 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Staugaard v. Los Angeles Police Protective League6/21/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, John Staugaard, a former police officer with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and a former member of the Los Angeles Police Protective League (the League), sued the League seeking damages for its breach of its duty of fair representation. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the League on the ground the Los Angeles Employee Relations Board (Board) had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter with the result Staugaard was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing his civil action. Thereafter, the trial court granted Staugaard's motion for new trial relying on two exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. The League appeals. We hold as a matter of law, that the new trial motion was properly granted because the only administrative remedy available is inadequate. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The League is the collective bargaining representative for LAPD officers. While an officer with the LAPD, assigned to the West Valley Division's Vice Unit, Staugaard also served as an employee representative, on behalf of the League, providing full time defense assistance to fellow officers at their board of rights disciplinary hearings. In 1997, Staugaard was subjected to a board of rights hearing for multiple serious charges of misconduct arising from his activities as a vice unit officer. Facing the possibility of discharge from employment with the LAPD, Staugaard was suspended pending his board of rights.
Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding (the memorandum of understanding) between the City, the Board of Police Commissioners, and the League, Staugaard was entitled to representation. Staugaard retained Officer Jim Martin as his defense representative. In March 1997, Staugaard asked the League to retain an attorney for him. Initially, the League denied the request to pay for an attorney. Unhappy with the League's decision, Staugaard and Martin contacted various members of the League requesting that it hire Patrick J. Thistle as his legal counsel. The League capitulated and retained Thistle at a fee of $5,000.
Unbeknownst to the League, in August 1997, while Staugaard's board of rights was pending, Thistle wrote to Staugaard to report the $5,000 retainer had been exhausted, and to ask Staugaard to execute a separate retainer for his services. Instead, Staugaard retained Darryl Mounger and substituted him in as counsel. Thistle represented Staugaard for only one of the eleven days of hearing before the board of rights. Staugaard prevailed and was not fired. In the face of additional serious misconduct charges, however, Staugaard resigned from the LAPD.
Staugaard's complaint against the League and Thistle ensued. After the League's demurrer was sustained, the only remaining cause of action against the League was one for damages for breach of the duty of fair representation. Therein, Staugaard alleged that knowing of Thistle's incompetence and malfeasance and of the gravity of the charges against Staugaard, the League acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith in failing to replace Thistle, despite Staugaard's request. Staugaard sought reimbursement of the $20,000 he paid Mounger, and attorney fees.
Once the case was at issue, the League moved for summary
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|