Scholtz

City of Carlsbad v. Scholtz

Good Law
1 Cal. App. 5th 294·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 554·204 Cal. Rptr. 3d 590
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 8, 2016D070253California1,963 words

Opinion

Opinion

This case presents the question of whether a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate challenging an evidentiary ruling of a hearing officer is an appealable final judgment or a nonappealable interlocutory judgment. We publish this order to clarify a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate challenging an evidentiary ruling of a hearing officer is a nonappealable interlocutory judgment where, as here, the superior court did not deny the petition on the merits, the administrative proceedings before the hearing officer have not concluded, the hearing officer is not the final administrative decision maker, and the hearing officer’s decision did not a create a substantial risk confidential information would be publicly disclosed. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and deny a related motion for stay as moot.

BACKGROUND

Steven Seapker is administratively appealing a decision by the City of Carlsbad (City) to discharge him from his position as a police officer. His defense to the discharge is that the City is penalizing him more harshly than it has penalized other similarly situated police officers. This defense requires some inquiry into the City’s discipline of…

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.