OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Transcription

1

2 I. INTRODUCTION A former law professor for Plaintiffs attorney once said, "If you have to use the word 'clearly' when arguing a legal position, that usually means that the issue is not clear at all." Defendants use the word "clearly" no less than nine times in their -page motion for judgment on the pleadings, to try and convince the Court that the Ordinance and the PRRs "clearly" authorize this thing that Defendants refer to as a "lateral transfer." They direct the Court to several hundred pages of legislative history and other documents and assert that from these documents, the answer is "clear." If only. 0 II. ARGUMENT A. "Lateral transfer." A critical issue in this case is whether the term "transfer" within the Ordinance includes a so-called "lateral transfer." But more fundamentally, what exactly is a lateral transfer? That term appears nowhere in any version of the Ordinance or the PRRs that has ever existed. (Vanarelli Decl., ][.) There is nothing of which Defendants have requested the Court take judicial notice that defines a "lateral transfer." And Defendants have submitted no evidence to the Court defining a "lateral transfer." However, the County does have a document that sets forth what the County says is a "lateral transfer." Plaintiff is providing that document as Exhibit A to the request for Judicial Notice, filed and served concurrently herewith. The reason that Defendants did not provide that to the Court is that the appointment of Kelly Keenan, which is the subject of this action, did not qualify as a "lateral transfer" under the County's own definition as set forth in this policy. So even under the County's own definition, assuming for the sake of argument that "lateral transfers" (without competitive examinations) do not violate the Ordinance, the County still has a problem because Mr. Keenan did not qualify as a "lateral transfer" under the County's own definition. The evidence at trial will show that Mr. Keenan was appointed to his position not having met any of the County's conditions required for appointment as a "lateral transfer" in Ventura County.

3 The class to which the individual requests to transfer performs the same, or substantially the same duties, has the same or substantially the same responsibilities and requires the same or lesser minimum qualifications as the class in which the individual is currently employed. Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that Mr. Keenan met this requirement, and the evidence at trial will show that he did not.. The individual has satisfactorily completed a probationary period in the class from which he/she is transferring prior to the effective date of the lateral transfer. Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that Mr. Keenan met this requirement, and the evidence at trial will show that he did not.. The individual achieved employment in the qualifying class as a result of a qualifying or competitive personnel merit system (civil service) examination. Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that Mr. Keenan met this requirement, and the evidence at trial will show that he did not.. The individual has performed satisfactorily in his/her employment with the other public entity and is not being considered for separation due to misconduct or poor performance. Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that Mr. Keenan met this requirement, and the evidence at trial will show that he did not. B. Any Personnel Rule that conflicts with the Civil Service Ordinance is void. While the Ordinance authorizes the Board of Supervisors to promulgate rules and regulations governing the civil service system, such rules and regulations may not abridge, enlarge, extend or modify the Civil Service Ordinance. (See, e.g. Ass 'n for Retarded Citizens v. Dep't of Developmental Servs. (8) 8 Cal.Sd 8, l;aguirre v. Lee () 0 Cal.App.th,.) "Thus, when administrative rules or regulations alter or amend the

4 statute or enlarge or impair its scope, they are void and courts not only may, but it is their obligation to strike down such regulations." (J. R. Norton Co. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd. () Cal.d,. Internal citations and quotation marks omitted.) C. The Personnel Rules and Regulations must be interpreted so as to harmonize their provisions with the Civil Service Ordinance. As Defendants point out, the PRRs have been formally adopted by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to authority conferred by the Ordinance. Therefore, the PRRs have the force of law. (See, e.g., Posey v. State of California (8) 80 Cal.App.d 8, 8.) County ordinances, as well as rules having the force of law, are interpreted by the same rules applicable to statutes. (People v. BeaumontInv., Ltd. (00) Cal.App.th 0,.) "Pursuant to established principles, our first task in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. In determining legislative intent, we first look to the statutory language itself. The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible." (Ibid.} PRR, entitled "Transfer" does say, "As an alternative to appointment from an eligible list, a position may be filled by transfer." So the question is, are so-called "lateral transfers" included within this provision? The County argues that they are. But to interpret PRR in this manner effectively does away with the mandate under the Civil Service Ordinance that all appointments to the classified service, except for provisional appointments, be based solely on the basis of merit and fitness ascertained through practical and competitive examinations. In other words, to interpret PRR in this manner would cause it to conflict with the Ordinance and therefore, such an interpretation would necessitate a finding that PRR is void, at least to the extent that it purports to include so-called "lateral transfers" within its authority. It is not necessary to look behind the language of the PRRs in following the established principles for interpreting them, because the PRRs, as written, can (and must) be interpreted in

5 a manner that is consistent with the Ordinance. As noted above, the words in the PRRs and in the Ordinance "must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible." Applying these principles, the only practicable interpretation of Section is that it refers only to traditional transfers (transfers to and from positions within the Ventura County service). This interpretation the only one that makes sense in light of PRR 's requirements that () all appointing authorities concerned must approve of the transfer; and () the releasing appointing authority shall release the transferee within 0! 0 thirty days after being accepted by the accepting authority. This is also the only interpretation that can be harmonized with the Ordinance, which requires all appointments to the classified service, except for provisional appointments, to be made based "solely" on the basis of merit and fitness ascertained through practical and competitive examinations. Applicants already employed in the County service have previously undergone a competitive hiring process in our County; they are already in. Applicants from agencies outside the County service have not, and there is no basis to conclude that such applicants are equally qualified as people who have gone through Ventura County's competitive process. But is the issue "clear"? Not at all. To illustrate the nuances of the issue presented in this case, consider the comments made at the Civil Service Commission investigative hearing conducted on November, 0, of which the Court has been requested to take judicial notice. (C. Vanarelli Decl., ]f ; Exhs. C, D.) The Court is specifically directed to that portion of the hearing from timestamp : to :. A transcript of this part of the hearing is provided as Exhibit D. D. The "Lateral Transfer Process" 8 This dispute formally began on October, 0, with Plaintiffs request to the Ventura County Civil Service Commission to open an investigation into the process that was used to appoint Mr. Keenan to the Attorney III position, which is in the classified service and therefore subject to civil service requirements. (C. Vanarelli Decl., ]HJ,. See Exh. B.) In opposition to Plaintiffs request for the Civil Service Commission investigation, Defendants, on October

6 0, 0, submitted to the Civil Service Commission a letter, in which Defendants explain that the Keenan appointment was made pursuant to that County administrative policy entitled "Lateral Transfer from Outside the County Service." (Chapter VIII(A), Policy No..) (C. Vanarelli Decl., ][. See Exh. E.) Defendants contended at that time, "This procedure, which has been in effect since 88, establishes that lateral transfers from public agencies may be appointed without going through the competitive examination process." (Exh. C, p..) The evidence at trial, which include an illustration of the legislative history of the County's Civil Service Ordinance, will prove that to dispense with the competitive examination process for applicants on the basis that they held a similar position in another county (or city, etc.), is contrary to the law in Ventura County. E. Defendants want the Court to find that an illegal hiring process, if in place for a long period of time, will ripen into a legal hiring process. When we distill Defendants' moving papers down to what they are really saying, it is this: "We have done this for so long and we like it because it is easier than doing it the right way." And in fact, at trial, the evidence will show that in recent history, the PRRs were sometimes amended as a reaction, "to bring the rules into compliance with current practice," without a thorough analysis of whether the "current practice" complied with the Ordinance. (C. Vanarelli Decl., ]f.) The evidence at trial will show that early on in our County's history of civil service, when changes were made to the Ordinance or to any other ordinance or regulation having an impact on civil service, the District Attorney (who at one time performed the role of today's County Counsel) meticulously evaluated each change or proposed change to ensure that it would not conflict with any other law. For whatever reason - budgetary or otherwise, the evidence at trial will show that we don't do that anymore, and as a result, rule changes seem rushed and rubber-stamped, without due consideration of their effect. This has resulted in Q This is the policy provided by Plaintiff as Exhibit A, which Defendants now do not want to rely on because evidence obtained in discovery in this case proves that Mr. Keenan was not qualified as a socalled "lateral transfer" under this policy. These historical documents are fascinating. Defendants intend to present the most relevant of these documents at trial.

7 ambiguities and problems, in the PRRs in particular, which, as in this case, might not surface until years or decades later. Now, in this action, more than sixty years after the Ordinance was adopted and approved by the voters of Ventura County, the Court has the responsibility to take a comprehensive look at the evidence presented from both sides, in order to make a determination as to what the Ordinance allows. Then, the Court must decide if the Keenan appointment complied with the Ordinance. Finally, should the Court determine that the Keenan appointment did not comply with the Ordinance, the Court must then determine whether voiding that appointment, as Plaintiffs have requested, is the appropriate remedy. This will not be an easy undertaking, but to reach the answers, a thorough examination of the evidence is essential. F. Defendants Have Misapplied Local Agency Personnel Standards. Defendants claim that Title, California Code of Regulations, section 8 "specifically authorizefs] transfers between public agencies without examination." Moving Papers, p., lines -.) This is true. But what Defendants leave out is that this regulation, which is contained in Chapter of Division, is applicable only to local agencies that are part of the Interagency Merit System ("IMS"). (See CCR 00.) The IMS is a network of counties that are overseen by Merit Systems Services ("MSS"), the entity charged with ensuring that counties adhere to federal merit principles (which is a requirement to obtain certain kinds of federal funding). Ventura County has its own civil service system; it is not a member of the Interagency Merit System, and thus Section 8 has no application to Ventura County. (C. Vanarelli Decl., If. See Exh. F.) Counties in the IMS are small counties, presumably without the resources to administer their own civil service or merit systems. MSS works with the IMS counties on a daily basis on issues such as recruiting, discipline, layoffs, transfers, appeals, etc. such that there is a common 8

8 set of standards for all IMS counties. So it makes sense that a person working in one IMS county can transfer, without examination, to a like position in another IMS county. But that logic has no application to the situation here where we have Kelly Keenan, a former employee of Fresno County (a non-ims county) resigning his position in Fresno County and being hired in Ventura County (another non-ims county). What assurances do the taxpayers of Ventura County have, that Kelly Keenan would have scored higher than all of the people on the existing eligible list, or that he would have even passed Ventura County's civil service examination at all? None. That is why this thing that Defendants call the "lateral transfer process" is an illegal end-run around the competitive examination process mandated by the Ordinance. G. Other Counties' Rules and Practices Defendants also assert, without substantial evidence, that Santa Barbara County and Placer County both allow employees from other public agencies that operate under merit systems to be appointed to positions without examination. Even if this is true, so what? Ventura County is not Santa Barbara County. Ventura County is not Placer County. Whatever the laws and rules are in other counties, in Ventura County, we have a law that tells us, once again: "The purpose of this article is to establish and maintain an employment relationship between the County and its employees which will promote and increase economy and efficiency in thecounty service. In order to achieve and foster this end each position must be filled with the best qualified person available. Except as otherwise provided herein appointments shall be made solely on the basis of merit and fitness ascertained through practical and competitive examinations." (Ordinance,. Emphasis added.) H. An evidentiary showing is necessary for the Court to determine the appropriate remedy in the event the Court finds that the Keenan Appointment violated the Ordinance. 8 MSS also conducts periodic audits of non-ims counties, such as the 0 audit of Ventura County reflected in Defendants' Exhibit to their moving papers. For more information, see Defendants' Exhibit and also refer to the MSS Web site at 8

9 As has been discussed in the moving papers and this opposition, the Ordinance sets forth certain mandates, and authorizes the County to adopt rules and regulations to carry out those mandates. (Ordinance, -.) But neither the Civil Service Ordinance nor the PRRs give any instruction on what to do when an appointment to a civil service position is later determined to be unauthorized by law. In this case, Plaintiff intends to establish that the Keenan appointment was unlawful. But then, what is the Court to do with that finding? Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Keenan appointment is void. Is this the appropriate remedy? To answer that question, the Court must determine whether the Keenan appointment, though unlawful, was nonetheless made and accepted in good faith. The Ordinance contains all the same principles, and much of the same language, as is found in the State Service Act (Gov. Code, 800 et seq.), which governs California state civil service. This includes, for example, a requirement in state civil service, identical to the requirement under the Ventura County Civil Service Ordinance, that "Appointments are based upon merit and fitness ascertained through practical and competitive examination." (Gov. Code, 800(c)().) At least one published case has held that when the language of a local civil service ordinance is comparable to the language in the State Civil Service Act, a showing of sufficient similarity will make the principles laid down under the California State Civil Service Act applicable to the local civil service system. (Reed v. City Council ofroseville () 0 Cal.App.d 8,.) Thus, because the Ventura County Civil Service Ordinance mirrors the State Civil Service Act, we can look to State Civil Service Act, and its implementing regulations, for guidance when our own ordinance and rules are silent as to a particular issue, as is the case with the issue of how to correct an unlawful appointment. Title, California Code of Regulations section provides: 8 Notably, the State of California, on its employment Web site, expressly explains, that employees of the federal government, employees of counties, employees of the legislature, and employees of the CSU system, among other, are not eligible to "transfer" into state civil service because those people "are not part of the State of California Civil Service System." (See Exh. G, p., #s - under "Other Questions".)

10 "When the Department determines that an appointment is unlawful, the Department shall determine the good faith of the - appointing power and the employee under section and shall take corrective action up to and including voiding the appointment, provided that: (a) No corrective action shall be taken on any appointment which has been in effect for one year or longer if both the appointing power and the employee acted in good faith; and (b) No corrective action shall be taken on any appointment which has been in effect for five years or longer unless: () the employee acted in other than good faith; or () the Department determines that the rights of another 0 employee are significantly endangered by the retention of the appointment in question. When an unlawful appointment is terminated or corrected, the employee who acted in good faith shall retain only the compensation as defined in section. In all cases, compensation shall be corrected on a prospective basis. The employee who acted in other than good faith shall reimburse all compensation resulting from the appointment. The Board in reviewing cases on appeal may, based upon the evidence, provide for less than full reimbursement of compensation." Title, California Code of Regulations section provides: "To be valid, a civil service appointment must be made and 0 accepted in 'good faith' under the civil service statutes and Board regulations. (a) In order to make an appointment in 'good faith,' an appointing power and all officers or employees to whom an appointing power delegates appointment authority must: () Intend to observe the spirit and intent of the law; and i~\~ () Make a reasonable and serious attempt to determine ~ f- how the law should be applied; and () Assure that positions are properly classified; and 8 0

11 () Assure that appointees have appropriate civil service appointment eligibility; and () Intend to employ the appointee in the class, tenure and location to which appointed under the conditions reflected by the appointment document; and () Make a reasonable and serious attempt to provide the relevant reference materials, training, and supervision g necessary to avoid any mistakes of law or fact to the persons responsible for the pertinent personnel transactions; and () Act in a manner that does not improperly diminish the rights and privileges of other persons affected by the appointment, including other eligibles. 0 Any officer or employee who violates any of the foregoing provisions of this regulation, or any other officer or employee in a position of authority who directs any officer or employee to violate any of these provisions, shall be subject to civil or criminal sanctions as provided in Government Code sections 80, 8, 8, 8,, as well as adverse action as provided in Government Code sections, 8., or 8. (b) In order to accept an appointment in 'good faith,' an employee must:, () Intend to serve in the class to which the employee is being appointed under the tenure, location and other s elements of the appointment as reflected by the appointment document; and () Provide the appointing power with complete, factual, and truthful information necessary for a proper ]_ appointment; and () Make a reasonable attempt to seek correction of any aspects of the appointment that the employee knows are illegal. Violation of any of the foregoing provisions of this section by an employee shall be cause for adverse action. If a lack of good faith exists on the part of either the appointing power or the employee, the Executive Officer may cancel the improper appointment without regard to the one-year limitation set 8

12 forth in Government Code section. subject to the provisions of section." ( CCR.) Thus, under established civil service principles, the issue of good faith must be determined in order for the Court to make a determination as to whether, should the appointment of Mr. Keenan be deemed unlawful, declaring the appointment void is the appropriate correction. The evidence at trial will show that the Keenan appointment was not made in good faith on the part of the Defendants or Mr. Keenan. III. CONCLUSION As the record in this case reveals, Defendants have done everything in their power to prevent the facts giving rise to Plaintiffs complaint from coming to light. This is because the evidence is not favorable to Defendants. Discovery has been a constant battle. Notably, Defendants did not file a motion for summary judgment in this case but instead want the Court to grant judgment on the pleadings. And why? Because if Defendants requested summary judgment, Plaintiff would be able respond by putting some real evidence before the Court. And that is the last thing Defendants want to have happen, because they know exactly what they did; they know it was wrong; they know that the evidence will show that some of the players in this story were merely negligent in failing to comply with the law, but that others knowingly made - o 0 8 absolutely no attempt to comply with the letter or the spirit of the law, even once Plaintiff raised the issue (which was well before Mr. Keenan began work and plenty of time to cure the problem). Now, Defendants take one more shot at avoiding trial, with this motion for judgment on the pleadings in which Defendants seek to deprive Plaintiff of its day in court. Plaintiff, and the citizens of Ventura County, are entitled to have the Court see what happened here and to have the Court determine whether Defendants have violated the law. The Court cannot make a determination of the propriety of the Keenan appointment without a full presentation of the evidence, which will include a showing of: () history and objectives of civil service systems; () legislative history of relevant parts of the Ordinance; ()

13 meaning of the term "transfer" as used in the Ordinance; () common features of civil service systems; () public policy in California relative to public employment and civil service systems; and finally () the facts giving rise to Plaintiffs complaint here (the process of appointing Mr. Keenan). Based on all of the foregoing, Plaintiff requests the Court deny Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests leave to amend the Complaint. 0 / Respectfully submitted, Dated: \.\<J^\-^^\. ' CHRISTINAVANARELLI,INC. A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION By: Christina Vanarelli, Attorney for CRIMINAL JUSTICE ATTORNEYS' ASSOCIATION OF VENTURA COUNTY 8 0 8

14 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINA VANARELLI I, Christina Vanarelli, declare:. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in California and representing plaintiff, Criminal Justice Attorneys' Association of Ventura County, in the above-captioned matter. The following facts are true of my own personal knowledge and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to those facts.. As part of my investigation into the facts of this case, I served a subpoena on the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for all of the legislative history of the Ordinance and the PRRs. My review of those documents reveals that the term "lateral transfer" has never appeared in any version of the Ordinance or PRRs that has ever existed. Further, my review revealed that beginning in the 0s, amendments to the PRRs appear to have been made "to bring the rules into compliance with current practice," without a thorough analysis of whether the "current practice" complied with the Ordinance.. In addition to representing Plaintiff in this action, I am also representing Plaintiff in proceedings before the Ventura County Civil Service Commission, which I commenced on Plaintiffs behalf in late 0. Attached as Exhibit B to the Request for Judicial Notice filed concurrently herewith is a true and complete copy of the Request for Investigation that I submitted to the Civil Service Commission, commencing those proceedings. The original of this document is maintained by the Civil Service Commission as part of its official records.. In response to Plaintiffs request for investigation, and over the objection of Defendants herein, the Civil Service Commission commenced an investigation into the propriety of appointing people to the classified service by the so-called "lateral transfer process," without them having undergone a competitive examination. I was present representing Plaintiff at all of the Civil Service Commission Hearings that have been conducted to date in furtherance of this investigation. Exhibit C, attached to Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice, filed and served concurrently herewith, is a true and accurate recording of the Civil Service Commission investigation hearing conducted on November, 0, which I obtained from the Civil Service Commission. Exhibit D to the Request for Judicial Notice filed and served concurrently

15 herewith is a transcript of part of that recording, covering the timeframe from : to : on the recording. I prepared the transcript myself and double-checked it to be sure it is accurate.. Discovery in this case has revealed that at least one individual appointed as a "lateral transfer" within the District Attorney's Office did participate in a competitive examination process, and became eligible for hire based on his score. Plaintiff has no issue with this appointment, or any other so-called "lateral transfer" who becomes eligible for appointment on the basis of a competitive examination.. In opposition to Plaintiffs request for the Civil Service Commission investigation, Defendants, on October 0, 0, submitted to the Civil Service Commission a letter, in which Defendants explain that the Keenan appointment was made pursuant to a certain County administrative policy entitled "Lateral Transfer from Outside the County Service." (Chapter VIII(A), Policy No., the "Administrative Policy." A true and complete copy of that letter, the original of which is maintained in the records of the Civil Service Commission, is attached as Exhibit E to the Request for Judicial Notice filed and served concurrently herewith.. Attached as Exhibit F to the Request for Judicial Notice, filed and served concurrently herewith is a printout of the "Counties" page of the official Web site of Merit System Services ("MSS") ( listing all of the Interagency Merit System ("IMS") counties. 8. Attached as Exhibit G to the Request for Judicial Notice filed and served concurrently herewith is a printout from the State of California's official Web site, covering frequently asked questions for people seeking to work for the State of California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 8 Christina Vanarelli

16 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address) Christina Vanarelli (88) CHRISTINA VANARELLI, INC. A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION County Square Drive, Suite 0C Ventura, CA 00-0 TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO. (Optional) ADDRESS fop(/ona/;christina@yourventuracountylawyer.com ATTORNEY FOR f^mei Plaintiff, CRIMINAL JUSTICE ATTORNEYS' ASSOC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA STREET ADDRESS 800 S. VictOHa AV. MAILING ADDRESS 800 S. Victoria Ave. CITY AND ZIP CODE Ventura, CA 00 BRANCH NAME Hall of Justice - Civil Division PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:CRIMINAL JUSTICE ATTORNEYS' ASSOCIATION OF VENTURA COUNTY RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:COUNTY OF VENTURA et al. FOR COURT USE ONLY POS-00 PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL CIVIL CASE NUMBER: CU-OE-VTA (Do not use this Proof of Service to show service of a Summons and Complaint.). I am over 8 years of age and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place.. My residence or business address is: County Square Drive, Suite 0C, Ventura, CA 00. On (date): 0/0/0 I mailed from (city and state): Ventura, CA the following documents (specify): PLAINTIFF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ATTORNEYS' ASSOCIATION OF VENTURA COUNTY'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF VENTURA AND GREGORY D. TOTTEN'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; DECLARATION OF CHRISTINA VANARELLI I I The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mail Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-00(D)).. I served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and (check one): a. I / I depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid. b. I I placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: Matthew A. Smith, Attorney for County of Ventura and Gregory D. Totten b. Address of person served: Ventura County Counsel's Office County Government Center 800 South Victoria Avenue, L/C #80 Ventura, CA 00 I I The name and address of each person to whom I mailed the documents is listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mail Civil (Persons Served) (POS-00(P)). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: October,0 Christina Vanarelli (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM) Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California POS-00 [New January, 00] PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL CIVIL (Proof of Service) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM) Code of Civil Procedure, 0, 0a