Bonzer

Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park

Caution

1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 1236·20 Cal. App. 4th 1474·25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 278·93 Daily Journal DAR 15740·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9205

Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 13, 1993B073218California2,339 words

Opinion

Woods, J.

We find the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellants’ motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 (“The court may . . . relieve a party . . . from a[n] . . . order . . . taken against him . . . through his . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.”).

Factual and Procedural Background

Christopher Bonzer (respondent) was promoted from police officer to senior officer in the City of Huntington Park Police Department. The promotion was subject to completion of a six-month probation period. During that probation his performance was rated “needs improvement” and he was returned to his former position of police officer.

Officer Bonzer retained counsel who, on June 19, 1991, sent letters to the civil service commission and chief administrative officer (CAO) demanding an administrative appeal from the “demotion.” The CAO forwarded this letter to Samuel J. Wells, the attorney who represented the City of Huntington Park in personnel matters. Mr. Wells promptly replied, informing counsel for Officer Bonzer (Mr. Stuart D. Adams) that he was responding on behalf of the City of Huntington Park Police Department and its CAO and that their position…

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.