LAPD sergeant claims retaliation after department transfer. Defense verdict. Los Angeles County.

Summary

Police supervisor transfers sergeant and refers him to a review committee after an internal-affairs complaint. He says it was retaliation.

The Case

Case Name: Mario Cardona v. City of Los Angeles
Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / 22STCV17208
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Date Action was Filed: Friday, July 08, 2022
Type of Case: Employment, Whistleblower
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Maurice Leiter
Plaintiffs:
Mario Cardona
Defendants:
City of Los Angeles
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

Gross Verdict or Award: Defense verdict
Jury Deliberation Time: 4 1/2 hours
Jury Polls: 9-3

The Attorneys

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Robert Stanford Brown, APC by Robert Stanford Brown, Los Angeles.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Los Angeles City Attorney's Office by Keimer Raymond and Douglas Lyon, Los Angeles.

The Experts

Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Laura Ines, economics.

Wayne Caffey, police training.
Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
None.

Facts and Background

Facts and Background:
Sergeant Mario Cardona filed a Labor Code § 1102.5 claim against LAPD, claiming that he was transferred from Gang Enforcement to Patrol because he refused to rescind a parking ticket for his captain at LAPD 77th Division. Plaintiff also claimed the captain filed an Internal Affairs complaint against him for the same, and referred him to the LAPD Risk Management Executive Committee for monitoring.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
Plaintiff claimed he was a whistleblower and that his domestic dispute with police response, and the excessive force lawsuit against him were not the real and true reasons for moving him to Patrol or referring him to the Risk Management Executive Committee. Plaintiff asked the jury for $291,365 in economic damages and $6,000,000 in past and future non-economic damages.
Defendant's Contentions:
Community Policing philosophies of LAPD warranted transferring plaintiff to Patrol, and it was not adverse to him.

Plaintiff was seen as disrespectful in his interactions with the community on body-worn video. Therefore, his captain transferred him. The excessive force verdict against him warranted monitoring by the Risk Management Executive Committee (RMEC), and this has not kept him from constant increases in salary annually. Also, there is no reason to believe he missed out on a promotion due to RMEC.

Injuries and Other Damages

Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:
Plaintiff claimed he suffered alopecia because of the retaliation, with large spots appearing on his body. There was no treating physician and no expert testimony as to physical or emotional damages.

Special Damages

Special Damages Claimed - Past Lost Earnings: $291,365

Additional Notes

Defendant City agreed to a $950,000 settlement at mediation, but sometime thereafter, plaintiff had a change of heart and declined to execute the settlement agreement.