Schultz

In this case we hold, among other things, that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment requiring defendant Regents of the University of California (hereafter University) to provide plaintiff a hearing in connection with the reclassification of his job. We conclude plaintiff failed to show the job reclassification deprived him of a property interest sufficient to invoke federal constitutional guarantees of due process of law. In so holding we clarify our prior opinion in Ng v. State Personnel Bd. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 600 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 387 ]. We also conclude that People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 316 , 599 P.2d 622 ], which sets forth a test for invocation of procedural due process rights under the state Constitution (where a statutory interest is subject to deprivation), should not be extended to this case, which implicates no statutory interest. Rather, we conclude Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 539 P.2d 774 ] continues to define the circumstances in which procedural protections of due process will be afforded employees of public entities who can show no statutory interest subject to…

In this case we hold, among other things, that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment requiring defendant Regents of the University of California (hereafter University) to provide plaintiff a hearing in connection with the reclassification of his job. We conclude plaintiff failed to show the job reclassification deprived him of a property interest sufficient to invoke federal constitutional guarantees of due process of law. In so holding we clarify our prior opinion in Ng v. State Personnel Bd. (1977) 68 Cal. App.3d 600 [ 137 Cal. Rptr. 387 ]. We also conclude that People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260 [ 158 Cal. Rptr. 316 , 599 P.2d 622 ], which sets forth a test for invocation of procedural due process rights under the state Constitution (where a statutory interest is subject to deprivation), should not be extended to this case, which implicates no statutory interest. Rather, we conclude Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 14 , 539 P.2d 774 ] continues to define the circumstances in which procedural protections of due process will be afforded employees of public entities who can show no statutory interest subject…

I concur in the judgment and opinion as to parts I, II and IV. I further agree that (as to part III) People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 316 , 599 P.2d 622 ] does not expressly control plaintiff’s due process rights. So much resolves the issues tendered by the parties. Beyond that I see no reason to join an excursion through a due process garden grown thick with the underbrush of opinion.