Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCP01557, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

24STCP02299  Luchia Tsegaberhan
The Petition will be granted.  A copy of the signed decree will be available in Room 112 of the clerk’s office seven days after the date of the hearing.

Case Number: 24STCP01557    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: 86

WRIT OF MANDATE

Date:               5/6/25 (1:30 PM)

Case:               Mark Anthony Carillo v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (24STCP01557)

TENTATIVE RULING:

In their briefing, the parties appear to assume that collateral estoppel applies to arbitration awards in the same manner as a court judgment.  That is not necessarily the case in California, particularly with respect to non-mutual collateral estoppel and third parties.  (See Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815.)

Here, the prior arbitration award was between petitioner Carillo and the City of Los Angeles. (AR 1090-1091.)  The instant writ proceedings names as respondents both the City of Los Angeles and the Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles in petitioner’s challenge to the Chief’s decision to remove Carillo from his position as police officer pursuant to the decision and recommendation of the Board of Rights on the Complaint and Relief from Duty brought by the Chief. (Compare Petition ¶¶ 1-3 with AR 1, 1105.)

Under these circumstances, does collateral estoppel of the arbitration award apply in the instant proceeding?  In answering this question, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether collateral estoppel of an arbitration award can ever be asserted against a non-party to the arbitration under California law.  If so, the parties should be prepared to address whether one or more of the respondents in this action are a party or non-party to the prior arbitration, or is otherwise subject to the arbitration award as a party in privity or pursuant to some other theory or doctrine.