Molina v. Nguyen CA2/6

Filed 8/7/24 Molina v. Nguyen CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

PHILLIP MOLINA, as City 2d Civ. No. B327286 Treasurer, etc., (Super. Ct. No. 56-2020- 00541689-CU-PT-VTA) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

ALEXANDER NGUYEN, as City Manager, etc. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

The City of Oxnard (City) is locked in a dispute with its elected treasurer, Phillip Molina. The City abolished his “administrative duties” and took other actions to diminish the duties of his office and substantially reduce his compensation. Molina petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate to void the City’s actions, alleging the actions violated sections of the

Government Code1 that govern the treasurer’s duties in general law cities. The court denied the petition. We reverse. Some History for Context At one time, Molina was an employee for the City. He served as the Director of Finance and Administrative Services. The City fired him. The parties disagreed on the reasons for his termination. Molina asserts the City fired him for statements he made that “raised the possibility that members of the Oxnard City Counsel engineered a ‘sweetheart deal’ with favored contractors at taxpayers’ expense.” (Molina v. Board of Administration, etc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 53, 56 & fn. 2.) Molina sued the City in federal court for wrongful termination in violation of his constitutional right to freedom of speech. (Id. at p. 56, fn. 2.) The parties settled the case with the City paying Molina $875,000 for wrongful termination. Thereafter, Molina was elected the City’s treasurer. The City is a general law city. Its elected treasurer is governed by the Government Code and local ordinances permitted by the Government Code. The City then drafted a series of ordinances that drastically reduced Molina’s duties and compensation. The City argues it may do so through a labor-intensive analysis of Government Code sections. The trial court ruled that the City’s motivation for its actions is strictly a matter of statutory construction. In other circumstances this could be a reasonable analytic approach. Here, we disagree with this conclusion. The City’s actions drastically reduced the duties of the elected treasurer. A city