A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by former Sheriff Alex Villanueva against Los Angeles County over a “do not rehire” notation placed on his personnel file after an oversight panel said he discriminated against and harassed two county employees.
The federal government lawsuit filed in June had accused, among other things, the county of defaming Villanueva and violating his due process rights when officials “secretly” investigated him without giving him a chance to respond to the allegations.
County attorneys said in court documents that Villanueva had been informed of the investigations and refused to be interviewed for them unless he was given the questions in advance.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson granted the county's request to dismiss the case, saying Villanueva had failed to show how the “do not rehire” designation had actually harmed him since he had not provided any evidence that he had been denied a job because of it.
Still, Villanueva’s attorney called the decision a victory, noting that the judge addressed only some of the former sheriff’s claims and left open the possibility that Villanueva’s legal team could refile the case, which he said they planned to do.
“We are pleased with Judge Wilson’s order yesterday and fully respect it,” attorney Carney Shegerian wrote in an email to The Times. “Our client, former Sheriff Villanueva, is on the side of what is right and we are confident that the law will provide remedies for the wrongs the defendants committed against him.”
Jason Tokoro, a partner at the law firm Miller Barondess who is acting as outside counsel for the county, also called the decision a victory.
“We appreciate the Court’s decision and that it agreed with our arguments in every respect in rejecting the allegations that former Sheriff Villanueva made in his complaint,” Tokoro said in an emailed statement. “Although he accused the County of unfairly placing him on the ‘Do Not Rehire’ list, the facts proved otherwise, and it was for these reasons that the Court dismissed the case.”
The allegations at the center of the lawsuit date back to early 2022, when Inspector General Max Huntsman accused Villanueva, who was still sheriff at the time, of conducting a “racial attack” and “whistling at the extremists he serves” when he repeatedly referred to the inspector general by his foreign-sounding birth name, Max-Gustaf. Not long after that, Villanueva also accused Huntsman of being a holocaust denierHe provided no evidence for that claim, and Huntsman denied it.
Around the same time Huntsman filed her complaint, Esther Lim — then a deputy attorney general to County Supervisor Hilda Solis — filed a complaint accusing Villanueva of attacking and harassing women of color.
Pointing to comments the former sheriff made on Facebook Live streams, Lim alleged a pattern of ageism and harassment of Asian women.
According to the county, Villanueva was notified in June 2022 that he was the subject of an investigation by the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau. A few weeks later, an investigator interviewed Huntsman and Lim.
After that, Villanueva claimed in court filings that the case was dropped because the Internal Affairs Bureau determined he had not violated any policies. He said the investigation was not reopened until late 2023, after he was removed from the sheriff’s office and announced his candidacy for county supervisor.
On Sunday, a county attorney said the claim that the case had been dismissed was false. Documents filed with the county court describe a case that was still active in early 2023, when Villanueva emailed an investigator in response to certified letters he had sent, trying to reach him.
“I will ask you to submit your question in writing, after providing a brief description of what the allegations are,” he wrote. According to copies of emails attached to court filesWhen the investigator told him that was not standard practice, Villanueva questioned the image of investigating a former sheriff, saying he was “not concerned” about the standard practice and noting that he was “more than happy” to cooperate, but only on his own terms.
The two exchanged emails for several weeks before Villanueva sent the investigator a final email stating that he had “no jurisdiction” to interview him and calling his terms “unethical and unacceptable.”
The department completed its investigation and sent it to the county's Equity Oversight Panel, which met in October of last year and accepted some of the complaints in both cases, ultimately recommending that the former sheriff be deemed ineligible for reemployment.
Afterward, Villanueva said, he heard nothing more from the county about the allegations or their outcome until The Times published an article about them earlier this year. Afterward, according to his court documents, he contacted a former sheriff’s department chief who allegedly told him the case had been filed and then reopened.
In May, Filed a claim letter notifying the county She planned to sue for $25 million and ask officials to rescind the “no rehire” designation. When she filed the suit in June, the complaint accused the county of defamation, intentionally causing her emotional distress and violating her free speech and due process rights.
According to Friday's decision, Villanueva and his legal team have two weeks to re-present their case.
While Lim did not offer comment on the outcome, Huntsman said the case showed the need for strong oversight of the Sheriff's Department.
“The court’s opinion speaks for itself,” he told The Times. “The fact that Villanueva was able to suppress any response to his conduct while sheriff demonstrates that the LASD will always need robust outside investigations to prevent corruption.”
