Davis v. County of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist.
Plaintiff and appellant Earnest A. Davis, in propria persona, appeals the defense summary judgment granted for defendants and respondents, the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District, John Annicchiarico, Robert Kard and Tom Weeks (the County) in his action on employment discrimination theories under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c; all further statutory references are to the Code of Civ. Proc. unless noted.) After receiving opposition, including documents lodged by Davis, the trial court ruled that as a matter of law, the two prior administrative adjudications on claims arising out of the same circumstances, both resolved unfavorably to Davis at the administrative and judicial levels, barred these same FEHA-based claims. (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61 (Johnson); Castillo v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 477 (Castillo).)
On appeal, Davis argues that the trial court's grant of summary judgment was procedurally and substantively flawed, or that he was deprived of due process regarding the pursuit of additional allegations he now seeks to add to his previous claims (e.g., claims naming several individual coworkers, not an institutional defendant), and because he, a nonlawyer, was forced for economic reasons to represent himself. Davis further contends that he successfully identified triable issues of fact about discrimination, regarding inadequate representation by his previous retained counsel, who handled the prior litigation of the mandamus petitions, and who, when withdrawing as counsel, allegedly engaged in some kind of collusion with defense counsel and the trial courts that heard those matters.
Based on the inadequacies of Davis's briefing and record preparation, which failed to comply with basic principles of appellate practice, he has arguably forfeited any challenge to the summary judgment ruling. In any case, as a matter of law, this record discloses that the trial court correctly determined that the final orders, after unsuccessful appeals on the two prior administrative adjudications and related lawsuits, precluded these FEHA claims. (Davis v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (Nov. 14, 2012, D060471) [nonpub. opn.] (No. D060471); Davis v. Civil Service Commission (Nov. 15, 2012, D060468) [nonpub. opn.] (No. D060468); together, our prior opinions.) All three of Davis's actions arose out of and were pursued on the same basic set of facts, and the trial court properly ruled, as a matter of law, that Davis's current complaint reframing those allegations lacks merit. We affirm the summary judgment.
I
Comments on Davis v. County of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist.