On February 21, 2018 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Los Angeles County Of By And Through,
and
Association For Los Angeles Deputy,
Los Angeles County Employee Relations,
Ramirez Esmeralda Assistant Director Los Angeles County Sheriff'S Department Personnel Administration Bureau,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 82
BC712068 September 13, 2022
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS ASSOCIATION FOR LOS 9:30 AM
ANGELES DEPUTY
Judge: Honorable Mary H. Strobel CSR: Cindy Cameron/CSR 10315
Judicial Assistant: N DiGiambattista ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: R Monterroso Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Jolina Asuncion Abrena (Telephonic) (x)
For Defendant(s): Jacob Ariel Kalinski (x) (Telephonic)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: STATUS CONFERENCE RE UNRESOLVED ISSUES ON
MOTION TO ENFORCE WRIT
Matter comes on for hearing and is argued.
.
The court adopts its tentative ruling as the order of the court and is set forth in this minute order.
Cross-Petitioner Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (“ALADS”) moves for a
determination that “1) Marc Schultz is entitled to back pay from June 9, 2017 until the date the
Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (‘Department’) reduced the number of explosive breachers to
18 subsequent to this Court’s February 11, 2020 order ; and 2) that possession of a valid blasting
license is not a necessary condition for the entitlement to back pay, especially in the case of those
explosive breachers who had short lapses in licensure, but otherwise performed all duties
associated with the explosive breacher position.” (Opening Brief filed 8/10/22 (“OB”) 4.) For the
second issue, ALADS only presents evidence concerning gaps in licensure of one employee,
Kevin Hilgendorf, but also seeks a legal determination of whether “other deputies who have a
gap in their licensure of less than one year but continue to perform breaching duties during that
time” are entitled to explosives detail pay pursuant to the writ. (OB 12.)
Cross-Respondent County of Los Angeles (“County”) opposes the motion.
This case has a lengthy procedural history, which is not repeated here. The court incorporates by
reference the minute order for the May 10, 2022, status conference; the March 17, 2022, ruling
on ALADS’ second motion to enforce the writ; the May 18, 2021, ruling on ALADS’ first
motion to enforce the writ; and the February 11, 2020, ruling on ALADS’ cross-petition.
Judicial Notice
Minute Order Page 1 of 10
Document Filed Date
September 13, 2022
Case Filing Date
February 21, 2018
Status
Court Finding - After Court Trial 07/14/2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 82 BC712068 September 13, 2022 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS ASSOCIATION FOR LOS 9:30 AM ANGELES DEPUTY Judge: Honorable Mary H. Strobel CSR: Cindy Cameron/CSR 10315 Judicial Assistant: N DiGiambattista ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: R Monterroso Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Jolina Asuncion Abrena (Telephonic) (x) For Defendant(s): Jacob Ariel Kalinski (x) (Telephonic) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: STATUS CONFERENCE RE UNRESOLVED ISSUES ON MOTION TO ENFORCE WRIT Matter comes on for hearing and is argued. . The court adopts its tentative ruling as the order of the court and is set forth in this minute order. Cross-Petitioner Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (“ALADS”) moves for a determination that “1) Marc Schultz is entitled to back pay from June 9, 2017 until the date the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (‘Department’) reduced the number of explosive breachers to 18 subsequent to this Court’s February 11, 2020 order ; and 2) that possession of a valid blasting license is not a necessary condition for the entitlement to back pay, especially in the case of those explosive breachers who had short lapses in licensure, but otherwise performed all duties associated with the explosive breacher position.” (Opening Brief filed 8/10/22 (“OB”) 4.) For the second issue, ALADS only presents evidence concerning gaps in licensure of one employee, Kevin Hilgendorf, but also seeks a legal determination of whether “other deputies who have a gap in their licensure of less than one year but continue to perform breaching duties during that time” are entitled to explosives detail pay pursuant to the writ. (OB 12.) Cross-Respondent County of Los Angeles (“County”) opposes the motion. This case has a lengthy procedural history, which is not repeated here. The court incorporates by reference the minute order for the May 10, 2022, status conference; the March 17, 2022, ruling on ALADS’ second motion to enforce the writ; the May 18, 2021, ruling on ALADS’ first motion to enforce the writ; and the February 11, 2020, ruling on ALADS’ cross-petition. Judicial Notice Minute Order Page 1 of 10