This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Civil Rights
Wrongful Termination

Ralph Royds v. City of Redondo Beach, Mel Nichols

Published: Mar. 23, 2002 | Result Date: Nov. 19, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: YC040030 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Jean E. Matusinka

Court

L.A. Superior Torrance


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ken Yuwiler


Defendant

Craig A. Horowitz
(Horowitz & Clayton)

Wayne D. Clayton

Richard G. Munoz


Facts

The plaintiff was a police officer employed by the City of Redondo Beach. He was fired in March 2000 as a result
of two separate incidents of misconduct. He complained about the termination and took the matter to
arbitration. During the 27-day arbitration, which spanned over 18 months, the plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit
in state court alleging that he was terminated in violation of his First Amendment rights and for union
activities under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
The plaintiff served the complaint during the day of his actual arbitration testimony on July 9, 2001. Thereafter,
the defendants twice opposed and defeated requests to stay the litigation pending the results of the arbitration.
The plaintiff then filed a writ with the Court of Appeal, which was opposed and similarly denied. During this
period, the defendants twice subpoenaed various police officer personnel to testify regarding the plaintiffÆs
allegations. The plaintiff and the witnesses refused to appear at the deposition.
The defendants moved for summary judgment through declarations on Oct. 16, 2001.
The defendants also moved to compel the depositions of various witnesses in the event that
summary judgment was not granted. On Nov. 2, 2001, the day before the opposition to the
summary judgment was due, the plaintiff filed a dismissal without prejudice of the lawsuit.
Subsequently, the defendants insisted that it obtain a ruling on the summary judgment motion,
under authority that a defendant is entitled to a ruling on the merits in the event there is a
dismissal without prejudice. The court agreed and granted summary judgment.

Other Information

A motion for prevailing party attorneys' fees is pending.


#90577

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390