Former San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who was ousted one year ago by the Board of Supervisors, has filed a claim against the county arguing it should pay for her defense in two civil cases against her related to her actions while sheriff.
“County officials who participated in the unlawful campaign to remove Sheriff Corpus from office have also participated in denying her a defense,” said attorney Thomas Mazzucco, who represents Corpus in the two pending cases. “The County is relying on its own disputed removal findings to justify that denial.”
Corpus was removed from office in November 2025, a year after the county hired a retired judge to investigate numerous complaints against her related to retaliation, intimidation and an alleged secret affair with her chief of staff. San Mateo County voters overwhelmingly approved a charter amendment in March 2025 that gave supervisors the temporary power to remove the sheriff, since she refused to step down.
Before she was officially ousted, her lawyers unsuccessfully tried to stop the removal process, claiming it was illegal.
In August 2025, as part of the removal process, a 10-day administrative hearing was conducted that gave Corpus the opportunity to defend herself against multiple allegations of misconduct. The judge overseeing the hearing upheld allegations that she engaged in retaliation against members of the Sheriff’s Office and had a conflict of interest in the hiring of her chief of staff Victor Aenlle.
The county paid for Corpus’ team of lawyers in the 10-day hearing.
Fast forward and Corpus has numerous pending lawsuits against her stemming from her time as sheriff, and now she’s filed a claim against the county challenging its refusal to pay for her defense attorney fees in two cases brought against her by Sheriff’s Office employees who worked with her.
“The County’s refusal violates its obligations under the Government Code,” said attorney James Quadra of Quadra & Coll LLP, who represents Corpus in her claim against the county, in a statement. “The record described in this claim shows retaliation is driving the decision, rather than an impartial application of the law. Officials cannot turn their hostility toward a former sheriff into a lawful basis for forcing her to personally finance the defense of claims arising from her public service.”
Two lawsuits fuel dispute over legal fees
The claim refers to two pending civil cases brought against Corpus — one filed by sheriff deputies’ union president Carlos Tapia and the other filed by Valerie Barnes, a former friend and coworker.
Tapia has accused Corpus of unlawful arrest after she authorized he be taken into custody on suspicion of timecard fraud. Tapia was a vocal critic of Corpus, and his arrest was seen by some as an example of retaliation. The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office later dropped all charges against him.
In the suit brought by Barnes, she’s accused Corpus of discrimination and retaliation for Barnes’ disapproval of the hiring of Aenlle. Barnes knew about Corpus’ alleged affair with Aenlle, a reserve officer who helped on Corpus’ campaign, before Corpus took office.
“Before taking office, Corpus directed Ms. Barnes to research Maui wedding venues for Corpus and her lover, Victor Aenlle, procure alcohol for Corpus and Aenlle’s lunch meetings, conceal bags of condoms in her office, and clean up residue of what appeared to be crushed white pills with blue speckles in Corpus’s workspace,” Barnes’ complaint reads.
Both suits are still underway. Since May, the county has declined to pay for Corpus’ defense or reimbursement for legal fees in both suits, according to the claim filed against the county.
Corpus’ attorneys are arguing that since some the actions described in the lawsuits were conducted within the scope of her employment as sheriff, the county is responsible for paying for her defense.
California Government Code section 995 requires public entities, upon request, to provide a defense for current and former employees sued over conduct within the scope of their public employment, subject to specified exceptions.
The county said it acknowledges the claim and maintains that Corpus is responsible for the legal costs associated with the suits. The county did not comment further.
Corpus’ attorneys argue that the county is biased in its decision not to cover her defense.
In the lawsuit filed by Tapia, members of Corpus’ former executive team are also named as defendants — former Undersheriff Dan Perea and former Acting Assistant Sheriff Matthew Fox.
The county also didn’t pay for Perea’s defense but agreed to cover Fox’s legal defense fees.
Fox was in charge of the investigation into suspected timecard fraud from Tapia, and Perea ordered Tapia’s arrest, according to court documents and testimony from the administrative removal hearing.
“The County is funding a defense for the investigator who says he believed the evidence supported probable cause to arrest Tapia, while denying a defense to Corpus and Perea, who relied on that investigation,” said attorney Christopher J. Rillo, who represents Perea, in a statement. “Those admissions directly bear on their defense. The County’s selective treatment raises serious questions about whether it is evaluating these requests fairly.”
The claim seeks reimbursement for past and future lawyer fees incurred by Corpus as a result of the two lawsuits.
