Consulting Firm Wins $1.89M Against City of Baldwin Park

Case Background

A federal jury in the Central District of California delivered a complicated verdict in September 2025, wrapping up a contentious, multi-year legal battle that pitted a consulting firm and its principal against the City of Baldwin Park and several of its current and former high-ranking officials. The suit, filed in January 2023, centered on allegations of municipal corruption, civil rights violations, and broken contracts involving the development of public land. Plaintiffs DJCBP Corporation, doing business as Tier One Consulting, and its principal, David Ju, claimed the city and its employees created an environment of bribery and kickbacks, systematically retaliating against the firm when it refused to participate in the illicit schemes. The trial demanded the jury parse through mountains of evidence concerning everything from complex federal conspiracy law to detailed municipal development agreements.

Cause

The Plaintiffs asserted that the city officials had systematically violated both federal and state laws. Their primary charge was a Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which alleged the Defendants formed an illegal enterprise to conduct business through patterns of bribery and extortion. The complaint further included claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, stating the Defendants had violated the firm's and Mr. Ju’s civil rights. These claims included:

• First Amendment Violation: The Plaintiffs asserted the Defendants retaliated against them for speaking out about the corruption.

• Due Process Violation: The Plaintiffs claimed the City arbitrarily denied or interfered with their property rights, including contracts and development agreements, without a fair legal process.

• Equal Protection Violation: The Plaintiffs maintained they had faced deliberate discrimination from the city compared to other contractors.

The Plaintiffs also brought several related state-law claims, including Breach of Contract, Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Tortious Interference with the firm’s ability to conduct its business.

Injury

David Ju and DJCBP Corporation claimed they sustained extensive financial injuries and business damage as a result of the City’s unlawful actions. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants deliberately and unlawfully terminated, interfered with, or withheld necessary payments on contracts and development agreements the firm had previously secured. This alleged interference caused the firm to suffer massive losses in profits, damage to its business reputation, and significant emotional distress for Mr. Ju.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiffs demanded a substantial judgment against the city and the individual Defendants. Under the federal RICO statute, they requested treble damages, which would have tripled any proven economic losses, alongside requests for compensatory damages to cover lost profits and financial harm. They also sought punitive damages against the individual officials to punish them for their alleged malice and deter future corruption.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): DJCBP Corporation dba Tier One Consulting | David Ju, an individual.

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): David G. Torres-Siegrist | Shawna Shahnaz Nazari

Defendant(s): City of Baldwin Park, a municipality | individual officials including Robert Nacionales-Tafoya | Ricardo Pacheco | Isaac Galvan | Manuel Lozano, and others.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Jesus Hinojosa | Julia Sylva | Martha E. Romero | Jose Angel Pulido | Jovan L. Blacknell | Kellen Isaiah Davis

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Counsel for the Plaintiffs presented a narrative of betrayal, asserting that the individual officials, empowered by their municipal positions, had acted as a corrupt unit. They described a pattern of behavior where the officials allegedly solicited bribes and kickbacks to approve permits and contracts. The Plaintiffs’ attorney argued that when Mr. Ju and his firm refused to engage in these illegal payments, the Defendants had orchestrated a coordinated campaign to retaliate by terminating their contracts and withholding owed fees, directly causing the substantial financial damages that the firm subsequently suffered.

Defense

The defense team for the city and its officials staunchly denied all claims of corruption and racketeering. They asserted that all decisions concerning the Plaintiffs' contracts and development agreements were based entirely on the City's legitimate financial and legal interests. The Defendants argued that the claims were an attempt by the Plaintiffs to recover money for projects they had failed to complete or for fees they legally owed the city. They further asserted various immunity defenses for the individual officials against the federal civil rights claims. Crucially, the city had also asserted counterclaims against the Plaintiffs for the payment of specific fees that the city contended were due under the Development Agreement.

Jury Verdict

The jury had faced a complex, multi-question verdict form, requiring them to make specific findings on federal RICO liability, multiple constitutional claims, and various state law claims for both the Plaintiffs’ case and the City’s counterclaims.

After a lengthy deliberation period, the jury ultimately delivered a mixed verdict on September 16, 2025.

The Jury’s Key Findings:

The jury verdict provided detailed answers to a series of specific questions posed in the verdict form. The jury found in favor of the Plaintiffs, determining that fraud had been committed by certain Defendants in connection with the purchase or sale of Tier One Consulting. As a result, the jury awarded the Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $1,600,000 for fraud. Additionally, the jury found that the City of Baldwin Park was liable to the Plaintiffs for negligence, specifically for the negligent hiring and supervision of Robert Tafoya as City Attorney. For this negligence, the jury awarded the Plaintiffs an additional $290,000 in damages.

Furthermore, findings were made as to whether the Plaintiffs discovered or reasonably could have discovered the fraud and negligence at certain times, which affected the application of limitations. The verdict form also included questions related to the City of Baldwin Park's counterclaims for breach of contract, but the key monetary awards were for the Plaintiffs' fraud and negligence claims, totaling $1,890,000 in damages.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com