Appellate Court Rejects Suit By Falsely Accused LAFD Medic

The California Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a Los Angeles City firefighter who claims he was defamed and discriminated against after he was falsely accused of sexually assaulting a patient. Louis Cerda, a 25-year veteran of Mexican-American heritage claimed that the department’s handling of a female patient’s accusations damaged his reputation and subjected him to adverse employment action.

Here is earlier coverage of the case. The facts as explained in the decision:

• On September 29, 2017, Los Angeles Fire Department paramedic Cerda and his partner transported an intoxicated female patient from an airplane at the Los Angeles International Airport to a hospital.
• On October 3, 2017, the Los Angeles Fire Department removed Cerda from field work and placed him in a paid administrative assignment while it investigated the patient’s claim that during transport, she was sexually assaulted and digitally penetrated by a firefighter matching Cerda’s description.
• Subsequently, the Department’s daily staffing roster, which was distributed to all fire stations in the City, showed that “Cerda was no longer in field service” and was “assigned to an administrative detail.”
• The roster also displayed “‘V-Code 09CP,'” which Cerda alleged “generally means that the referenced firefighter is the subject of a criminal investigation and/or arrest and pending criminal charges.”
• On October 30, 2017, Cerda was returned to restricted duty at a fire station, “in that he was not permitted to have any patient contact and/or ride a paramedic rig, but was permitted to ride an engine.”
• On November 15, 2017, Cerda returned to unrestricted field duty.

There were two primary legal theories that Cerda raised: race discrimination and defamation. As for the discrimination claim, the Court of Appeals concluded in 2020 that the city was entitled to summary judgment “because there was no evidence in the record that the City treated him differently on account of his race.” At that time the case was returned to the Los Angeles County Superior Court on the defamation claim.

At issue was whether Cerda filed a notice of claim within the statutory period required by the California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), that requires defamation claims be filed within six months of when they occur. Cerda’s claim was filed June 28, 2018, when the deadline was April 19, 2018. However, Cerda claims that various correspondence his attorney sent to the city was sufficient to put them on notice. The court disagreed:

• Cerda also argues that if we read his government claim “in conjunction with” his January 2018 letter to the fire chief, his claim was timely.
• In response, the City asserts the letter did not satisfy the government claim requirement because it was not delivered to the correct entity.
• We agree.
• Government claims against a municipality must be “deliver[ed] to the clerk, secretary, or auditor thereof” or “mail[ed] . . . to the clerk, secretary, auditor, or to the governing body at its principal office.”
• The January 2018 letter was addressed and delivered to the fire chief, not to the proper government claim recipient. There is no evidence that the City’s clerk, secretary, auditor, or governing body actually received the letter. (
• That the same attorney in the City Attorney’s office replied to the letter and the government claim does not show actual receipt by the proper government claim recipient.
• We also conclude that Cerda’s letter to the chief cannot stand in for a government claim as it failed to indicate that Cerda was seeking damages from the City.
• Section 910, subdivision (d), requires the government claim to state, “[a] general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.” Subdivision (f) of that statute further states the claimant must “indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case” and provide the amount claimed if it is less than $10,000.

Here is a copy of the decision: