Siipola v. City of Redding CA3

Filed 4/17/23 Siipola v. City of Redding CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

JOSHUA JAMES SIIPOLA, C096121

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 21-CV-CV-0198512) v.

CITY OF REDDING,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Joshua James Siipola was terminated as a police officer by defendant City of Redding (City). Siipola wanted to challenge his termination through an established grievance procedure, but his attorney failed to timely request arbitration. After the City refused to make an exception for Siipola by accepting his untimely request for arbitration, Siipola filed a verified complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the trial court. In the complaint, Siipola argued his attorney failed to timely request arbitration due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

1

section 473, subdivision (b). The trial court disagreed and sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend, thus dismissing Siipola’s case. On appeal, Siipola agrees that the trial court’s ruling pertaining to Code of Civil Procedure section 473 was correct. Instead, he argues he could amend his complaint to state a claim under Civil Code1 section 3275 such that the City is compelled to excuse his forfeiture and accept his untimely request to arbitrate. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY It is undisputed that Siipola is a member of the Redding Peace Officers Association (Association) and subject to the rules and obligations outlined in the memorandum of understanding between the Association and the City. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, disciplinary actions against a police officer can be challenged through a grievance procedure consisting of several steps, culminating in binding arbitration. “Failure by the employee to meet any of the . . . time limits as set forth in [this agreement] will result in forfeiture. If the City fails to answer a grievance on a timely basis, the grievance may be advanced to the next step. Except, however, that the . . . time limits may be extended by mutual agreement.” Siipola was terminated as a police officer in 2021. Siipola appealed the termination and timely filed an appeal with the City’s chief of police and the City’s manager. Both appeals were denied. By application of the deadlines contained in the memorandum of understanding and agreement of the parties, Siipola had until October 1, 2021, to decide whether he wanted to proceed to mediation or binding arbitration and to inform the City of his election. On September 8, 2021, Siipola’s attorney advised him of the decision to be made, and Siipola promptly told his attorney to proceed with binding arbitration. Siipola’s