Hartnett v. San Diego Cnty. Office of Educ.

• Decision Date: 14 December 2017
• Docket Number: D070974
• Citation: 18 Cal.App.5th 510,227 Cal.Rptr.3d 81
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Rodger HARTNETT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants and Appellants.

18 Cal.App.5th 510

227 Cal.Rptr.3d 81

Rodger HARTNETT, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants and Appellants.

D070974

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed December 14, 2017

Higgs Fletcher & Mack and John Morris, Steven J. Cologne, Rachel E. Moffitt, San Diego, for Defendants and Appellants.

Ravin Glovinsky and William W. Ravin, Jason L. Glovinsky, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

O'ROURKE, J.

Appellants and defendants San Diego County Office of Education (Office) and Randolph E. Ward appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent Rodger Hartnett reinstating his employment and awarding him $306,954.99 in back pay, benefits, and prejudgment interest. Defendants contend (1) collateral estoppel precluded the trial court from granting Hartnett's requested relief; (2) the court misinterpreted Education Code ¹ section 45306 in its decision; and (3) the court improperly determined the amount of Hartnett's back pay without remanding that issue to the proper administrative forum, Office's personnel commission (the commission), for the commission to make factual findings on the issue.

We conclude that the trial court's sole ground for granting Hartnett's petition—that the commission did not proceed in a manner required by law because it did not conduct an investigation—is not supported by section 45306. Here, the commission fulfilled its statutory duty to investigate Office's allegations against Hartnett by conducting a four-day evidentiary hearing at which Hartnett was either present or chose to be present through his legal counsel and the parties were represented and afforded the opportunity to present oral and documentary evidence relevant to the charges, cross-examine witnesses who were sworn under oath, and argue their positions to the commission. Both Hartnett and Office agree that in the event we reach this conclusion, no further proceedings are necessary and Office and Ward are entitled to judgment in their favor. We reverse and remand for the trial court to enter judgment accordingly.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This court detailed the proceedings leading up to Office's appeal from the trial court's May 13, 2011 judgment in our prior October 2013 opinion ( Hartnett v. San Diego County Office of Education (Oct. 29, 2013, D059899) 2013 WL 5801401 [nonpub. opn.] ). For purposes of this appeal, we briefly summarize some of that history, with additional facts discussed in the sections below as necessary to address Office's contentions.

After Office terminated Hartnett's employment, Hartnett in 2008 sued Office and others alleging wrongful termination and other causes of action. He then filed successive writ petitions, the first claiming a due process violation and seeking reinstatement with back pay pending completion of the administrative review process before the commission, and the second challenging the merits of his dismissal following the commission's lengthy June 27, 2008 decision. In Hartnett's second writ petition, he contested the commission's jurisdiction, the fairness and legality of its proceedings in part on grounds it did not investigate the matter as required by section 45306 before ordering a hearing, and the sufficiency of its findings. The trial court denied Hartnett's first writ petition but granted the second writ petition. It rejected Office's invocation of res judicata and collateral estoppel, but ruled the commission "did not proceed in the manner required by law because it had failed to conduct an investigation prior to the hearing as required by Education Code section 45306" and thus had not "strictly followed" the statutory procedure for dismissal, rendering Hartnett's dismissal ineffectual as a matter of law and entitling him to reinstatement. In April 2009, the court issued a writ of mandate compelling Office to reinstate Hartnett and awarding him back pay from his termination date through reinstatement.

After unsuccessfully seeking to vacate that judgment and having its ensuing appeal dismissed, in November 2009 Office reinstated Hartnett, put him on administrative leave with pay and instructions not to report back to work, and tendered back wages. Hartnett responded by moving to "enforce" the writ of mandate to seek an award of "full" back pay without specified reductions he claimed Office had made. Office opposed the motion, pointing out that Hartnett never prayed for reinstatement or back pay in his second writ petition. It asserted Hartnett was procedurally barred from obtaining the requested relief, both due to res judicata and an absence of the court's authority to change its ruling or make new findings.

The trial court denied Hartnett's motion to enforce the writ, but "reopen[ed] the writ proceeding" to take evidence on the amount of back pay owed Hartnett. When Office objected that the reopening granted relief not sought by Hartnett and allowed circumvention of the exhaustion of internal grievance procedures, the court clarified that it would treat Hartnett's motion as one to amend his cause of action for a writ of mandate, and deemed it amended to include his claim for $259,358.82 in back wages and benefits. The court set an evidentiary hearing to rule on the specific amount of wages and benefits due Hartnett, giving each side two and one-half hours to present evidence and oral testimony. In doing so, the court, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (e), found "that evidence pertaining to the amount of back wages and benefits owed to [Hartnett] constitutes relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the administrative hearing."

On March 30, 2011, following that hearing and based on a lengthy statement of decision, the court issued its writ of mandate awarding Hartnett $234,703.55 in back pay, interest and health care premium reimbursement. It severed the writ proceeding from the main action and issued it under a new case number. On May 13, 2011, the court entered judgment in Hartnett's favor.

This court dismissed Office's ensuing appeal as taken from an interlocutory judgment. ( Hartnett v. San Diego County Office of Education , supra , D059899.) Holding in part that the court was without authority to create jurisdiction by severing the writ proceeding from the main action, we remanded the matter with directions that the trial court vacate the judgment and issue it as an order in the original case, No. 37-2008-00081583-CT-WT-CTL.² ( Ibid. )

After reassignment to a new judge and a stay of proceedings, the court in November 2015 vacated the May 13, 2011 judgment and entered it as an order in the original case. Hartnett dismissed with prejudice his claims against all defendants except Office and Ward. In June 2016, the court entered a final judgment in Hartnett's favor in the sum of $306,954.99, consisting of the previous $234,703.55 award plus $72,251.44 in prejudgment interest.

Office appeals from the June 2016 judgment.

DISCUSSION

I. Standards of Review

Office asserts that all of the issues it raises in this appeal are questions of law, a contention Hartnett does not challenge. We agree whether the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply under these circumstances is a question of law that this Court reviews independently. ( Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1561, fn. 18, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 259 ; State Farm General Insurance Company v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 258, 268, fn. 4, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 779.) The meaning of section 45306 is a question of statutory interpretation that we likewise consider de novo. ( Weatherford v. City of San Rafael (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1241, 1247, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 395 P.3d 274 ; Gaytan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 200, 214, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 [the "interpretation of governing statutes is decided de novo by the appellate court" despite the weight given to an agency's construction].) On that question, we are not bound by evidence presented below on the question or the trial court's interpretation. ( Burden v. Snowden (1992) 2 Cal.4th 556, 562, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 531, 828 P.2d 672.) And whether the trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction to take evidence and make the determination on the appropriate amount of back pay owed Hartnett, or whether it was obligated to remand the matter to the commission to make that determination, is a legal question subject to our independent review. (See Saffer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1248, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 111 [" ‘Where the evidence is not in dispute, a determination of subject matter jurisdiction is a legal question subject to de novo review’ "].)

II. Application of Collateral Estoppel

Office contends the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the trial court from granting Hartnett any relief on his second writ petition; that the court's decision on Hartnett's first writ petition was "final and on the merits" and the procedural arguments in his second petition were identical to the arguments rejected by the trial court in his first petition. In making this argument, Office appears to conflate the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, which are distinct principles. ( DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809, 352 P.3d 378.)

We reject the contention, whether based on res judicata or collateral estoppel. Res judicata, known also as claim preclusion, " ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.’ " ( DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber , supra , 61 Cal.4th at p. 824, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809, 352 P.3d 378.) It "arises if a second suit involves: (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit" ( ibid . ) and operates to bar...