Mitchel v. City of Santa Rosa CA1/3

Filed 2/28/14 Mitchel v. City of Santa Rosa CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JAMES A. MITCHEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, A137980 v. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV245198) Defendant and Respondent.

James A. Mitchel appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found just cause for his termination from employment as a police officer. Mitchel contends the award should be vacated because the arbitrators failed to consider claimed violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq.; hereafter POBRA) and failed to permit discovery. We shall affirm the judgment. Factual and Procedural History In June 2005, the City of Santa Rosa (City) hired Mitchel as a police captain. Beginning in 2007, various subordinate officers filed gender discrimination complaints against Mitchel and police chief Edwin Flint. In February 2008, the City informed Mitchel it had initiated an internal affairs investigation. Mitchel and the complainants were interviewed and an investigative report was prepared in March 2008, with a copy given to Mitchel. In April 2008, the City notified Mitchel it intended to terminate his employment. A disciplinary hearing to decide the matter was scheduled for May 23, 2008. (Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 215.) One day before the hearing, Mitchel

1

filed a civil complaint in superior court alleging a violation of his due process rights, among other claims. (42 U.S.C. § 1983.) The Skelly hearing proceeded as scheduled and the City notified Mitchel that he was terminated effective May 30, 2008. The City advised Mitchel he could challenge termination by requesting an administrative hearing or binding arbitration. Mitchel chose arbitration. Meanwhile, Mitchel’s complaint was removed to federal court and dismissed without prejudice to filing a new complaint after arbitration was complete. A three-member arbitration panel held evidentiary hearings over the course of ten days between October 2008 and January 2009. The arbitrators issued their decision in July 2009. The majority concluded the City had just cause for terminating Mitchel, finding that Mitchel was “inappropriate and unprofessional” with employees and dishonest when interviewed during the internal affairs investigation. In listing the issues raised by the parties, the arbitrators noted that Mitchel “asserted that the City violated various provisions of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.” The arbitrators did not address that claim, concluding that “[t]he superior court exercises exclusive jurisdiction for causes of action stated under this statutory scheme.” In September 2009, Mitchel filed a new civil complaint in superior court alleging a violation of his due process rights, among other claims. (42 U.S.C. § 1983.) Those claims included two causes of action for POBRA violations and a petition to vacate the arbitration award. The City removed the action to federal district court. After allowing amendment to correct deficiencies raised by a motion to dismiss the complaint, in April 2010 the district court granted a subsequent motion to dismiss without leave to amend. In December 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of most of the claims stated in the complaint, remanding only two state law claims. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims and, in May 2012, remanded the case to state superior court.1