California Court of Appeal

Soto v. County of Riverside, E042725

In a fee dispute action wherein a Memorandum of Understanding between plaintiff's union and county-employer contained a "cost-sharing provision" which required a disciplined employee to pay for half the hearing cost for an administrative appeal if the employee pursued the appeal through privately retained counsel rather than through the union, judgment finding such provision unconstitutional is reversed and remanded for correction of the judgment where: 1) although the provision violated an employee's due process rights under established case law; 2) the judgment drafted by the county and signed by the trial court did not accurately reflect the issues litigated.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/02/2008
• Published 04/25/2008

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs, Bruce E. Disenhouse, Riverside;  Arias & Lockwood and Christopher D. Lockwood, San Bernadino, for Defendant and Appellant., Lackie & Dammeier, Dieter C. Dammeier and Michael A. McGill, Upland, for Plaintiff and Respondent.