB. Castellano and Walton were concerned because if IAB had started
3 their administrative investigation, it could have created procedural difficulties for ICIB to conduct
4 their criminal investigation. On November 9, 2021, ICIB began to review the matter, and Chief
5
Haselrig was able to approve the ICIB investigation on November 22, 2021, fortunately before
6
statute deadline dates were missed.
7
85. Deputy Johnson was off duty due to an injury and when he returned to duty, ICIB
8
tried to interview Johnson about his involvement in the UOF and after he refused to speak to
9
investigators, he was relieved of duty. Douglas Johnson was not immediately relieved of duty in
10
November 2021 as the Sheriff would later lie about to the media. Johnson was relieved of duty on
11
December 7, 2021.
12
86. Castellano followed up with Captain Walton on November 24, 2021, to see if the
13
criminal case against the inmate had been filed. She confirmed it had not. Remarkably, Villanueva
14
had managed to stall for this long the easy prosecution of the inmate for an obvious assault on
15
16 Deputy Johnson, solely to keep the public from seeing the video of excessive force. Captain
17 Walton directed investigators to prepare the case for filing against Escalante.
18 87. Villanueva was horrified the ICIB referral went through because Plaintiff,
19 Castellano, Haselrig and Walton did everything right, despite his obstruction. The ICIB request
20 was only referred for consultation in November 2021, eight months after Plaintiff showed the video
21 to Villanueva, who immediately recognized the severity of the excessive force.

22 88. Now that Villanueva was exposed, he resorted to his usual tactic of covering up his
23 obstruction of justice, and “flipping the script” onto the whistleblowers. Villanueva regularly uses
24
a certain political tactic against whistleblowers. When the whistle is blown, without any
25
investigation he immediately denies the allegations and moves to cover up the misconduct. Next,
26
28
1 Villanueva “flips the script” on the whistleblowers and accuses them of the exact wrongdoing they
2 are reporting on. He then initiates rigged Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) investigations against
3 whistleblowers and/or announces he has launched a (fake) criminal investigation into them and
4 denies earned promotions and gives unfair demotions to the whistleblowers. This is what happened
5
with the UOF incident here.
6
89. The day after final approval of the referral to ICIB on November 22, 2021, on
7
November 23, 2021, Villanueva initiated a rigged IAB investigation against Castellano, to pretend
8
the delay committed by Villanueva was caused by a procedural mistake made by Castellano in the
9
UOF matter. Given that Villanueva was briefed on the use of force within days of the incident, and
10
Castellano repeatedly reminded and asked those responsible for the ICIB referral to get it done,
11
there is zero possibility that Villanueva honestly thought Castellano made any mistakes.
12
Villanueva understood that Castellano, at all times, made proper notifications and provided
13
direction to the unit commander, as required by his duties, according to MPP 3-10/113.00 – Use
14
of Force Review – Area Commander or Division Director Responsibilities.
15
16 90. Despite the large number of individuals responsible for making sure the case
17 promptly went to ICIB, the IAB investigation directed by Villanueva against Castellano focused
18 only on Castellano, with no other subjects. IAB Lieutenant Eric Smitson even admitted to
19 Castellano that it looked like it was unfairly targeted at Castellano. Since Captain Robert Jones
20 also knew of the UOF on March 10, 2021, and approved the force review, he should have logically
21 been framed by Villanueva at the same time as Castellano. After Villanueva’s aides pointed this
22 out about Jones to the Sheriff, he switched Captain Robert Jones from being just a witness to being
23 a subject about six weeks later, to try to make the investigation look more legitimate.
24
91. The rigged IAB against Castellano also did not go through a proper review process.
25
Among other issues, an Assistant Sheriff, the Plaintiff, should have done the initial review.
26
28
1 However, Villanueva clearly feared that if it had been assigned to Plaintiff, she would have caught
2 the impropriety of the investigation when she knew Castellano had Chief Haselrig provide the
3 video of the UOF to her, and Plaintiff brought it to Villanueva and viewed it with him, Undersheriff
4 Murakami, and Lieutenant Blanchard on Lieutenant Blanchard’s computer. Villanueva also
5
directed for Captain Walton to not be interviewed about the instructions Castellano provided to
6
her (which she followed through with) regarding ICIB and filing the criminal case against the
7
inmate. Again, Villanueva did not want her questioned, as he feared she would tell the truth. This
8
case followed no protocols.
9
92. In November 2021, Plaintiff received a telephone call from Chief Kelly Porowski,
10
of the Professional Standards Division (PSD), who advised the Plaintiff regarding Commander
11
Castellano’s review of the UOF at issue here. Porowski told Plaintiff that Castellano had written
12
in his July report that someone “above the rank of Chief '' had improperly directed the splitting of
13
the two UOF cases. The Plaintiff demanded that Chief Porowski interview the Plaintiff on that day
14
about what happened with the UOF incident and the investigation that should have happened.
15
16 Chief Porowski refused, saying the Plaintiff had nothing to do with it and not to speak to
17 Castellano.
18 93. Now, Chief Porowski and Villanueva did not want the Plaintiff to be interviewed
19 because she was a witness to the fact that Villanueva himself had seen the video and that Castellano
20 did nothing wrong. Villanueva and Porowski were worried the Plaintiff would tell the truth about
21 the obstruction of justice, failure to refer the matter to ICIB, and the subsequent lies and cover up.
22 94. In his IAB interview, Captain Jones said he did not recall his conversations with
23 Castellano and Limon, but he did not contradict the statements by Castellano and April Carter, that
24
Jones was told on March 10, 2021, to make the ICIB consult referral, by both Plaintiff and
25
Castellano.
26
28
1 95. Commander Jose Rios was assigned to conduct the rigged investigation into
2 Castellano and Rios issued Castellano a written reprimand. LASD claimed falsely that Castellano
3 supposedly made a mistake and failed to properly handle an excessive use of force case. Villanueva
4 and LASD did this to ensure that Castellano gets a black mark in his personnel file to block him
5
from getting promotion within LASD or being hired by an outside agency as a Chief of Police.
6
96. Under the Public Safety Officers’ Bill of Rights (“POBR”), LASD had one year to
7
investigate and discipline anyone connected to the UOF investigation. So, one year after March
8
10, 2021, the sheriff had to punish anyone he genuinely thought had done anything wrong with the
9
UOF. The Sheriff did not charge Plaintiff or Chief Haselrig with any wrongdoing or any kind of
10
negligence in the incident. The “best” lie the sheriff could come up with by the deadline of March
11
10, 2022, was that Castellano had made some kind of mistake that warranted a written reprimand.
12
This is important to remember when Villanueva later got caught obstructing justice and suddenly
13
smeared Plaintiff and Chief Haselrig and Castellano, claiming that they had engaged in the cover
14
up and obstruction of justice that he himself had done.
15
16 97. Meanwhile, inmate Escalante was finally charged with assault in February 2022,
17 almost a year after the incident. While angered that whistleblowers Plaintiff, Haselrig, Walton and
18 Castellano and the others resurrected the ICIB investigation into Deputy Johnson, Villanueva
19 figured he got away once again with the cover up.
20 98. However, on or about March 25, 2022, the Los Angeles Times obtained a copy of
21 the video of the excessive use of force against inmate Escalante, gained access to the Castellano’s
22 whistleblower report of July 2021, and ran an exposé of the Villanueva cover up. Villanueva
23 scrambled to do additional cover up with a series of more lies. He lied to the LA Times that he
24
only first saw the video in October 2021, apparently trying to minimize the gap between the time
25
26
28
1 he saw the video and when Captain Walton and Commander Castellano pushed past his delay of
2 the investigation. Villanueva vehemently denied that his administration had engaged in a cover up.
3 99. The LA Times challenged Villanueva on the timeline, since even if Villanueva had
4 not seen the video until October, he was still sitting on the ICIB investigation until November 22,
5
2021. So, on the fly Villanueva then changed the story to that he only saw the video on November
6
18, four days before the case was officially approved by ICIB. Villanueva took credit in the media
7
for the referral to ICIB, but it was referred to ICIB on November 9, 2021, nine days before his fake
8
video viewing date. The approval occurred on November 22, 2021, but the ICIB consultation
9
request began on November 9th. Villanueva was not involved in getting the matter finally referred
10
to ICIB.
11
100. About a week after March 25, 2022, Villanueva’s office sent a written statement to
12
ABC news stating the viewing date was again October. This was reported as another switching of
13
the dates by the Sheriff, when in truth it was merely a matter of Villanueva’s staff not being able
14
to keep up with his lies and the ever-changing story.
15
16 101. While Villanueva felt he had successfully concocted a cover story for himself by
17 frantically changing the date he first saw the video to November 18, he later realized that even if
18 anyone fell for this fake story, he still had to explain other dates, including that Deputy Johnson
19 was not relieved of duty until December 7, an unacceptable 19 days later (although Johnson had
20 been off duty injured when Captain Walton took steps to have him relieved of duty). So, Villanueva
21 began instructing his staff, including Commander Joseph Williams to falsify a timeline to fit his
22 cover up. Williams contacted Captain Walton while she was out on medical leave and asked her
23 why Deputy Johnson was not relieved of duty on November 18, 2021, when the Sheriff supposedly
24
ordered Johnson to be relieved of duty. Captain Walton explained that the sequence of events did
25
26
28
1 not occur as the Sheriff has publicly stated, and that the only timeline she could submit, the factual
2 one, did not align with what the Sheriff was claiming.
3 102. Williams then called Walton again to tell her she was being moved out of her
4 command at Court Services Division and did not tell her to what assignment she was being
5
banished to by Villanueva. This was clearly an act of retaliation. This means there have been 5
6
Captains in a little over a year to command West Bureau.
7
103. In addition to lying about the date he first saw the video, Villanueva realized that
8
Castellano’s whistleblower UOF report of July 2021 stated executives above the rank of chief were
9
directing the UOF investigation. Villanueva looked at those in his office who viewed the video
10
back in March 2021, himself, his Undersheriff, and second in command Timothy Murakami, his
11
Lieutenant Aide Anthony Blanchard, and his Assistant Sheriff, the Plaintiff. Villanueva reasoned
12
the smart political move would be to frame the Plaintiff, especially in light of her other
13
whistleblowing and refusal to engage in wrongful conduct, rather than admit he was the one who
14
made the decision to obstruct justice.
15
16 104. On March 29, 2022, three days after denying covering up the excessive force on
17 Escalante, and after IAB investigation was completed, reviewed, and adjudicated with Castellano
18 receiving discipline, Villanueva changed his story again, and admitted his administration engaged
19 in a cover up. This was quite a remarkable admission by the Sheriff in the middle of all his lies:
20 that the County of Los Angeles engaged in a criminal cover up of an excessive use of force.
21 105. However, at the same time, in a defamatory frame up, the Sheriff claimed the cover
22 up was done by his staff and not himself. He announced he was acting against two of his officials,
23 Plaintiff, as well Castellano’s supervisor, Chief LaJauna Haselrig, communicating that they, not
24
he, had engaged in the cover up of the UOF. Villanueva manipulated the media to run photos of
25
Plaintiff and Haselrig, sending the message to the public and their family members that they were
26
28
1 disgraced criminals. Villanueva had not made Plaintiff and Haselrig subjects of the already
2 completed IAB investigation, and thus had already admitted they did nothing wrong. But he was
3 in the middle of his re-election campaign and was ready to do whatever he felt he need to do to
4 win, even scapegoating his own officials, Plaintiff and Haselrig, for his own corruption. Objective
5
observers inside LASD saw the attacks on Plaintiff for what it was, a ruthless stab in the back in a
6
blatant abuse of power, and the ultimate retaliation against a whistleblower.
7
106. Villanueva demanded Plaintiff and Haselrig’s immediate retirement, with the
8
option of being demoted if they refused. At the moment of retaliating and intimidating Plaintiff
9
with this ultimatum, Villanueva blurted out to Plaintiff that Deputy Johnson was involved in the
10
Kobe Bryant accident scene photo scandal. Villanueva was clearly aware that his destruction of
11
evidence and failure to discipline Johnson for that incident, and the failure to put Johnson out on
12
leave on the other criminal investigation, allowed the UOF against Escalante to occur.
13
107. Without being held accountable for over three years of wrongful conduct,
14
Villanueva committed severe abuse of government power. He maliciously demoted Plaintiff by
15
16 several ranks, and forced Haselrig out of her job, to cover up his own role, and to retaliate against
17 the whistleblowers. Villanueva constructively terminated the Plaintiff as she never returned to her
18 job after he forced her out several months from the date of the filing of this complaint.
19 108. Villanueva’s Lieutenant Aide Anthony Blanchard was unqualified to be Captain.
20 But Villanueva improperly promoted Blanchard to Captain, to try to secure his loyalty and to lie
21 for him, and immediately promoted one Holly Francisco two ranks to Assistant Sheriff. Villanueva
22 recently promoted Blanchard once again, to over the high-statured personnel department.
23 Villanueva also promoted Joe Williams to Chief.
24
109. On April 25, 2022, Commander Castellano filed a tort claim with the County of
25
Los Angeles, confirming all the allegations on the UOF made here by Plaintiff. Villanueva
26
28
1 responded by lashing out at Castellano and the Sheriff lied about the allegations and the timeline
2 of events. Villanueva made more defamatory statements about Plaintiff as well as Haselrig and
3 Castellano and others, claiming they all engaged in the cover up of excessive use of force, sending
4 a strong message that Villanueva once again is retaliating against whistleblowers, instead of
5
protecting the whistleblowers and conducting a fair and honest investigation into the claims made
6
by the whistleblowers.
7
110. Villanueva also forced his Aide, Blanchard, to go before the cameras with the media
8
to lie for him about when Villanueva first saw the video. But Blanchard mumbled a non-denial
9
denial, confirming that Blanchard recalls and confirms that the video was viewed by Villanueva
10
in March 2021.
11
111. The Sheriff also lashed out and falsely alleged criminal conduct against a Los
12
Angeles Times reporter, Villanueva’s campaign opponent Eli Vera, and Inspector General Max
13
Huntsman, in a further effort to avoid scrutiny of himself, and intimidate the media and
14
whistleblowers. A day after clearly naming the reporter, Vera, and Huntsman as “subjects” of a
15
16 criminal investigation, the Sheriff lied and said he did not say what he said, even though it is on
17 video for the world to see.
18 112. Out of media view now, Villanueva still carries on his corrupt ICIB criminal
19 investigation to try to determine which whistleblower leaked the video to the Los Angeles Times,
20 so the Sheriff could retaliate against the whistleblower, and intimidate other whistleblowers to not
21 come forward. The sheriff instructed ICIB to pretend that Plaintiff, Castellano, Haselrig, and Eli
22 Vera are just witnesses to be interviewed for this investigation, but clearly unofficially they are to
23 be considered suspects to be targeted for being whistleblowers.
24
113. On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed her tort claim with the County of Los Angeles.
25
Villanueva responded with further retaliation. That further retaliation allegedly includes an effort
26
28
1 to destroy Plaintiff’s life and career more fully. According to an ex-felon, the sheriff’s office sent
2 him a letter about Plaintiff. The ex-felon had sued the County several years before with allegations
3 of use of excessive force. The letter contained a fabricated story that the Plaintiff had deleted video
4 footage of excessive force against him and encouraged the ex-felon to immediately file a lawsuit
5
against the Plaintiff. Villanueva apparently hoped the media would cover the filing of the lawsuit
6
and discredit Plaintiff as a whistleblower, making the public think that Plaintiff had a history of
7
obstructing justice and engaging in the cover ups of the sort done by Villanueva himself.
8
114. Sometime in May 2022, Villanueva took further steps to cover up the obstruction
9
of justice with a fake memo, purportedly written by Chief of Staff, Commander John Satterfield.
10
The memo was clearly written for purposes of litigation and is not a memo written in the normal
11
course of business. Yet, Villanueva had two media outlets report on the memo as if it was some
12
“leaked LASD” document, that exonerated Villanueva. In truth, the memo does not exonerate
13
Villanueva as it is full of glaring holes, inconsistencies, and deficiencies, designed to trick readers.
14
The memo ultimately reinforces how there was a cover up of a use of excessive force. Whoever
15
16 wrote this memo participated in the cover up himself/herself by writing it.
17 115. The fraudulent May 2022 memo purportedly written by Satterfield contained
18 several additional defamatory statements from the author and Villanueva. For instance, Satterfield
19 and Villanueva knowingly lie when they state that, “Assistant Sheriff Limon was advised of this
20 and chose to conceal her prior knowledge and involvement in the incident.” The memo goes on to
21 acknowledge that there had been a IAB investigation into the delay of the UOF investigation,
22 confirming that Villanueva already did his fake investigation within the 1 year under POBR,
23 concluded in March 2022 and found no wrongdoing by Plaintiff and Chief Haselrig, and accused
24
Castellano of a procedural mistake, resulting in a bogus written reprimand, but not in engaging in
25
a cover up. If Villanueva had wanted to frame the whistleblowers for his cover up and obstruction,
26
28
1 he needed to do it by March 2022. As we know, Villanueva only moved to smear and frame
2 Plaintiff after the UOF video was leaked to media at the end of March. Yet, the fraudulent
3 Satterfield memo goes on to further defame Plaintiff stating that, “the apparent failures of
4 leadership. Again, at no time during the entire course of the IAB investigation did A/S Limon ever
5
disclose her prior knowledge of involvement in the incident, or the prior knowledge and
6
involvement of Chief Haselrig.” The memo continues from there with a multitude of lies to falsely
7
portray the Plaintiff and the other whistleblowers of “gross” failures in leadership, and corruption.
8
116. In their “conclusion” to the memo, Villanueva and Satterfield further defame the
9
Plaintiff and the other whistleblowers by stating that “on March 10, 2021, Robin Limon, LaJauna
10
Haselrig, Allen Castellano, and Robert Jones attempted to cover-up the use of force that occurred
11
earlier in the day at the San Fernando Court lock-up.” The Defendants also knowingly falsely state
12
that “on November 18, 2021, this attempted cover-up was discovered and halted, when Sheriff
13
Villanueva became aware of this incident and ordered immediate action…” The lies here would
14
be laughable if they did not come up at the expense of human lives, the Plaintiff, and the other
15
16 whistleblowers, and that the lies were done in furtherance of a crime. After that fake IAB
17 investigation into Castellano by Villanueva was completed and final, the UOF video was leaked
18 and reported on by the media, the Defendants claim a cover up by the whistleblowers. In the fake
19 May 2022 memo, the Defendant also frame and defame Captain Jones for their cover up.
20 117. It should be noted that in the memo, Satterfield, and Villanueva, also make several
21 admissions that implicate them in a crime. For instance, the memo acknowledges that the inmate
22 Escalante had “pain” and “visible head injuries,” had “trouble breathing,” “and sustained injuries
23 to his face and head.” It also states that the “UOF used with the knee appeared to be excessive and
24
unlawful.” In addition, the Defendants admit to their own cover up: “The other attempt to ‘cover-
25
26
28
1 up’ occurred on March 10, 2021, when the decision was made to bifurcate the UOF incident into
2 two separate reports.”
3 118. There is 100% certainty that Satterfield and Villanueva knew this May 2022 memo
4 was fraudulent and full of what they knew to be false statements. The Defendants cannot hide by
5
their pretense that this is a legitimate, official memo that somehow got leaked. The Defendants
6
committed fraud, engaged in defamation, and shopped the document to the media, pretending it
7
was “leaked.” The memo and the claimed procedure did not follow the department’s claim review
8
process, omitted critical information, and fabricated other information. The Defendants drafted
9
and “leaked” the memo to sway public opinion. Now it is a public document on the LASD website,
10
perpetually defaming the Plaintiff and the other whistleblowers.
11
119. On August 8, 2022, Villanueva engaged in further defamation against the Plaintiff
12
and other whistleblowers, as he posted an announcement admitting that the District Attorney had
13
convened a criminal grand jury. But rather than admitting that the grand jury was to investigate
14
his conduct on the handling of the UOF, he again lied about the Plaintiff and the other
15
16 whistleblowers. Villanueva pretended he and LASD had done an investigation into the matter and
17 went on to state that “our investigation indicates that the allegation of misconduct was orchestrated
18 by involved department executives to falsely portray themselves as whistleblowers to avoid
19 discipline, up to and including termination.”
20 120. In addition, Villanueva initiated a fake IAB investigation into Plaintiff, apparently
21 related to her speaking out against the sheriff for improperly bringing H.F. back to work after he
22 had committed domestic violence against his wife in public. The sheriff and LASD fraudulently
23 backdated the start of the fake IAB investigation into Plaintiff to March 2022 to pretend that it was
24
initiated before the Escalante video was leaked to the media.
25
26
28
1 121. Due to Villanueva’s retaliation for Plaintiff being a whistleblower and for reporting
2 and opposing FEHA violations, and violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights and rights under the Public
3 Safety Officers’ Bill of Rights, and defamatory statements, the Plaintiff suffers from severe
4 emotional distress and huge losses in income. Plaintiff has a damaged reputation due to the frame
5
up by Villanueva and false statements he has made to the media and public. Plaintiff has a logical
6
fear of future retaliation by the Sheriff and the Undersheriff and LASD and her career at LASD is
7
over. Plaintiff has not returned to work since Villanueva moved to destroy her life to cover for
8
himself. Plaintiff subsequently suffers from a loss of substantial future earnings.
9
122. The County of Los Angeles is liable for all misconduct and harms against Plaintiff,
10
including for intentional infliction of emotional distress, because the County ratified all the
11
wrongful conduct. LASD and the County did absolutely nothing to curb the sheriff’s abuse of
12
power, abuse of LASD employees, and abuse of County residents. LASD initiated no investigation
13
into the corrupt practices including rigged IAB and ICIB investigations against Plaintiff, the
14
widely disseminated false statements smearing the Plaintiff and Chief Haselrig, and Commander
15
16 Castellano, and the ending of Plaintiff’s career. The County took zero actions to hold the sheriff
17 and LASD accountable for their malicious actions against the Plaintiff. The County has done
18 nothing to protect its employees and residents from the rotting corruption at LASD.
19 123. The County is liable for the Sheriff’s misconduct. However, the Sheriff is also
20 personally liable for defamation for the malicious false statements he has made about Plaintiff as
21 part of his cover up and to retaliate against Plaintiff for reporting misconduct. The Plaintiff calls
22 on the Sheriff to immediately cease and desist in making knowingly false statements about the
23 Plaintiff.
24
124. The County’s own Inspector General has made the party admission on behalf of the
25
County that Sheriff Alex Villanueva and County employee Deputy Douglas Johnson may have
26
28
1 committed the following violations and/or crimes: 1) The First Amendment of the United States
2 Constitution (See, e.g. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 41O (2006) (While a public employer can
3 regulate on-duty speech, the 1st Amendment protects some public speech by employees about their
4 employment including the public reporting of misconduct); The Fourth and Fourteenth
5
Amendments of the United States Constitution protect against police seeking charges without
6
probable cause. (See, e.g., Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. (2022; The Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
7
Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibiting the use of excessive force; California
8
Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibiting an employer from retaliating against employees who report
9
potential violations of law to a governmental agency; California Penal Code section 13670
10
prohibiting law enforcement gangs, including groups of peace officers who engage in a pattern of
11
on duty illegal behavior or behavior which violates fundamental principles of professional
12
policing, and provides for inspector general investigation; California Penal Code section 13510.8,
13
which provides for decertification of a peace officer who participates in a law enforcement gang
14
or fails to cooperate with an investigation of potential police misconduct after January 1, 2022;
15
16 California Penal Code section 518, which prohibits threatening a public official to influence
17 official duties. In addition to those possible crimes and violations, Plaintiff alleges upon
18 information and belief that Sheriff Villanueva committed other violations including retaliation
19 under FEHA, and possible crimes and violations including obstruction of justice.
20 125. Plaintiff was retaliated against by Villanueva for reporting Villanueva’s
21 misconduct and for pushing for LASD and the Sheriff to do the right thing. The County is liable
22 for Plaintiff’s harms under the whistleblower statutes. Villanueva and LASD also violated
23 Plaintiff’s civil rights and due process rights under the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights (POBR). In
24
addition, the Plaintiff will sue the Sheriff separately for defamation.
25
26
28
1 THE WRONGFUL CONDUCT COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS HAS
2 BEEN CONTINUOUS AND ONGOING
3 126. All of the acts of making false statements, demotion, and retaliation are timely
4 under the continuing violation doctrine because, commencing in 2021 and continuing through the
5
filing of this complaint, the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to a series of adverse actions that
6
were similar-in-kind, i.e., were motivated by the same discriminatory or retaliatory animus, even
7
if otherwise different actions, occurred with reasonable frequency, and did not acquire permanence
8
at the earliest until the Plaintiff filed her complaint here. Defendants therefore remain liable for
9
this entire course of conduct, including acts predating any statutory period in as much as at least
10
one, and, here, many, of the acts occurred within the statutory period.
11
127. Sheriff Alex Villanueva is employed by the County of Los Angeles, in the Los
12
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Villanueva serves as the head of LASD and is the top
13
spokesperson for the Department. Villanueva is responsible for managing, supervising, and
14
disciplining all employees in the Department including LASD deputies.
15
16 128. Sheriff Villanueva is the supervisor of the Plaintiff and is responsible for
17 investigations of unlawful conduct. Villanueva is also obligated to take disciplinary action for
18 misconduct and to protect deputies, including the Plaintiff, against threats, intimidation, and
19 retaliation in all forms.
20 129. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants, whether
21 individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore
22 sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show their
23 true names and capacities, together with appropriate charging language, when such information is
24
ascertained. Plaintiff will file DOE amendments, and/or ask leave of court to amend this Complaint
25
to assert the true names and capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained.
26
28
1 130. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon, such information and belief alleges,
2 that each Defendant designated as a DOE was and is in some manner, negligently, wrongfully, or
3 otherwise responsible and liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged and
4 that Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct.
5
131. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereupon alleges, that at all times material
6
herein that the Defendants, including the Doe Defendants, each and all of them, were the agents,
7
servants and employees, or ostensible agents, servants or employees of Defendant County of Los
8
Angeles, who owns, controls, supervises, manages and is responsible for the Los Angeles County
9
Sheriff’s Department, and the County of Los Angeles is therefore directly and vicariously liable
10
for the conduct of LASD, its top official, Sheriff Villanueva, and other employees, all of the
11
Defendants were acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment or ostensible
12
agency and employment, except on those occasions when Defendants were acting as Principals, in
13
which case, said Defendants, including Defendant County, and each of them, were negligent in the
14
selection, hiring and use of the other Defendants.
15
16 132. Plaintiff has complied with and/or exhausted any applicable claims, statutes and/or
17 administrative and/or internal remedies and/or grievance procedures or are excused from
18 complying therewith. Plaintiff filed a government claim with the County of Los Angeles on April
19 28, 2022. The Plaintiff applied for and was timely issued a Right-to-Sue Notice. Accordingly,
20 Plaintiff has timely exhausted her administrative remedies. True-and-correct copies of Plaintiff’s
21 Right-to-Sue Notice is attached to this complaint.

22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
23 UNLAWFUL RETALIATION: LABOR CODE § 1102.5
24
(WHISTLEBLOWER LAW)
25
(BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY OF
26
28
1 LOS ANGELES)
2 133. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding
3 132 paragraphs.
4 134. Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against any employee for disclosing
5
information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose
6
information, to a government or law enforcement agency, or to a superior in the employer's
7
organization, so long as the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information
8
discloses a violation of law or regulation. This statute reflects the “broad public policy interest in
9
encouraging workplace whistleblowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.” Green
10
v. Ralee Eng. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 77-78.
11
135. Over the course of 2019, 2020, and 2021, Plaintiff repeatedly spoke out about
12
illegal conduct and refused to carry out practices and acts that would have been rule and law
13
violations. Over the course of 2021, Sheriff Villanueva grew increasingly angry with Plaintiff for
14
reporting illegal conduct, trying to stop illegal conduct, and for refusing to carry illegal conduct
15
16 out. Plaintiff’s efforts to stop the obstruction of justice in an excessive use of force matter
17 eventually led the sheriff to move to crush Plaintiff’s career and destroy her life, to retaliate against
18 her, and to cover up his crimes.
19 136. Commencing on March 29, 2022, and continuing to the present, Defendants created
20 and allowed to exist a hostile environment and retaliated against Plaintiff when she spoke out about
21 and blew the whistle on the County employees, and their illegal activity.
22 137. The Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff for disclosing violations of or
23 noncompliance with County, state and/or federal labor laws to person(s) with authority over her
24
and/or to other employees who had authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violations or
25
noncompliance, which they had reasonable cause to believe had taken place.
26
28
1 138. Defendant Sheriff Alex Villanueva retaliated against Plaintiff, who was at the time
2 an Assistant Sheriff. Defendant Villanueva demanded and forced Plaintiff to choose between two
3 poisonous options: retire or be demoted four ranks, to lieutenant. Either option meant an end to the
4 Assistant Sheriff’s long career at LASD and in law enforcement. The reasons for Defendant
5
Villanueva’s misconduct were two-fold, to retaliate against Plaintiff for being a whistleblower on
6
several instances of illegal and other wrongful conduct and to further his cover up of use of
7
excessive force incident.
8
139. Defendant Villanueva has maliciously targeted the Plaintiff because she has
9
personal knowledge of Defendant Villanueva’s covering up the UOF incident, as well as numerous
10
other criminal and unethical conduct by the sheriff. Plaintiff brought the DVD video of the Use of
11
Force (“UOF”) incident on or about March 15, 2021, to Villanueva’s office and watched the video
12
with him. Villanueva blocked a criminal investigation into the matter, lied about the incident and
13
claims he did not watch the video until November 2021 to fit a fake timeline.
14
140. In addition to lying about the date he first saw the video, Defendant Villanueva
15
16 framed the Plaintiff by admitting that Villanueva’s administration engaged in a cover up.
17 Villanueva admitted that the LA County engaged in a criminal cover up of excessive use of force
18 and claimed that the cover up was done by Plaintiff and Chief Haselrig.
19 141. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant County had actual and/or constructive
20 knowledge of the retaliatory conduct levied against the Plaintiff by Defendant Villanueva. The
21 County ratified the conduct of its employees as it gave no discipline and did no intervention to
22 stop any of the wrongful actions of the employees.
23 142. The Defendant destroyed Plaintiff’s career at LASD. She has not returned to work
24
since Villanueva and LASD moved to destroy her career and life.
25
26
28
1 143. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate cause of Defendants’ retaliatory conduct
2 and failure to act, Plaintiff suffered humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, mental anguish, and
3 symptoms of extreme distress.

4 144. Plaintiff was an Assistant Sheriff and by all objective accounts a highly qualified
5
employee of LASD. Subsequently, Plaintiff has lost substantial future income.
6
145. As a further legal result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has
7
and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and in costs amount according to proof.
8
146. Defendants’ actions were ratified by managing agents, and were willful, malicious,
9
fraudulent, and oppressive, and were committed with wrongful intent to harm Plaintiff in conscious
10
disregard of her rights.
11
147. Plaintiff timely exhausted administrative remedies.
12
13
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
14
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
15
16 (CAL. GOV. CODE SECTION 12940 et. seq,)
17 (BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY
18 OF LOS ANGELES)
20 147 paragraphs.
21 149. At all times mentioned herein, Government Code § 12940, et seq. was in full force
22 and effect and was binding upon Defendants. Said law requires Defendants to refrain from
23 retaliating against an employee for reporting discriminatory employment practices prohibited
24
under FEHA.
25
26
28
1 150. At all times mentioned, Plaintiff engaged in protective activities contemplated by
2 Government Code § 12940, et seq. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants, and each of
3 them, retaliated against her for reporting and speaking out against inappropriate workplace
4 behavior, reporting and speaking out against wrongful and discriminatory, harassing, and
5
retaliatory treatment based on race, ethnicity, and national origin, speaking out against improper
6
conduct, and for generally attempting to protect and secure rights of others under FEHA.
7
151. Defendants created and allowed to exist a hostile environment and a pattern of
8
illegal and discriminatory hiring practices and fraudulent acts and retaliated against Plaintiff when
9
she spoke out about and blew the whistle on the County employees, and their illegal activity.
10
152. During Plaintiff’s tenure as Assistant Sheriff, she has witnessed and endured
11
abusive, racist, and sexist language used by the Sheriff. This language has been used to describe
12
various Department members, elected and appointed officials, and members of the public.
13
Villanueva refers to employees and residents he dislikes as ‘trannies.” Plaintiff spoke out about
14
Undersheriff Murakami using the Japanese equivalent of the “n” word towards other employees.
15
16 153. Defendants created and allowed to exist a hostile work environment and retaliated
17 against Plaintiff based on her speaking out about the discriminatory and harassing employment
18 practices of the Defendant. Such retaliation was in violation of Government Code § 12940, et seq.
19 and the public policy embodied therein.
20 154. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant County had actual and/or constructive
21 knowledge of the retaliatory conduct levied against the Plaintiff by Sheriff Villanueva. Moreover,
22 such retaliation, and discriminatory conduct was also conducted and/or condoned by the Defendant
23 County. The County, through its leadership ratified the discriminatory, and retaliatory conduct of
24
its employees, as there was no intervention by the County to fairly investigate the allegations made
25
by the Plaintiff, and no employees of LASD were held accountable for their wrongful actions.
26
28
1 155. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate cause of Defendants’ retaliatory conduct
2 and failure to act, Plaintiff suffered loss of salary, and other injury, including humiliation,
3 embarrassment, anxiety, mental anguish, depression, and extreme emotional distress.

4 156. Plaintiff was an Assistant Sheriff and by all objective accounts a highly qualified
5
employee of LASD.
6
157. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff was demoted from Assistant
7
Sheriff to being a Lieutenant, that is four ranks lower. Plaintiff was constructively terminated as
8
she has not returned to work since LASD moved to retaliate against her and destroy her career and
9
life. Plaintiff’s ability to further her career within the LASD has been severely undermined.
10
Plaintiff suffers from a loss of substantial future earnings.
11
158. As a further legal result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, and each of
12
them, Plaintiff has and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and in costs amount according to
13
proof.
14
159. Defendants’ actions were ratified by managing agents, and were willful, malicious,
15
16 fraudulent, and oppressive, and were committed with wrongful intent to harm Plaintiff in conscious
17 disregard of his rights.
18 160. Plaintiff timely exhausted administrative remedies by applying for and being issued
19 the Right-to-Sue Letter.
20
21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL

22 INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
23 (BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF
24
LOS ANGELES, SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, JOHN SATTERFIELD, DOES 1-
25
10)
26
28
2 160 paragraphs.
3 162. "The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: ' "(1)
4 extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless
5
disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or
6
extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by
7
the defendant's outrageous conduct...." Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed
8
all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. 'The defendant must have engaged
9
in 'conduct intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.'
10
(Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d at p. 903) (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber
11
Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1004.)
12
163. Severe emotional distress means " 'emotional distress of such substantial quality or
13
enduring quality that no reasonable [person] in civilized society should be expected to endure it.
14
(Potter Id.)
15
16 164. Here, the Defendants’ conduct meets all the elements of an action for Intentional
17 Infliction of Emotional Distress, as the Defendants acted intentionally or recklessly towards the
18 Plaintiff; the Defendants’ conduct toward the Plaintiff was extreme and outrageous; the
19 Defendants’ actions were the cause of the Plaintiff’s emotional distress; and the Plaintiff suffered
20 extreme emotional distress.
21 165. The Workers’ Compensation preemption doctrine does not apply here to release the
22 County from liability, as the County ratified all the wrongful conduct. LASD and the County did
23 absolutely nothing to curb the sheriff’s abuse of power, abuse of LASD employees, and abuse of
24
County residents. LASD initiated no investigation into the sheriff’s wrongful conduct and took
25
zero actions to hold the sheriff and LASD accountable for what they did to Plaintiff. The County
26
28
1 ratified the conduct by failing to properly investigate the work environment for years and
2 continuously failed to hold the wrongdoers accountable for their conduct.
3 166. In addition, the conduct which gives rise to this cause of action, and which is
4 described above violates FEHA and statutory whistleblower protections and therefore contravenes
5
public policy.
6
167. The wrongful conduct against Plaintiff rises above mere insults and indignities and
7
rises to the level of extreme and outrageous. When the sheriff was caught obstructing justice with
8
the leak of the video of excessive force to the media, Sheriff Villanueva first denied that he engaged
9
in a cover up. Then, shortly after, Villanueva reversed course and admitted that his administration,
10
and the County of Los Angeles, engaged in crimes, covering up the excessive force incident.
11
However, to cover for his own culpability, Villanueva remarkably smeared the Plaintiff and Chief
12
Haselrig, and lied that they were the ones who obstructed justice and committed the cover up.
13
Villanueva led the public and Plaintiff’s family to believe that Plaintiff was a disgraced law
14
enforcement official forced out due to her corruption. Satterfield joined the sheriff in framing the
15
16 Plaintiff with a fraudulent memo. Villanueva and Satterfield created the fake memo, pretending it
17 was a real LASD memo, in furtherance of a criminal cover up, and “leaked” it to the media.
18 168. In order to retaliate against and discredit the whistleblower Plaintiff, Villanueva
19 destroyed her career and life. This was all done in public view and with full awareness of all who
20 worked for LASD. Yet, no one from the County intervened to protect its employee, the Plaintiff
21 from this malicious, monstrous act by the sheriff.

22 169. Defendant demanded Chief Haselrig and Plaintiff’s immediate retirement with the
23 option of being demoted if they refused. When Plaintiff refused, Defendant Villanueva maliciously
24
demoted Plaintiff by several ranks and forced Chief Haselrig out of her job, to cover up his own
25
26
28
1 role, and to retaliate against the whistleblowers. Plaintiff has not returned to work since LASD
2 moved to end her career.
3 170. Any member of the public would see the misconduct of Defendant Villanueva as
4 crazy, extreme, outrageous and a shock to the conscience. Instead of upholding the law and
5
department policies, protecting the whistleblowers, conducting a fair and honest investigation into
6
the claims made by the whistleblowers, Defendant Villanueva lashed out, and framed the Plaintiff.
7
171. Defendant Villanueva’s conduct was ruthlessly willful and utterly beyond the
8
standards of decency and would be seen as such by any reasonable person.
9
172. Defendants Villanueva and the Los Angeles County knew and certainly should
10
have known that their outrageous conduct would cause any person in society, including the
11
Plaintiff, extreme emotional distress. Defendants’ conduct did cause Plaintiff to suffer from
12
tortuous mental anguish, anxiety, panic attacks, and depression.
13
173. The Plaintiff remains extremely emotionally distressed by the wrongful conduct of
14
Defendant Villanueva. Defendant Villanueva was acting under agency of the County, which is
15
16 vicariously liable for infliction of emotional distress directed at the Plaintiff.
17 174. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, Defendant Villanueva acted
18 oppressively, maliciously, fraudulently, and/or outrageously toward the Plaintiff, with conscious
19 disregard for her known rights and with the intention of causing, and/or willfully disregarding the
20 probability of causing, unjust and cruel hardship to the Plaintiff.
21 175. The Plaintiff has timely exhausted administrative remedies.

22
23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

24
DEFAMATION/SLANDER PER SE
25
26
28
1 (BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, JOHN
2 SATTERFIELD, ALEX VILLANUEVA, DOES 1-10)
4 175 paragraphs.
5
177. Cal. Civil Code § 46(i)(iii)(v) provides that slander is a false and unprivileged
6
publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means
7
which: charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for
8
crime; tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by
9
imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation
10
peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or
11
business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits; or which, by natural consequence, causes
12
actual damage.
13
178. Defamation is an invasion of the interest in reputation. The tort involves the
14
intentional publication of a statement of fact that is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency
15
16 to injure or which causes special damage. (Civ. Code, §§ 45, 46; 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law
17 (9th ed. 1988) Torts § 471, pp. 557-558.) Publication means communication to some third person
18 who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to
19 whom reference is made. Publication need not be to the "public" at large; communication to a
20 single individual is sufficient. (Cunningham v. Simpson (1969) 1 Cal. 3d 301, 306 [81 Cal. Rptr.
21 855, 461 P.2d 39]; 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Torts, §§ 471, 476, pp. 557-558, 560-
22 561.) (Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 637, 645 [85 Cal. Rptr.2d 397])
23 179. Here, as part of Defendant Villanueva’s cover up, he maliciously lied and framed
24
Plaintiff and told the media and public, a national audience, that Plaintiff committed Villanueva’s
25
crimes and other misconduct, that she did the cover up and obstruction of justice that Defendant
26
28
1 Villanueva himself did. Defendant Villanueva is personally liable for defamation, and the County
2 is vicariously liable for his conduct.
3 180. On or around March 15, 2021, as soon as Plaintiff received the DVD of “UOF”
4 incident from Chief Haselrig, Plaintiff went to Defendant Villanueva’s office to show him the
5
video of the Escalante incident. Sheriff’s aide, Lieutenant Anthony Blanchard, took the video from
6
Plaintiff and loaded the DVD on his computer and showed the video to Plaintiff, Undersheriff
7
Timothy Murakami, and the Sheriff. Murakami and Villanueva, as well as Blanchard joined
8
Plaintiff in finding the apparent illegal use of excessive force troubling. However, Defendant
9
Villanueva blocked a criminal investigation into the matter, lied about the incident and claims a
10
fake timeline.
11
181. On or about March 25, 2022, the Los Angeles Times obtained a copy of the video
12
of the excessive use of force against Escalante, gained access to the Castellano’s whistleblower
13
report of July 2021, and ran an exposé of the Villanueva cover up. At that point, Defendant
14
Villanueva scrambled to do additional cover up, and began a series of additional lies.
15
16 182. Villanueva reasoned the smart move would be to frame the Plaintiff especially in
17 light of her other whistleblowing and refusal to engage in wrongful conduct, rather than admit he
18 was the one who made the decision to obstruct justice.
19 183. On March 29, 2022, 3 days after denying there was a cover up of the excessive
20 force on Escalante, Villanueva changed his story, and admitted his administration engaged in a
21 cover up. This was quite a remarkable admission by the Sheriff in the middle of all his lies: that
22 the County of Los Angeles engaged in a criminal cover up of excessive use of force. Nevertheless,
23 at the same time, in a defamatory frame up, the Sheriff claimed the cover up was done by his staff
24
and not himself. He announced he was acting against two of his staff, Plaintiff, as well Castellano’s
25
supervisor, Chief LaJauna Haselrig, communicating that they, not he, had engaged in the cover up
26
28
1 and improper handling of the UOF. Members of the public, Plaintiff’s family members, and
2 employees of LASD were falsely led to believe that Plaintiff was the criminal instead of
3 Villanueva. Villanueva intentionally destroyed Plaintiff’s professional and personal reputation to

4 enhance his retaliation against the whistleblower.
5
184. Plaintiff’s career in law enforcement is over, as she was constructively terminated
6
and she has not returned to work since Villanueva maliciously framed her with false statements
7
and brutally retaliated against her, demanding her retirement.
8
185. In April 2022, Plaintiff demanded that Villanueva retract his lies about Plaintiff,
9
but he only doubled down and continued to lie about her, to cover his crimes, and to intentionally
10
destroy her reputation.
11
186. In May 2022, Villanueva and Satterfield created a fraudulent memo and passed it
12
off as a real LASD document none in the normal course of business and pretended that Plaintiff
13
and other whistleblowers committed gross mistakes and engaged in the cover up that was done by
14
Villanueva. The Defendants knew what they were doing with the memo was deceitful and
15
16 malicious and in furtherance of their cover up of excessive use of force.
17 187. On August 8, 2022, Villanueva further defamed the Plaintiff. The sheriff admitted
18 that the District Attorney had initiated a criminal grand jury to investigate the cover up on
19 excessive force but lied that the District Attorney was not investigating him, and instead said that
20 it was investigating the whistleblowers including the Plaintiff.
21 188. Due to the Defendants’ frame up, false, and malicious defamatory statements made
22 to the media and the public against Plaintiff, her reputation was severely damaged. Plaintiff’s
23 ability to further her career within the LASD and to be hired elsewhere has been destroyed.
24
Plaintiff suffers from a loss of substantial future earnings.
25
26
28
1 189. Defendants knew that the statements were blatantly false at the time he made them,
2 as he maliciously sought out to destroy Plaintiff’s reputation as part of the Defendant’s retaliation.
3 190. The statements constitute Slander Per Se of Plaintiff and damaged her in her trade,
4 profession, and occupation.
5
191. The aforesaid defamatory statements made by Alex Villanueva and John Satterfield
6
were and are false and malicious and not privileged. Defendant made said statements knowing the
7
falsity thereof.
8
192. Defendants made the aforesaid defamatory statements with the intent to injure
9
Plaintiff’s good name and reputation and to interfere with her employment, in that Defendant
10
harbored ill-will toward Plaintiff for blowing the whistle on several instances of illegal and other
11
wrongful conduct and to further Defendant Villanueva's cover up of use of excessive force and
12
objecting to FEHA violations and other rule and law violations.
13
193. After Plaintiff filed her tort claim, according to an ex-felon, Villanueva engaged in
14
additional defamation. The sheriff’s office had a letter sent to an ex-felon, with another maliciously
15
16 fabricated story, this time claiming that Plaintiff had deleted video footage of another excessive
17 force incident, to further destroy Plaintiff’s reputation to discredit her as a whistleblower.
18 Villanueva allegedly hoped a story of another incident would complete the process of destroying
19 Plaintiff’s life and career.
20 194. The aforesaid defamatory statements have harmed Plaintiff’s reputation; such
21 statements tend to injure and injured Plaintiff in her occupation. Plaintiff’s future employment
22 prospects have been destroyed. Plaintiff suffered general and actual damages, including exemplary
23 and punitive damages, in an amount which far exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court,
24
and which will be proven at trial.
25
26
28
1 195. Defendants’ false statements not only were a substantial factor in causing harm to
2 Plaintiff’s professional reputation and career, but also caused her shame, mortification, and hurt
3 feelings.
4 196. Defendants published their false statements with malice intended to injure Plaintiff.
5
The Defendants are protected by no privileges that would allow them to escape liability for
6
their malicious lies about Plaintiff.
7
The County is vicariously liable for the conduct of the other Defendants, their employees.
8
197. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendant Villanueva and
9
Defendant Satterfield.
10
11
12
13
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
14
FALSE LIGHT
15
16 (BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
17 SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, AND JOHN SATTERFIELD, DOES 1-10)
19 197 paragraphs.
20 199. As part of Defendants Villanueva and Satterfield’s cover up, they maliciously lied
21 and framed Plaintiff and put her in a false light to make it look like she engaged in a criminal act
22 when, in truth, Villanueva himself did the cover up. Satterfield joined and aided and abetted
23 Villanueva in the cover up and frame up. Defendants Villanueva and Satterfield are personally
24
liable for putting the Plaintiff in a false light.
25
26
28
1 200. In March 2021, Sheriff Villanueva saw video of an excessive use of force against
2 an inmate Enzo Escalante. Villanueva blocked the matter from being sent for criminal
3 investigation as part of his cover up and obstruction of justice.

4 201. On or about March 25, 2022, the Los Angeles Times ran an exposé of the
5
Villanueva cover up.
6
202. On March 29, 2022, 3 days after denying there was a cover up of the excessive
7
force on Escalante, and after the IAB investigation had been completed, reviewed, and adjudicated
8
with the Castellano receiving discipline, Villanueva changed his story once again, and admitted
9
his administration engaged in a cover up.
10
203. At the same time, in a defamatory frame up, the Sheriff claimed the cover up was
11
done by his staff and not himself. He announced he was acting against two of his staff, Plaintiff,
12
as well Castellano’s supervisor, Chief LaJauna Haselrig, communicating that they, not he, had
13
engaged in the cover up and improper handling of the UOF.
14
204. Defendant Villanueva demanded Plaintiff and Haselrig’s immediate retirement,
15
16 with the option of being demoted if they refused. Defendant maliciously demoted Plaintiff by
17 several ranks and forced Haselrig out of her job, to cover up his own role, and to retaliate against
18 the whistleblowers.
19 205. Villanueva painted for the public, media, Plaintiff’s family members, and LASD
20 employees, the false picture of Plaintiff being unethical and being a criminal.
21 206. Due to Defendant Villanueva’s frame up, false statements made to the media and
22 the public against Plaintiff, her reputation was damaged. Plaintiff’s ability to further her career
23 within the LASD was destroyed. Plaintiff suffers from a loss of substantial future earnings.
24
Plaintiff has not returned to work since Villanueva took actions to destroy her life and career.
25
26
28
1 207. In May 2022, Villanueva and Satterfield created a fraudulent memo and passed it
2 off as a real LASD document none in the normal course of business and pretended that Plaintiff
3 and other whistleblowers committed gross mistakes and engaged in the cover up that was done by
4 Villanueva. The Defendants knew what they were doing with the memo was deceitful and
5
malicious and in furtherance of their cover up of excessive use of force.
6
208. On August 8, 2022, Villanueva further defamed the Plaintiff. The sheriff admitted
7
that the District Attorney had initiated a criminal grand jury to investigate the cover up on
8
excessive force but lied that the District Attorney was not investigating him, and instead said that
9
it was investigating the whistleblowers including the Plaintiff.
10
209. After Plaintiff filed her tort claim, Villanueva appeared to engage in additional
11
defamation. Villanueva’s office had a letter sent to an ex-felon, with another maliciously fabricated
12
story, this time claiming that Plaintiff had deleted video footage of another excessive force
13
incident.
14
210. Defendant knew that the statements were blatantly false at the time he made them,
15
16 as he maliciously sought out to destroy Plaintiff’s reputation as part of the Defendant’s retaliation.
17 211. The aforesaid defamatory statements made by Alex Villanueva and John Satterfield
18 were and are false and malicious and not privileged. Defendants made said statements knowing
19 the falsity thereof.
20 212. Defendants made the aforesaid defamatory statements with malice and with the
21 intent to injure Plaintiff’s good name and reputation and to interfere with her employment, in that
22 Defendant harbored ill-will toward Plaintiff for blowing the whistle on several instances of illegal
23 and other wrongful conduct and to further Defendant Villanueva's cover up of use of excessive
24
force.
25
26
28
1 213. Defendants’ false statements not only were a substantial factor in causing harm to
2 Plaintiff’s professional reputation and career, but also caused her shame, mortification, and hurt
3 feelings.
4 214. Defendants published their false statements with malice intended to injure Plaintiff.
5
215. The County is vicariously liable for the false, malicious statements made by the
6
individual defendants who are not protected by any privileges.
7
216. The aforesaid defamatory statements have harmed Plaintiff’s reputation; such
8
statements have a tendency to injure and have injured Plaintiff in her occupation, her future
9
business and employment prospects have been severely harmed, and Plaintiff will have to incur
10
substantial expense, in order to redress the harm she has suffered, all to Plaintiff’s general and
11
actual damages, including exemplary and punitive damages (against Villanueva and Satterfield),
12
in an amount which far exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and which will be proven
13
at trial.
14
15
16 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
17 MALICIOUS AND UNLAWFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY
18 OFFICERS’ BILL OF RIGHTS (POBR) UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 3303
19 AND 3304; FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
20 UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 3304 (POBR)
21 (AGAINT DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND ALEX

22 VILLANUEVA, DOES 1-10)
23 217. Plaintiff repeats and reallege as though fully set forth herein and incorporate by
24
reference all the allegations in preceding 216 paragraphs.
25
26
28
1 218. Government Code section 3304(d) reads as follows “(d) (1) Except as provided in
2 this subdivision and subdivision (g), no punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other
3 than merit, shall be undertaken for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct if the
4 investigation of the allegation is not completed within one year of the public agency’s discovery
5
by a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation of an act, omission, or other
6
misconduct… In the event that the public agency determines that discipline may be taken, it shall
7
complete its investigation and notify the public safety officer of its proposed discipline by a Letter
8
of Intent or Notice of Adverse Action articulating the discipline that year, except as provided in
9
paragraph (2) The public agency shall not be required to impose the discipline within that one-year
10
period.”
11
219. Defendant County of Los Angeles, acting by and through its authorized agents,
12
officers, and representatives, maliciously violated Government Code 3304 by intentionally
13
violating the strict one-year Statute of Limitations of POBR.
14
220. Sheriff Villanueva’s notices to discipline and the discipline imposed on Plaintiff
15
16 were made in bad faith, for improper purposes and were malicious and designed to cause maximum
17 injury to Plaintiff. The County intentionally violated the law and Plaintiffs’ due process rights; the
18 County cannot argue that its leaders were merely negligent or reckless.
19 221. Villanueva obstructed justice and covered up an act of excessive use of force by a
20 deputy using the maneuver used by Officer Derek Chauvin to murder George Floyd. When the
21 efforts of Plaintiff and others got past the delays caused by Villanueva and the matter was finally
22 properly referred for a criminal investigation, Villanueva blamed the whistleblowers for the delays
23 in the investigation. Villanueva struck back at Commander Castellano for him having integrity and
24
initiated a IAB investigation into him in November 2021.
25
26
28
1 222. Under POBR, Villanueva had a one-year deadline to charge Plaintiff and the others
2 for negligence or wrongful conduct and to discipline them for it, by March 10, 2022. In his rigged
3 investigation into Castellano, Villanueva did not make Plaintiff a subject and purposefully
4 excluded her as a witness as he was worried her truthfulness would expose his corrupt discipline
5
of Commander Allen Castellano. On March 8, 2022, Villanueva had a written reprimand issued to
6
Castellano, falsely claiming that Castellano had a made a mistake in the investigation and that this
7
caused the delays that were caused by Villanueva.
8
223. After the door closed on Villanueva being able to legally discipline the Plaintiff,
9
Villanueva was exposed in the media and by whistleblowers for having obstructed justice and for
10
his cover up the use of excessive force. Without doing any investigation, and with zero evidence
11
to support him, Villanueva suddenly announced that Plaintiff and Chief Haselrig were the ones
12
who covered up the excessive force and disciplined them by forcing them out of their jobs.
13
224. Defendant’s attempt to discipline the Plaintiff are violations of important provisions
14
of the Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights, Government Code sections 3000- 3315. Pursuant to
15
16 the language of Government Code 3309.5 (a) it is unlawful. As a further direct and proximate
17 result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered mental and emotional pain, distress and
18 discomfort, and damages to her occupational reputation, and loss of wages, all to her detriment
19 and damage in amounts not fully ascertained but within the jurisdiction of this court and subject
20 to proof at the time of trial.
21 225. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, Defendants acted maliciously toward
22 Plaintiff, with conscious disregard for her known rights and with the intention of causing, and/or
23 willfully disregarding the probability of causing, unjust and cruel hardship to Plaintiff.
24
226. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has
25
suffered mental and emotional pain, distress and discomfort, and damages to her occupational
26
28
1 reputation, all to his detriment and damage in amounts not fully ascertained but within the
2 jurisdiction of this court and subject to proof at the time of trial.
3 227. Plaintiff is entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California
4 Government Code section 12965(b).
5
228. Plaintiff is informed and believe that each of said violation is punishable by the
6
maximum fines permitted by Government Code section 3309.5(e) in addition to those actual
7
damages he sustained.
8
229. Plaintiff is entitled to $25,000 penalties levied against Villanueva and the County
9
for each malicious charge by the Defendant.
10
11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court:
13
1. For special damages for the Plaintiff, including but not limited to, lost earnings,
14
benefits and/or out-of-pocket expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, all in
15
16 an amount set forth above and/or according to proof at the time of trial;
17 2. For Plaintiff further special damages, including but not limited to, lost future
18 earnings, benefits and other prospective damages in an amount set forth above and/or according to
19 proof at the time of trial, in the minimum of $3 million.
20 3. For Plaintiff general damages, including for pain and suffering, in an amount set
21 forth above and/or according to proof at the time of trial, and at a minimum of $8 million;
22 4. For interest: Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment at the maximum legal rate;
23 5. For costs of suit; and attorney’s fees under FEHA, Code of Civ. Pro. § 1021.5,
24
42 U.S.C. § 1988, and any other applicable law;
25
26
28
1 6. The Plaintiff further prays that this Court grant such other and further equitable
2 relief as it may deem just and proper.
6
August 10, 2022
7 THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT MILLER
8
________________________________________
9
VINCENT MILLER, Attorney for Plaintiff
10
11
12
13
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
14
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
15
16
17 DATED: August 10, 2022
18 THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT MILLER
19
20 __________________________________
21 By VINCENT MILLER
Attorney for Plaintiff Robin Limon
22
23
24
25
26
28
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
1
3
EXHIBIT A RIGHT TO SUE LETTERS
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28

Limon Complaint - 8-10-2022 - 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Limon Complaint - 8-10-2022 - 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Limon Complaint - 8-10-2022 - 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 VINCENT MILLER (SBN 291973)

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

22 Jury Trial Demanded

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 1

21 force came to light in the media.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 2

3 inmate, ENZO ESCALANTE.

18 giving rise to these claims occurred in the County of Los Angeles.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 3

16 did not relieve Johnson of duty.

17 15. Villanueva’s refusal in holding Deputy Johnson accountable led to Johnson

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 4

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 5

3 to determine whether a criminal investigation is needed. Commander Castellano and Chief

20 excessive use of force.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 6

20 until November 2021 to fit a fake timeline.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 7

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 8

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 9

18 plans to eventually promote O’Brien to an Assistant Sheriff position as a reward.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 10

18 him moved and urged the Sheriff to do so.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 11

19 desirable position at Court Services Division.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 12

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 13

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 14

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 15

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 16

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 17

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 18

17 Escalante, and Plaintiff became increasingly alarmed.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 19

2 knowledge of Plaintiff, Castellano or Haselrig.

18 that Deputy Johnson’s UOF was still not reviewed by ICIB.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 20

16 UOF by Deputy Johnson.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 21

2 stationary from Plaintiff’s office, apparently to forge notes from her.

20 Chief Haselrig, to move the cases forward.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 22

21 to this Bureau was a huge tactical blunder by Villanueva.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 23

21 to Villanueva, who immediately recognized the severity of the excessive force.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 24

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 25

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 26

19 figured he got away once again with the cover up.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 27

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 28

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 29

19 108. Villanueva’s Lieutenant Aide Anthony Blanchard was unqualified to be Captain.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 30

17 video for the world to see.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 31

16 wrote this memo participated in the cover up himself/herself by writing it.

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 32

27 ROBIN LIMON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. pg. 33