UKIAH, CA., 5/16/25 – Mendocino County and its Board of Supervisors have quietly asked a judge to move the civil case filed against them by Mendocino County Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector Chamise Cubbison to Marin County.
The motion to transfer venue, filed on April 28, asserts that local news outlets and the judge herself have made it impossible for the case to be decided “on neutral terrain.”
Earlier this year, Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Ann Moorman dismissed felony criminal charges brought by District Attorney David Eyster against Cubbison and former county payroll manager Paula Kennedy, alleging that the pair misappropriated $68,000 in public funds in the form of extra pay for Kennedy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Cubbison and Kennedy maintained their innocence for 17 months while the case limped along toward a preliminary hearing — a procedure for testing the merits of criminal charges and deciding whether the evidence justifies moving forward with a trial.
After hearing testimony from key county officials, Moorman dismissed the criminal case, finding that the payments to Kennedy were “completely transparent” and that the evidence was “vastly insufficient for the Court to find that anybody acted with criminal negligence.”
Meanwhile Cubbison, who was suspended without pay on Oct. 17, 2023, filed her own civil lawsuit against the county and the Board of Supervisors shortly after her suspension, seeking reinstatement, back pay and benefits.
The civil lawsuit, technically a petition for writ of mandate, argues that the Board of Supervisors did not have the legal power to suspend Cubbison without pay without giving her a hearing first. Although Cubbison was reinstated on Feb. 26 of this year, the day after the criminal charges were dismissed, the county and the supervisors have not compensated her for the lost time.
Because the case presents a purely legal question regarding the supervisors’ power and the procedure used to suspend Cubbison, her entitlement to back pay and benefits will ultimately be decided by Moorman, not by a jury.
At the last hearing in the civil case, a status conference in early April of this year, both sides agreed to meet and try to agree on deposition and discovery issues before final arguments on the writ petition. The judge set the next status conference for June 9.
Then in late April, the county and the Board of Supervisors filed a massive motion to transfer venue, complete with 356 exhibits consisting mainly of local news articles and letters to the editor.
These exhibits, the lawyers argue, demonstrate the local media’s “consistent and unwavering bias in favor of Petitioner [Cubbison] and against the County and Board of Supervisors and reflect the media’s “countless hours speculating, sensationalizing, and promoted unsubstantiated claims against the County.”
As a result, the motion argues, “it would be difficult to find a person in the County who has not already developed an opinion on Petitioner’s criminal case — and by extension an opinion on her writ proceeding.”
The motion also argues that Cubbison’s lawyers have had “improper ex parte communications” with the judge and issued “inflammatory statements to the press,” and that the judge herself has shown bias against the county by, for example, referring to Cubbison as a “whistleblower” and saying “that county officials were cruel” in the criminal proceedings.
In language unusual in a civil filing, particularly in a case whose outcome will be decided by the judge reading the motion papers, the county argues that “the Court seemingly took every opportunity [in the criminal case] to make repeated, unnecessary, and disparaging remarks about the County.”
In a typical motion to transfer venue, the moving party introduces evidence of negative press to show that the jury pool is tainted and to argue that it is impossible to find impartial jurors. Here, if Moorman was to grant the motion, she would be making a finding that she herself could not be impartial.
The venue motion is scheduled to be heard on June 20 at 9:30 a.m. in Mendocino County Superior Court in Ukiah. Counsel for Cubbison did not return requests for comment or indicate if or when she will be filing a response to the motion.
The truth does hurt, doesn’t it?
Judge Ann Moorman skillfully dealt with our County officials’ willful ignorance issues to finally sort out what is truth and fiction during the hearing process. Unfortunately, it took 17 months to make that determination and to correctly dismiss the DA C. David Eyster lawsuit.
Now, the County is looking for a more receptive audience by a change of venue, and I suggest they need to go a lot further away than Marin County to find one. It used to be when we raised kids like these, we would tell them to admit they were wrong and accept the consequences. After 17 months of lies, distortion and misrepresentation the Judge confirmed they were wrong, so I suggest you accept the consequences.
And I would like to remind these folks, it’s not your money you spending in this process, it is our, the taxpayers’, money. You are acting irresponsibly by not paying the lost salary and benefits to Chamise Cubbison after the lawsuit was dismissed last February. And, we are still going to have pony up for your character assassination of this individual. I personally would prefer you stop trying to perfume the pig, and make better use of our tax dollars.
I suggest you stay here, and face the music.
$68K allegedly fraud. By some “code.” Get a grip. And not on the tiny thing you’re tryin’ to swing, Mr. Eyesore? How much has this lawsuit cost us?
This is pretty sad. Though it isn’t always the case, it seems that a fairly clear picture of what happened here was established as a result of the court case. And that people being angry about the exposed abuse by supposed civil servants is now portrayed as bias is pretty pathetic. But I guess a hail mary to try to obfuscate the facts in a new venue by this crew shouldn’t be a surprise. The really unfortunate thing is that rather than trying to deal with this head on, this behavior will just put another nail in the coffin of public trust in government.
“The motion to transfer venue, filed on April 28, asserts that local news outlets and the judge herself have made it impossible for the case to be decided “on neutral terrain.””
I wholly refute this intentionally distorted statement.
Actions of a spurious nature, bold incompetence, willful & intentional ignorance, hubris, & lack of responsible action by the BOS, County Upper Management (individuals & concerted action), & the DA’s Office have spawned & distorted much of this situation.
Interesting that those that are tasked with holding others to account appear to lack the gumption and sack necessary to step up and admit fault & responsibility like they expect others to do.
A den of vipers making boucoup $ wasting our $.
Fire them all.
I knew all along that these corrupt individuals would ask for that! I can tell you the corruption here in Mendocino County has been overwhelming all of my life and I’m 68! Back in Reno Bartlomays (sorry if misspelled) days it was no different than what it is now and you would have thought that things will get better but no they just got worse. The Board of Supervisors and the DA have made an art out of corruption!
A county DA that wastes taxpayer money & targets the ‘whistleblower’ that calls him out, is corrupt in the eyes of most people, no matter where they live.
This attempt to move the case, smacks of the same ‘judge shopping’ tactic used by fascists in our national government.
Being flagrantly criminal should not allow someone to get preferential treatment.
Mendocino is in far worse trouble with this new suit, Hart vs Mendocino-25-cv-04501-RMI. Where is the accountability in this County?
Which Supes are up for reelection next year? Any of them who continue to support this ongoing travesty should be voted out of office.
The recent decision by Judge Ann Moorman to deny Mendocino County’s request for a change of venue in the Cubbison civil case highlights ongoing defensive legal tactics used by the county to resist accountability. However, a concurrent federal civil rights lawsuit against Mendocino County reveals a far more extensive and systemic pattern of constitutional violations, including deliberate medical neglect, fabricated charges, prolonged retaliatory solitary confinement, unlawful seizure and destruction of property, and widespread abuses of power by county officials acting under color of law.
This federal case, currently pending before Judge RMI in the Northern District of California under case number 25-cv-04501-RMI, subjects Mendocino County to heightened federal scrutiny that surpasses the local procedural disputes evident in the Cubbison matter. The federal court’s involvement ensures impartial judicial oversight over serious allegations that expose deep institutional failures and legal misconduct within the county’s law enforcement and judicial systems.
Unlike local litigation focused primarily on venue and media coverage concerns, the federal lawsuit challenges the fundamental integrity of Mendocino County’s policies and practices, bringing to light ongoing violations of civil rights and disability protections. Its progression signals a critical opportunity for systemic reform and accountability, marking a significant legal threat to the county’s authority that cannot be dismissed through procedural maneuvers or localized defenses.
Together, these cases underscore a judiciary resistant to transparency, but it is the federal case that demands urgent and thorough examination to protect the constitutional rights of individuals subjected to Mendocino County’s jurisdiction.