My glass was taken from my apartment in downtown Los Angeles on January 1st, 2017.
I was sleeping and couldn’t open it to inspect it.
I called the Los Angeles Police Department to report the missing glass.
The LAPD was able to confirm the glass was missing.
A few days later, I received a call from a colleague who was working at a glass shop in the city’s downtown core.
They told me that the glass had gone missing and they had no idea where it was.
I had a feeling something was wrong when I received the phone call.
I didn’t know why the glass disappeared.
I thought it was a routine maintenance job at the glass shop, but the police never gave me a clue.
I did not take any action to see what was going on.
I am a business owner and I own the shop, and I would not take that chance to lose a customer’s glass.
I have never lost a customer before.
I even used the same glass for years.
I decided to take matters into my own hands and contacted my glass manufacturer, Tissot Glass USA, to report what was happening.
They had no choice but to call the police and have the glass returned.
I also called the LAPD to ask for help.
I asked if the police had an update on the case and if there was any evidence of tampering or tampering with evidence.
They never told me.
I went to my lawyer and asked them to come in and see if I could obtain a court order to search the building for the missing piece of glass.
At that point, the LAPD had to make a decision.
The police did not provide a list of officers involved in the case.
My lawyer was worried that my client’s name might not be cleared and that the police would not give her a fair trial.
They were afraid to put a police officer in the position of investigating a missing glass case.
The Los Angeles Superior Court of Appeal agreed with me.
The appellate court concluded that police did a poor job of investigating and finding out who the culprit was, but they also held the LAPD accountable for the situation.
They recommended that the LAPD conduct a criminal investigation into the missing item of glass and that they review the case file.
The next step in the process was to file a civil lawsuit in federal court against the LAPD.
The civil suit, filed on January 20, 2018, named as defendants the Los Angelenos Police Department, TISSOT Glass USA and the city of Los Angeles.
It alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Civil Rights Act (CCRA).
In its opinion, the court said: “We agree that the circumstances in which the glass went missing are serious and that no reasonable person would have believed that this could be a routine, routine, and necessary maintenance job.
The [LA Police Department] did not investigate the matter thoroughly and failed to notify the owner of the missing portion of glass of the possible destruction of the glass.”
According to the civil complaint, TISCO Glass USA is responsible for “the maintenance of all of the city-owned and leased glass in the Los Feliz [region]”.
TISSOTHOT Glass is responsible “for the maintenance of glass throughout the entire Los Angeles region” and “for all of its business operations.”
The court also found that the City of Los Angles did not have a duty to “prevent the destruction of glass, including that of the City’s own buildings, when the city was not authorized to do so by law.”
The complaint also alleges that “the City failed to inform the owner that the missing part of glass could be destroyed without the owner’s permission.”
The civil lawsuit also alleges “an unreasonable delay” in providing the LAPD with information regarding the missing TISSULTO Glass.
The lawsuit is still pending.
The civil case was filed in February 2018 and the case is scheduled to go to trial in July 2018.
It’s possible that the court will rule in the civil case’s favor and the LAPD will face no criminal charges.
The city is currently paying TISSOTO Glass USA $1,000 to replace the missing “glass piece” in the glass case, according to court documents.
A jury trial is scheduled for October.
The City of San Diego has yet to comment on the civil lawsuit, but is expected to do a formal response to the court. Comments