## Facts

- A City of Calexico police officer (Rudy Alarcon) was terminated after an arrest incident based on charges including use of force and discourteous language.
- An administrative hearing officer (Robert Bergeson) upheld the termination.
- The hearing officer found the City’s predisciplinary notice was insufficient as to allegations of dishonesty during the internal investigation and awarded Alarcon back pay for a portion of the period.
- Alarcon filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside the administrative decision, arguing the discipline was time-barred under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) and unsupported by the evidence.
- The City filed a separate petition for writ of mandate challenging the back-pay award tied to the notice defect.
- The superior court consolidated the writ proceedings and issued a written ruling denying both petitions, finding Alarcon did not prove a POBRA limitations violation and that the evidence supported the misconduct findings; it also found no abuse of discretion in the hearing officer’s notice/back-pay determination.
- Alarcon appealed from the superior court’s ruling; the City later filed a cross-appeal after the superior court entered a subsequent document titled “judgment” that incorporated the earlier ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the superior court erred in denying Alarcon’s petition for writ of mandate on the grounds that (a) the discipline was time-barred under POBRA’s one-year limitations period and (b) the findings of use of force and discourteous language, and the termination penalty, lacked evidentiary support.
2. Whether the City’s cross-appeal was timely when filed after a later “judgment” document, or whether the earlier written ruling denying both consolidated writ petitions was the final, appeal-triggering judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s denial of Alarcon’s petition for writ of mandate.
- The court held Alarcon failed to establish that the City’s termination decision, as sustained in the administrative process, was an abuse of discretion.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the City’s cross-appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because it was untimely.
- The court held the superior court’s earlier written ruling that denied both consolidated writ petitions fully resolved all issues between the parties and therefore constituted the final judgment for purposes of calculating the time to appeal; the later “judgment” document did not restart the deadline.

## Legal Principles

- In administrative mandamus review, appellate courts do not retry the case; they review for abuse of discretion and examine whether the trial court’s factual determinations are supported under the applicable evidentiary standard.
- A party asserting that discipline is time-barred under POBRA bears the burden to show the limitations period expired before discipline was imposed, including addressing when misconduct was discovered and whether tolling or statutory exceptions apply.
- An order in consolidated writ proceedings that completely resolves all issues between all parties is a final, appealable judgment even if labeled a “ruling” and even if a later document titled “judgment” is subsequently entered without substantive change.
- The time limits for filing a notice of appeal under the California Rules of Court are jurisdictional; an untimely appeal must be dismissed and cannot be saved by later clerical or ministerial entries.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of the officer’s writ petition because he did not show a POBRA timing violation or an evidentiary or discretionary defect in the termination decision, and it dismissed the City’s cross-appeal as jurisdictionally late because the earlier order denying both writ petitions was the final judgment that started the appeal period.


City of Calexico v. Bergeson, 64 Cal. App. 5th 180, 278 Cal. Rptr. 3d 470 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)