Judge dismisses sexual harassment lawsuit against Nathan Fletcher, upholding tentative ruling

The judge overseeing the bombshell sexual-harassment lawsuit against Nathan Fletcher upheld his tentative ruling Friday, dismissing all that’s left of the 2023 lawsuit that derailed the former county supervisor’s once-promising political career.

Even so, the legal fight between Fletcher and plaintiff Grecia Figueroa may not be over.

Fletcher’s lawyers say they are moving forward with a defamation countersuit they filed against Figueroa last year, and Figueroa insists she will appeal the order issued by Superior Court Judge Matthew C. Braner.

Following the sometimes tense hearing, Braner reiterated his preliminary decision finding that Figueroa wrongly deleted and edited many of the text messages, audio files and other materials requested by Fletcher’s defense team.

He noted that the penalty for those breaches is among the most serious he can legally impose but he also said the lawsuit’s termination was warranted.

“This court doesn’t take terminating sanctions lightly, but when you sit down and look at the record — it’s nearly two years — there is delay and alteration,” he said. “To ignore it in this case is to potentially provide license in other cases.”

The decision follows a two-year-plus legal odyssey that began with accusations of sexual harassment, assault and battery Figueroa leveled against Fletcher in March 2023, weeks after she was fired from her public relations job at the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System.

She said Fletcher, then MTS board chair due to his position as an elected San Diego County supervisor, groped her against her will multiple times, including inside the transit agency headquarters, and used his stature to pressure her into a flirtatious relationship that included secret rendezvous and text messages.

Fletcher acknowledged what he said was an improper relationship but strongly denied the allegations of harassment, assault or other unlawful behavior.

He resigned from MTS and later the county Board of Supervisors, and ended his campaign for the California Senate seat due to be vacated by then-Sen. Toni Atkins.

Fletcher did not appear at the hearing Friday. But one of his attorneys, Sam Sherman, said the former politician was grateful for the ruling.

“Nathan Fletcher took responsibility for what he did,” Sherman said outside the courtroom. “The court ordered (Figueroa) many times to turn things over, and she didn’t. What she did was alter evidence, and that was damaging to her case.”

Figueroa lawyer Francis Flynn argued that the messages were deleted unintentionally, as part of the settings on his client’s phone.

He told the judge at the start of the 40-minute proceeding that the unintentional deletion of text messages and audio files was not reason enough to terminate the entire case.

“It’s all about proportionality,” he said. “If they have other evidence that say the exact same things, then what is the damage?”

Flynn also noted that Fletcher deleted text messages himself, and encouraged Figueroa to do so as well when the two were messaging with each other..

But Judge Braner said there is a major difference between deleting texts during a secret correspondence and deleting them during litigation.

“When it’s a lawsuit and you start destroying evidence, that’s an entirely different matter,” the judge said.

Flynn also argued that a jury should decide whether Fletcher abused his authority as MTS board chair. He noted the defense had not turned over findings from Fletcher’s cell phone and suggested delaying any termination until that material is provided.

“That’s a fair request,” Braner replied. “I’m not going to grant it, but it’s a fair request.”

Throughout the proceeding, Flynn addressed the court virtually, while Figueroa sat at the plaintiff’s table by herself.

On the other side of the courtroom, a cluster of lawyers representing Fletcher and MTS huddled together.

The judge took what he called the unusual step of allowing Figueroa to address the court. When she spoke, she said she regretted never getting the chance to testify and denied that any evidence was willfully destroyed.

“I find it quite disrespectful to invalidate my experience,” she told the court. “Nothing was deleted with intent to hide anything.”

Figueroa also said her claims against MTS should have been permitted to be presented to a jury. She alleged her former employer retaliated against her to protect Fletcher, but those claims were dismissed at a separate hearing last week.

“I felt trapped because they didn’t give me any reassurance that I would be protected, and it is with the same courage that I stand before you today,” she said. “Because this lawsuit was never just about me; it was to ensure what happened to me never happened to anyone else.”

In his address to the court, Sherman said the intentional editing of messages by Figueroa undermined his client’s defense and could not be tolerated.

He also rejected Flynn’s claim that Fletcher had exploited the imbalance of power between himself and Figueroa. “There is no evidence of that anywhere in the record,” Sherman said. “Power imbalance or not, that doesn’t give her the right to destroy evidence. I don’t understand what she could have done worse.”

Figueroa interrupted the defense lawyer, saying that what he said wasn’t true. The judge quickly admonished the plaintiff. “That was inappropriate,” Braner told Figueroa.

Early last year, Fletcher filed a defamation lawsuit against Figueroa over a social media post she had made saying of their interactions, “Nothing about it was consensual.”

“Ms. Figueroa strove to defame and destroy Mr. Fletcher, with actual malice, in the court of public opinion,” Fletcher alleged in the 20-page countersuit.

Sherman said Friday outside court that Fletcher plans to proceed to trial. “We still have a case,” he said.

Figueroa declined to comment on that lawsuit, saying she did not want to affect the outcome.

The Fletcher attorney said his client was out of state this week and “doing great,” apart from the harassment allegations and its fallout.

He also implied that Fletcher may make some public announcement in coming weeks or months.

“We’ll see,” Sherman said when asked about Fletcher’s potential return to politics. “We’ll be coming out with things in the future.”