Chung v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Daniel Chung, then a deputy district attorney, wrote and published an opinion piece about criminal-justice issues. He prepared and sent the piece using work time, a work computer, and his work email. The published piece identified him as a Santa Clara County deputy district attorney, expressed views contrary to positions of District Attorney Jeffrey F. Rosen and the District Attorney’s Office, and did not include a disclaimer that the views were personal.

After publication, Chung was reassigned, investigated, and disciplined. The investigation resulted in a recommended 10-day suspension, which was later upheld. Chung’s union appealed the suspension through arbitration under the County Charter and collective bargaining agreement. Arbitrator Alexander Cohn found just cause for discipline but reduced the suspension to five working days. The arbitrator considered Chung’s argument that the discipline violated his First Amendment rights and rejected that argument. The Santa Clara County Superior Court later confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment on October 25, 2022.

Chung filed this federal action against the County and Rosen. The County was dismissed without leave to amend. The remaining claim alleged that Rosen, in his individual capacity, violated federal civil-rights law by retaliating against Chung for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. Chung alleged that the retaliation included reassignments, suspension, administrative leave, and security alerts.

Arguments on Summary Judgment

Rosen moved for summary judgment under Rule 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Rosen argued that claim preclusion, also called res judicata, and issue preclusion prevented Chung from pursuing the federal claim because the same facts and issues had already been litigated and finally decided in the arbitration and resulting state-court judgment.

Chung opposed the motion. He argued that Rosen should be judicially estopped, meaning prevented from taking a position inconsistent with an earlier position, because the County had argued in arbitration that the First Amendment claim should not be decided there. Chung also argued that claim preclusion did not apply because the arbitration concerned his employment rights and suspension, while the federal case sought damages for reputational harm.

Judicial Estoppel

The court rejected Chung’s judicial-estoppel argument. It found that Rosen and the County were not the same party and that Chung cited no authority establishing that they were legally aligned for this purpose. The court also found that the County had not succeeded in persuading the arbitrator to exclude the First Amendment issue. Instead, the arbitrator considered the issue and rejected Chung’s retaliation argument. Because the County had not obtained the benefit of its earlier position, the court concluded that Rosen was not barred from asserting claim preclusion.

Claim Preclusion

The court applied California’s claim-preclusion rules. Those rules require: (1) the party being precluded was a party to, or legally connected to a party in, the earlier proceeding; (2) the later case involves the same cause of action; and (3) the earlier proceeding ended in a final judgment on the merits.

Before applying those requirements, the court examined whether the arbitration had enough judicial character to support preclusion. The court found that it did. The parties had lawyers, presented arguments and evidence, examined and cross-examined witnesses under oath, participated in a two-day hearing before a mutually selected decision-maker, and received a written decision based on a transcribed record. The court also found that the dispute was properly before the arbitrator under the County Charter and collective bargaining agreement and that Chung had an adequate opportunity to litigate his First Amendment position. Although the arbitrator limited some First Amendment issues to argument, Chung presented evidence and arguments about retaliation, and the arbitrator considered and rejected the defense.

The court found all three claim-preclusion requirements satisfied. Chung participated in the arbitration and was connected to the union that formally appealed his suspension. The arbitration and federal case involved the same alleged injury and conduct: discipline imposed in response to Chung’s opinion piece and alleged retaliation for his speech. The court concluded that different requested damages did not create a different cause of action. Finally, the confirmed arbitration award and the state-court judgment constituted a final judgment on the merits.

Disposition

The court granted Rosen’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It held that judicial estoppel did not prevent Rosen from making his argument and that claim preclusion barred Chung’s previously adjudicated First Amendment retaliation claim.

Judge

The order was signed by Araceli Martinez-Olguin, United States District Judge.