SAPD On Trial: Ramirez Wins Retaliation Case Against City, $2.9M Awarded

A unanimous jury verdict found that the city of Santa Ana retaliated against one of its top managers during then-ongoing feuds between two police factions.

---

SAPD staging at a protest in 2020. Credit: Ben Camacho

Updated 1/23/2026, 10:30AM: By way of city council vote, the city of Santa Ana has moved towards appealing the jury’s decision in the case. The case will continue in the California Court of Appeals.

Update 12/16/2025, 12:15PM: A statement from the city sent today was added.

Update 12/18/2025 3:50PM: Valentin’s cooperation agreement is here.

A jury unanimously found that the city of Santa Ana retaliated against Rita Ramirez for her refusal to participate in the Santa Ana Police Department’s (SAPD) gang-like loyalty tests and for speaking up about the misogynistic treatment of women during her time as the highest ranking civilian employee at the police department. The jury also unanimously found that the city failed to take steps to correct misconduct by current and former SAPD top brass. Last Friday, the court awarded Ramirez $2.9 million in damages stemming from the retaliation that ultimately pushed Ramirez out of her job as the Police Administrative Manager.

The jury’s decision marked the end of a trial that lasted over a month, which came after the three year long civil lawsuit Ramirez filed on October 21, 2022 in the Orange County Superior Court. The trial was held at the North Justice Center in Fullerton and was overseen by Judge Nathan Vu. At trial, Ramirez was represented by Lawrence Lennemann and John Barber. The city was represented by Seymour Everett and Kevin Hernandez. The case was one of several pending against the city of Santa Ana filed by current and former SAPD officers that also allege retaliation, harassment or other workplace-related claims. Ramirez’s was the first of cases brought forth in recent years from current and former SAPD employees that reached trial. At least six other cases are currently pending. SAPD’s misconduct and the subsequent $2.9 million court award to Ramirez is one of the highest liabilities tied to SAPD – all while the city approaches a fiscal cliff in 2029.

Barber, who was authorized to speak on Ramirez’s behalf, stated, “She feels deeply vindicated and overjoyed that there’s been formal recognition of what she endured.”

He added that Ramirez hopes that the verdict “serves as a wake up call to the city of Santa Ana to correct the endemic, systemic problems that they have, to this day, failed to address.”

Lennemann, who is also working on some of the pending cases, added that he hopes the city will “address and remedy issues of discrimination, retaliation and harassment that are brought to them.”

City spokesperson Paul Eakins stated that the city has no comment at this time. City spokesperson Paul Eakins sent this statement: “We acknowledge the jury’s verdict in the civil case. The City will work closely with its insurance carriers and outside special counsel team to determine the best course of action with a focus on both fiscal responsibility and fairness and justice. The City remains committed to a safe, healthy, and positive working environment for all of our City employees.”

SAPD Public Information Officer Natalie Garcia did not respond to a request for comment. Specifically, Garcia did not answer questions regarding: if SAPD is concerned about the ruling or misconduct by its members, and if the department is learning anything from the outcome of the Ramirez case.

SAPD’s Gang-Like Activity On Trial

Ramirez’s lawsuit detailed how her refusal to “pick a camp” – a reference to the then-ongoing power struggle within SAPD – led to then-Chief David Valentin retaliating through his loyalists and ultimately pushed her out of the department. Ramirez testified that at a weekly meeting she had with Valentin while they were on good terms still, Valentin would talk a lot about loyalty. She said that she was not sure what he meant by it, but understood, “If I didn’t agree with him in the future, I have to be loyal.”

Testimony from her later detailed a conversation she had where she was told that if she did not pick a side, she would end up “at the bottom of the hill.” Ramirez’s job duties were also taken from her in the midst of the faction feud. Towards the end of her career, she stated that an interaction with Valentin resulted with him saying to her, “You’re still here?”

At the trial, testimony from Valentin, current-Chief Robert Rodriguez, former Deputy Chief Jose Gonzalez, Commander Maria Lopez and others proved to the jury to be, literally, unbelievable. When Ramirez’s attorneys asked key questions, most either denied the accusations or could not remember specific details about the claims made by Ramirez, Inadvertent observed. Almost every other answer given by these witnesses was given in the affirmative or without hesitation. At the end of the trial, Deputy Chief Julian Rodriguez was called to the stand and, Ramirez’s attorneys stated, refuted the testimony offered by the city’s side.

Notable testimony revolved around the fallout of a misogynistic comment regarding officers virtually attending a Women Leaders in Law Enforcement (WLILE) conference in 2020, a command staff retreat that occurred in 2024, and a dinner in Brea between Ramirez, Gonzalez and Rodriguez.

According to court records and testimony, a group of officers gathered at a residence to attend the WLILE conference virtually. Upon learning this, then-Deputy Chief Enrique Esparza referred to the gathering as a “pajama party”, according to records and testimony, due to the officers all being women. After a memo was submitted by Ramirez about the issues women in the department were facing such as condescending behavior, double standards regarding tone, verbiage and demeanor, a consultant was hired by the city. According to testimony, the consultant never finished their work due to interference from Valentin. Valentin, in his testimony, said he did not interfere.

Valentin did not respond to requests for comment.

The command staff retreat was organized by Rodriguez to try and repair relationships between SAPD command staff in the wake of Valentin retiring and the divisions present in the department. In his opening argument, Everett, the city’s lawyer, described it as a “team building event.” In the same morning, Everett admitted that there are “cliques” at the department. When Gonzalez testified, Ramirez’s counsel asked him if “camps” existed within the department and whether that was discussed at the retreat. He flatly denied it. Gonzalez testified virtually from an office and is now the deputy chief in Goodyear, Arizona.

The dinner between Ramirez, Gonzalez and Rodriguez followed a pattern of Ramirez being asked to pick a faction within the department. The dinner happened at Cha Cha’s Latin Kitchen in Brea. At the dinner, Ramirez testified that Gonzalez and Rodriguez told her that she needed to “pick a camp.”

She still refused, despite the mounting pressure that she felt, according to her.

While Valentin was on the stand, Barber revealed that Valentin, who retired in October 2023, has a contract with the city that gives him $300 per hour to cooperate in the ongoing cases. The contract is not listed on the city’s public documents portal. Barber revealed that an amendment to the contract was made specifically for Ramirez’s case, where his hourly rate for cooperation was increased to $350 per hour. On the stand, Valentin stated he had not billed the city for any time yet. At first, Everett, the city’s attorney, objected to Valentin’s cooperation agreement being brought up. Later, however, Everett made it a point to ask Valentin if he knew if it was common for other employees to have similar contracts in place after retirement, to which Valentin was not sure about.

Ramirez’s lawsuit came after Inadvertent reported on SAPD’s gang-like group: the now-defunct Major Enforcement Team (MET). MET was an exclusive SAPD unit, created and used by then-Chief Valentin, who shared gang-like skull tattoos and have been the subject to complaints of alleged misconduct both off and on duty but faced no discipline, according to police records and sources within the department. The unit was formed on January 6, 2020 and consisted of Valentin’s loyalists, including then-Sergeant, now-Commander Oscar Lizardi.

MET was disbanded in 2024 but most officers who participated in the gang-like activities remain in the department, including then-Commander, now-Chief Rodriguez. During his time as Internal Affairs Commander, Rodriguez delayed the investigation of a child sexual assault by MET members and shielded them from investigation and potential prosecution, according to a complaint submitted by SAPD Commander Manuel Moreno. The complaint has since been investigated by a city-hired investigator but the findings have been withheld by the city. Moreno has his own civil case pending against the city.

“There’s really a divisive police department…I’m really worried about the morale and the culture of our department,” said council member Ben Vazquez in a brief interview on Tuesday. He added that he was worried that the issues presented in Ramirez’s case have not been corrected and are being covered up and that SAPD needs strong oversight.

Council member Jessie Lopez stated, “I think that anytime there’s a judgement entered against the city that is a final judgement, there is a learning opportunity for city staff and for the city. And if it wasn’t, that would be a missed opportunity.”

“There’s something obviously not correct within the department, with the divisions that exist within the department,” Lopez added.

Council member Johnathan Hernandez said, “This is a department that has eroded the public’s trust by continuously engaging in misconduct, by killing unarmed members of the community, by covering each other’s crimes. This in turn has created a culture where the very people tasked to create safety for the residents of Santa Ana have turned on each other.”

Hernandez added, “This is something that adversely is going to affect the city’s finances and I have to acknowledge that the city is in a very difficult position amidst a potential budget shortfall in 2030. And I believe that we are in a position of financial constraint due to the ongoing cases of the Santa Ana Police Department.”

Mayor Valerie Amezcua and council members Thai Viet Phan, David Penaloza and Phil Bacerra did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

The Plaintiff

Ramirez is 58. She is of Mexican and Irish descent and grew up in Highland Park, a Los Angeles neighborhood – long before gentrification put chic boutiques and hipster bars on the main drag. In her youth, her job was delivering newspapers where she made seven dollars a month. She was raised by a single mom and married her first husband at 17. In her testimony, she said that she joined the police department at nineteen to help people after seeing abuse in her younger years, she wanted to “serve the community that maybe had the same rough life that [she] had.”

She had her first daughter at 27. On the first day of trial, Barber began his opening argument where he stated that when she was still at SAPD, she was “confronted with unethical and illegal behavior” that she resisted. It was not long into that when Ramirez began to sob and her daughter reached over to her and caressed her shoulder. Moments like that happened occasionally during the trial, but there were far more instances where Ramirez shook her head at testimony being given by the city’s witnesses.

At the end of it all, a jury of her peers did not find them credible and unanimously decided that the city of Santa Ana and its scandal-ridden police department retaliated against her.

Edit 12/10/25 9:27 AM : Title attribution and quote attribution were added.

Edit 12/11/25 2:59 PM: Two typos were corrected.