Judge Mathis threatened to shoot a metropolis employee all as a result of a dump truck was blocking his driveway … at the least in keeping with a brand new lawsuit.
Within the docs, obtained by TMZ, a person named Ricardo Acosta claims he was on the job with the L.A. Dept. of Water and Energy in July 2023, working exterior of Mathis’ residence when he says the TV choose began swearing at him.
Acosta claims Mathis was pulling out of his storage in his automotive, then acquired out of the car and began hurling expletives … yelling at Acosta to “transfer the f***** truck out of the best way.”
Town employee claims Mathis was standing behind the dump truck at this level and he says he instructed Mathis to maneuver from behind the truck for security causes … as a result of he was involved the truck would roll backward when put into gear as a result of it was parked on an incline.
Acosta claims Mathis instructed him he “didn’t give a f*** and to run him over and see what occurs to him.” He says Mathis then instructed him he had one thing for him and bumped into the home and returned with a gun.
Within the docs, Acosta claims Mathis brandished the firearm and said, “I’ll bust a cap … you wanna f*** with me.” He says Mathis then acquired again within the automotive and drove off, however not earlier than threatening once more to “bust a cap.”
Acosta is suing Mathis for assault and intentional infliction of emotional misery … and he is going after Mathis for damages.
The lawsuit follows a narrative we broke in July 2023 … when legislation enforcement sources instructed us a LADWP worker made a grievance with police, accusing Mathis of threatening workers with a gun following a heated confrontation.
Choose Mathis’ lawyer, Anahita Sedaghatfar tells TMZ … “This unfiled grievance that has been conveniently publicly circulated is a final ditch try by Mr. Acosta to extort my shopper Choose Mathis, for monetary achieve. Mr. Acosta’s recitation of the ‘details’ merely don’t comport with what truly transpired in the course of the incident, which occurred over one yr in the past.”
She continues, “The report made to the LAPD by Mr. Acosta’s superior comprises many demonstrable falsities, whereas additionally admitting that Choose Mathis feared for his personal security and the protection of his household because of the threats made by Mr. Acosta and his cohorts and the false imprisonment they imposed on Choose Mathis on his personal non-public property.”
She provides, “That the LAPD didn’t even examine Mr. Acosta’s claims speaks to their lack of benefit. Ought to Mr. Acosta pursue this lawsuit, we is not going to solely vigorously defend the case, we are going to file cross claims in opposition to Mr. Acosta for his unlawful conduct and repeated defamation of my shopper.”
