A federal judge Friday dismissed several claims against the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and the former Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station captain, dismissing a lawsuit filed over a 2024 fight outside a Newhall bar.
Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed all claims by Parker Seitz in a lawsuit whereby he alleged an assault at the hands of deputies who then conspired to cover up the incident, which happened outside The Break Room on Lyons Avenue.
The minute order from Klausner’s ruling gave Seitz’s attorneys until Dec. 26 to refile an amended complaint, which Seitz’s attorneys said they plan to do in a statement Monday.
Neither Diez nor the Sheriff’s Department responded to a request for comment on this story. A call to The Break Room was referred to the business’ attorney, which did not respond to a request for comment as of this story’s publication.
Seitz’s attorney, Josh Stambaugh of Frost LLP, issued the following statement Monday in response to a request for comment on the dismissal: “The court has given us the opportunity to amend our claims, and we plan to do so.”
The incident
Seitz claimed in his lawsuit that was filed in August that he and two of his friends, Garrett Hixon and Caden Weible, were having fun at the bar when they encountered three men — two deputies, Randy Austin and Nicholas Hernandez, and an unidentified non-LASD employee with them.
The three men “began to bother and harass Seitz,” according to the lawsuit, specifically mentioning how the deputy knocked the sunglasses Seitz was wearing on top of his head.
A letter from Diez’s attorney to Seitz’s attorney in October offers a different take.
“In reality, Seitz attacked multiple individuals at a bar at which he was known to have previously caused fights,” according to the letter from Jason Tokoro, who also represents L.A. County.
The narratives continue to diverge after last call and the bar’s closure, when both groups converged in the parking lot around 1:36 a.m.
Seitz claimed in his sworn statement that after he crossed at 1:46 a.m., Austin “suddenly and without any justification,” punched Seitz.
The county’s attorney offered an exact opposite version of events in a letter:
“During the interaction, Seitz suddenly punched Hernandez, causing Hernandez to fall to the ground and hit his head,” Tokoro wrote. “Seitz continued to attack Hernandez, who was not defending himself.”
Seitz stated he was punched to the ground, and that once there, he was stomped and kicked until patrons intervened and he was taken to Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital. The group of three, including two deputies, fled the scene, after a few remaining patrons from The Break Room helped break up the incident.
Again, the LASD-supported version offers an opposite version: “Austin, Hernandez and the non-deputy then fled down an alley and called 911. Seitz’s friends again chased them. Hixon grabbed Hernandez’s cell phone and smashed it. When law enforcement arrived, Hixon fled.”
The injuries Seitz sustained include: a “fractured jaw, a punctured lung, a bruised collarbone, injuries to Seitz’s ribs, pushed in bottom front teeth and a fractured mandible,” according to his complaint.
Seitz lawsuit also puts blame on “Break Room” and “security guard defendants” because they “failed to intervene before this first altercation dissipated and therefore further failed to protect the bar’s patrons, including Seitz, from unreasonable risk of harm on the premises.”
Alleged coverup
Seitz’s claims of an LASD coverup focus around two subsequent actions that neither side disputed, but both characterized very differently: a conversation between Hixon and a deputy sent to investigate the incident; and a conversation between Diez and Seitz’s father.
Both happened within hours of the fight on the morning of Thanksgiving 2024.
According to Seitz’s complaint, “Wyatt confronted Hixon, Seitz’ friend and a witness to the assault and battery alleged herein, representing that Seitz threw the first punch in the beating, despite that Wyatt had no personal knowledge of what had actually transpired, and contrary to the physical evidence and witness statements.”
In the lawsuit, Weible claims that while he “visually observed Austin, Hernandez and (the unidentified party) at the scene of the altercation and did not observe any visible injuries on Austin, Hernandez and (the unidentified party) at the time of the altercation, he observed that Austin had a laceration over his eye and a bloodied hand while at Henry Mayo.”
The second alleged coverup act involved a conversation between Ryan Seitz, owner of Calex Engineering, and Diez, who at the time was the captain of the SCV Sheriff’s Station and representing himself as calling as a favor to the elder Seitz and promising the prominent local executive favorable treatment, according to the son’s lawsuit.
“Diez described to Ryan Seitz that (Parker) Seitz was the primary suspect and instigator of the brawl. Diez also represented that LASD was understaffed, and if Ryan Seitz would leave it to Diez, Diez would make sure the situation would go away, except he could not promise that Austin, Hernandez, and/or (the unidentified person) would not sue Seitz. Diez further advised that due to the personal friendship between Diez and Ryan Seitz, Diez would make sure nothing came of it and that Seitz would not be charged with a crime.”
Diez’s attorney said the claims “are devoid of any merit,” in his letter.
“First, Seitz attacked several individuals at a bar and then Diez and Wyatt — two department employees who have done nothing wrong — accurately described Seitz’s actions. Seitz has no one to blame but himself. Second, Seitz has remained free, at all times, to express his alleged views regarding his unfortunate actions,” he wrote, noting there’s been no suppression of speech about the incident, which included a lawsuit and a “media campaign.”
Diez’s attorney also said the statements were given while Diez was acting as the station’s captain.
“Seitz was the aggressor during the Nov. 28, 2024, incident and acted unruly at all relevant times,” according to Tokoru. “Moreover, both Diez and Wyatt were acting in their official capacities at the time they made such statements; the statements are privileged.”
The ruling
In his ruling Friday, Klausner dismissed the claims against Austin, Diez, Wyatt and the county, which alleged: Wyatt and Diez deprived him of his First Amendment right of free speech and petition; Wyatt and Diez engaged in retaliatory conduct to chill that right; and Wyatt, Diez, Austin and Hernandez participated in a conspiracy to deprive him of those rights.
Klausner said the initial complaint failed to establish county liability for the actions, looking first at the alleged free-speech violation.
In order to prove a retaliation claim, the plaintiff has to “state retaliatory acts made with the intent to retaliate against and deter plaintiff from exercising his First Amendment rights. Nevertheless, the complaint does not include factual allegations that support these requirements,” Klausner wrote.
“For Wyatt, plaintiff points to Wyatt’s visit to Henry Mayo and his discussion with Hixon, plaintiff’s friend, as the unconstitutional conduct. However, the complaint does not allege that what Wyatt told Hixon during the visit was untrue or that Wyatt believed it to be untrue, which would have suggested an intent to chill speech. Nor does plaintiff allege that Wyatt made any subsequent threat or some other chilling act,” according to Klausner.
He described the visit as a “routine law enforcement interaction,” and did not present evidence of animus, in his ruling.
Similarly, Klausner said he “is not convinced” that Diez infringed upon any rights when calling the plaintiff’s father to discuss the incident, but he did leave the complaint open to be amended.
“Diez calling Ryan Seitz to discuss the incident, in which he stated that plaintiff could be subject to arrest based on the information available to Diez at the time, appears to be another routine law enforcement action,” Klausner said, and “to infer otherwise would be to unreasonably construe any law enforcement investigation with a suspect’s family member as an attempt to chill speech. Moreover, the complaint does not include any allegation that Diez said or otherwise implied that plaintiff could not or should not pursue his petition or that Diez retaliated against plaintiff once he did so.”
The case’s docket indicates a hearing has been scheduled for January to discuss the remaining claims involving The Break Room.
