Suing a hearing officer
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2025 8:56 am
Suing a hearing officer is tricky. The law looks at them like judges. As slimy as most of them are, be careful. Get tips and law from these failures.
As bad, evil, corrupt as a hearing officer may be, they are difficult to hold responsible for their bad acts. It may take deep research to find a way.
If you are looking to sue a hearing officer. Here is what you need to plead to do so.
Patel v. City of Stanton, Dist. Court, CD California 2025
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=2006
Christina Snyder Senior District Judge (very good judge)
"In addition to lack of notice, plaintiffs appear to argue that their due process claim is based on the theory articulated by the California Supreme Court in Haas. Haas found that the practice of "selecting temporary administrative hearing officers on an ad hoc basis and paying them according to the duration or amount of work performed... gives hearing officers an impermissible financial interest in the outcome of the cases they are appointed to decide." See Haas. 27 Cal. 4th at 1020. Other district courts have applied Haas. See, e.g., Stokes v. City of Visalia, No. 1:17-cv-01350-DAD-SAB, 2017 WL 6344416, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2017) (finding that plaintiff satisfied the "likelihood of success on the merits" prong of a preliminary injunction motion based on Haas by raising "serious questions" as to the legality of city's employment scheme of a hearing officer); Lucky Dogs LLC v. City of Santa Rosa, 913 F. Supp. 2d 853, 860 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (striking down city's system of unilaterally selecting hearing officers and hiring them to renewable two year terms based on Haas because it "implicitly held out the possibility of future employment in exchange for favorable decisions")."
"Here, however, plaintiffs do not sufficiently state a claim based on Haas. Plaintiffs allege that Palacios was "unilaterally chosen by the City to act as the outside administrative hearing officer and paid by the City to do so, and Plaintiffs had no choice in the matter." FAC ΒΆ 32. Plaintiffs do not allege that Palacios was paid "according to the duration or amount of work [he] performed" or that he held "an impermissible financial interest in the outcome" of plaintiffs' case. See Haas. 27 Cal. 4th at 1020. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs again fail to adequately plead a Haas claim, and that dismissal is warranted."
Hint hint... you need to plead all that Haas established.
Just to be clear, some defendants learned that by 2021 Elio Palacios has acted as a hearing officer more than 20 times for the City of Desert Hot Springs. He ruled for the City no matter the circumstances every time. A citizen may do a public records request to find out all about administrative citations at every or any city. This can be used for discovery before you go to trial.
Also see
Koslow v. DATA TICKET INC., Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist.,
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=2006
Koslow v. City of Cathedral City, Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=2006
As bad, evil, corrupt as a hearing officer may be, they are difficult to hold responsible for their bad acts. It may take deep research to find a way.
If you are looking to sue a hearing officer. Here is what you need to plead to do so.
Patel v. City of Stanton, Dist. Court, CD California 2025
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=2006
Christina Snyder Senior District Judge (very good judge)
"In addition to lack of notice, plaintiffs appear to argue that their due process claim is based on the theory articulated by the California Supreme Court in Haas. Haas found that the practice of "selecting temporary administrative hearing officers on an ad hoc basis and paying them according to the duration or amount of work performed... gives hearing officers an impermissible financial interest in the outcome of the cases they are appointed to decide." See Haas. 27 Cal. 4th at 1020. Other district courts have applied Haas. See, e.g., Stokes v. City of Visalia, No. 1:17-cv-01350-DAD-SAB, 2017 WL 6344416, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2017) (finding that plaintiff satisfied the "likelihood of success on the merits" prong of a preliminary injunction motion based on Haas by raising "serious questions" as to the legality of city's employment scheme of a hearing officer); Lucky Dogs LLC v. City of Santa Rosa, 913 F. Supp. 2d 853, 860 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (striking down city's system of unilaterally selecting hearing officers and hiring them to renewable two year terms based on Haas because it "implicitly held out the possibility of future employment in exchange for favorable decisions")."
"Here, however, plaintiffs do not sufficiently state a claim based on Haas. Plaintiffs allege that Palacios was "unilaterally chosen by the City to act as the outside administrative hearing officer and paid by the City to do so, and Plaintiffs had no choice in the matter." FAC ΒΆ 32. Plaintiffs do not allege that Palacios was paid "according to the duration or amount of work [he] performed" or that he held "an impermissible financial interest in the outcome" of plaintiffs' case. See Haas. 27 Cal. 4th at 1020. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs again fail to adequately plead a Haas claim, and that dismissal is warranted."
Hint hint... you need to plead all that Haas established.
Just to be clear, some defendants learned that by 2021 Elio Palacios has acted as a hearing officer more than 20 times for the City of Desert Hot Springs. He ruled for the City no matter the circumstances every time. A citizen may do a public records request to find out all about administrative citations at every or any city. This can be used for discovery before you go to trial.
Also see
Koslow v. DATA TICKET INC., Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist.,
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=2006
Koslow v. City of Cathedral City, Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_sdt=2006