The California Court docket of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a Los Angeles Metropolis firefighter who claims he was defamed and discriminated towards after he was falsely accused of sexually assaulting a affected person. Louis Cerda, a 25-year veteran of Mexican-American heritage claimed that the division’s dealing with of a feminine affected person’s accusations broken his fame and subjected him to opposed employment motion.
Right here is earlier protection of the case. The info as defined within the determination:
- On September 29, 2017, Los Angeles Hearth Division paramedic Cerda and his accomplice transported an intoxicated feminine affected person from an airplane on the Los Angeles Worldwide Airport to a hospital.
- On October 3, 2017, the Los Angeles Hearth Division eliminated Cerda from area work and positioned him in a paid administrative task whereas it investigated the affected person’s declare that in transport, she was sexually assaulted and digitally penetrated by a firefighter matching Cerda’s description.
- Subsequently, the Division’s each day staffing roster, which was distributed to all hearth stations within the Metropolis, confirmed that “Cerda was not in area service” and was “assigned to an administrative element.”
- The roster additionally displayed “‘V-Code 09CP,’” which Cerda alleged “usually signifies that the referenced firefighter is the topic of a prison investigation and/or arrest and pending prison costs.”
- On October 30, 2017, Cerda was returned to restricted obligation at a hearth station, “in that he was not permitted to have any affected person contact and/or experience a paramedic rig, however was permitted to experience an engine.”
- On November 15, 2017, Cerda returned to unrestricted area obligation.
There have been two main authorized theories that Cerda raised: race discrimination and defamation. As for the discrimination declare, the Court docket of Appeals concluded in 2020 that town was entitled to abstract judgment “as a result of there was no proof within the document that the Metropolis handled him in a different way on account of his race.” At the moment the case was returned to the Los Angeles County Superior Court docket on the defamation declare.
At problem was whether or not Cerda filed a discover of declare inside the statutory interval required by the California Authorities Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), that requires defamation claims be filed inside six months of after they happen. Cerda’s declare was filed June 28, 2018, when the deadline was April 19, 2018. Nonetheless, Cerda claims that varied correspondence his legal professional despatched to town was enough to place them on discover. The court docket disagreed:
- Cerda additionally argues that if we learn his authorities declare “along with” his January 2018 letter to the fireplace chief, his declare was well timed.
- In response, the Metropolis asserts the letter didn’t fulfill the federal government declare requirement as a result of it was not delivered to the right entity.
- We agree.
- Authorities claims towards a municipality should be “ship[ed] to the clerk, secretary, or auditor thereof” or “mail[ed] . . . to the clerk, secretary, auditor, or to the governing physique at its principal workplace.”
- The January 2018 letter was addressed and delivered to the fireplace chief, to not the right authorities declare recipient. There isn’t any proof that the Metropolis’s clerk, secretary, auditor, or governing physique really acquired the letter. (
- That the identical legal professional within the Metropolis Legal professional’s workplace replied to the letter and the federal government declare doesn’t present precise receipt by the right authorities declare recipient.
- We additionally conclude that Cerda’s letter to the chief can not stand in for a authorities declare because it failed to point that Cerda was in search of damages from the Metropolis.
- Part 910, subdivision (d), requires the federal government declare to state, “[a] basic description of the indebtedness, obligation, harm, harm or loss incurred as far as it might be recognized on the time of presentation of the declare.” Subdivision (f) of that statute additional states the claimant should “point out whether or not the declare can be a restricted civil case” and supply the quantity claimed whether it is lower than $10,000.
Here’s a copy of the choice: