00 LLP Matthew S. McNicholas, State Bar No. 190249 Douglas D. Winter, State Bar No. 150795 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, California 90024 JUN -6 PH 2 06 Tel: (310) 474-1582 a Fax: (310) 475-7871 i Attorneys for Claimant JAMES ROYAL GOVERNMENT CLAIM JAMES ROYAL, CASE NO.: Claimant, GOVERNMENT CLAIM VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a government ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF entity; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT, a government entity; DIVISION CHIEF JOHN BENEDICT, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Respondents. TO RESPONDENTS, COUNTY OF LOS LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DIVISION CHIEF JOHN BENEDICT, and each of them, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that JAMES ROYAL, by and through his attorneys, McNicholas McNicholas, LLP, hereby submits this Government Claim to the Respondents herein, based on information and belief. 1 Government Claim 1. Name of Claimant: James Royal 2. Post of?ce address to which person(s) presenting the claim desires all notices and communication to be sent: LLP Matthew S. McNicholas, Esq. Douglas D. Winter, Esq. 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, California 90024-4338 3. Date, Place Circumstances Surrounding the Claim: Each individual respondent, Division Chief John Benedict, was, at all relevant times, an employee with Respondent County of Los Angeles Sheriff?s Department Claimant does not know the true names and capacities of the Respondents identi?ed herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore identi?es these Respondents by such ?ctitious names. Claimant will amend his actual lawsuit as appropriate to allege the true names and capacities of these Respondents when they have been ascertained. Claimant is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that each Respondent herein designated some manner, negligently, wrongfully, or otherwise, responsible and liable to Claimant for the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged, and that Claimant?s damages were proximately caused by their conduct. At all times herein mentioned, each Respondent was the agent, servant, or employee, or ostensible agent, servant, and employee of each of the remaining Respondents, and in doing the things hereinafter mentioned, each Respondent was acting within the course, scope and authority of said agency and employment or ostensible agency and employment and also with the consent of each of the co-Respondents. At all times mentioned herein, each of the Respondents was the co-tortfeasor of each of the other ReSpondents in doing the things hereinafter alleged. The conduct of each Respondent combined and cooperated with the conduct of each of the remaining Respondents so as to cause the herein described incidents and the resulting injuries and damages to Claimant. 2 Government Claim As an introductory matter, the retaliatory conduct against Claimant by Respondents and described herein is ongoing and continuing to the present. In January, 2017, Claimant, a 24-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and Detective Lieutenant at the Malibu/Lost Hills Sheriff?s Station, became aware of three (3) shootings that occurred in Malibu Creek State Park. The ?rst shooting occurred on November 3, 2016 in Tapia Park, the second occurred on November 9, 2016 in Malibu Creek State Park, and the third occurred on January 7, 2017, also in Malibu Creek State Park. Claimant immediately noti?ed his supervisors and explained that the Sheriff?s Department needed to warn the public regarding the shootings. No warning was issued, and Claimant?s supervisors told Claimant that it was a ?State Park?s problem? and not theirs. Thereafter, four (4) additional shootings occurred in the area. On June 8, 2017, a shooting occurred on Las Virgenes Rd. in Malibu Canyon adjacent to Malibu Creek State Park in which a Porsche vehicle was struck. On July 22, 2017, another shooting occurred at a BMW, also on Las Virgenes Rd. adjacent to Malibu Creek State Park. On July 31, 2017, a shot was ?red in the Malibu Creek State Park campground area. On June 18, 2018, yet another shooting occurred on Las Virgenes Rd. adjacent to Malibu Creek State Park when a Tesla was struck by a bullet. During the time period when these four additional shootings occurred, Claimant again insisted to his Captain Josh Thai that the Sheriff 3 Department needed to warn the public regarding the series of shootings. Claimant and Captain Thai attended a meeting at the downtown Los Angeles Sheriff?s Headquarters at the Hall of Justice with Division Chief John Benedict. During the meeting, which was also attended by Commander Patrick Nelson, Claimant briefed all attendees regarding the series of shootings and again urged that the public be warned and requested a public safety statement be put out regarding the shootings. The request was denied. On June 22, 2018, Tristan Beaudette, along with his 2- and 4-year old daughters Clara and Evie, were camping in a tent at the Malibu Creek State Park campground. While the family was asleep in their tent, Tristan Beaudette was killed by a gunshot from outside of their tent. After the murder of Tristan Beaudette occurred and was reported in the media, others came forward with reports of their experiences hearing gun?re or being shot at in and around the Malibu 3 Government Claim Creek State Park area. Public clamor rose to such a level that State Senator Henry Stem put on a Town Hall meeting in August, 2018 to address the Beaudette murder and the shootings AND WHY THE PUBLIC WAS NOT WARNED. DCSpite the high pro?le and sensitive nature of the event, and the signi?cant concern in the community, the Department did not select a Captain, Commander, Chief, or even the Sheriff, to represent the Department at the Town Hall. Instead, Claimant was instructed to attend the Town Hall and to speak on behalf of the Sheriff?s Department, and to communicate QWIci?almm that the prior series of shootings were unrelated to the Beaudette murder (this, of course, was NOT Claimant?s position but Claimant was told that ?his position? was not at issue, just the ?Department?s position? mattered). Chief Benedict, who had rejected Claimant?s request for prior public warnings regarding the shootings, did not speak on behalf of the Department, but rather, attended the Town Hall and sat in the audience dressed in plain clothes in one of the front rows to intimidate Claimant and make sure Claimant presented the Department?s of?cial position as instructed to intimidate him to stay on script. On October 10, 2018, Anthony Rauda, who was apparently a vagrant living in the surrounding area, was captured in the nearby hills. Rauda was arrested and later charged with the murder of the fatal shooting of Tristan Beaudette. On or about December 21, 2018, the family of Tristan Beaudette (widow Erica Wu and his daughters) ?led civil government tort claims for more than $90 million in damages against the Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department and other state and local agencies, accusing them of failing to warn the public about the seven (7) shootings in and around the area before the slaying (the ?Beaudette Civil Claims?). On December 26, 2018, the Sheriff?s Department generated internal correspondence in direct response to the Beaudette Civil Claims requesting directly from Claimant?s station personnel responding information. Meaning, things were alleged in the Beaudette Civil Claims that created liability for the County, and the County wanted to know what was true and not true, and what information the deputies actually involved had concerning the allegations being made. In the 4 Government Claim internal response from Claimant?s station, it was speci?cally explained that Claimant and Captain Thai met with Chief Benedict before the Beaudette murder and that Claimant requested that a public safety statement be put out regarding the prior shootings. The Sheriff correspondence concludes with the statement that ?[t]here was no public safety statement addressing the shooting[s] prior to Tristan Beaudette?s murder.? This response indicates the allegations in the Beaudette Civil Claim were true, and that as such, the County was facing signi?cant liability for the wrongful death civil claims. In January, 2019, the Respondents, and each of them, began their retaliation. Without any prior warning or basis, Claimant was transferred from his Detective Lieutenant assignment, the OIC of Detectives at Malibu/Lost Hills Station, to the Santa Clarita station, a much less coveted assignment. Claimant had his Detective status removed, lost his overtime opportunities, and is assigned less favorable shifts. Further, Claimant now has to commute approximately 100 miles a day to work, whereas at Malibu/Lost Hills Station, his commute was just over 20 miles per day. This is commonly known in law enforcement agencies as the Department giving the employee ?freeway therapy.? Furthermore, Respondents retaliated by making Claimant the subject of an Internal Affairs Investigation wherein he is accused of committing serious misconduct by allegedly interfering with an investigation. This accusation is entirely false as Claimant never interfered with or otherwise impeded the investigation into the Malibu shootings. Claimant never violated any policies, procedures, laws, or regulations relating to the shootings or any Sheriff or other agency investigation into the shootings and murder of Tristan Beaudette. Instead, Claimant immediately noti?ed his supervisors at all times regarding all information and details of the shootings as he became aware of such facts through his work as the OIC of Detectives, and repeatedly expressed his opinion that a public safety warning should be given. In addition, Claimant?s professional reputation has been, and continues to be, tarnished and damaged by the Department by virtue of the retaliatory IA investigation, bogus rumors regarding his professional abilities and reputation, and other falsehoods. In fact, in his approximately eight years being assigned at Malibu/L03 Hills Station, Claimant had earned stellar performance 5 Government Claim evaluations and multiple commendations for his work. On a continuing and ongoing basis up to, and including, today, Claimant has been retaliated against, harassed, and otherwise discriminated against by Respondents because Claimant?s request to disclose the shootings to the public was Claimant attempting to get Respondents, and each of them, to follow the law and to not violate the law. Claimant disclosed what he reasonably believed to be an unlawful and unsafe failure to warn the public regarding the series of shootings. Claimant reasonably believed that a failure to disclose the shootings and issue a public safety warning would lead to a violation of law (which it has). Further, the Beaudette Civil Claims that were ?led indeed allege a violation of law arising from the Department?s failure to warn, which is exactly what Claimant repeatedly requested. Further, Respondents, and each of them, are now retaliating against Claimant to get him to back-down and shut-up because they believe he will continue to reveal that he wanted to warn the public in both internal investigations and in external forums (for example, in the deposition and trial testimony that will certainly be forthcoming in the Beaudette Civil matter) The Respondents? retaliatory actions against Claimant, including speci?cally the unwarranted transfer, IA investigation, and reputational harm, are designed to intimidate, control and otherwise damage Claimant as a witness because the Department believes that Claimant will testify in a future proceeding regarding his disclosures to supervisors as to the Department?s legal duty to warn the public. This retaliatory action by Respondents has further eroded the trust Claimant has in Respondents and others that he must work with at the Department. People from the Sheriff?s Department and in the County that are involved in the facts and circumstances of this claim are all of the Claimant?s supervisors and coworkers, all command staff at Claimant?s particular division and Patrol Division, all the members of IA including, but not limited to, the people who were involved in any way, shape, or form in any investigation (formal or otherwise), all people and supervisors in the adjudication of any investigation, and signing off on accusations, discipline or ?ndings of any kind, all people that were involved in the transfer and other adverse acts against the Complainant at all relevant times, and all members of command staff in the LASD up to the Sheriff (as well as their assistants, adjutants, secretaries, helpers, and 6 Government Claim 00?dewa advisers). All these people play a role in what goes on in the Sheriff?s Department, and this claim puts YOU (Respondents) on notice that Claimant will seek discovery and evidence, and put the same on trial, as to all these people and all their actions in the years before and after the specific acts outlined in this Claim. The LASD is too big and complex for Claimant to presently identify everyone who had a hand in the wrongful acts at issue, but the Department knows because they did it. Whether the LASD choses to do a proper investigation is, as always, up to the LASD. Claimant has suffered both general and special damages in the past and present and will continue to suffer such damages in the future for an unknown period of time. This has caused damage to his professional reputation, will likely cause him to have to take a different retirement path, which will adversely affect his income and pension and other bene?ts. Moreover, it has adversely affected Claimant?s personal health and well-being. Claimant has also suffered extensive general damages in the form of anxiety, anguish, and mental suffering. Claimant?s damages are continuing and in an amount not yet determined, but in excess of $25,000. Respondent?s wrongful conduct is continuing and ongoing to present, June 6, 2019. Dated: June 6, 2019 LLP By: Matthew S.chNicholas Douglas D. Winter Attorneys for Claimant JAMES ROYAL 7 Government Claim PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90024. On June 6, 2019, I served the foregoing document described as GOVERNMENT CLAIM on the interested parties in said action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in Los Angeles, CA to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am ?readily familiar? with the firm?s practice of collection and processing correSpondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the US. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, CA in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in af?davit. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) 1 caused such envelope to be delivered by hand via NOW MESSENGER to the offices of the addressee. El (BY FACSIMILE) The above-described document (5) were sent by facsimile transmission to the facsimile number(s) of the law of?ce(s) stated above. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. A c0py of the transmission report is made a part of this proof of service pursuant to CRC ?2008. El (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) The above-described document(s) were sent by electronic transmission to the law of?ce(s) stated in the attached Service List. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. El (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I placed the Ovemite Express package for overnight delivery in a box or location regularly maintained by Ovemite Express at my of?ce or I delivered the package to an authorized courier or driver authorized by Ovemite Express to receive documents. The package was placed in a sealed envelope or package designated by Ovemite Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served at the address(es) shown above, at the office address(es) as last given by that person on any document ?led in the cause and served on the party making service; otherwise at that party?s place of residence. (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 6, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. 01nd Gammon) Judy Sarenana 8 Government Claim SERVICE LIST Royal v. County of Los Angeles, et al. County Clerk?s Of?ce County of Los Angeles Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 W. Temple Street, Suite 383 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Tel: (213)974-1411 (Via Personal Service) Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department 211 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Tel: (213) 229-1850 (Certified Mail Receipt 7015 0640 0001 7103 6641) Division Chief John Benedict 211 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Tel: (213)229-1850 (Certi?ed Mail Receipt 7015 0640 0001 7103 6658) 9 Government Claim