White v. De Martini
Decision Date | 11 August 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 19154,19154 |
Citation | 183 Cal.App.2d 665,6 Cal.Rptr. 782 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Sylvester WHITE, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Frank A. DE MARTINI, President of the City of Oakland Civil Service Board, Raymond C. L'Heureux, Harold G. Lorentzen, Harvey H. Bechtel and George E. Jacopetti, Members of the City of Oakland Civil Service Board, et al., Respondents. |
Smith, Parrish, Paduck & Clancy, Robert H. Laws, Jr., Oakland, for appellant.
John W. Collier, City Atty., Mark B. Shragge, Deputy City Atty., Oakland, for respondents.
Appeal by petitioner from a judgment denying his application for writ of mandate to compel the Civil Service Board of the city of Oakland to hear his appeal from his discharge as an employee of the street department.
Question Presented. Was petitioner's appeal timely?
Record.
From December, 1953, to April, 1959, petitioner was an employee of the city of Oakland, subject to the provisions of the city charter, the city Civil Service Board, and the rules promulgated by that board pursuant to the authority granted to it by charter. On April 24, 1959, notice of discharge was mailed petitioner. He received it April 25. On April 30, the fifth day after receipt of the notice and the sixth day after it was mailed him, petitioner filed an appeal in the office of the Civil Service Board. That board refused to hear the appeal on the ground that it was filed too late.
Time for Appeal.
Rule 101 of the Civil Service Board provides: 'Whenever a person who has been suspended, fined, or discharged, desires to sppeal therefrom to the Board, the following order of procedure shall govern:
'(a) The appeal must be filed in the office of the Board within five days from the date that notice of suspension, fine, discharge, or removal was served upon the affected employee.' (Emphasis added.)
Rule 106 provides: (Emphasis added.)
If rule 106 is applicable, then there can be no question but that the notice of appeal was filed too late, as the notice of discharge was deposited in the post office six days before the appeal was filed. Petitioner contends, however, that because of rule 99, the time when the notice of discharge was served upon him is determined, not by rule 106, but by section 1013, Code of Civil Procedure, which provides in part: 'In case of service by mail, * * * The service is complete at the time of the deposit, but if, within a given number of days after such service, a right may be exercised or an act is to be done by the adverse party, the time within which such right may be exercised or act be done, is extended one day, together with one day additional for every full 100 miles distance between the place of deposit and the place of address, if served by different post offices, but such extension shall not exceed thirty days in all.' This section, if applicable, would give petitioner an additional day in which to file his appeal. Rule 99 provides: 'Rules 100, 101, and 102 are designed to carry out the provisions of Charter Sec. 81 and 82 which provide for Suspension, Fine, Discharge, Removal, and Appeals * * *'
Section 81 of the Oakland City Charter provides the removal of civil service employees. Section 82 provides for appeal by the removed employee. Stats.1931, p. 2665.
Petitioner contends that because rule 99 fails to mention rule 106 the latter is not applicable to an appeal from a discharge, and in order to determine when an employee is served under section 101, he must turn to section 1013, Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner further contends that even if rule 106 applies, section 1013, Code of Civil Procedure, extends the time for appeal one more day than that provided by rule 101. We are of the opinion that in neither event would section 1013 apply.
In Pesce v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 51 Cal.2d 310, 333 P.2d 15, the court held section 1013 extended the time provided by section 23081, Business and Professions Code, for the taking of an appeal to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board from a decision of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Section 25760 Business and Professions Code, provided that if notice of any act of the department was given by mail, service was complete upon deposit in the post office (just as rule 106 does here). That section also provided that if service were made by mail 'service shall be made in the manner prescribed by Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure.' The court said (51 Cal.2d at pages 312, 313, 333 P.2d at pages 17-18): 'The Business and Professions Code and the Code of Civil Procedure are to be read and construed together under the 'well-recognized rule that for purposes of statutory construction the codes are to be regarded as blending into each other and constituting but a single statute.' * * *'
Thus, the court was construing two statutes together. Here, however, we are not dealing with two statutes but with administrative rules adopted under a charter provision, and are being asked to supersede those rules by section 1013, Code of Civil Procedure, which in Alphonzo E. Bell Corp. v. Listle, 55 Cal.App.2d 300, 130 P.2d 251, was held 55 Cal.App.2d at page 306, 130 P.2d at page 254. Section 82 of the Oakland City Charter provides: 'Any person suspended, fined or discharged * * * may within five days from the making * * * of the order suspending, finding [sic] or discharging him * * * appeal * * *.' (Emphasis added.) Actually rule 101 extends the time given in this charter provision, by providing that the discharged employee may appeal 'within five days from the date that notice' of his discharge was served upon him. To hold that section 1013, Code of Civil Procedure, can extend a charter provision and the administrative rules of a city would deny the latter the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Highland Plastics, Inc. v. Enders
...to the situations where notice is required to be given, under the Civil Code, independent of any action. (See White v. De Martini (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 665, 668, 6 Cal.Rptr. 782.) We believe that this rule is still applicable for notices required as condition precedent to an unlawful detain......
-
Janetsky v. Avis
...to private extensions of time after the statutory period has lapsed within which to respond to discovery. (See White v. De Martini (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 665, 668, 6 Cal.Rptr. 782; Alphonzo E. Bell Corp. v. Listle (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 300, 306, 130 P.2d In this case defendants' counsel in hi......
-
Csea v. Livingston Union School Dist.
...employment, the notice "should be clear, concise and easily understandable, and not ambiguous or confusing." (White v. De Martini (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 665, 669, 6 Cal.Rptr. 782.) In the present case, the board policy is not clear and understandable; it is, instead, ambiguous and confusing.......
-
Richardson v. Ceja, F053954 (Cal. App. 10/7/2008)
...Authority (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 819, 827; Alphonzo E. Bell Corp. v. Listle (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 300, 306; and White v. De Martini (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 665, 668.) "In other situations, section 1013, subdivision (a), has been found to apply only if the language of the statute requiring the n......