A Los Angeles paramedic's legal battle against the City of Los Angeles has reached a critical juncture, with the court ruling in favor of the city. On August 16, 2024, Louis Cerda filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County against the City of Los Angeles, alleging racial discrimination and defamation.
The case centers around an incident on September 29, 2017, when Cerda and his partner transported an intoxicated female patient from an airplane at Los Angeles International Airport to a hospital. Days later, Cerda was removed from fieldwork and placed on administrative duty while the Los Angeles Fire Department investigated claims that he had sexually assaulted the patient during transport. The department's daily staffing roster indicated that Cerda was under investigation, which he argued was defamatory and caused significant harm to his reputation.
Cerda’s attorney contacted an assistant fire chief to assert his innocence and request his immediate reinstatement. Despite these efforts, Cerda remained on restricted duty until November 15, 2017. Frustrated by the lack of communication and transparency from the department, Cerda’s lawyer sent multiple emails requesting details about the allegations and criticizing the slow pace of the investigation.
On January 29, 2018, Cerda’s attorney sent a letter to the fire chief complaining about the investigation's handling and suggesting that racial discrimination might be at play. This letter did not meet the formal requirements for filing a government claim for damages. Subsequently, on May 14, 2018, Cerda filed a government tort claim citing racial discrimination and defamation based on false allegations of patient abuse. However, this claim was denied by the city as it was submitted past the six-month deadline required by law.
In response to this denial, Cerda filed a lawsuit against the city on September 19, 2018. The lawsuit included causes of action for racial discrimination and defamation. Although initial court rulings allowed parts of his case to proceed, subsequent motions by the city led to summary adjudication in its favor regarding discrimination claims due to insufficient evidence that race played a role in how Cerda was treated.
The city's motion for judgment on the pleadings argued that Cerda's government claim did not provide sufficient factual basis for his defamation cause of action and was untimely. The trial court agreed with this argument and ruled in favor of the city. Despite arguments from Cerda’s side that previous communications should suffice as notice for his claims or that procedural errors were made by allowing late motions from the city without proper permissions—none swayed judicial opinion.
Ultimately, Judge Malcolm Mackey affirmed that Cerda's failure to file a timely government claim barred him from pursuing his defamation cause of action against Los Angeles. The court found no abuse of discretion in permitting late filings by defendants nor merit in arguments related to substantial compliance or procedural technicalities raised by plaintiff’s counsel Dana M. Cole from Cole & Loeterman.
This decision underscores strict adherence requirements within California’s Government Claims Act regarding timely submissions when seeking redress through litigation against public entities like municipalities.