A judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the city of Los Angeles by an LAPD police officer who contended he experienced a backlash for complaining about an alleged attempt by City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez to interfere when he tried to serve a search warrant on a marijuana business in 2020.
Officer Cesar Contreras’ Los Angeles Superior Court complaint alleged he suffered retribution for identifying and reporting what he believed to be violations of state and federal law and the state and federal constitutions. Rodriguez was not a defendant in the suit.
Judge Gail Killefer heard arguments Monday on the City Attorney’s Office’s motion to dismiss the suit. The judge briefly took the case under submission and ruled later the same day in the city’s favor. She directed the city to submit a proposed judgment by Tuesday, July 8.
In their court papers, the City Attorney’s Office maintained Contreras, a senior lead officer, could not back up his retaliation claims.
“The undisputed evidence makes clear that throughout the approximately four-year time span of events in this case, plaintiff did not suffer any adverse employment action, nor is he able to establish any (connection) to any of the alleged retaliatory acts or non-existent adverse employment actions,” the City Attorneys’ Office maintained in its court papers.
Moreover, the contentious environment that Contreras himself created was alleviated when he was transferred out of Rodriguez’s district, according to the city’s court papers.
According to the suit, Contreras was serving a search warrant on a business in November 2020 in which the owner had previously been arrested for operating an unlicensed marijuana dispensary. The businessman later obtained the only two licenses for selling marijuana in Rodriguez’s District 7, the suit stated.
That day, an LAPD captain briefed Rodriguez about the warrants, according to the suit, which also claimed the business owner subsequently told Contreras that Rodriguez had informed him about the warrants.
Contreras reported to the captain what he believed to be an obstruction of justice on Rodriguez’s part.
“To protect City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez and in violation of LAPD policy, [the captain] refused to take any action on the misconduct reported,” the suit alleged.
After Contreras spoke during a city-related meeting in December 2020, Rodriguez approached him and stated that he had “slandered her name and reported it to the LAPD,” according to the suit, which further stated her alleged comment was “the first act of retaliation taken by Councilwoman Rodriguez.”
After a subsequent city meeting, Rodriguez again approached Contreras and “threatened that she could have a conversation with the chief of police and have plaintiff gone,” the suit stated.
In summer 2021, Contreras told another LAPD captain about Rodriguez’s alleged remarks and his obstruction of justice accusations were reported to the FBI, the suit stated. But in further alleged retaliation, the first captain told Contreras his career was “now in danger,” the suit stated.
Contreras allegedly was put under heightened scrutiny in August 2021 after Rodriguez alleged he was not doing his job in following up on issues raised by the public. A meeting was held with members of the public with whom Rodriguez allegedly had issues, but they did not corroborate the councilwoman’s allegations against the plaintiff, according to the suit.
In late 2021, yet another captain told Contreras his “head was on a chopping block,” according to the suit, which further stated that a deputy chief told Contreras he “better fly straight” or he “would be gone.”
Contreras alleged he was removed from District 7 in January 2022 after Rodriguez demanded his transfer, even though he had worked there for six years. Another deputy chief told him the move was attributable to Contreras not arresting a homeless person and a panhandler near a supermarket, the suit filed in August 2022 stated.
But according to the city’s court papers, the move was a lateral transfer and not an adverse employment action and there was no change in his salary benefits, overtime or promotional opportunities. Contreras could not argue that he had diminished responsibilities in his new position, because, as he testified in a deposition, his new assignment needed his experience and expertise in “improving the community dynamic,” the City Attorney’s Office’s pleadings stated.