Judge rules that ex-probation chief’s wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit was time-barred under state filing statutes
Miller Barondess successfully defended the County of Los Angeles in a high-profile wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit filed by former Chief Probation Officer Adolfo Gonzales. On October 29, 2025, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael J. Schultz granted summary judgment in favor of the County, ruling that Gonzales failed to meet the statutory filing requirements and dismissing the case in its entirety. Read coverage by the Daily Journal (subscription required).
(The case is Gonzales v. County of Los Angeles, No. 24STCV03333 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 2024). The Miller Barondess team includes Mira Hashmall, Zachary Sarnoff, Janelle Li-A-Ping, Kelly Delvac, and paralegal Ricky Reis.)
Gonzales alleged he was wrongfully terminated and retaliated against for reporting staffing shortages and operational deficiencies in juvenile halls to state regulators. The County maintained that Gonzales was terminated for legitimate performance-related reasons and that his claims were time-barred. Gonzales argued that his lawsuit qualified for a one-year filing period based on claims for special damages, including lost wages. Judge Schultz rejected that argument, agreeing with Miller Barondess that the case was untimely under applicable law.
Judge Schultz found that Gonzales’ allegations of wrongful termination and prayer for general damages supported the County’s contention that the action was subject to the six-month deadline. The court also noted that Gonzales’ application to file a late claim was denied and that he failed to petition the court for relief, thereby barring the suit entirely. Citing City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1993), the court held that these procedural defects precluded the lawsuit.
“The court’s ruling decisively affirms the County’s position from the outset—that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was meritless,” said lead counsel Mira Hashmall. “Plaintiff’s claim failed because he ignored clear statutory requirements. We’re proud to have defended the County’s reputation and secured a dismissal.”