The city of Los Angeles is seeking dismissal of a defamation claim and other allegations filed by a police officer who says she was falsely accused of wrongfully collecting overtime compensation and that even after her jury trial acquittal, retaliation against her continued.
Officer Isabel Morales’ Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit allegations include civil rights violations, retaliation, harassment, defamation and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On March 23, the City Attorney’s Office filed an anti-SLAPP motion against Morales, contending that the internal investigation that led to her discipline and subsequent referral for criminal prosecution was done in connection with the city’s protected speech and petitioning.
“By way of this lawsuit, (Morales) seeks to thwart the rights of (the city) and the LAPD from investigating alleged misconduct by one of its own police officers,” the City Attorney’s Office states in its court papers.
Among the other causes of action the city wants dismissed in addition to defamation are whistleblower retaliation, gender discrimination, civil rights violations, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis is scheduled to hear the city’s anti-SLAPP motion on April 28. The state’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
According to her suit, Morales began her LAPD career as a probationary officer in January 2016 and in October of that year took part in arresting a man with a weapon tied to a July 2016 murder. By October 2017, Morales had completed her probation.
The trial for one of the suspects in the 2016 murder began in January 2022 and the next month the deputy district attorney prosecuting the case sent her an email telling her she was on call for testimony by March 1 of that year, then the prosecutor followed up with a subpoena, the suit states.
But Morales says she was never called to testify and the defendant was convicted. She also says a subpoena control officer never notified her of the verdict.
Unaware that the court case had concluded, in March 2022, Morales submitted an overtime report for on-call overtime compensation related to the trial, which she was entitled to do during the course of the trial while she was on-call, according to the suit, which further states that she continued to submit overtime requests until July 2022.
All of Morales’ requests for on-call overtime were approved by one of her supervisors, the suit further states.
Falsely attributing misconduct on the part of Morales, the city instituted an Internal Affairs investigation under the pretense that the plaintiff deliberately submitted falsified overtime requests even though she explained that she was unaware the trial was over, the suit states.
The probe ended with a finding that the allegation that Morales purposely submitted fraudulent overtime requests was unfounded, but other allegations against her were sustained, according to the suit.
The investigation noted widespread communication failures among the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, the court and the plaintiff’s LAPD division, the suit states. Morales, who filed a workers’ compensation claim due to her anxiety over the allegations against her, was charged with grand theft by embezzlement in September 2023, which caused the then-32-year-old plaintiff to be arrested and suspended without pay the next month, according to her suit.
Morales, who was pregnant at the time, lost her workers’ compensation bid, her complaint states. Although a jury acquitted her of all charges in March 2025, the city sought to terminate her and four counts were sustained against her after an LAPD Board of Rights hearing, which was followed by a 25-day suspension of Morales, the suit states.
In April 2025, the city imposed a long-term duty restriction in which she was not allowed to be assigned to any position requiring police powers, the suit further states. She currently is assigned to an “inferior position” in the records office, according to the suit filed Jan. 15.