Caloca v. County of San Diego
Decision Date | 27 August 2002 |
Docket Number | No. D038059.,D038059. |
Citation | 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 3,102 Cal.App.4th 433 |
Parties | Victor CALOCA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Law Offices of Everett L. Bobbitt, Everett L. Bobbitt, San Diego, and Sanford A. Toyen, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
John J. Sansone, County Counsel, and C. Ellen Pilsecker, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.
In a prior appeal in this case we held that under the provisions of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov.Code, § 3300 et seq.) (Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights), three sheriffs deputies, respondents Victor Caloca, Ronald Cuevas and Rick Simica, were entitled to administrative review of misconduct findings made by the Civilian Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB). (Caloca v. County of San Diego (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1223, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 660 (Caloca I).) Although the sheriffs department had conducted its own investigation of the misconduct allegations and determined that none of the officers was subject to disciplinary action, we found the deputies were nonetheless entitled to administrative review of the adverse CLERB findings because the record disclosed the review board's findings would impair the officers' ability to compete for promotions. (Ibid.) We left to respondent County of San Diego (the county) formulation of the specific procedures which would govern the administrative review. (Ibid.)
On remand respondent County of San Diego Civil Service Commission (the commission) adopted procedures which, among other matters, required that the officers bear the burden of establishing that the misconduct findings were erroneous and permitted the commission to close some portions of its hearings to the public notwithstanding the objection of a deputy. By way of a second petition for a writ of mandate, the deputies and respondent San Diego County Deputy Sheriffs Association (Sheriffs Association) challenged the commission's procedures. In granting the petition for a writ of mandate the trial court found that the burden of proof could not be placed on a deputy and that without the consent of a deputy an administrative hearing could not be closed to the public. On appeal the commission argues these aspects of the procedure it adopted were valid.
We affirm. At a minimum an administrative appeal requires independent fact finding in a de novo proceeding. In such a proceeding the proponent of any fact bears the burden of establishing it. Thus the commission could not place on officers the burden of refuting the civilian review board's misconduct findings. Moreover, the commission has not shown any substantial need to close its hearings over the objection of a deputy who is challenging an adverse finding.
By way of a cross-appeal the deputies and the Sheriffs Association argue they were entitled to recover their attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Like the trial court we find the costs the deputies and the association incurred in this litigation over the particular procedures used to review the misconduct findings did not entirely transcend their own interest in the outcome of the litigation. Thus we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's order denying their motion for attorney fees.
The background of this case was fully set forth in our opinion in Caloca I:
(Caloca I, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1212-1213, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 660.)1
In our opinion in Caloca I we reversed the trial court's order in part. We found that although the deputies were not entitled to liberty interest hearings, they were entitled to administrative appeals under Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b). In rejecting the deputies' contention that due process required that they have an opportunity to appeal the CLERB findings, we sta...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. Dept. of Con. v. El Dorado
...section 1021.5 over the past 10 years. (Punsly v. Ho (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 102, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 89; Caloca v. County of San Diego (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 433, 447, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 3; Hammond v. Agran (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 115, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 646; Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (200......
-
People v. McKee
...S.Ct. 1507; Security National Guaranty, Inc., supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 418, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 522; Caloca v. County of San Diego (2002) 102 Cal. App.4th 433, 442-443, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 3; Hayward, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 104, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 744; Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Department of Food......
-
Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court
...right to administrative appeal4 to be determined by individual local law enforcement agencies (Caloca v. County of San Diego (2002) 102 Cal. App.4th 433, 443, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 3), equally likely is that the Legislature intended to give such agencies the discretion to require more disclosure ......
-
Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court
...specified. 2. Here, the peace officer demanded a closed hearing rather than an open hearing. (See Caloca v. County of San Diego (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 433, 442-447, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 3.) Accordingly, the parties do not address and we do not consider whether an officer who elects an open heari......