County of Los Angeles Probation etc. v. Los Angeles County etc.





Filed 4/12/17 County of Los Angeles Probation etc. v. Los Angeles County etc. CA2/5





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS



California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE


COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Defendant and Respondent;

MISTER PUKKA,

Real Party in Interest and
Appellant.

B267357

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BS139917)


APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joanne B. O’Donnell, Judge. Dismissed.
Law Office of Esteban Lizardo and Esteban Don Lizardo for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
McMillion & Hiretensteiner, Sylvia Havens and Janine S. McMillion for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________________

Mister Pukka, the real party in interest in a writ proceeding, has appealed from an order remanding the proceedings to defendant, Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission. The remand order directed reconsideration of a decision in connection with an employee discharge decision. Plaintiff, County of Los Angeles Probation Department, has moved to dismiss the appeal because in the administrative proceeding context, a remand order is typically not appealable. We agree with plaintiff.
A remand order under these circumstances is not appealable at present. (Hall v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 792, 797; City of Carlsbad v. Scholtz (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 294, 296; Village Trailer Park, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139-1140; Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 493, 501-502; Board of Dental Examiners v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1430; Kumar v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1050, 1055; Ng. v. State Personnel Bd. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 600, 607, fn. 1; see 2 Cal. Administrative Mandamus (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2016) § 16.11, pp. 16-9 to 16.10.) Further, based on the showing to date, this is not a proper case to treat as a mandate petition. (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 744-747; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 401-408.)
The appeal is dismissed. Plaintiff, County of Los Angeles Probation Department, and defendant, Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, shall recover their costs incurred on appeal from real party in interest, Mister Pukka.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS


TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

KRIEGLER, J.

KIN, J.*





Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com



* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.