In July 2017, plaintiff Daniel Garza, 28, learned that the city of Los Angeles was promoting a police officer who had allegedly used excessive force against him during an incident two years prior. Garza was previously exercising in front of his house on May 14, 2015, when he was confronted by his neighbor, Police Officer Mario Cardona. The incident resulted in an altercation, during which Cardona, who was previously at a ceremony and had on clothing that was consistent with a police officer’s clothing, took Garza to the ground, straddled him and held his arms back. Cardona then called for his mother to bring his duty belt, which contained a holster, gun, badge, handcuffs, radio, ammunition and pepper spray. After receiving his belt, Cardona handcuffed Garza and called 911. When the sheriffs arrived, they removed the handcuffs from Garza, and no charges were ever filed against him. Garza sued Cardona; Cardona’s employer, the city of Los Angeles; and Cardona’s supervisor, Police Chief Charlie Beck. Garza alleged that Cardona’s actions constituted excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights and that the city and Beck were liable for Cardona’s actions. The city denied representation to Cardona, claiming the incident was outside the course and scope of his employment with the Los Angeles Police Department. As a result, Cardona sued the city for representation and indemnification. Prior to Garza’s case going to trial, Judge Stephen Wilson dismissed Beck as well as Garza’s ratification claim against city. On June 26, 2017, a federal jury found that Cardona was acting under the color of state law by acting in the performance of his official duties and that his actions deprived Garza of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After finding that Cardona’s actions constituted excessive force, it awarded Garza $210,000 in damages. It also found that Cardona had acted with malice when he violated LAPD policy. Due to the malice finding, the city was not required to indemnify Cardona’s conduct. Wilson then dismissed the remaining claims against the city for lack of evidence. After the verdict finding, Cardona filed for bankruptcy. Less than a month later, in July 2017, Beck signed off on a transfer order that authorized Cardona’s civil service promotion to sergeant. (Cardona had previously submitted an application in 2016, and he had successfully completed the civil service process that made him eligible for the promotion.) After learning about Cardona’s promotion, Garza’s mother publicly spoke to the police commission regarding the verdict and asked Beck, who was present at the meeting, to review the matter. Beck requested a review of the LAPD’s internal investigation of the incident, and he was informed that the internal investigation was not sustained against Cardona. In May 2018, Garza filed a motion for reconsideration of the § 1983 Monell claim against the city. After allowing Garza’s counsel to conduct discovery, Wilson granted Garza’s counsel’s motion, and set the matter for a new trial against the city regarding the ratification claim only. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Beck’s signature on the transfer order, promoting Cardona, ratified the unconstitutional conduct previously found by the jury. Counsel also argued that Beck should have reopened the LAPD’s internal investigation against Cardona, but that Beck failed to do so. The city’s counsel contended that authorizing the transfer order did not ratify the unconstitutional conduct because Beck was not a final policy maker and because authorizing the transfer order was not an express approval of the unconstitutional conduct. Counsel also contended that Beck had neither reviewed the internal administrative investigation nor had a role in the findings within that investigation. In addition, counsel argued that Beck could not have reopened the investigation in July 2017 because there was no new, significant information that would have warranted reopening it and that, as Beck was informed, the time frame for reopening an investigation had lapsed pursuant to the Government Code., During the previous trial, Garza claimed he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident with Cardona. He alleged that as a result, he suffered from sleeplessness and developed a fear of police. Garza claimed that after hearing about Cardona’s promotion, he continued to suffer from depression, sleeplessness and a fear of police, but that his symptoms were exacerbated.