Mykles v. State Personnel Board CA3

Filed 6/12/25 Mykles v. State Personnel Board CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- EARL N. MYKLES, C101271 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CV-UF- 2021-0003191) v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. In 2007, plaintiff Earl N. Mykles was terminated by his employer, the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). Mykles appealed the termination to defendant State Personnel Board (SPB). In 2011, SPB approved a settlement of Mykles’s claims. In 2021, Mykles filed suit against SPB, alleging that it had defrauded him and deprived him of his due process rights in the adjudication of his dispute with SCIF by failing to tell him he could have pursued his claims against SCIF with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and failing to inform PERB about his claims. 1  The trial court sustained SPB’s demurrer and dismissed Mykles’s suit without leave to amend, finding numerous deficiencies in his complaint. We conclude that the court correctly determined that Mykles’s claims were untimely and therefore affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing this matter on demurrer, we take the facts from the operative complaint and deem its allegations to be true for the purpose of determining whether it states a viable cause of action. (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 885.) We may also consider facts of which the trial court properly took judicial notice. (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 877; see also Evid. Code, § 459, subd. (a).) Mykles began working at SCIF in 1989. In 2006, SCIF asked Mykles to attend work improvement plan meetings regarding his job performance. SCIF terminated his employment on March 20, 2007. Represented by counsel provided by his union, Mykles appealed his termination and filed a separate whistleblower retaliation complaint with SPB. In 2011, the parties resolved their dispute, and SPB approved their stipulated settlement agreement. Under the settlement, Mykles received a monetary payment, among other benefits, in exchange for a general release of known and unknown claims and a waiver of Civil Code section 1542, among other concessions. On March 20, 2013, Mykles learned that he could pursue a claim for unfair practices against SCIF with PERB based on the facts in his original two claims. He filed a claim with PERB in 2013; it was closed without prejudice that same year. Mykles also filed a lawsuit against the union and his union-provided legal counsel, alleging that he would not have agreed to the settlement with SCIF if counsel had informed him that he could file an unfair practice charge with PERB. The lawsuit was dismissed, and this court affirmed. (Mykles v. Williams (Mar. 1, 2017, C079338) [nonpub. opn.].) 2  In June 2018, Mykles filed another claim with PERB challenging SCIF’s actions. PERB rejected the claim as untimely under the applicable six-month statute of limitations. On April 13, 2021, Mykles filed the present action against SPB, alleging negligence, fraud, denial of due process, usurpation of PERB’s jurisdiction, conflict of interest, and discrimination. The trial court granted SPB’s motion for judgment on the pleadings but gave Mykles leave to amend. In August 2022, Mykles filed the operative amended complaint. The complaint generally alleged that SPB acted fraudulently in adjudicating his claims against, and approving the settlement with, SCIF by, among other things, unlawfully exercising jurisdiction over the dispute without consulting with PERB (the agency with jurisdiction over the matter) and improperly approving a settlement that included a waiver of future claims. Based on this alleged misconduct, the amended complaint pleaded two causes of action: “Fraud on the PERB Court” and the denial of a property interest (his employment) without due process of law. Mykles’s due process claim additionally alleged that Government Code section 3520, subdivision