Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCP01811, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP01811    Hearing Date: May 31, 2024    Dept: 82

Oscar Rojas                                                               Case No. 23STCP01811

v.                                                                     Hearing Date: May 31, 2024

                                                                                    Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse

City of Los Angeles, et al.                                        Department: 82

                                                                                    Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch

[Tentative] Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record

Petitioner Oscar Rojas (“Petitioner”) challenges a February 22, 2023, decision of Respondents to remove him from his position as police officer with the City of Los Angeles Police Department (the “LAPD”).  In the administrative complaint at issue (B.F. 31010, C.F. 21-001174), Petitioner was charged with the following two counts of misconduct:

1.     On August 15, 2018, Petitioner, while off duty, made an inappropriate ethnic remark via text message to his ex-girlfriend, Kelsie Matthews.

2.     On October 2, 2018, Petitioner, while on duty, inappropriately loaned his Department cellular phone to his ex-girlfriend, Kelsie Matthews. 

(Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (“Pet.”) ¶ 6.)  A Board of Rights found Petitioner guilty of both counts and recommended that he be removed from his position as Police Officer, with total loss of pay, effective May 6, 2022.  The Chief of Police adopted the Board’s recommendation and executed the order terminating Petitioner’s employment on February 22, 2023.   (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.)

            Now, Petitioner moves to augment the administrative record to include the “Rationale and Findings” from a prior administrative proceeding: In the Matter Los Angeles Police Department Board of Rights Hearing in re: Oscar Rojas, #43061 (B.F. 30058; C.F. 19-000800), at which Petitioner faced seven counts of misconduct.  The Board of Rights found Petitioner guilty of the following counts: (1) Count One alleging that while off-duty, Petitioner photographed partially nude models who were dressed in his Department-issued uniform and with his equipment, and posted the photographs to his social media account; and (2) Count Two alleging that while off-duty, Petitioner sent inappropriate photographs of arrestees in police custody.   The Board of Rights found Petitioner not guilty of the remaining counts, which alleged that Petitioner had committed sexual assaults on his ex-girlfriend, Kelsie Matthews, and forcibly kissed another woman, Veronica Brooks, after being told to stop.

            Petitioner represents that “[t]he findings and rationale by the prior Board of Rights is pertinent as it was relied on and pointed to in the instant Board of Rights.”  (Motion to Augment Administrative Record 8:4-5.)  Petitioner also represents that “[t]he additional materials, including the transcript, from the prior 2021 Board of Rights Hearing, that Petitioner seeks to include in the Administrative Record were not readily available for review by the Board of Rights in this matter.”  (Id. at 8:11-13.)  Respondents do not oppose the motion.  Accordingly, the requirements of section 1094.5(e) to augment the administrative record are satisfied.  Alternatively, to the extent the prior “Rationale and Findings” were relied upon by Board of Rights in the instant case, they are written evidence or “other papers in the case” that should be included in the administrative record.  (See CCP § 1094.6(c).) 

            Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

            1.         Petitioner’s motion to augment the record is granted.

            2.         The court augments the administrative record with the “Rationale and Findings” from: In the Matter Los Angeles Police Department Board of Rights Hearing in Re: Oscar Rojas, #43061 (B.F. 30058; C.F. 19-000800), submitted as Exhibit A with Petitioner’s Notice of Lodging filed May 2, 2024. 

            3.         The court does not augment the administrative record with any other documents or transcripts from the prior Board proceeding (B.F. 30058; C.F. 19- 000800), as Petitioner has not sought such relief in his motion.  If Petitioner intends to do so, the court orders the parties to meet-and-confer and, if possible, to file a stipulation before any motion is filed.

            4.         Petitioner’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.