Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP01355, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP01355    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: 82

Alan Gilmer v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Case No. 24STCP01355

NOTICE

The court provides notice of the following provisions of the Court Security General Order and orders the parties to comply with these orders:

“Under no circumstances shall any law enforcement officer bring a firearm or deadly or dangerous weapon into a Los Angeles County courthouse if the officer is entering the courthouse as a private litigant in a private action unless written permission to do so has first been obtained from the Presiding Judge or Supervising Judge of the affected courthouse to bring such a weapon into the courthouse.”  (Court Security General Order, ¶ I.C.) 

“Violation of this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions in amounts of up to $1,500 per violation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 and/or prosecution for criminal violations.”  (Court Security General Order, ¶ V.)

The court authorizes remote appearances for all hearings and the trial in this matter as necessary to comply with these orders. 

[Tentative] Order Denying Motion to Augment Record

Petitioner Alan Gilmer (“Petitioner”), an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department the “LAPD”),  filed this petition for writ of mandate challenging his demotion from Detective III to Detective I.  Now, Petitioner seeks to augment the administrative record with the following documents: (1) LAPD Department Manual section 3/762.92, “Temporary Assignments;” (2) LAPD Department Manual section 3/814, “Work Equity Complaint;” (3) A declaration by Lieutenant II Robert Binder; and (3) A declaration by Detective III Ernesto Mendoza. 

“As a general rule, a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of the proceeding before the administrative agency.”  (Richardson v. City and County of San Francisco (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 671, 702.)  There is an exception:

Where the court finds that there is relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or that was improperly excluded at the hearing before respondent, it may enter judgment as provided in subdivision (f) remanding the case to be reconsidered in the light of that evidence; or, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, the court may admit the evidence at the hearing on the writ without remanding the case. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (e).)  The court rules as follows:

            1.         LAPD Department Manual section 3/762.92 – DENIED.  Petitioner does not demonstrate that he could not have introduced this manual.  Nor does Petitioner demonstrate that he attempted to introduce this section and that the Board improperly excluded it at the hearing.

            2.         LAPD Department Manual section 3/914 – DENIED.  Petitioner does not demonstrate that he could not have introduced this manual.  Nor does Petitioner demonstrate that he attempted to introduce this section and that the Board improperly excluded it at the hearing.

            3.         Declaration of Robert Binder – DENIED.  Petitioner represented that this declaration was submitted to the Board.  If so, this declaration should already be part of the administrative record.

            4.         Declaration of Ernesto Mendoza – DENIED.  Petitioner represented that this declaration was submitted to the Board.  If so, this declaration should already be part of the administrative record.

            The court’s clerk shall provide notice.