Joseph Garrido v. County of Los Angeles, 2:23-cv-00011

Background

Joseph Garrido, a long‑time LASD lieutenant, alleges retaliatory employment actions (investigation, denied promotion, lowered eval, reassignments) culminating in constructive retirement after he helped deputies secure $3M in unpaid “breacher pay,” reported concerns about the handling of K‑9 Spike’s death, and donated to Sheriff candidate Eli Vera.
Key actors: Sheriff Alex Villanueva (elected 2018–2022), SEB supervisors Joseph Williams, Thomas Giandomenico, Oscar Barragan, and the County of Los Angeles.
LASD opened an ICIB criminal investigation into Garrido based on an anonymous tip about alleged misuse of a department vehicle; the investigation closed without charges. Garrido disputes the investigation’s basis and alleges it was fabricated to retaliate for his political activity.
Garrido claims § 1983 First Amendment retaliation and due process violations against all Defendants, plus a California Labor Code § 1102.5 whistleblower claim against the County. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
The court found genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Villanueva (and the County via a possible policy/custom) retaliated against Garrido for his political support of Vera, precluding summary judgment on that First Amendment theory; it granted summary judgment for Williams, Giandomenico, and Barragan on First Amendment grounds.
The court granted summary judgment to all Defendants on Garrido’s due process claims and granted summary judgment to the County on the § 1102.5 claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation (Villanueva & County) — political activity	Garrido says Villanueva caused ICIB investigation, rescinded AED promotion, and contributed to constructive discharge because Garrido supported Vera	Villanueva denies directing adverse actions; contends promotion ineligibility (IOD) and lack of causation; County denies municipal liability	Denied summary judgment: genuine disputes exist as to Villanueva’s involvement and County custom/ policy; claim survives to trial
First Amendment retaliation (Williams, Barragan, Giandomenico) — breacher pay, Spike reporting, political activity	Garrido contends supervisors denied dive training, reassigned duties, and participated in investigations in retaliation for his breacher‑pay advocacy and other protected acts	Defendants assert legitimate nonretaliatory reasons (no openings for dive, workload adjustments, investigatory basis) and lack of causal link	Granted summary judgment for Williams, Barragan, Giandomenico — Garrido failed to show causation or protected‑speech link
Due process (procedural/substantive) — AED promotion & ICIB investigation	Garrido contends he had property interest in AED promotion and was deprived by a fabricated/criminal investigation	Defendants: no binding promise/contract for promotion; investigation alone does not trigger due process absent charges or fabricated evidence showing deliberate fabrication	Granted for Defendants — no property interest in unvested/contingent promotion; no due process claim from investigation alone; substantive due process not shown
California Labor Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower)	Garrido says his disclosures about breacher pay and Spike’s death were protected and caused adverse actions	County argues disclosures were not reasonable belief of statutory/rule violations or were not the cause of adverse acts	Granted summary judgment for County — breacher‑pay disclosure raised triable issue of protected activity but Garrido failed to show causation for alleged adverse actions; Spike press‑related theory not covered by §1102.5

Key Cases Cited

Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing public‑employee speech against government interest in efficient service)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal § 1983 liability requires policy, custom, or ratification)
Ballou v. McElvain, 29 F.4th 413 (9th Cir. 2022) (public employees’ right to speak about misconduct is clearly established for qualified immunity analysis)
Moore v. Garnand, 83 F.4th 743 (9th Cir. 2023) (no clearly established rule that a retaliatory investigation per se violates the First Amendment)
Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2003) (First Amendment protects public‑employee speech on matters of public concern; causation standard)
Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (due process claim for fabricated evidence leading to criminal charges)
Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) (Monell causation standards)
Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 1998) (no property interest in an unvested or nonbinding promotion)