Case 2:17-cv-04193-DSF-AFM Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1

GREGORY W. SMITH (SBN 134385)

1 DIANA WANG WELLS (SBN 284215)
LEILA K. AL FAIZ (SBN 284309)
2 LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY W. SMITH
9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 345E
3 Beverly Hills, California 90212
4 Telephone: (310) 777-7894
Telecopier: (310) 777-7895
5
BIJAN DARVISH (SBN 308793)
6 LAW OFFICE OF BIJAN DARVISH
18685 Main Street, Suite 101-384
7 Huntington Beach, California 92648
Telephone: (866) 915-9406
8 Facsimile: (866) 915-9436
Email: Bijan@darvishlaw.net
9
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11
HECTOR BERMUDEZ
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15 HECTOR BERMUDEZ, )
) CASE NO. 2:17-CV-04193
16 Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
17 vs. )
18 )
CITY OF TORRANCE, MARK MATSUDA, ) 1. FIRST AMENDMENT
19 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, ) RETALIATION-FREEDOM OF
) SPEECH (42 U.S.C. 1983)
20 Defendants. )
)
21 )
)
22 )
)
23 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
24 )
)
25 )
)
26 )
)
27 )
28 ____________________________________ )
)

-1-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 Case 2:17-cv-04193-DSF-AFM Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:2

1 I.
2 VENUE AND JURISDICTION
3 1. This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the First and
4 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded
5 on 29 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(1), (2), (3), and (4).
6 2. Venue is proper in the Central District of California. The facts and
7 circumstances underlying all claims, as well as the injuries took place within the
8 geographical jurisdiction of this Court.
9 II.
10 PARTIES
11 3. At all relevant times, Plaintiff HECTOR BERMUDEZ (Plaintiff) was
12 and is a person residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and was
13 and is a competent adult.
14 4. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was and is a sworn law enforcement
15 officer for the Torrance Police Department. Plaintiff holds the rank of Lieutenant.
16 5. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges that, at all relevant times,
17 Defendant City of Torrance (City), is a municipality within the County of Los
18 Angeles, State of California, and operated the Torrance Police Department (TPD),
19 which is an agency of the City of Torrance, and at all relevant times was and is the
20 employer of Plaintiff.
21 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Chief Mark Matsuda was the Chief of
22 Police of the TPD.
23 7. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges that, at all relevant times,
24 Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are and at all times mentioned, were
25 managers, supervisors, and/or employees of Defendant City, and/or Defendants
26 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and at all relevant times mentioned were acting in
27 the course and scope of their employment with Defendant City and/or DOES 1
28 through 10 are liable under the doctrine of respondent superior pursuant to section

-2-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 Case 2:17-cv-04193-DSF-AFM Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:3

1 815.2 of the California Government Code.

2 8. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges, that at all relevant times,
3 Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, joint venturers, partners, or
4 employees, of each other Defendant, and as such, were acting within the course and
5 scope of their agency, employment or joint venture. The respective principals
6 subsequently ratified all acts, conduct or omissions and accepted the benefits of
7 those ratifications.
8 9. The true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, and
9 each of them, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to
10 Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues Defendants by such fictitious names.
11 Plaintiff will file DOE amendments or request leave of court to amend this
12 Complaint to assert the true names and capacities of these Defendants when they
13 have been ascertained.
14 10. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges, that each of the Defendants
15 designated as DOE is responsible, in some manner, for the events and happenings
16 referred to, proximately causing the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as alleged.
17 11. At all times mentioned, Defendants DOES 1 through 10, were acting
18 under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the
19 United States Constitution, State of California and City of Torrance, pursuant to
20 their official authority and their policies, procedures, practices, and/or customs
21 established by directives and/or other acts of the TPD and Defendant City and
22 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
23 III.
24 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
25 12. Plaintiff Bermudez began is employment as a police officer with the
26 City through TPD in or around 1995. Since then, Bermudez has demonstrated
27 integrity, commitment and hard work to be promoted to the rank of Lieutenant.
28 Bermudez has been a Lieutenant with TPD since 2011.

-3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 Case 2:17-cv-04193-DSF-AFM Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:4

1 13. In or around July of 2014, Bermudez was assigned to oversee the

2 Administrative Bureau-Personnel Division. The Personnel Division encompassed
3 the Professional Standards Unit (commonly referred to as Internal Affairs), which
4 was responsible for investigating misconduct or unlawful conduct by TPD
5 employees.
6 14. In or around July of 2014, Bermudez was supervising an investigation
7 against a TPD employee for unlawful release or use of the California Law
8 Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) and/or the Justice System Data
9 Interface Controller (JDIC). CLETS and/or JDIC contain records of people,
10 including but not limited to, criminal record history, drivers license history, vehicle
11 information, and registered weapons. Unauthorized use of CLETS or JDIC could
12 result in a misdemeanour conviction under various California Penal Code sections.
13 15. During the investigation against the employee, Bermudez became
14 aware that other TPD sworn personnel might be involved in the violations or have
15 pertinent information about the circumstances. However, a former Captain at TPD
16 ordered Bermudez not to follow up on those leads.
17 16. That former Captain ordered Bermudez to not interview the other TPD
18 members, even though those members could have had pertinent information about
19 the investigation. After Bermudez voiced his concern, that former Captain
20 attempted to bypass Bermudez to gather information about the case. To obtain
21 information about the investigation, the former Captain would bypass Bermudez and
22 speak to the Sergeants that were under Bermudezs supervision. The former
23 Captain further informed Bermudez that the order to not follow-up on the leads and
24 to not interview certain potential witnesses, was an order from Chief Mark Matsuda.
25 17. After further investigation, Bermudez discovered that the former
26 Captains roommate was a business partner of a TPD Sergeant. That TPD Sergeant,
27 owned a business that provided security for the Los Angeles Lakers and/or other
28 professional athletes. It was believed that the subject who was under investigation

-4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 Case 2:17-cv-04193-DSF-AFM Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:5

1 for the unlawful use of CLETS/JDIC did so in furtherance of his off-duty security
2 job for the TPD Sergeant.
3 18. Bermudez reasonably believed that the former Captain was willfully
4 obstructing Bermudez from performing his official duties, which was a violation of
5 California Penal Code section 148 et seq. Bermudez then told the former Captain to
6 either tell the Deputy Chief about his actions, or Bermudez would do so. That next
7 day, Bermudez told the Deputy Chief about the circumstances involving the former
8 Captain and the Internal Affairs investigation.
9 19. Towards the end of 2014, the investigation against the TPD employee
10 was completed. In early 2015, a former Captain completed an unwarranted and
11 unfavorable annual performance evaluation on Bermudez.
12 20. In or around July of 2015, TPD announced that two promotions to the
13 position of Captain were available. Bermudez and three other candidates tested for
14 the promotion. After the interview process, Bermudez was ranked last, even though
15 he was more qualified than at least two other candidates.
16 21. Subsequently, Chief Matsuda promoted a candidate to the Captain
17 position that was far less qualified than Bermudez.
18 22. Bermudez had been a police officer and Lieutenant longer than one of
19 the candidates promoted. Bermudez had also worked more divisions than one of the
20 candidates promoted. Further, out of all the candidates, Bermudez had the second
21 highest experience as a Lieutenant. One of the candidates selected, had the least
22 amount of experience as a Lieutenant. Lastly, Bermudez was advised that his oral
23 interview was better than all the other candidates.
24 23. Since Bermudez exercised his rights to report what he reasonably
25 believed to be unlawful conduct, Mark Matsuda retaliated against him by denying
26 him the promotion to the Captain position.
27 ///
28 ///

-5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 Case 2:17-cv-04193-DSF-AFM Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:6

1 IV.
2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT
3 RIGHTS-FREEDOM OF SPEECH (42 U.S.C. 1983)
4 (Against Defendant Mark Matsuda and DOES 1-10)
5 24. Bermudez repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in
6 paragraphs 1-23 above, and incorporates same by reference as though set forth fully
7 herein.
8 25. In taking the actions referred to above, Defendants were acting under
9 color of law by acting under the actual and apparent authority of the positions they
10 held as described above.
11 26. Bermudezs complaint to the Deputy Chief in 2014 was protected
12 speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
13 27. At all times, Bermudez enjoyed the protections of the free speech
14 provision of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the
15 California Constitution, Art. 1 1. Pursuant to those protections, Bermudez had the
16 right to speak as a citizen regarding matters of public concern without fear of
17 retaliation or reprisal in his employment.
18 28. Bermudez is informed and believes that the Defendants acts, including
19 but not limited to, completing an unfavorable performance evaluation and refusing
20 to promote Bermudez to the rank of Captain, were adverse acts done in retaliation
21 for his complaint to the Deputy Chief. These actions essentially deprived Bermudez
22 of his constitutionally protected right to free speech.
23 29. The matters upon which Bermudez was exercising his rights to free
24 speech were matters of the utmost public concern, in that his speech affected
25 members of the community and sworn peace officers who had a duty to uphold and
26 follow the law.
27 30. Defendants violated Bermudezs clearly established right to free speech
28 in doing the actions described in this claim.

-6-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 Case 2:17-cv-04193-DSF-AFM Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:7

1 31. As set forth above, a substantial or motivating factor in the decisions of

2 Defendants to take the adverse actions against Bermudez was Bermudezs exercise
3 of his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States
4 Constitution.
5 32. As a direct and proximate result of the adverse actions taken against
6 Bermudez by Defendants, as described above, Bermudez has suffered and will
7 continue to suffer physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, distress, suffering,
8 anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured
9 feelings, shock, humiliation, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and
10 emotional reactions, damages to reputation, and other non-economic damages, in a
11 sum to be ascertained according to proof. Said damages are the type that any person
12 would suffer as a result of the illegal and wrongful conduct of the Defendants.
13 33. As a further legal result of the conduct of the Defendants, Bermudez
14 has suffered loss of income, wages, earnings, and loss to his pension, causing
15 Bermudez to sustain past and future economic damages in an amount to be
16 ascertained according to proof.
17 34. As a further legal result of the conduct of Defendants, Bermudez is
18 entitled to attorneys fees and costs in an amount according to proof.
19 V.
20 PRAYER
21 WHEREFORE, Bermudez seeks judgment against Defendants on all
22 Causes of Action for:
23 1. For physical, mental, and emotional injuries, pain, distress,
24 suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification,
25 injured feelings, shock, humiliation, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental,
26 and emotional reactions, damages to reputation, and other non-economic damages,
27 in a sum to be ascertained according to proof;
28 2. For loss of income, wages, earnings, loss to his pension, for past

-7-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 Case 2:17-cv-04193-DSF-AFM Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:8

1 and future economic damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof;

2 3. Other actual, consequential, and/or incidental damages in a sum to
3 be ascertained according to proof;;
4 4. Attorney fees and cost of suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and
5 other authorities;
6 5. Punitive or exemplary damages to Defendant Mark Matsuda and
7 DOES 1-10;
8 6. Costs of suit herein;
9 7. Pre-judgment interest; and
10 8. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
11
12
13 Dated: June 6, 2017 LAW OFFICE OF BIJAN DARVISH
14
15 /S/ Bijan Darvish
By: ________________________________
16 BIJAN DARVISH
17 Attorney for Plaintiff
18 HECTOR BERMUDEZ

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-8-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 Case 2:17-cv-04193-DSF-AFM Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:9

1
2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3
4
5 Plaintiff HECTOR BERMUDEZ requests that this action be determined by
6 trial by jury.
7
8
9
Dated: June 6, 2017 LAW OFFICE OF BIJAN DARVISH
10
11
/S/ Bijan Darvish
12
By: ________________________________
13 BIJAN DARVISH
Attorney for Plaintiff
14 HECTOR BERMUDEZ
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-9-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES