Judge Makes Clear That Former Sheriff Lee Baca Is on the Hook for Legal Damages, But Taxpayers Will Likely Pay

As most of you know, a month ago, on December 15, 2015, a federal jury found in favor of 8 working members of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department who brought suit in civil court against the County of Los Angeles in general, and former sheriff Lee Baca in particular for what they and their attorney described as career-damaging retaliation, which they said occurred after the eight plaintiffs publically endorsed former undersheriff Paul Tanaka in his 2013-2014 run for sheriff.

Those who brought the lawsuit were: Capt. Charles Antuna, Sgt. Casey Dowling, Cpt. Louis Duran, Cmdr. Kevin Hebert, Cpt. Robert Tubbs, Cmdr. David Waters, Lt. Robert Wheat, and Custody Assistant Rocio Martinez.

According to our sources, the plaintiff’s were originally hoping to collect upwards of a $1 million or more apiece—or $8-$16 million collectively. But while the jury found firmly in favor of the eight, plainly concluding that retaliation did indeed occur, they did not award big dollar amounts when it came to damage done to the plaintiffs. The cumulative cash amount awarded for all eight amounted to under $800,000—less than one tenth of what was desired. And nearly half of the total awards ($360,000) came in the form of punitive damages aimed directly at the former sheriff personally.

Yet, the awards were not trivial either. So one presumes the jury intended to make some sort of statement.

Near the end of last month, the intent of the jury’s verdict was further clarified by the United States District Judge Michael Fitzgerald when he delivered his post trial judgement (which you can find right here). In this more formal judgement it is even more evident that the jury’s findings were directed at Baca.

It is also interesting to note that the monetary awards not aimed at punishing the former sheriff, were nearly all for “non-economic damages”—in other words, pain and suffering. No damages whatsoever were awarded for loss of income—past, present or future—despite the plaintiffs’ earnest claims of income losses that ran, for each, into the single digit millions, all bolstered by the numbers floated by their hired gun expert witness.

Nevertheless, the jury didn’t appear to buy that the eight were all that hideously harmed, particularly not economically. But jurors did believe that Lee Baca had been deliberately retaliatory against every one of the eight for their perfectly lawful public support of Tanaka’s candidacy, and the final judgement reflects that belief.

(Judge Fitzgerald was, by the way, a very attentive jurist who did not seem to favor one side or the other, but who appeared mostly to want to see the facts of the matter—whatever they might be—elucidated as well as was legally possible during the course of the trial.)

---

OKAY, WHO PAYS?

So what does all this mean? Is the former sheriff going to be on the hook for some or all of the $800,000 tab?

Uh, well, no. Probably not.

A source with knowledge of the case told WLA that it is unlikely that Baca will pay a penny. “By statute the county must cover compensatory,” the source said, meaning the compensatory damages part of the judgment. Making Baca pay the punitive damages “is optional” the source added. But due to the fact that the county has always covered Baca’s tab before, they likely will now.

“The county,” of course, means LA County taxpayers.

And while we’re discussing this lawsuit, we should also note here that a great many department members we’ve spoken with—both working and retired—feel that several of the plaintiffs in the case have, in past years, been champion retaliators themselves.

But these last two issues were beyond the jurors’ knowledge and control. What was within the jurors’ control, however, they seemed to get remarkably right.

Here’s the complete rundown of who received what:

On each Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the jury returned a verdict in favor of each Plaintiff and against Defendant Leroy Baca, awarding each Plaintiff damages as follows:

1. Damages awarded Plaintiff David Waters:
Past and present non-economic damages: $80,000
Future non-economic damages: $3,000
Punitive damages: $45,000
TOTAL: $128,000

2. Damages awarded Plaintiff Rocio Martinez:
Past, present, and future medical damages: $3,000
Punitive damages: $45,000
TOTAL: $48,000

3. Damages awarded Plaintiff Kevin Hebert:
Past and present non-economic damages: $35,000
Future non-economic damages: $3,000
Punitive damages: $45,000
TOTAL: $83,000

4. Damages awarded Plaintiff Charles Antuna:
Past and present non-economic damages: $48,000
Future non-economic damages: $3,000
Punitive damages: $45,000
TOTAL: $96,000

5. Damages awarded Plaintiff Casey Dowling:
Past and present non-economic damages: $72,000
Future non-economic damages: $3,000
Punitive damages: $45,000
TOTAL: $120,000

6. Damages awarded Plaintiff Robert Wheat:
Past and present non-economic damages: $72,000
Future non-economic damages: $3,000
Punitive damages: $45,000
TOTAL: $120,000

7. Damages awarded Plaintiff Louis Duran:
Past and present non-economic damages: $72,000
Future non-economic damages: $3,000
Punitive damages: $45,000
TOTAL: $120,000

8. Damages awarded Plaintiff Robert Tubbs:
Past and present non-economic damages: $25,000
Future non-economic damages: $3,000
Punitive damages: $45,000
TOTAL: $73,000