MENDOCINO CO., 6/10/25 — Lawyers for a now-reinstated Mendocino County employee, whose public funds misappropriation case was dismissed by the court, have now filed a blistering response to the county’s request to move her civil case against the county to another venue.
Counsel for Mendocino County Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector Chamise Cubbison oppose moving her trial to Marin County.
A judge dismissed the felony charges against Cubbison and former Mendocino County payroll manager Paula Kennedy in February, but Cubbison then filed a civil suit seeking back pay and benefits.
The Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office alleged that Cubbison and Kennedy misappropriated $68,000 in public funds in the form of extra pay for Kennedy during the COVID pandemic.
The court found 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.”
Cubbison has since been reinstated to her job, but her civil case is dragging on. In an unusual move, the county and Board of Supervisors filed a lengthy motion to transfer venue in the case to Marin County in late April, arguing that local news outlets, the community, and the judge herself are biased against the defense
The motion is unusual because Cubbison’s case is technically a petition for writ of mandate, asking the judge to find that the county and BOS acted unlawfully in suspending Cubbison and ordering them to compensate her for back pay and benefits. The petition also seeks payment of Cubbison’s attorneys’ fees. Because the case poses only legal questions as to the county’s actions, the judge herself will decide who wins, rather than the matter coming before a jury.
In her own extensive set of papers opposing the motion to transfer, Cubbison argues that the request, made 17 months after Cubbison filed her case, is too late. The opposition also points out the unprecedented nature of the county’s request, given that no jury will be involved.
“The County cites to no case authority in which a motion to transfer venue was granted based on the potential influence of local publicity and public opinion in a writ proceeding to be decided by the court and not a jury,” Cubbison’s lawyers wrote.
The county, the opposition continues, is engaging in “blatant forum shopping.”
The hearing on the motion to change venue is set for June 20. Meanwhile, at a short status conference on Monday, Judge Moorman wondered out loud whether the appointment of a retired judge to hold a mandatory settlement conference might be a good option.
Both sides politely declined.
Cubbison’s counsel, Therese Cannata, told the judge that she did not think a settlement conference “would be productive” at this time, but that she and counsel for the county and BOS, Morin Jacob, would talk. Jacob, for her part, said that the county “is willing and has been willing to attend mediation,” presumably referring to a procedure where both sides pay for the services of a private mediator and put a hold on proceedings in the courtroom.
Private mediation is generally a more expensive and time-consuming process than the settlement conference apparatus available in the superior court. In an interview after the conference, Cannata said that her client was not interested in having a private mediator come in at this point.
Both sides have already filed briefs arguing the merits of their positions about what Cubbison is or is not due. Moorman told both parties to come to the June 20 hearing prepared to discuss whether any additional discovery or any more briefing on the merits is needed, assuming the case stays in Mendocino County.