<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <br /> <br /> <p>QUIHUIS v. LOS ANGELES</p><br /> <br /> <p>Filed 2/26/08</p><br /> <br /> <p><b>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b></p><br /> <br /> <p>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p><br /> <br /> <p>SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT</p><br /> <br /> <p>DIVISION ONE</p><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0><tr><td width=319 valign=top><br /> <br /> <p>ROBERT QUIHUIS,</p><br /> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Appellant,</p><br /> <br /> <p> v.</p><br /> <br /> <p>CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,</p><br /> <br /> <p> Defendants and Respondents.</p></td><td width=319 valign=top><br /> <br /> <p> B196367</p><br /> <br /> <p> (Los Angeles County</p><br /> <br /> <p> Super. Ct. No. BS096271)</p><br /> <br /> <p> ORDER MODIFYING OPINION</p><br /> <br /> <p> AND DENYING REHEARING</p><br /> <br /> <p> NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT</p></td></tr></table><br /> <br /> <p>THE COURT:</p><br /> <br /> <p> It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 28, 2008, be <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">modified</a> as follows:</p><br /> <br /> <p> On page 5, line 7, after the word petition, add the following as footnote 3:</p><br /> <br /> <p><i>Moore v. <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">City of Los Angeles</a></i>, <em>supra</em>, 156 Cal.App.4th 373 was decided after briefing in the instant case was completed. No previous appellate decision had held that a public safety officer must bring a claim under section 3309.5 in order to raise a <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">statute of limitations</a> defense that was not presented at the administrative hearing. Prior case law could be read as holding, to the contrary, that the administrative exhaustion requirement does not apply to officers assertion of their rights under the Act. (See <i>Mounger v. Gates</i> (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1248, 1255-1257.) Thus, when Quihuis filed his <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">writ petition under Code of Civil Procedure</a> section 1094.5, he had no reason to believe that he would be barred from presenting his statute of limitations defense if he failed to bring an action under section 3309.5 as well.</p><br /> <br /> <p> This <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">modification</a> does not affect the judgment. Respondents <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">petition for rehearing</a> is denied.</p><br /> <br /> <p>__________________ __________________ __________________</p><br /> <br /> <p>JACKSON, J.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^*</a> VOGEL, Acting P. J. ROTHSCHILD</p><br /> <br /> <p>Publication Courtesy of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">California attorney directory</a>.</p><br /> <br /> <p>Analysis and review provided by <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Oceanside Property line Lawyers.</a></p><br /> <br /> <p><a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com" target="_blank">San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com</a></p><br clear=all><br /> <br /> <hr align=left size=1 width="33%"><br /> <br /> <p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">^*</a> Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.</p>