Molina

Molina v. Nguyen CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 7, 2024B327286California2,305 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

The City has an elected treasurer (§ 36502). Molina was first elected treasurer in 2016 for a four-year term beginning January 1, 2017. When Molina began his first term, the treasurer’s office had 19 full-time employees and an annual budget of approximately $3 million. In October 2019, the City placed Molina on administrative leave. The City then passed a series of resolutions or ordinances to remove administrative duties from the treasurer and place them elsewhere. Having eliminated the treasurer’s administrative duties, the City defunded the treasurer’s office, shifted Molina’s 19-member staff to a newly created department of billing and licensing and reduced his salary from a range of $114,656.88 to $157,652.98 to a fixed $20,412.08, the same salary as City council members receive. In spite of the City’s actions, Molina was reelected to a four year term as treasurer in 2020. Procedure In January 2022, Molina filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the City’s resolutions removing his administrative duties and reducing his salary. Molina claimed the resolutions violate statutes governing the duties of the treasurer. Molina challenges the resolutions removing his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.