Randal v. City of Los Angeles Civil Service Com. CA2/8

Filed 3/12/15 Randal v. City of Los Angeles Civil Service Com. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

MATTHEW A. RANDAL, B250514

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS138879) v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Defendant,

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.

Matthew Randal, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Richard M. Brown, General Counsel and Robin O’Sullivan, Deputy City Attorney for Real Party and Interest and Respondent.

______________________________

Matthew Randal appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate. Because Randal failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies, the petition was properly denied. We affirm the judgment. FACTS Randal was employed as a security officer by the City of Los Angeles (City) at the Department of Water and Power from March 9, 2009 until his termination on August 19, 2011. He appealed his discharge to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners (Board) and an attorney represented him during those proceedings. The City cited three causes of action as grounds for his termination, including misconduct seriously reflecting on city employees, acts constituting a felony or misdemeanor as established by proper investigation, and use of City equipment without authorization. These causes of action were supported by the following allegations: (1) Randal used pepper spray on an employee of a department store on January 23, 2010; (2) he hit another car on September 3, 2010, during an incident of road rage; (3) he electronically recorded a meeting with his supervisors without their consent on November 15, 2010; (4) he used a City-owned vehicle without authorization to conduct personal business on September 14, 2010; and (5) he used a City-owned vehicle without authorization to go on a “food run” on November 15, 2010. An investigation was conducted by a hearing examiner, who oversaw eight days of hearings. The hearing examiner recommended the Board sustain the three causes of action against Randal. At the Board hearing on May 10, 2012, Randal’s attorney objected to the examiner considering the two off-duty incidents occurring on January 23, 2010 and September 3, 2010, as grounds for termination. He argued there was no nexus between Randal’s employment and those two incidents. Randal admitted to the November “food run,” but denied the allegation that he used a City-owned car without authorization. Randal’s attorney urged the Board to consider the “food run” infraction as a first offense, keeping in mind that Randal had an outstanding record with no history of discipline. The commissioners rejected Randal’s arguments, finding a nexus existed because Randal was issued the pepper spray as part of his duties and he may have used it on a department