Garmon v. Peralta Community College Dist.

Filed 7/28/06 Garmon v. Peralta Community College Dist. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

John Frederic Garmon (appellant) filed a petition for writ of mandate, seeking reemployment in an administrative position. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant then filed another petition for writ of mandate and received a separate case number. The court considered the second petition to be the same in all material respects to the first petition and thus denied it on the basis of res judicata. The question on appeal is whether the trial court properly denied the second petition. We affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS

Appellant served as the president of Vista Community College (Vista) from June 30, 2001, until May 30, 2004. Respondents are the Peralta Community College District (District) and its Board of Trustees (Board). Vista is one of the colleges constituting the District. Appellant was initially recruited from Florida and offered a two-year contract from 2001 to 2003. In June 2003 the District offered him a one-year contract in the same administrative position. The one-year contract is standard procedure and was offered to the three other district community college presidents in addition to appellant.

On March 9, 2004, the Board sent a notice to appellant informing him of possible reassignment or release from his administrative position with the college. The notice was intended to inform appellant that his one-year contract was ending on June 30, 2004, and that the Board had the right to release him from his administrative position at that time. This letter was not sent to appellant's last known address and he did not receive the letter in a timely fashion.^[1] On May 11, 2004, the Board held a closed session meeting where the trustees discussed appellant's employment and formally decided not to renew his contract. Prior to this meeting appellant learned from other sources that his contract probably would not be renewed and that he would be released as college president. On May 13, 2004, the District sent a letter to appellant notifying him of the final decision not to renew his contract.^[2] The letter notified appellant that he had the right to retreat to a faculty position, which he subsequently exercised.

On July 14, 2004, appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate (Super. Ct. No. RG04165547) (petition I). Appellant sought reemployment as the president of Vista. The court denied petition I. On September 7, 2004, appellant filed a second petition for writ of mandate, which received a separate case number (Super. Ct. No. RG04173932) (petition II). Petition II was heard by a different judge. The assigned judge indicated that petition II was in effect a request for reconsideration of the order issued for petition I and ordered it to be returned to the original court. The original court denied petition II, ruling that the petition was â€