Campbell v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Oct 14, 1941 No. Civ. 13174Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner's civil service appointment was void because it violated rules regarding the maximum duration of separation from service, and that his subsequent petition for a writ of mandate was barred by his failure to timely file a demand for reinstatement and by laches.

Issues

Whether the Civil Service Commission has the authority to suspend its own rules to allow the reinstatement of an employee separated from service for more than three years.
Whether the petitioner's failure to file a demand for reinstatement within the 90-day period prescribed by the city charter bars his action.
Whether a 15-month delay in filing a petition for a writ of mandate constitutes laches.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no justification in authority or in reason to hold that the board may, at any time, arbitrarily and without following the forms prescribed by the charter, suspend a rule in order to accommodate one claiming to be aggrieved.”

“Charter provisions and statutes which require that claims be filed as conditions precedent to the maintenance of actions against municipalities or their agents are mandatory.”

“Unless facts be alleged which constitute a sound excuse for a delay of 15 months, such delay in commencing the action is absolutely indefensible.”

MOOBE, P. J.

This appeal follows judgment after an order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend.

The action arose upon a petition for a writ of mandate. On June 14, 1926, petitioner resigned as concrete foreman of the Bureau of Engineering, city of Los Angeles. April 25, 1935, he filed his request for reinstatement with the Civil Service Commission. April 29,1935, pursuant to said request and the recommendation of the city engineer and the Board of Public Works, petitioner’s name was restored by the commission to the Begister of Eligibles for the position he had formerly occupied. Nine years elapsed from the date of his resignation to the date of his restoration to the civil service list. Four and one-half years later, on November 21, 1939, petitioner was discharged on the ground that he had been illegally restored to the eligible list and that, therefore, Ms appointment May 10, 1935, was illegal as in violation of section 3, rule 12 of the Buies of the Board of the Civil Service Commission.

On November 24, 1939, pursuant to the provisions of section 112 (a) of the city charter, he filed his application with the commissioners for an investigation of the grounds of his

[312]

discharge. Twenty-five days later the commissioners sustained the discharge. In attempting to follow the provision^ of section 112% of the charter (new section, 1937) 91 days after his discharge, to-wit, on February 20, 1940, petitioner filed his demand for reinstatement with the commissioners. Eight days later the board advised him that it had no authority to re-open a proceeding for the discharge of an employee on which it had taken action under section 112 (a). Fifteen months after his discharge, that is, on April 3, 1941, his petition for a writ of mandate was filed and an alternative writ was thereupon issued.

Petitioner had been by his voluntary resignation separated from the service for nine years. In spite of his long absence he was restored to the eligible list and to his former position. This was in violation of the rule which inhibits restoration to the Register of Eligibles of “any person who has been separated from the service of the city for more than three years.” (Sec. 3, rule 12, Civil Service Rules.)

Campbell v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

MOOBE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief