Preview
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lilia Velasco
| PO BOX 1495 FILED
|| Glendora, California 91740 Superior Court of California
Telephone: (626) 629-8309 Ounty of Los Angeles
NOV 12 2020
| Petitioner in Propria Persona Sheri RCprter, Ecuve Ofer Clerk of Court
| By ’ oe J
| Cristina Ghijaiva ead
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LILIA VELASCO, 2 *9
Petitioner, Case OST CPO37 A 4
VERIFIED PETITION FOR
|CITY OF LOS ANGELES, State of California, PEREMPTORY WRIT OF
a municipal corporation, MICHEL MOORE, ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
Chief of Police, City of Los Angeles, and DOES [C.C.P. ' 1094.5]
1 through 30, inclusive
Respondents.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
|
(Code of Civil Procedure ' 1094.5)
For a First Cause of Action by Petitioner Lilia Velasco against Respondents City of Los
|| Angeles, a municipal corporation, Michel Moore, Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles, and
Does 1| through 30, inclusive, for a Petition for Peremptory Writ of Administrative Mandate pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, Petitioner alleges as follows:
1. At all times herein relevant, Petitioner was and is a sworn peace officer with the Los
Angeles Police Department (hereinafter the “Department” or “LAPD”) for approximately 31 years.
As such, she was and is a permanent employee and member of the civil service system of
|| Respondent CITY OF LOS ANGELES (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) and entitled to the
|| protections of Section 1070 of the Charter of the City. In addition, she was a sworn peace officer
within the meaning of California Penal Code Section 830.1 and, therefore, entitled to the protections
ate
VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUSnN
| of the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act (California Government Code Section
| 3300, et. Seq., the “Act”).
| 2. At all times herein relevant, the Respondent City of Los Angeles was, and now is, a
| municipal corporation operating under the laws of the State of California.
| 3: At all times herein mentioned, Respondent Michel Moore is the Chief of Police of the
| City, and the general manager of the Los Angeles Police Department, pursuant to Charter Section
| 574 of the City.
| 4. The true names and capacities, whether individuals, corporate, associate or otherwise,
of Respondent Does 1 through 30, inclusive, are unknown to Petitioner who, therefore, sues such
Respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioner will seek leave of Court to amend this Petition to
show the true names and capacities of such Respondents when the same has been ascertained.
DS On or about March 19, 2020, the Chief of Police, acting in his official capacity,
directed Petitioner to a Board of Rights hearing with a recommended penalty of “termination.” The
| recommended penalty was based on two administrative counts: (1) Count | alleges that “on or about
April 30, 2019, you (Velasco), while on duty, submitted a urine sample during a random drug test
| which tested positive for Marijuana (THC Metabolite)”; and (2) Count 2 alleges that “on or about
|
October 30, 2019, you (Velasco) while on duty, made a false statement to Sergeant T. Melendez
who was conducting an official investigation.”
6. Petitioner timely appealed her proposed termination recommendation pursuant to
|| Section 3304(b) of the Act, 1070 of the City Charter and Section 9.0 of the applicable Memorandum
of Understanding entered into between the Respondent City and the Los Angeles Police Protective
League (“League”), the employee organization recognized to represent sworn Department officers
holding the ranks of Lieutenant and below, in the LAPD.
tL On or about August 17, 19, 27, and October 13, a Board of Rights (BOR) hearing of
|| the proposed recommended termination was conducted before a BOR composed of a three-member
panel.
8. Upon examination of the evidence, The BOR panel found Petitioner “not
Guilty” on Count | and “guilty” on Count 2 with a recommended penalty of 65-day suspension.
-9-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS| On or about October 13, 2020, the BOR panel submitted their decision to the Chief of Police.
| 9. On or about October 21, 2020, the Chief of Police signed the BOR’s decision
| adopting the recommendations of the BOR panel and their proposed penalty of 65-day suspension.
| The Chief of Police’s order was served by mail to Petitioner on November 5, 2020.
| 10. Punitive action is defined in Section 3303 of the Act as including a reduction in
| salary, written reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment, among other things.
| ie Board of Rights members, Respondents, and each of them, have committed a
| prejudicial abuse of discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law and Respondents
| own rules in that: (a) Respondents and BOR members failed to grant Petitioner a motion to specify
charges in a language that is clear and concise as delineated in Los Angeles City Charter 1070 and
| applicable to Count 2 of the official charges against Petitioner; (b) BOR members failed their duty as
quasi-judicial body and specified in BOR Manual Section 140.75 to request investigation/additional
| investigation or perform necessary functions necessary to determine the true facts as it relates to acts
or omissions by Respondents that would constitute misconduct; thus preventing Petitioner from
| exercising her due process under the law and LAPD policy; (c) the BOR rationale to sustain Count
|
|No. 2 failed to address the official charge under review, which was alleged to have occurred on
| October 30, 2019; (d) the BOR improperly generated and adjudicated new charges of misconduct
| (allegedly occurred on November 21, 2019) without a proper investigation against Petitioner, which
| were outside the scope of the BOR hearing official charges—violating Petitioner’s due process and
| the right to a fair hearing; (e) the decision of the BOR for a guilty verdict on Count 2 was not
| supported by the weight of the evidence and witness testimony introduced at the BOR hearing; (f)
the BOR, Respondents relied on facts and evidence contradicted by or not included in the record; (g)
| the BOR, Respondents, improperly considered and/or relied solely upon hearsay evidence in direct
| contravention of the law and Respondents’ own rules; (h) the BOR, Respondents discarded and
prevented critical testimony from defense witness investigator based on the legal opinion sought by
LAPD associate advocate rather than from the BOR’s independent legal advice as mandated by City
Charter 1070 and the Board of Rights Manual; (i) the BOR members engaged in ex-parte
communication with Respondents on or about October 5, 2020, eight days prior to the BOR’s final
235.
VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS|
| session, regarding matters of interest to Petitioner, which prejudiced Petitioner’s case before the
| BOR and in violation of City Charter 1070 and the Board of Rights manual; (j) based on ex-parte
|
| communication, BOR chairman inappropriately used informal channels of communication (email),
containing misrepresentation of the true facts regarding matters of interest to the Petitioner, which
| prejudiced the BOR and its standing as an unbiased administrative body in seeking the truth of the
| matter; (k) the BOR members, Respondents failed to recuse themselves from adjudicating and/or
conducting administrative proceedings involving Petitioner’s disciplinary charges when they knew
| or should have known, they had engaged in activities prohibited by City Charter and Board of Rights
| Manual-disqualifying the BOR as an unbiased quasi-judicial body to conduct, adjudicate or
‘continue administrative proceedings against Petitioner ; (1) Respondents’ actions, before, during and
|| after the BOR hearing ordering the suspension of Petitioner from her position as a Detective II for
65- days constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion because the BOR was not conducted in a
[manner required by law and the Respondents’ own policies; and the BOR’s findings were not
| supported by the evidence and witness testimony adduced at the hearing.
| | 12. Atall times herein relevant, Petitioner had a vested and substantial property right in
| her position as a Detective II for the City and to compensation and remuneration which attaches
| thereto.
13. Petitioner will lodge the complete administrative record, including exhibits and
transcripts of the BOR hearing in advance of the hearing on this matter.
14. Petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
other than a proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 in that this is the sole remedy
provided under the law. Petitioner has exhausted her administrative remedies.
15. The actions of Respondents, and each of them, were arbitrary and capricious, thus
entitling Petitioner to reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Government Code Section
800. Petitioner is entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
|] 1021.5.
aes
VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS|
2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
12||
13 |]
|
|
16. Petitioner has done or will do all things necessary and required to be done and
satisfied all conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action, including the filing of all
applicable claims and notices under the rules, regulations and policies of the City.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment against Respondents as follows:
1, That this Court issue a Peremptory Writ of Mandate commanding the Respondents,
and each of them, to set aside their decision of “guilty” related to Count 2 of the BOR hearing, Box
File No. 30085, and the recommendation of the 65-day suspension penalty against Petitioner;
2s That this Court issue a Peremptory Writ of Mandate commanding Respondents, and
each of them, to remove all references to the documents, complaints, investigations and
adjudications referring to Petitioner’s “guilty” verdict on Count 2 from Petitioner’s personnel
package and all other Department or City records, including computerized records and to maintain
said documents in sealed envelopes separate and apart from any and all of Petitioner’s personnel
and employment records;
3F That this Court grant relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5;
4. That this Court award attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Government Code
|| Section 800;
a: That this Court award attorney’s fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
|| Section 1021.5;
6. That this Court order Respondents to pay costs of suit incurred herein; and
Ne For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: November 9, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
LILIA VELASCO )
PETITIONER IN PROPRIAPERSONA
=5=
VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS1] VERIFICATION
2 | STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, vi
1
3|| I, LILIA VELASCO:
|
4) I am a party to this action. I have read the foregoing document entitled VERIFIED
5 | PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS [CCP§1094.5]
6 | and know its contents. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge,
7 |except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I
8 | believe them to be true.
9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
10 is le and correct and that this verification was executed on November 9, 2020 at
11 , California.
Zile c-,
16,
ag
VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
Preview
10 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Lilia Velasco | PO BOX 1495 FILED || Glendora, California 91740 Superior Court of California Telephone: (626) 629-8309 Ounty of Los Angeles NOV 12 2020 | Petitioner in Propria Persona Sheri RCprter, Ecuve Ofer Clerk of Court | By ’ oe J | Cristina Ghijaiva ead SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LILIA VELASCO, 2 *9 Petitioner, Case OST CPO37 A 4 VERIFIED PETITION FOR |CITY OF LOS ANGELES, State of California, PEREMPTORY WRIT OF a municipal corporation, MICHEL MOORE, ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS Chief of Police, City of Los Angeles, and DOES [C.C.P. ' 1094.5] 1 through 30, inclusive Respondents. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION | (Code of Civil Procedure ' 1094.5) For a First Cause of Action by Petitioner Lilia Velasco against Respondents City of Los || Angeles, a municipal corporation, Michel Moore, Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles, and Does 1| through 30, inclusive, for a Petition for Peremptory Writ of Administrative Mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, Petitioner alleges as follows: 1. At all times herein relevant, Petitioner was and is a sworn peace officer with the Los Angeles Police Department (hereinafter the “Department” or “LAPD”) for approximately 31 years. As such, she was and is a permanent employee and member of the civil service system of || Respondent CITY OF LOS ANGELES (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) and entitled to the || protections of Section 1070 of the Charter of the City. In addition, she was a sworn peace officer within the meaning of California Penal Code Section 830.1 and, therefore, entitled to the protections ate VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUSnN | of the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act (California Government Code Section | 3300, et. Seq., the “Act”). | 2. At all times herein relevant, the Respondent City of Los Angeles was, and now is, a | municipal corporation operating under the laws of the State of California. | 3: At all times herein mentioned, Respondent Michel Moore is the Chief of Police of the | City, and the general manager of the Los Angeles Police Department, pursuant to Charter Section | 574 of the City. | 4. The true names and capacities, whether individuals, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Respondent Does 1 through 30, inclusive, are unknown to Petitioner who, therefore, sues such Respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioner will seek leave of Court to amend this Petition to show the true names and capacities of such Respondents when the same has been ascertained. DS On or about March 19, 2020, the Chief of Police, acting in his official capacity, directed Petitioner to a Board of Rights hearing with a recommended penalty of “termination.” The | recommended penalty was based on two administrative counts: (1) Count | alleges that “on or about April 30, 2019, you (Velasco), while on duty, submitted a urine sample during a random drug test | which tested positive for Marijuana (THC Metabolite)”; and (2) Count 2 alleges that “on or about | October 30, 2019, you (Velasco) while on duty, made a false statement to Sergeant T. Melendez who was conducting an official investigation.” 6. Petitioner timely appealed her proposed termination recommendation pursuant to || Section 3304(b) of the Act, 1070 of the City Charter and Section 9.0 of the applicable Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the Respondent City and the Los Angeles Police Protective League (“League”), the employee organization recognized to represent sworn Department officers holding the ranks of Lieutenant and below, in the LAPD. tL On or about August 17, 19, 27, and October 13, a Board of Rights (BOR) hearing of || the proposed recommended termination was conducted before a BOR composed of a three-member panel. 8. Upon examination of the evidence, The BOR panel found Petitioner “not Guilty” on Count | and “guilty” on Count 2 with a recommended penalty of 65-day suspension. -9- VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS| On or about October 13, 2020, the BOR panel submitted their decision to the Chief of Police. | 9. On or about October 21, 2020, the Chief of Police signed the BOR’s decision | adopting the recommendations of the BOR panel and their proposed penalty of 65-day suspension. | The Chief of Police’s order was served by mail to Petitioner on November 5, 2020. | 10. Punitive action is defined in Section 3303 of the Act as including a reduction in | salary, written reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment, among other things. | ie Board of Rights members, Respondents, and each of them, have committed a | prejudicial abuse of discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law and Respondents | own rules in that: (a) Respondents and BOR members failed to grant Petitioner a motion to specify charges in a language that is clear and concise as delineated in Los Angeles City Charter 1070 and | applicable to Count 2 of the official charges against Petitioner; (b) BOR members failed their duty as quasi-judicial body and specified in BOR Manual Section 140.75 to request investigation/additional | investigation or perform necessary functions necessary to determine the true facts as it relates to acts or omissions by Respondents that would constitute misconduct; thus preventing Petitioner from | exercising her due process under the law and LAPD policy; (c) the BOR rationale to sustain Count | |No. 2 failed to address the official charge under review, which was alleged to have occurred on | October 30, 2019; (d) the BOR improperly generated and adjudicated new charges of misconduct | (allegedly occurred on November 21, 2019) without a proper investigation against Petitioner, which | were outside the scope of the BOR hearing official charges—violating Petitioner’s due process and | the right to a fair hearing; (e) the decision of the BOR for a guilty verdict on Count 2 was not | supported by the weight of the evidence and witness testimony introduced at the BOR hearing; (f) the BOR, Respondents relied on facts and evidence contradicted by or not included in the record; (g) | the BOR, Respondents, improperly considered and/or relied solely upon hearsay evidence in direct | contravention of the law and Respondents’ own rules; (h) the BOR, Respondents discarded and prevented critical testimony from defense witness investigator based on the legal opinion sought by LAPD associate advocate rather than from the BOR’s independent legal advice as mandated by City Charter 1070 and the Board of Rights Manual; (i) the BOR members engaged in ex-parte communication with Respondents on or about October 5, 2020, eight days prior to the BOR’s final 235. VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS| | session, regarding matters of interest to Petitioner, which prejudiced Petitioner’s case before the | BOR and in violation of City Charter 1070 and the Board of Rights manual; (j) based on ex-parte | | communication, BOR chairman inappropriately used informal channels of communication (email), containing misrepresentation of the true facts regarding matters of interest to the Petitioner, which | prejudiced the BOR and its standing as an unbiased administrative body in seeking the truth of the | matter; (k) the BOR members, Respondents failed to recuse themselves from adjudicating and/or conducting administrative proceedings involving Petitioner’s disciplinary charges when they knew | or should have known, they had engaged in activities prohibited by City Charter and Board of Rights | Manual-disqualifying the BOR as an unbiased quasi-judicial body to conduct, adjudicate or ‘continue administrative proceedings against Petitioner ; (1) Respondents’ actions, before, during and || after the BOR hearing ordering the suspension of Petitioner from her position as a Detective II for 65- days constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion because the BOR was not conducted in a [manner required by law and the Respondents’ own policies; and the BOR’s findings were not | supported by the evidence and witness testimony adduced at the hearing. | | 12. Atall times herein relevant, Petitioner had a vested and substantial property right in | her position as a Detective II for the City and to compensation and remuneration which attaches | thereto. 13. Petitioner will lodge the complete administrative record, including exhibits and transcripts of the BOR hearing in advance of the hearing on this matter. 14. Petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other than a proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 in that this is the sole remedy provided under the law. Petitioner has exhausted her administrative remedies. 15. The actions of Respondents, and each of them, were arbitrary and capricious, thus entitling Petitioner to reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Government Code Section 800. Petitioner is entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section |] 1021.5. aes VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS| 2) | | | | | | | | 10 | 12|| 13 |] | | 16. Petitioner has done or will do all things necessary and required to be done and satisfied all conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action, including the filing of all applicable claims and notices under the rules, regulations and policies of the City. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment against Respondents as follows: 1, That this Court issue a Peremptory Writ of Mandate commanding the Respondents, and each of them, to set aside their decision of “guilty” related to Count 2 of the BOR hearing, Box File No. 30085, and the recommendation of the 65-day suspension penalty against Petitioner; 2s That this Court issue a Peremptory Writ of Mandate commanding Respondents, and each of them, to remove all references to the documents, complaints, investigations and adjudications referring to Petitioner’s “guilty” verdict on Count 2 from Petitioner’s personnel package and all other Department or City records, including computerized records and to maintain said documents in sealed envelopes separate and apart from any and all of Petitioner’s personnel and employment records; 3F That this Court grant relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5; 4. That this Court award attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Government Code || Section 800; a: That this Court award attorney’s fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure || Section 1021.5; 6. That this Court order Respondents to pay costs of suit incurred herein; and Ne For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. DATED: November 9, 2020 Respectfully submitted, LILIA VELASCO ) PETITIONER IN PROPRIAPERSONA =5= VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS1] VERIFICATION 2 | STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, vi 1 3|| I, LILIA VELASCO: | 4) I am a party to this action. I have read the foregoing document entitled VERIFIED 5 | PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS [CCP§1094.5] 6 | and know its contents. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge, 7 |except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I 8 | believe them to be true. 9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 10 is le and correct and that this verification was executed on November 9, 2020 at 11 , California. Zile c-, 16, ag VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS