Page 1
C.A. Gives Victory to County in Tiff With Sheriff Villanueva
Affirms Judgment Declaring Effort to Rehire Mandoyan Was Unlawful
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Sheriff Alex Villanueva acted unlawfully in purporting to enter into a settlement agreement with a deputy who was fired by former Sheriff Jim McDonnell and failed in an effort to resurrect that agreement by excising a provision for back pay, the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday in an opinion that also declares unlawful the attempt to rehire the discharged employee.
Justice Thomas L. Willhite Jr. of Div. Four authored the opinion, which was not certified for publication. It affirms a judgment by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff granting a petition for a writ of mandate and declaratory judgment in favor of the County of Los Angeles.
The ousted deputy is Caren Carl Mandoyan. McDonnell fired him based on domestic violence allegations against Mandoyan by a girlfriend.
The action against Mandoyan was upheld by the county’s Civil Service Commission. Mandoyan sought to upset that decision through a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus and also sued for wrongful termination.
Issues Order
On Nov. 26, 2018—after being elected on Nov. 6 but before taking office on Dec. 3—Villanueva directed the department to enter into a settlement agreement with Mandoyan under which he would be reinstated with back pay of more than $200,000. The agreement was purportedly entered into on Dec. 28.
Neither then-County Counsel Mary C. Wickham nor the Board of Supervisors approved it. When Mandoyan sought to collect the back pay, the county balked, and on March 4, 2019, filed its lawsuit.
Villanueva subsequently put Mandoyan’s name on a list of persons eligible for employment as a deputy, but Garrett, the county’s director of personnel, ordered his name stricken.
The Sheriff’s Department then tried to revitalize the settlement agreement by removing reference to back pay—while reserving Mandoyan’s right to seek it in a separate action—on the theory that the Board of Supervisors’s approval was not needed given the lack of a pay-out. And Wickham was obliged to approve, under Villanueva’s theory, because she is lawyer for the Sheriff’s Department.
Beckloff’s Ruling
Beckloff on Sept. 28, 2020, ruled in favor of the county.
He said that under the County Charter and County Code, “for the Settlement Agreement to be valid (that is, not void as a matter of law), the Settlement Agreement required, at minimum, County Counsel’s involvement as well as the board of supervisors’ approval since the Settlement Agreement required the expenditure of more than $20,000.” Given the lack of approval, he declared, “the Settlement Agreement is void.”
The judge found that the amended agreement was also “of no effect and void.”
He noted that he had previously ruled, in denying Villanueva’s to disqualify the County Counsel’s Office from representing the county, that Wickham was not the department’s lawyer.
“The court finds it inconsequential that County Counsel may have had a practice of consulting the Department concerning settlements regarding personnel or that Petitioner’s human resources department was previously unaware of County Charter provisions governing settlements,” he said in his ruling. “Those facts do not rewrite or change the law.”
He quoted the County Charter as vesting in the county counsel “exclusive charge and control of all civil actions and proceedings in which the County or any officer thereof, is concerned or is a party,” and commented:
“While the Sheriff and Mandoyan may believe it is ‘ridiculous’ that the Settlement Agreement required County Counsel’s approval, the County Charter is clear….It is the law.”
Villanueva was powerless to rehire Mandoyan in December 2018 because he was not on the eligibility list, Beckloff, and when Villanueva put his name on that list, Garrett had the power to strike it.
Willhite’s Opinion
Willhite agreed with Beckloff in all respects.
“When read together, the statutory authority as well as the related local charter and code demonstrate that in the context of civil litigation, only County Counsel and (for settlements of more than $20,000) the Board have the authority to enter into settlement agreements on behalf of the County, including on behalf of the Sheriff and Department,” he recited, agreeing that the original agreement was void.
Villanueva and Mandoyan did not contest that, on appeal. Willhite continued:
“The purported amended settlement agreement fares no better. Defendants contend that the amended settlement agreement is valid. They rely on the principle that ‘no public policy forbids parties from abandoning a void, illegal contract, and entering a new, enforceable contract covering the same subject matter.’…However, that principle does not apply here. The amended settlement agreement did not ‘abandon’ the void agreement. It expressly stated that the original agreement ‘remains in full force and effect.’ ”
County Counsel’s Approval
He added:
“[R]egardless of whether Mandoyan’s ‘waiver’ of his right to any back pay cured the failure to have the approval of the Board, it did not cure the flaw of not having the approval of County Counsel. Without the approval of County Counsel, the agreement as purportedly amended remains void.”
The defendants are barred by collateral estoppel from arguing that there is an attorney-client relationship with the county counsel, Willhite said, because Beckloff had decided earlier that there was no such relationship when he denied the disqualification motion, and that was a final order.
“[T]hat order, along with its determination that County Counsel had no attorney client relationship with the Department and Villanueva, is final for purposes of issue preclusion,” the justice explained.
He went on to say:
“[T]he record demonstrates that Garrett as the director of personnel had the authority to promulgate the eligible lists, and her certification of the lists was required for the Sheriff to make an appointment from the lists….Therefore, the placement of Mandoyan’s name on an eligible list was unauthorized, and Garrett as director of personnel was empowered to remove his name from the eligible list….”
The case is County of Los Angeles v. Villanueva, B310871.
Lawyers on appeal were Gregory W. Smith for Mandoyan; Gerald M. Serlin and Douglas G. Benedon of Benedon & Serlin and Stanley L. Friedman for Villanueva and the Sheriff’s Department; and Louis R. “Skip” Miller for the county.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company