 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Einheber v. Regents of the University of California11/22/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
Jack Einheber appeals in propria persona from a judgment of the Alameda County Superior Court dismissing his complaint against the Regents of the University of California (hereafter the University) following the court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the University. The trial court ruled that the five causes of action in Einheber's complaint in the instant case all arose from the same constellation of facts that Einheber had unsuccessfully challenged in a prior administrative mandamus action against the University. Consequently, the court held that Einheber's failure to set aside the University's decision via his petition for writ of administrative mandamus precluded him from maintaining his causes of action for wrongful termination, due process violations, disability discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court also concluded that Einheber's cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the University independently was barred by Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 164-165.
We shall affirm the judgment.
Facts and Procedural Background
The facts and administrative proceedings leading to the University's imposition of discipline, and the denial by the Alameda County Superior Court of Einheber's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), are set forth in our opinion upholding the trial court's denial of the writ petition. (Einheber v. Regents of University of California, A104097, filed November 22, 2005 (Einheber I).)
Einheber challenged the administrative determination in a complaint filed in the instant action on November 3, 1997, and in the first amended complaint filed herein on December 31, 1997. The first amended complaint asserted causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, violation of his right to due process under federal and state law, violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.), and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of his allegedly wrongful termination and the subsequent administrative proceedings related thereto.
On November 3, 1999, Einheber filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court and a second amended writ petition on July 1, 2002. Following a hearing, the trial court issued a detailed statement of decision, denying the writ petition on July 10, 2003. (Einheber I, supra, at p. 7.) The court thereafter denied Einheber's motion for reconsideration and new trial motion. (Ibid.) Einheber timely appealed the denial of the writ petition and, in Einheber I, we affirmed the judgment.
On April 4, 2003, the University moved for summary judgment on the complaint in the instant action. Because of questions Einheber raised in his opposition with regard to whether or not service of the summary judgment motion was timely, the trial court elected to treat the motion for summary judgment as a non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings. (E.g., Saltarelli & Steponovich v. Douglas (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1, 5; Stolz v. Wong Communications Limited Partnership (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1811, 1817.) Th
Page 1 2 3 4 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|