Television personality Judge Greg Mathis faces legal action after a Los Angeles city worker alleged he made threats with a firearm during a dispute over a parked dump truck.
Ricardo Acosta filed suit claiming Mathis confronted him in July 2023 when Acosta’s work vehicle blocked the judge’s driveway. Court documents allege Mathis escalated the encounter after Acosta warned about safety concerns.
The lawsuit claims Mathis responded “I don’t give a f—, run me over and see what happens” before retrieving a firearm from his home and making additional threats.
Mathis’s attorney Anahita Sedaghatfar denied the allegations, noting Los Angeles police did not investigate Acosta’s claims. “Should Mr. Acosta pursue this lawsuit, we will not only vigorously defend the case, we will file cross claims against Mr. Acosta for his illegal conduct and repeated defamation of my client,” Sedaghatfar said.
Acosta seeks damages for assault and emotional distress. His legal team has not specified the amount sought in compensation.
The case draws attention to accountability issues for public figures, particularly given Mathis’s role dispensing justice on television.
Legal experts note the burden of proof lies with Acosta to demonstrate threats occurred as alleged, especially without police investigation.
Entertainment industry analysts suggest the lawsuit could impact Mathis’s television career regardless of outcome.
Neither Mathis nor his production company have commented on potential effects on his syndicated court show.
The lawsuit remains in early stages with no court dates set. Acosta’s legal team indicates they have witness statements supporting his account.
Local workers’ rights groups express concern about protecting city employees from confrontations during routine duties.
Mathis built his television career on a tough but fair judicial approach after overcoming early legal troubles to become a Michigan district court judge.
His show has aired since 1999, making him one of television’s longest-running court show hosts.
Civil rights organizations monitor the case for implications regarding treatment of public service workers.
Legal scholars suggest the case highlights challenges in resolving disputes between public figures and government employees.
Industry veterans note similar incidents have affected other television judges’ careers, though most previous controversies occurred on set.
The Los Angeles City Attorney’s office declined comment on potential involvement in the case.
Security experts question protocols for city workers dealing with confrontational residents.
Court show producers indicate the incident could influence future background screening practices for television judges.
