AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Ercom los angeles county12/28/2022 ![]() & Tax.Code, §§ 670, 671.) We reject Kalski's contention because we do not understand how his argument fits into the context of his claim that he was the victim of a “retaliatory firing.” In other words, Kalski does not explain how ERCOM is the proper forum to resolve matters related to the retention or revocation of a state-issued appraiser's certificate. 70.200 somehow violated his right to a protected “liberty interest,” namely, his state-issued appraiser's certificate. 70.200, his claims arising from ERCOM's earlier, “defective” supervision of that case have become moot.įrom the text of his opening brief, it appears Kalski argues that Hearing Officer Stiglitz in administrative case UFC No. In other words, we understand the trial court to have ruled that, because Kalski is entitled to further proceedings in the ERCOM forum in administrative case UFC No. 70.200, became “moot” upon his success on his petition for writ of administrative mandamus. The judgment signed and entered by the trial court on April 29, 2008, states that Kalski's civil claims for damages against ERCOM, all of which was based on an alleged violation of his state and federal constitutional rights to due process in administrative case UFC No. Kalski contends he satisfied the claim filing procedure prescribed by Government Code section 905, “so that entitled to obtain jury calculation of the value of denied due process.” We understand Kalski to be arguing that, because he filed a timely claim in the proper form (see Gov.Code, §§ 910, 911.2), he is entitled to a jury trial on his cause of action for damages as alleged in his civil complaint against ERCOM. o reasonable fact-finder could find that Kalski was permitted to ignore the County's policy.” the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Kalski regularly County policy. In addition, the Court has reviewed Kalski's work, and any reasonable fact-finder would conclude that the Assessor's Office could reasonably label Kalski's work messy. ![]() ![]() He has provided no admissible, relevant evidence to support his allegation that his reassignments included more ‘low value’ areas than any other worker. Kalski has provided no admissible, relevant evidence to support his allegation that his transfer. t appears to the Court that there is no issue of material fact on this score. The court's order provides: “Kalski argues that the criticisms of the Assessor's Office were unjustified and therefore pretextual. In September 1999, the federal district court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Assessor. In less than a year, Kalski lost his federal lawsuit. Kalski's federal lawsuit alleged that his reassignment had resulted from the Assessor's racial and religious discrimination. In January 1999, Kalski filed a civil action in the local federal district court against the Assessor. ) In May 1999, the trial court entered a judgment on the pleadings against Kalski, and, in January 2001, Division Four of our court affirmed the judgment, ruling that “all of the causes of action pled in petition and complaint were defective as the trial court ruled.” ( Id. Kalski's pleading “was styled both a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint,” and, reduced to its essence, set forth an attempt to allege tort, statutory, constitutional and contract-based wrongs arising from the Assessor's compilation of the seniority list, and ERCOM's failure to rule in his favor on his administrative challenge to the seniority list. In October 1994, Kalski filed a civil action in the superior court against the Assessor, ERCOM, and his union, the California Association of Professional Employees (CAPE). ERCOM ruled against Kalski's administrative “seniority list” claim. 70.47), challenging a seniority list compiled by the Assessor. 2.) In 1993, Kalski filed an administrative claim with ERCOM (UFC No. California Association of Professional Employees (Jan. ![]() In October 1989, the Assessor hired Kalski as an appraiser.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |