Ray v. City of Los Angeles
Filed 3/21/06 Ray v. City of Los Angeles CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO
| SHERRY M. RAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B184515 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS087076) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David P. Yaffe and Andria K. Richey, Judges. Affirmed.
Dion-Kindem & Crockett, Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., and Peter R. Dion-Kindem for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Gerald M. Sato, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.
* * * * * *
A Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Board of Rights found appellant Sherry M. Ray guilty of failing to obey a direct order given by a commanding officer. The board recommended that appellant be removed from duty as a police officer. The chief of police accepted the recommendation and terminated appellant's employment. Appellant filed a complaint in the superior court and petitioned for administrative mandamus to compel the City of Los Angeles and its chief of police to reinstate her as a police officer. The court denied the petition and entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the city and the chief of police. On appeal, appellant contends that the disciplinary action against her was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Government Code[1] section 3304, subdivision (d), that the penalty of discharge was an abuse of administrative discretion, and that the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings. We find no merit to appellant's contentions and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant, with more than 20 years' experience as a police officer for the LAPD, was assigned to work the front desk at Harbor Operations Support Division. Her duties included answering the telephone, taking messages and greeting the public. In late March or early April 2002, Captain Andrew Smith, the commanding officer of the Harbor Division, learned that several employees were working a straight eight-hour shift without taking a 30-minute lunch break, referred to as a â€
