Buesa

Buesa v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 86·177 Cal. App. 4th 1537·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1618·29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1459
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 2, 2009B212854California4,048 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in an action against the City of Los Angeles (City) brought by two former Los Angeles police officers, Andrew Buesa and Michael Cardenas. Plaintiffs seek damages for a violation of their rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq.; POBRA). The gravamen of their complaint is that a perjured declaration submitted by the City deprived them of their statute of limitations defense in an administrative mandamus proceeding over their discharges. The issue is whether they may maintain this as a separate action, or whether under the doctrine of collateral estoppel it is barred by the final judgment denying their petition for administrative mandamus.

We conclude that plaintiffs’ action under POBRA is barred because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the mandate judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Since this matter is on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, we take our factual summary from the allegations of the second amended complaint, which is the charging pleading.

On February 2, 2002, plaintiffs participated in the arrest of a suspect following…

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.