Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCP01143, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01143    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 82

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Date:               2/29/24 (1:30 PM)

Case:                           Sean Renaud v. County of Los Angeles (23STCV01313)

TENTATIVE RULING:     

Petitioner Sean Renaud’s Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate or Other Extraordinary Relief and Damages is CONTINUED to 4/9/24 at 1:30 PM in Department 82 (Stanley Mosk Courthouse).

Local Rule 3.231(i)(1) states: “The opening and opposition briefs must state the parties’ respective positions on whether the petitioner is seeking traditional or administrative mandamus, or both.” In the petition, petitioner references both Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 1085 and 1094.5. (Pet. at 1:15 [citation below title of pleading].) However, in the opening brief, petitioner does not state whether he is seeking traditional or administrative mandamus. In the opposition, respondent County of Los Angeles contends that petitioner does not clarify how he is litigating under the mandamus statutes. (Opp. at 7, fn. 1.) However, respondent makes no contention regarding which mandamus statutes are applicable to the review of petitioner’s suspension. Both parties fail to satisfy the requirement of Local Rule 3.231(i)(1).

Accordingly, the Court orders simultaneous supplemental briefing regarding whether the Court should review the writ petition pursuant to CCP § 1085 (traditional mandamus), CCP § 1094.5 (administrative mandamus), or both, as well as how the standard of review under the applicable statute(s) affects how the Court should rule on the writ petition.  

Also to be addressed in the supplemental briefing is whether petitioner was carrying out his official duties and responsibilities with respect to the incident that is the subject of the operative Petition. (Pet. ¶¶ 7-12.) Petitioner was suspended based on having violated specified Standards of Behavior. (AR 46-47.) However, the specified Standards of Behavior were under the section of the policy dealing with the “carrying out [of] official duties and responsibilities.” (AR 125.) Petitioner was on vacation on the night in question. (AR 27-28.) Nevertheless, petitioner attended the banquet because “he felt it was his responsibility to be there for [the recruits] so that he could prepare them to be out in the field.” (AR 28.) Further, according to petitioner, Senior Training Captain Sara Rathbun asked him to go to the hotel where there was a disturbance and find out what happened. (AR 28; Pet. ¶ 10.)

Supplemental briefing, limited to five (5) pages, is to be served and filed no later than 3/21/24.