A handful of lawsuits against a Valencia chiropractor were in front of a judge Wednesday, with plaintiffs seeking their claims in civil court in Downtown Los Angeles, after criminal charges proved elusive for their target.
There are now a handful of lawsuits, including a class-action claim against Nicholas Vanderhyde, 41, and his former employer, in connection with his June 2024 arrest.
The plaintiffs in five consolidated cases submitted a joint statement in August ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, targeting Vanderhyde and The Joint Chiropractic, which is part of a national chain that has denied liability for the allegations against Vanderhyde.
Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station deputies arrested Vanderhyde after an employee in his office called the station to report she’d found a camera in the restroom of a group chiropractors office on McBean Parkway. The bathroom was used by men, women and children at the office, clients and employees alike, according to court records.
“Criminal charges have still not been filed against Dr. Vanderhyde, but we continue to pursue a civil case on behalf of our 11 clients who were in-office within the date range the camera was confirmed in place,” according to an email Wednesday from Janna M. Trolia, a medical malpractice attorney with Ikuta Hemesath LLP.
The evidence upon which Detective Stephen Westerfield based the June 4, 2024, arrest was footage from the confiscated camera that appeared to show Vanderhyde remotely adjusting the camera after it was placed, according to a sworn statement from Westerfield’s request to search Vanderhyde’s computer for any other potential evidence.
Westerfield also wrote that he recognized the suspect on the camera from the website for The Joint’s Valencia location.
In October, the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office indicated to the Sheriff’s Department that the camera footage alone wasn’t good enough, and asked for more evidence.
A charge-evaluation worksheet dated Oct. 31 and signed by Deputy District Attorney Jeffrey Greenberg eventually was shared with The Signal.
“(The L.A. County Sheriff’s Department) recovered the camera recording device and reviewed the video footage captured, which depicts several individuals including persons identified as female and male employees, and patients/guests of the location (some of whom were juvenile), using the restroom at various times over an extended period of time,” according to the worksheet issued Oct. 29.
Investigators said the charges presented to the D.A.’s Office were invasion of privacy and possession of child pornography.
“It was a good arrest,” said Deputy Robert Jensen, spokesman for the SCV Sheriff’s Station, back in May, after the case was declined a second time. “The DA’s office felt there was insufficient grounds to continue with a trial.”
The plaintiffs in the civil lawsuits consolidated Wednesday are hoping they can prove to a judge that The Joint “negligently failed to supervise its staff, or have adequate safety and inspection procedures in place to prevent the unlawful recordings,” according to a “status of the pleadings” filed in August.
“The Joint contends it could not have known, and was not aware of, any putative unlawful recording device until it was allegedly discovered,” according to the same filing. The business also contends it has adequate training and procedures in place, and that it took swift action once it was notified.
Some of the parties “are currently discussing the possibility of proceeding to a private, global mediation among all the parties,” while not all parties have responded to the prospect of mediation, according to the attorneys for The Joint. “If a mediation cannot be negotiated amongst the parties, The Joint would respectfully request a settlement conference be ordered.”
On Wednesday, Judge Samantha Jessner ordered a response from all parties within 30 days and then set a hearing date of Jan. 28, with a mandated settlement conference to be held within five days from that date.
Any date for a future criminal hearing seems less likely at the moment.
The way things stand, any change in the status of charges would have to come from the D.A.’s Office, according to Westerfield.
“I am not sure that’s going to happen unless more evidence came across my desk,” he wrote in an email Wednesday.
Source link