Stupar v. Los Angeles
Filed 7/31/06 Stupar v. Los Angeles CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| JERRY STUPAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. | B184473 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC311308) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Scott E. Schutzman, Scott E. Schutzman and Lee W. Chen, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Kim Rodgers Westhoff, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.
___________________________
Probationary firefighter Jerry Stupar appeals from summary judgment for the City of Los Angeles Fire Department upholding his dismissal for unsatisfactory performance. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 23, 2001, Jerry Stupar was hired as a probationary firefighter by the Los Angeles city fire department. His probationary period was to be one year, divided into three, four-month rotations at three different fire stations. During appellant's probation, the supervising commander at each station evaluated appellant's performance with written forms called â€
