The California Court of Appeal recently ruled against three former deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in their attempt to enforce settlement agreements related to their discharges for alleged misconduct. The court’s decision, filed on October 30, 2026, affects the deputies—David Jouzi, Benjamin Alvarado, and Dellanira Aragon—and their recognized employee organization, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS). This ruling is significant as it clarifies the authority of department officials to settle disciplinary actions without the approval of the county's Board of Supervisors.

The case stems from the deputies' discharges, which occurred after they were served with letters of intent detailing their alleged misconduct. They appealed their discharges to the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission. While their appeals were pending, the deputies entered into settlements with department chiefs that purported to reinstate them. However, the County of Los Angeles refused to comply with these agreements, leading the deputies and ALADS to file a lawsuit against the county seeking enforcement of the settlements through various legal claims.

The initial trial court proceedings involved the deputies filing a verified petition for writ of mandate and a complaint against the county. The trial court sustained the county’s demurrers without leave to amend, ruling that the settlement agreements were void because they had not been approved by the county counsel, who has exclusive control over civil actions involving the county. The deputies appealed this decision, leading to a prior ruling by the Court of Appeal that instructed the trial court to allow them to amend their pleadings.

Upon remand, the deputies filed several amended petitions, but the trial court ultimately sustained the county’s demurrers again, concluding that the chiefs who executed the settlements lacked the authority to do so under California law. The court found that the deputies failed to demonstrate that the chiefs were acting under the authority of the Board of Supervisors or any legal authority conferred by law. This led to the deputies appealing the dismissal of their claims once more.

In its recent ruling, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, stating, "Petitioners have not demonstrated that the sheriff and his subordinates were authorized to bind the county to the settlements that are before us." The court rejected the deputies' arguments that the sheriff’s authority to manage personnel implicitly included the power to rescind or modify discipline during the pendency of civil service appeals. The court emphasized that allowing such an interpretation would undermine the objectives of the county’s civil service system, which aims to ensure that only competent individuals are employed and to prevent favoritism in hiring and disciplinary actions.

The court also dismissed the deputies' claims regarding a department manual provision that they argued conferred authority on division chiefs to settle commission appeals without the Board of Supervisors' approval. The court found that the deputies did not provide sufficient evidence that the county authorized those management representatives to execute agreements based on that manual provision. Additionally, the court ruled against the deputies' argument that the county was bound by past practices of allowing chiefs to settle appeals, stating that they failed to show that such practices complied with collective bargaining requirements.

As a result of this ruling, the deputies' attempts to enforce their settlement agreements have been denied, and the court has set a precedent regarding the limitations of authority for department officials in settling disciplinary actions. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to established procedures and the necessary approvals required for such settlements within the county's civil service framework.

Looking ahead, the former deputies may have limited options for further legal recourse. The court’s ruling effectively upholds the trial court’s dismissal, and while the deputies could potentially seek further review, the likelihood of success appears slim given the clarity of the court's reasoning. There are no indications in the court filing about any related cases pending that could impact this ruling.