Neill Francis Niblett was employed by the County of Los Angeles’s fire department as a senior mechanic. He frequently voiced complaints about management decisions, often raising his voice toward Samuel S. (a nonparty to this case) who was an assistant chief.
On October 5, 2022, Niblett reportedly acted in a verbally abusive manner after Samuel instructed him to pick up parts left on the floor of a department facility. Several days later, on October 11, 2022, Niblett expressed frustration to department secretary Cari Hughes over the transfer of one of his mechanics without his knowledge. During this conversation, Niblett stated, “If they don’t change things in this department, they’re going to have another situation like they had with Tatone.” This alluded to a June 2021 incident in which firefighter Jonathan Tatone fatally shot a colleague at Fire Station 81.
The County filed a petition for a three-year workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.82 that protects nonparty Samuel S.3 from defendant and appellant Neill Francis Niblett on November 18, 2022. It was supported by declarations from Samuel and Hughes. A temporary restraining order was issued shortly thereafter.
Niblett filed a verified response denying the allegations, accompanied by a declaration from union president Luis Del Cid, who described an interaction between Samuel and Niblett but was not a percipient witness. At the January 18, 2023 hearing, Hughes, Samuel, and Del Cid testified; Niblett appeared but did not testify.
The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Niblett’s October 11 statement constituted a credible threat of violence under section 527.8, as it was a knowing and willful statement that would place a reasonable person in fear for their safety or that of their immediate family, serving no legitimate purpose.
The WVRO barred Niblett from harassing Samuel, entering his workplace, or possessing firearms or ammunition, and it was set to expire on January 18, 2026. Due to his conduct, Niblett was placed on leave and had not returned to work as of the hearing.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the partially published case of County of Los Angeles v. Neill Francis Niblett -B327744 (November 2025).
On appeal, Niblett challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the credible threat finding, arguing the statement was mere criticism of management rather than a threat. The appellate court rejected this, holding that substantial evidence – viewed in the light most favorable to the County and under the clear and convincing standard – supported the trial court’s determination. The court reasoned that a reasonable person could interpret Niblett’s reference to the Tatone shooting, made amid ongoing frustrations with department decisions, as an implied threat of violence against management if changes were not made. Samuel, as Niblett’s supervisor and a logical target, was appropriately named as the protected party. The court further concluded that great or irreparable harm would likely result without the order, given the reasonable probability of future unlawful violence.
Niblett’s constitutional claims were also unavailing. His First Amendment challenge failed because the statement qualified as a “true threat,” unprotected by the Constitution. The Second Amendment claim regarding the firearm restriction was rejected, as section 527.8’s provisions align with historical traditions of disarming individuals posing credible threats of violence. Additional claims of error, including procedural and evidentiary issues, were deemed forfeited due to inadequate briefing or being raised for the first time in reply.
Notably, the opinion highlighted concerns over Niblett’s appellate counsel’s apparent misuse of artificial intelligence in preparing the opening brief, which included misrepresentations of case holdings and citation to a nonexistent case. Counsel failed to correct these errors despite the County’s identification of them. In a concurrent ruling, the court ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for undermining the integrity of the appellate process.
The WVRO was affirmed in its entirety.