LOS ANGELES (CNS) - An attorney for a group Los Angeles firefighters -- who sued the city asking to be paid pending hearings about possible termination for refusing the coronavirus vaccine -- is asking that a judge's dismissal of the case be vacated and that the case be heard by a new bench officer.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Linfield tossed the Firefighters4Freedom suit on Feb. 15, calling the case ``another in a long line of cases that challenges vaccination mandates'' and one that was ``equally without merit.''
On Dec. 21, the judge denied the nonprofit group's request for a preliminary injunction protecting the firefighters' rights. John Howard, one of the firefighters' lawyers, filed court papers on Tuesday stating that legal errors and comments Linfield made during both hearings warrant setting aside the dismissal and having the motion heard again by another judge.
In a sworn declaration, Howard noted that in Linfield's opinion on the preliminary injunction hearing, the judge compared the number of coronavirus deaths to the number of Americans killed in the Civil War and other armed conflicts. The judge also disparaged an expert the firefighters hired to provide basic background information about the pandemic, Howard says.
``Judge Linfield's opinion on the preliminary injunction motion was strong evidence of bias,'' Howard states in his court papers. ``It reads more like an opinion piece in The Nation than a reasoned judicial decision on the narrow legal issues presented. It had an adversarial tone.''
During the hearing on the dismissal of the case, Linfield compared people who have questioned the effectiveness of coronavirus vaccines to those who question whether the Holocaust and the moon landing occurred as well as whether Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election, Howard says. The judge also disregarded valid law on the issues, Howard says.
``These legal errors, combined with Judge Linfield's failure to follow the rules regarding demurrers, will almost certainly lead to reversal on appeal,'' says Howard, who noted that last year a panel of the Second District Court of Appeal overturned a $13 million employment case verdict against the UC Regents based on legal mistakes and the appearance of bias in favor of the plaintiff.
``We do not raise these issues lightly,'' Howard says. ``All plaintiff asked for was a fair process, a chance to gather evidence and to have its day in court.''