In Egleston v. State Personnel Board (Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation), published July 15, 2025, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6 affirmed the trial court's denial of a petition for a writ of mandate. The plaintiff worked for the Department of Corrections as a youth correctional officer. The rules and duties governing his conduct included that he act with professionalism on and off duty and refrain from committing assaults. The plaintiff's then-live-in girlfriend reported to law enforcement allegations that the plaintiff had committed domestic violence against the girlfriend. Police arrested the plaintiff while he waited by the girlfriend's vehicle (which he had tracked using OnStar) for the girlfriend to return. The plaintiff denied to law enforcement that he had assaulted the girlfriend, and accused the girlfriend of assaulting him. The girlfriend moved the family law court for a domestic violence restraining order. The court issued a temporary restraining order and set the matter for a DVRO hearing. The plaintiff was charged in a felony complaint with corporal injury on a cohabitant, stalking, and unlawful driving or taking a vehicle. He was held to answer on all charges. The plaintiff filed his own DVRO request against the girlfriend. The criminal charges against the plaintiff were dropped without prejudice. The family law court held a hearing on both DVRO requests and dismissed both requests without prejudice. Based on its own investigation, the Department of Corrections determined that the plaintiff had committed misconduct in violation of its rules and regulations, and served him with a Notice of Adverse Action dismissing him from his position, based on findings that he had assaulted his girlfriend, engaged in discourteous conduct toward her, and giving dishonest statements to law enforcement. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal. The administrative law judge held a hearing, during which the girlfriend testified. The judge upheld the dismissal, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the girlfriend's testimony about the incident was more credible than the plaintiff's and that the dismissal was an appropriate remedy. The plaintiff petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate to overturn the dismissal. The court determined the administrative law judge's observations of the parties during the hearing were entitled to great weight, and denied the petition. The plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff's sole argument on appeal was that the family law court's dismissal of the DVRO request had res judicata or collateral estoppel effect barring the dismissal and the denial of his appeal. The appellate court ruled that the plaintiff forfeited this contention by not raising it in the trial court. It further determined that the plaintiff had failed to establish the elements of collateral estoppel or res judicata. The causes of action were plainly different: The girlfriend's DVRO request sought redress for harm she suffered personally; the NOAA for dismissal sought redress for harm to the public as a result of the plaintiff's violation of his duties as a civil service employee. The proceedings also did not involve the same parties. The Department was neither a party to the DVRO proceedings nor in privity with the girlfriend.
Leave a Reply