Pedro v. City of Los Angeles
229 Cal. App. 4th 87
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Pedro drove a minor in an unmarked police car on 11/9/2009 for personal business while on duty; a complaint led to a Board of Rights proceeding against four misconduct counts.
- Counts 1–4: (1) improper use of vehicle for personal business; (2) same on 11/30/2009; (3) discourteous statement to O’Brien; (4) misleading statement to a supervisor during an investigation.
- Board initially found 1–3 time-barred by a one-year statute of limitations; 4 potentially timely and heard further evidence.
- Board later found all four counts guilty and recommended a 22-day suspension; Chief Beck approved the recommendation.
- Pedro petitioned for writ of administrative mandamus challenging the Board’s handling of the statute of limitations and the investigation procedures.
- Trial court applied independent judgment, set aside all guilty findings, and ordered back pay; City appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts 2 and 3 are barred by the statute of limitations. | Pedro argued counts 2–3 were time-barred. | City contends counts 2–3 timely and board acted properly. | Counts 2–3 are time-barred; board misapplied limitations (Board failed to render independent judgment). |
| Whether the Board properly decided the statute-of-limitations issue independent of the Chief. | Board should decide limitations without executive overreach. | Chief could influence the proceedings under section 260.60. | Board abused discretion by deferring to the Chief and not rendering independent findings on limitations. |
| Whether count 4 is timely under the discovery rule. | Discovery rule applies to count 4. | Discovery rule not applicable or misapplied. | Count 4 is timely under the discovery rule; the trial court’s reasoning sustained. |
| When does the limitations period begin under Government Code 3304(d)(1)? | Ignorance of identity delays accrual. | Identity ignorance does not delay accrual. | Limitations begin when an authorized investigator discovers the allegation; ignorance of identity does not postpone accrual. |
| Whether suppression of Pedro’s November 9 statement was proper. | Not necessary to decide due to other disposition; majority affirmed on statute issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013) (statute of limitations accrual and discovery rule)
- Mays v. City of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2008) (public safety officer procedural rules; board authority)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) (discovery rule; accrual and discovery standards)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999) (discovery rule; accrual postponement)
- Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries, 7 Cal.4th 926 (Cal. 1994) (identity of wrongdoer not required for accrual)