Jones v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Oct 28, 1953 No. Civ. 19516Published

Before: Fox

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner's claim for reinstatement to a public position was barred by laches due to his failure to diligently prosecute the action over a period exceeding four years.

Issues

Whether the petitioner's claim for reinstatement to a public position is barred by the doctrine of laches.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The only question requiring decision is whether petitioner’s claim for reinstatement is barred by laches. The answer is clearly in the affirmative.”

“Considerations of public policy require that an employee of a public body who claims to have been improperly or illegally discharged must act with utmost diligence in asserting his rights.”

“There was no duty on the part of the city to act, but there was a duty on the part of petitioner to prosecute his suit for reinstatement with diligence and to excuse or explain his delays.”

[860]

FOX, J.

Petitioner was discharged on January 6, 1947, from the position of principal electrical inspéetor of the city of Los Angeles. His discharge was sustained by the board of civil service commissioners in the following May, and his demand for reinstatement was denied by the commission on June 26, 1947. His original petition for a writ of mandamus to compel his reinstatement was served on the president of the city council on November 26, 1947, and filed December 4, but was not presented to the court until October 7, 1948. He then obtained an alternative writ of mandate, returnable October 27th. The hearing on the alternative writ was continued from time to time until January 19, 1949, at which time respondents’ demurrer was sustained, with 20 days to amend. No further action was taken until March 13, 1952, when an amended petition was filed by present counsel, who had just entered the case. During the intervening period no stipulation extending petitioner’s time to amend was filed and no order extending such time was made. Respondents’ demurrer to the amended petition was sustained without leave to amend. Petitioner appeals from the ensuing judgment of dismissal.

The only question requiring decision is whether petitioner’s claim for reinstatement is barred by laches. The answer is clearly in the affirmative.

It will be noted that more than 10 months went by after petitioner served his petition on the president of the city council before he presented it to the court, and that more than 15 months elapsed from the time petitioner’s demand for reinstatement was denied by the civil service commission before he presented his petition in the superior court. It was, however, more than three years after the respondents’ demurrer to his original petition was sustained before he filed his amended petition. Thus it was in excess of four years from the time petitioner served his original petition until he filed his first amended petition.

The lapse of such a period of time shows that petitioner was not diligently prosecuting his claim for reinstatement in this important public position and therefore his amended petition was vulnerable to respondents’ demurrer on the ground of laches. In

Wells Fargo etc. Bank

Jones v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

FOX, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief