II - Go.com · 2019. 12. 11. · Case 2:19-cv-02537 Document 1 Filed 04/03/19 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:6 election of Jim McDonnell occurred in the context of a political campaign for

Case 2:19-cv-02537 Document 1 Filed 04/03/19 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1

1 GREGORY W. SMITH (SBN 134385)DIANA WANG WELLS (SBN 284215)

2 LEILA K. AL FAIZ_(SBN 284309)_

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY W. SMITH3 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 345E

Beverly Hills, California 902124 Telephone: (310) 777-7894

Telecopier: (310) 777-78955

6 llAttorneys for Plaintiff

7

8UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10CAREN CARL MANDOYAN, CASE NO.

11 I Plaintiff,12

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FORVs. DAMAGES

13 LOS ANGELES COUNTYL_LOSANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S

14 DEPARTMENT, BOBBY DENHAM,SHIELA KUEHL, I-IILDA SOLIS,

15 JANICE HAHN, KATHRYN BARGER,JOHN NAIMO, AND DOES 1-200,

16Defendants.

17

18 I

1911 COMPLAINT

20 III 1. The Plaintiff, CAREN CARL MANDOYAN ("Plaintiffor21

22"Mandoyan"), complains for entry of judgment in his favor against Defendants

23 County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Bobby

24 Denham. Shiela Kuehl, Hilda Solis, Janice Hahn, Kathryn Barger, John

25

26Naimo, and Does 1-200 (collectively, "Defendants").

27 2. In support of his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges and avers as follows:

28

-1-PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES


1 NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION

23. This civil action arises under 42 U.S.0 § 1983, inter alia, seeking

3

damages and injunctive relief against Defendants for committing acts, under4

5 color of law, with the intent and for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of rights6

secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States; retaliating7

8 against Plaintiff for his exercise of his constitutionally protected right of free

9 speech, political affiliation and political association.

104. This case arises under the United States Constitution and 42

11

12 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, as amended. This Court has jurisdiction in this

13 matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The declaratory and

14injunctive relief sought is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 42

15

16 U.S.C. § 1983 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

17 5. This Court is an appropriate venue for this Complaint pursuant to

1828 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2). The actions complained of took place in this

19

20 judicial district; evidence and employment records relevant to the allegations

21 are maintained in this judicial district; Plaintiff would be employed in this

22judicial district but for the unlawful actions and practices of the Defendants;

23

24 and the Defendants are domiciled and regularly conduct affairs in this judicial

25 district.26

///27

28 1 1 1



1 II PARTIES

2Plaintiff

3

6. Plaintiff Caren Carl Mandoyan is a deputy Sheriff who was4

5 II terminated in 2016, and rehired in 2019 by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs

6Department. Deputy Mandoyan has been subjected to retaliation based

7

8 upon his political speech, affiliation, and association for his support and

9 efforts to assist in the election of Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva.

10l Defendants and Related Entities

12 7. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (the "LASD") is one of

13 the largest, if not the largest, Sheriffs departments in the Country. It is an

14

15Iagency within the County of Los Angeles and is responsible for Plaintiffs

16 II unlawful retaliatory termination in 2016. It is also Plaintiffs former and

17 11 present employer.18 I

19 I8. Defendants Assistant Sheriff, Bobby Denham and Does 1-50

20 were and/or still are officers, officials and/or civilian employees within the

21 LASD who were instrumental in the termination of Plaintiff in 2016 because of

22Plaintiffs political speech, affiliation, and association. In their successful

23

24 11 attempt to terminate Plaintiff in 2016, Denham and Does 1-50, knew and or

25 instructed Deputies employed by the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department to

26withhold and or destroy exculpatory evidence that would have conclusively

27

28 II proved that Plaintiff did not improperly touch Taylor. These Defendants were

-3-

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES


1 among the persons with supervisory power over Plaintiff during 2016 at the

2LASD and each of them were part of the cabal seeking to retaliate against

3

Plaintiff for his political speech, affiliation and association concerning the4

5 Campaign for Los Angeles County Sheriff in 2013.

69. Defendants Shiela Kuehl, Hilda Solis, Janice Hahn, Kathryn

7

8 Barger are elected members of the Los Angeles County Board of

9 Supervisors and appointed the County auditor/controller and have in some

10way been responsible for withholding Plaintiffs wages and benefits.

11

12 10. Defendant John Naimo is the appointed Department head of the

13 Auditor Controller's Office and is responsible for withholding Plaintiffs wages

14and benefits.

15

16 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of

17 the Defendants was acting in concert with, and at the direction of, the other

18Defendants in a joint effort to chill and retaliate against Plaintiff's exercise of

19

20 his constitutional right to free speech, and to give truthful testimony in the

21 federal courts as a result of their animus toward him in connection with his

22doing same.

23

24 12. The true names and capacities of Does 1-200 are currently

25 unknown to Plaintiff, but Plaintiff is informed and believes that they26

contributed to or caused his injuries complained of herein. Plaintiff will27

28 amend this complaint as their identities are discovered.



1 II FACTS

2Background Giving Rise to DefendantsAnimus.

3

13. Plaintiff is a deputy sheriff hired by the Los Angeles County4

5 1Sheriffs Department ("Department") on or about October 2, 2006. Plaintiff

6remained continuously employed by the Department until he was terminated

7

8 11 on September 24, 2016.

911 14. In or about 2013, Jim Helmold campaigned against Jim

10McDonnell for the elected position of Sheriff for the County of Los Angeles.

12 1Plaintiff was a vocal supporter for Helmold. Plaintiff repeatedly voiced his

13 Ilsupport for Helmold amongst deputies and told deputies that McDonnell

14

15would be a "disaster for the Department," and that McDonnell's motto was,

16 0"fire them first, and let them fight to get their jobs back." From 2013 until the

17 primary election, Plaintiff repeatedly addressed deputies, in groups and

18

19individually, urging them to vote for Helmold. Supervisors that were

20 supporting McDonnell knew that Plaintiff was pushing others to vote for

21 Helmold and Plaintiff was warned to stay quiet. All of the speech by Plaintiff

22was designed to challenge McDonnell's competence in running the agency.

23

24 11 Plaintiffs speech was disseminated widely throughout the rank and file of the

25 Sheriffs Department and to any members of the public that took an interest

26

27in the campaign. All of the speech uttered by Plaintiff in opposing the

28 l

-J-



election of Jim McDonnell occurred in the context of a political campaign for

2the office of Los Angeles County Sheriff.

3

15. In or about or around November 2014, McDonnell was elected as4

5 the 32nd Sheriff for the County of Los Angeles. As such, McDonnell moved

6many deputies into influential positions in the Department, including

7

8 promoting Denham to Chief and then Assistant Sheriff

9 16. In or about December 2014, Plaintiff attended a Christmas party10

for South Los Angeles Station and was approached by then Chief Denham,

12 who called Plaintiff by his name. Plaintiff thought it strange that Denham

13 knew his name. Denham stated: "So you were the guy that supported14

15Helmold during the campaign." Denham then walked away shaking his head

16 indicating his disapproval of Plaintiff. Denham was later promoted to

17 Assistant Sheriff by McDonnell. Denham was the decision maker in the

18

19subsequent termination of Plaintiff.

20 17. Plaintiff was involved in a relationship with another Los Angeles

21 County Sheriffs Deputy named Amber Taylor ("Taylor") that began sometime

22in 2013. Plaintiff lived with Taylor in her apartment approximately 4-5 times a

23

24 week. In or around December 2014, Plaintiff and Taylor had an argument on

25 the patio of the apartment they were sharing. Taylor, apparently angry with

26Plaintiff, entered the door into the apartment and locked it. Plaintiffs

27

28 backpack, badge, duty weapon, car keys and other personal items were in



1 II the apartment. Plaintiff knocked on the door, but Taylor refused to answer or

2respond in any way to Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff used a workout cable

3

411pully that was on the deck to tap on the bottom of the fixed part of a sliding-

5 I glass patio door. The noise caught the attention of Taylor, who began to

6video the incident with her cell phone. Eventually Taylor allowed Plaintiff

7

8 back into the apartment and they continued dating until they officially broke

9 off the relationship in February 2015.

1018. On or around March 2015, Plaintiff began a dating relationship

12 Iwith another deputy named Gerlene McDonough ("McDonough"). On or

13 °about July of 2015, Plaintiff broke up with McDonough. In or about July of

14 I

15 I2015, seven months after the argument that was videoed by Taylor, Taylor

16 II falsely claimed that she was being stalked by Plaintiff and was physically

17 assaulted by him ten months earlier. Taylor made the complaint of domestic1

18violence against Plaintiff seeking revenge against him because Taylor

19 1

20 erroneously believed that Plaintiff was attempting to ruin her reputation at

21 station the to which they were both assigned. Taylor sought a restraining22

order against Plaintiff making false accusations of domestic violence and23

24 Hasked McDonough to serve it on Plaintiff. Shortly after making the complaint,

25 Taylor contacted Plaintiff by phone and in a mocking tone asked Plaintiff how

26he liked "catching a case," and while laughing, Taylor said "You should have

27

28 ll seen your face!" Plaintiff could hear McDonough laughing in the background.



111 19. Upon learning of the complaint made against Plaintiff by Taylor,2

high ranking employees of the Sheriffs Department, including Assistant3

Sheriff Bobby Denham, used the complaint as justification for terminating4

5 II Plaintiff in retaliation for his political speech, affiliation and association.

620. In fact, Denham and others knew that Taylor had filed a similar

7

8ilfalse complaint against two African-American male Deputies for an alleged

9 II rape, in or about 2013 with the Long Beach Police Department. The alleged10

Irape of Taylor took place in or about 2008 at Twin Towers and Taylor did not

12 Ilreport it until 2013 when she felt her reputation was being ruined because of

13 II rumors that she had sexual relations with the two deputies. Denham and

14 I

15 Iothers did not release this information.

16 21. On or about July 2015, after Taylor's fictitious complaint was

17Dprocessed, at the direction of Assistant Sheriff Bobby Denham, Taylor was

18 I

19 Itold to file a complaint against Plaintiff with the El Segundo Police

20 1Department. El Segundo filed the complaint with the District Attorney. The

21 l District Attorney's office rejected the case. The complaint was investigated22

by the Sheriffs Department as an administrative investigation.23

2411 22. The administrative investigation was conducted by Sergeant

25 11 Chad Smeltzer. Smeltzer conducted a one-sided investigation at the behest

26

27of his superiors in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiffs

28 li speech, affiliation and association with Helmold.



1 ll 23. The Sheriffs Department Advocate, Deputy Roam, recorded an

2exculpatory interview with Deputy Lisa Richardson. Richardson told Roam

3

that she had asked Taylor if Plaintiff had ever hit her or pushed her. Taylor4

5 responded by saying that she (Taylor) was "the hitter," and that she was not

6fearful of Plaintiff and would kick him in the b----s if he ever touched her.

7

8 °Although Deputy Richardson was tape recorded during this interview, Roam

9 M never disclosed contents of the interview to Plaintiff or his counsel and

10 Idestroyed the tape. Plaintiff did not become aware of the contents of the

12 Ilinterview or the fact that it was taped and subsequently destroyed until on or

13 !about March 20, 2019.

14 I

1524. As a result of the one-sided Internal Affair Investigation, Plaintiff,

16 was terminated by Assistant Sheriff Denham and Sheriff McDonnell. A

17 substantial motivating factor for the termination was Plaintiffs political18 I

19 Ispeech, affiliation and association.

20 0 25. In or about 2017, Plaintiff appealed his termination to the Civil

21 Service Commission. The Department Advocate did not disclose the

22

exculpatory evidence provided by Lisa Richardson, who could directly23

24 I impeach Taylor. Instead, the Advocate withheld this vital piece of evidence

25 from the Commission, and subsequently convinced the hearing officer to

26

adjudicate the termination in favor of the Department. Plaintiffs Civil Service27

28 Ocase ended on January 4, 2018.

-7-



l 26. Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Superior Court for the

2State of California in an attempt to overturn the Civil Service Commission

3

4 11 findings.

5 11 27. In or around June of 2018, while Plaintiffs Writ of Mandamus was

6active, but not decided, Plaintiff volunteered to assist Alex Villanueva in his

7

8 ilcampaign for Sheriff against McDonnell. Plaintiff was with candidate

9 llVilIanueva for the entire campaign, and on a daily basis, spoke on

10

11 IVillanueva's behalf, criticizing McDonnell as running a corrupt Department

12 iland challenging McDonnell's competency to run the Department. Plaintiff

13 II expressed the views described above to deputies, Democratic Clubs,14 I

15 Icommunity leaders and anyone who showed an interest in the election. All of

16 the statements mentioned above occurred in the context of Villanueva's

17 political campaign for Sheriff.

18 I

19 I28. One of the pledges made by candidate Villanueva was "Reform,

20 II Rebuild, Restore." The Reform was based upon the corruption of the

21 ilorganization that regularly retaliated against deputies that tried to do the right22

thing or were retaliated against for political speech, political association or23

24 Opolitical affiliation.

25 11 29. On November 6, 2018, Alex Villanueva was elected to the office

26

27of Sheriff of Los Angeles County. His election was a huge political upset

28 H since he had virtually no support from elected officials and had raised very



1 II little money. Standing next to Villanueva when he was sworn into office was

2Plaintiff. One of Villanueva's first acts as Sheriff was to dismiss Assistant

3

4 Sheriff Denham.

5 1 30. During the middle of 2018, ERCOM (Employee Relations

6Commission) held a hearing that was brought by ALADS (Deputy Sheriff

7

8 Association) for violations of the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU").

9 ALADS contended that McDonnell had created new disciplinary guidelines10

without first consulting with ALADS in violation of the MOU. The hearing

12 lofficer for ERCOM agreed with ALADS and requested that the Sheriff roll

13 pback discipline from 2016 to the 2012 guidelines. This in effect meant that

14 I

15 Ithe Sheriff had discretion to review all punishment that violated the MOU

16 0 from 2012 through 2016. In response, the Sheriff created a "Truth and

17 hReconciliation Panel" whose job was to review all discipline cases from 2012

18 I

19 Ithrough 2016 and review the punishment for guideline violations and for

20 ilfactual error that could have caused a termination. Plaintiff was the first to

21 Ilhave his case reviewed by the Panel.

2231. On December 27, 2018, an independent Panel was convened.

23

24 1Plaintiff's case was reviewed by three command staff deputies. As a result of

25 the review, the Panel found that the punishment against Plaintiff had been

26excessive, found that Plaintiff had not made any false statements, and

27

28 11recommended that Plaintiff be restored to the position of deputy sheriff. The

-11-



111Sheriff, based upon the Panel recommendations, rehired Plaintiff as a deputy2

sheriff on December 28, 2018.3

32. On or about December 29, 2018, Plaintiff returned to work and a4

5 I firestorm followed. Without any evidence, without knowing any of the details

6of the charges, without knowing any of the details of the review conducted by

7

8 the Panel, without ever having reviewed the investigation or talked with

9 Ilwitnesses or talked with the Sheriff, four members of the Board of

10Supervisors, Kuehl, Hahn, Solis and Barger publicly stated, incorrectly, that

12 DPlaintiff had unlawfully broken into Taylor's home and assaulted her. All four

13 HSupervisors had supported McDonnell, and knew that Plaintiff was a key14 I

15 Icampaign aide that had helped get Villanueva elected.

16 11 33. Plaintiff alleges that members of the Board of Supervisors and

17 11 various employees of the County of Los Angeles employed by the Board of

18 I

19 ISupervisors, began a series of retaliatory acts against Plaintiff as a result of

20 Plaintiffs political speech during the campaign and political affiliation and

21 association with the newly elected Sheriff. The retaliatory acts by the Board

22of Supervisors include, directing the Sheriff to terminate Plaintiff, and refusing

23

24 II to pay Plaintiff wages and provide benefits for his employment as a deputy

25 ilsheriff.26

/ / /27

28 / 1 /



1 °The Adverse .Inh Arttinns

234. In mid-2016, Defendants Los Angeles County, Los Angeles

3

County Sheriff's Department, Bobby Denham and DOES 1 though 100,4

5 terminated Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiffs political speech, affiliation and

6I association.

7

8 35. Later, in 2019, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the

9 0County of Los Angeles in which Plaintiff dismissed his Writ of Mandamus

10filed because of his termination, with prejudice, on the condition that he was

12 11 rehired by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. The County of Los

13 °Angeles claims that the agreement entered by the Plaintiff is void. Plaintiff

14 I

15 Icontests that the agreement is void. The County Controller Auditor with the

16 consent of the Board of Supervisors have ceased paying Plaintiff wages and

17 providing him with benefits based upon their erroneous assertion that Plaintiff

18

19is not employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.

20 36. As a legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them,

21 1Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer physical, mental, and

22 I

23 Iemotional injuries, pain, distress, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness,

24 llgrief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, shock, humiliation

25 and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and emotional

26

27reactions, damages to reputation, and other non-economic damages, in a

28 H sum to be ascertained according to proof. Said damages are of the type that



1 any person would suffer as result of the illegal and wrongful conduct of

2Defendants. Plaintiff does not claim that he has suffered any psychiatric

3

illness as a result of the conduct of Defendants.4

5 37. As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each

6of them, Plaintiff has lost and may continue to lose income, wages, earnings,

7

8 earning capacity, ability to promote, overtime, pension, benefits, and other

9 economic loss, causing Plaintiff to sustain damages in an amount to be

10ascertained according to proof.

11

12

13 CAUSES OF ACTION

14COUNT ONE

15

16 Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988

17 Violation of First Amendment Speech Rights18

(Against all Defendants)19

20 38. The foregoing allegations are incorporated as if re-alleged herein

21 in full.22

39. Through the foregoing acts, and each of them, the Defendants23

24 sought to and did retaliate against Plaintiff for his exercise of his

25 constitutional right of free speech.26

40. Plaintiff was engaged in speech with political content during an27

28 election.



1 41. Defendant's actions caused Plaintiff to suffer injury and harm as

2set forth above.

3

42. Defendant's adverse actions were substantially motivated against4

5 Plaintiff for his exercise of political speech.6

CAUSES OF ACTION7

8 COUNT TWO

9 Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988

10Violation of First Amendment Political Affiliation Rights

11

12 (Against all Defendants)

13 43. The foregoing allegations are incorporated as if re-alleged herein

14in full.

15

16 44. Through the foregoing acts, and each of them, the Defendants

17 sought to and did retaliate against Plaintiff for his exercise of his

18constitutional right of political affiliation.

19

20 45. Plaintiff is not and was not in a policy making position with the

21 Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.22

46. Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation for his political affiliation with23

24 Helmold and Villanueva during their political campaigns in which Plaintiff

25 played a significant part.26

47. Defendantsactions caused Plaintiff to suffer injury and harm as27

28 set forth above.



1 48. Defendantsadverse actions were substantially motivated against2

Plaintiff for his exercise of political speech.3

4 CAUSES OF ACTION

5 COUNT THREE

6Constitutional and Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988

7

8 Violation of First Amendment Political Association Rights

9 (Against all Defendants)10

49. The foregoing allegations are incorporated as if re-alleged herein11

12 in full.

13 50. Through the foregoing acts, and each of them, the Defendants

14sought to and did retaliate against Plaintiff for his exercise of his

15

16 constitutional right of political association.

17 51. Plaintiff is not and was not in a policy making position with the

18Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.

19

20 52. Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation for his political affiliation with

21 Helmold and Villanueva during their political campaigns in which Plaintiff

22played a significant part.

23

24 53. Defendant's actions caused Plaintiff to suffer injury and harm as

25 set forth above.26

2754. Defendant's adverse actions were substantially motivated against

28 Plaintiff for his exercise of political speech.



1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants as

3

follows:4

5 A. For appropriate declaratory relief regarding the unlawful and

6unconstitutional acts and practices of Defendants by treating Plaintiff as a

7

8 terminated employee.

9 B. For appropriate compensatory damages in an amount to be

10determined at trial;

11

12 C. For civil penalties.

13 D. For appropriate equitable relief against all Defendants as allowed

14by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, including the

15

16 enjoining and permanent restraining of these violations, and direction to

17 Defendants to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the

18effects of the unconstitutional and unlawful employment practices are

19

20 eliminated and do not continue to affect Plaintiffs, or others', employment

21 opportunities;22

E. For an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs on his23

24 behalf expended as to such Defendants; and

25 F. For such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may show

26himself justly entitled.

27

28 / / 1

-I /-



1 PLAINTIFF REQUESTS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

2

3

Dated: April 3, 2019 THE LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY W SMITH4

5

6 1(44By

7 GREGO2W. SMITH

8 DIANA WANG WELLSLEILA K. AL FAIZ

9 Counsel for Plaintiff

10 CAREN CARL MANDOYAN

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Documents

II - Go.com · 2019. 12. 11. · Case 2:19-cv-02537 Document 1 Filed 04/03/19 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:6 election of Jim McDonnell occurred in the context of a political campaign for