In neighboring South Gate, officers sue and win… and then sue again

Feb. 01, 2012 by Ben Baeder

SOUTH GATE – Police officers who stayed on the job after winning a combined $10.4 million lawsuit against the city in 2007 are now suing South Gate again.

Officers David Matsukiyo and Albert Carrillo accuse the city of creating a culture of rampant racism, retaliation and a closed “old boys club.”

The two officers were part of a $10.4 million verdict in 2007, which was believed to be one the largest-ever police discrimination awards in the nation’s history.

This time around, they are joined in their suit by Officer Jason Gonzalez, who did not participate in the 2007 suit. Gonzalez testified on the other officers’ behalf in the 2007 trial. The officers are seeking $1.4 each.

The three  officers were subjected to harassment and intimidation that included fellow officers pointing service weapons at them, threatening with trained police attack dogs, using racial slurs and refusing to provide back-up, according to the suit.

The officers allege the department has a pattern of favoring white officers, and that sworn personnel as high up as the chief’s office used racial slurs including the “N” word and other phrases targeting Latinos and Asians. One white officer kept a swastika displayed in his locker, according to the lawsuit.

The City Council and South Gate Police Chief Randall Davis didn’t return phone calls seeking comment. Bradley Gage, attorney for Matsukiyo, Carrillo and Gonzalez, also declined to comment.

The city has filed a cross-complaint against the officers, according to court records. City attorney Raul Salinas said the gag order prevented him from discussing the cross complaint as well.

The case is set for trial in August, according to court records.

According to the suit, in April 2009, Matsukiyo and Carrillo responded to a call of what court documents describe as an armed gang member who was tagging. The lack of back-up resulted in an exchange of gunfire.

The suspect pulled a gun on Carrillo, who was forced to return fire, according to the document.

The lawsuit accuses the police department of putting South Gate residents at risk.

“Citizens of South Gate were also exposed to the risk of harm, injury or death because of this lack of back-up,” the court document says.

Carrillo is the brother-in-law of Albert Robles, the former South Gate City Treasurer who in 2006 was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his part in a $20 million bribery scandal, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The suit is the latest fallout from the Robles affair. Robles in 2002 pushed hard for the hiring of former acting Police Chief Rick Lopez, who was the city’s first Latino chief. Carrillo and Matsukiyos’ first suit alleged that their support of Lopez caused them to be discriminated against. Lopez was later ousted.

In all, city officials have paid $18 million in damages and settlements to South Gate officers since 2002, according to news stories. Matsukiyo and Carrillo said they continue to be discriminated against.

Attorneys working for South Gate refused to release any records relating to settlements or damages received by Matsukiyo, Carrillo or any other officer.

The refusal to give the information is a blatant violation of the state’s public access laws, said Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition.

“Whenever a municipality pays out millions of dollars as part of a settlement of a lawsuit, the public is entitled to know all terms of that lawsuit,” Scheer said. “Especially how much money was paid to each of the plaintiffs.”

The city and attorney for the officers refused to disclose the information because of a gag order on all parties that was part of the agreement, according to Mildred O’Linn, a lawyer that represented South Gate in the case.

“I can’t provide any specifics,” O’Linn said.

The law does not allow the city to withhold public information from the public, even with a court order, Scheer said.

“If a judge has been persuaded by the parties to give the court’s imprimatur to a secrecy agreement, the court has acted beyond its power,” Scheer added.

One tort reform advocate wondered why Carrillo and Mastukiyo stayed on the job after the 2007 suit. And he wondered whether South Gate officers were acting as “serial litigants.”

“Should taxpayers be required to offer these sizable settlements any time they’re discomfited on the job?” said Darren McKinney, spokesman for the American Tort Reform Association.  “It seems these officers owe it to the taxpayers to make a decision – either they’re happy with their workplace or not.”