Melim v. >Cal. > Unempl.
Ins. App. Bd.



















Filed 9/16/10 Melim v. Cal. Unempl. Ins. App. Bd. CA4/3













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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



FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE




>

RICHARD MELIM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; CITY OF CYPRESS, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

G042306 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00117552) O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of Orange
County, Daniel J. Didier, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Melim, in pro.
per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown Jr.,
Attorney General, Douglas Press, Leslie P. McElroy, and Karen L. Fried, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents.

Aleshire
& Wynder, William W. Wynder, and Jeff M. Malawy for Real Party in Interest.



*
* *



Richard Melim, a former
employee of the City of Cypress (Cypress)
involved in a dispute concerning unemployment benefits, appeals the trial
court's denial of his petition for writ
of administrative mandamus. (See
Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) Because
there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the trial court's
judgment, we affirm.[1]



FACTS



It is helpful for
purposes of analyzing this case to divide our recitation of the evidence
between: (1) background facts, which are
confirmed by Melim's testimony; and (2) disputed facts.



>Undisputed Facts

Melim was a Cypress
employee for approximately seven years, serving as a custodian at the Cypress
senior center. Cypress
had personnel rules and regulations in place at all relevant times. Of particular note is â€