Appeals judge fighting sexual misconduct charges sues his own court

State appellate Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson is seeking $10 million in a lawsuit against his own court and a fellow justice over a widespread email disclosure of confidential sexual misconduct allegations against him that were being investigated. Johnson, of the 2nd District Court of Appeal, is charged with sexually harassing 17 women and appearing at the courthouse intoxicated after hours, which he has denied.

A year ago, as Administrative Presiding Justice Elwood Lui was investigating the sexual misconduct claims, he sent an email to court group email lists that detailed confidential allegations, according to Johnson's complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 1.

More than 10,000 personnel throughout the appellate court system received the disclosure, which involved accusations made by California Highway Patrol officer Tatiana Sauquillo, her attorney Lisa Bloom previously confirmed to the Daily Journal.

Lui claimed the disclosure was an accident, according to the complaint. But Johnson argues it was too egregious to be simply an error.

"This was no slip of the finger in addressing the email," according to Johnson's complaint, filed by Mitchell J. Langberg of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP. "To accomplish this, Lui had to add 11 separate group addresses into the CC field of his email."

Lui's attorneys, Robert A. Naeve and Cary D. Sullivan of Jones Day, and a Court of Appeal spokesperson all declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. Lui did not respond to a request for comment.

"Justice Johnson is attempting to position himself as a victim," Lisa Bloom, who represents the CHP officer, said in a statement Friday. "He is facing nine counts of sexual harassment and other serious misconduct by many women. ... We will continue to push forward for accountability in this case."

Johnson seeks $10 million in damages for violation of his right to privacy and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Johnson v. Lui, 19STCV22913 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed July 1, 2019).

The lawsuit is separate from an upcoming Aug. 5 Commission on Judicial Performance hearing on the sexual misconduct allegations, but the two are inevitably related. In a brief filed in the disciplinary proceedings last month, Johnson claimed the email disclosure "encouraged persons to negatively interpret past events."

He continued to deny the sexual misconduct allegations in his civil complaint, calling them "spurious" and "scurrilous" though he insisted the matters were separate.

"Whether through intent or neglect, Justice Lui violated Justice Johnson's privacy rights, inflicted emotional distress upon him, threatened Justice Johnson's right to due process and did untold damage to his reputation," according to the complaint.

Langberg, Johnson's attorney, declined to comment on the lawsuit's potential impact on disciplinary proceedings.

"I think it'd be inappropriate, given our concerns, to take a human resources matter and litigate it in the press," Langberg said Friday. "We think both the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to have the court hear out the facts that both of them present and decide who's right and who's wrong, and we're confident that we're right."

Langberg declined to comment further.

Paul S. Meyer of Costa Mesa, who is representing Johnson in the disciplinary proceedings, said he was not involved with the civil suit.

Johnson filed a government tort claim on Dec. 31, 2018, two weeks before he was charged by the commission. The claim was rejected on Feb. 11, according to the complaint. The timing of filing the lawsuit was based on the statute of limitations, according to Langberg.

Lui is unlikely to be protected by judicial immunity as it primarily covers judges acting in a judicial, not administrative, capacity, according to judicial ethics scholar Charles G. Geyh of Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

But disciplinary personnel, such as those at the Commission on Judicial Performance, are protected under qualified immunity. The state Constitution specifies "members of the commission, the commission staff, and the examiners and investigators employed by the commission shall be absolutely immune from suit for all conduct at any time in the course of their official duties."

It's possible this provision could protect Lui and the Court of Appeal, according to Geyh.

"My gut tells me that courts will be reluctant to expose their own to personal liability for a 'reply to all' mistake, when they are otherwise performing normal duties of judicial office," he said in an email.

"In my opinion, since judges policing judges is a judicial function, there should be absolute immunity as there is for other judicial acts," added judicial ethics expert and New York University School of Law professor Stephen Gillers in an email. "At the very least, there should be qualified immunity."

Qualified immunity can only be defeated if Johnson proves the disclosure was malicious, Gillers said.

Both experts said judges suing a fellow judge or their court is extremely rare, if not unprecedented.

A case management conference is scheduled for Oct. 24.