San Mateo County executive files $10.5 million claim against embattled sheriff

In the latest in a slew of legal battles, San Mateo County Executive Mike Callagy filed a $10.5 million defamation claim against embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus, her former Chief of Staff Victor Aenlle, and the county.

The claim, received by San Mateo County on March 13 and released publicly Monday, centers on accusations that Corpus and Aenlle allegedly made “false statements” asserting Callagy interfered in sheriff’s office affairs, overstepped his role as county executive, and blocked daycare plans for sheriff’s deputies.

Callagy contends Corpus’ statements damaged his reputation.

“All the false statements have individually and collectively had an impact on Mr. Callagy’s reputation,” said Jim Hartnett, Callagy’s attorney, in an email to this news organization. “He has never publicly defended himself as he has focused on doing a great job as County Executive even though from September (last year) Corpus and Victor continued to attack him.”

Accusations of workplace bullying, corruption, and misconduct have escalated an ongoing conflict between county officials, sheriff deputy unions, and Corpus. An independent audit, detailed in an over 400-page report by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell, found basis for claims that Corpus had an inappropriate relationship with Aenlle, retaliated against employees, and used racist and homophobic slurs.

The report also raised concerns about the sheriff office’s possession of rifles with silencers and Aenlle’s alleged questionable real estate transactions.

Callagy’s claim cites several statements from Corpus during a September 2024 press conference as grounds for defamation. Some of those comments include:

— “During that meeting, [referencing her first meeting with Mr. Callagy following her election] he made an inappropriate and offensive request ordering me to inform him who I dated within the county and when.”
— “He made a unilateral decision without my further input in negotiation with the unions that have cost the taxpayers of our county $17 million.”
— “Since day one, Mr. Callagy has continued to overstep his authority routinely inserting himself into the operations of the Sheriff’s office.”
— “He has supported the group of employees referred to as the ‘good old boy system.'”

Callagy alleges these statements, and others in the claim, are false, defamatory, and “made in anger and hostility.'”

“As set forth in the claim, Corpus made up stories about Mr. Callagy, including that he asked her who she was dating in the County and unilaterally interfered in union negotiations,” Hartnett said. “In September (last year) Corpus called for an investigation of her allegations against Mr. Callagy and others, yet, while Mr. Callagy has fully cooperated and been interviewed, and called for the results of the investigation to be made public, Corpus has failed to even sit for an interview with the investigator, just as she failed to sit for an interview during the Cordell investigation.”

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors President David Canepa confirmed receipt of the claim. The county is named in the claim because it employs Corpus.

Canepa assured the public the board, despite working closely with Callagy, would treat the claim objectively.

“The board will treat it just as we would for any other employee who files a claim against the county,” he said.

The claim is the latest in a series of legal actions between the county and the sheriff.

Last December, Corpus filed a $10 million claim against the county for alleged harassment and discrimination, which a county spokesperson said at the time was “without merit.”

Corpus’ attorney, Brad Gage, declined to comment on Callagy’s claim but said they intend to file a lawsuit based on Corpus’ claim within weeks or months, within the prescribed legal period.

“In the end, she will be vindicated,” Gage said. “Measure A will be exposed for what it is — an attempt by disgruntled individuals who oppose her efforts to combat corruption. It was based on a report containing errors, with no recordings of other interviews. These issues create strong grounds for legal challenges.”

Corpus, who faces a potential removal hearing following a March 4 special election, saw 84% of voters approve Measure A, which gives the Board of Supervisors the power to remove a sheriff with cause.

Approximately 24.4% of San Mateo County’s 444,497 registered voters participated in the special election, which county officials estimate cost taxpayers up to $3.8 million.

The election results are expected to be certified by April 3, after which the Board of Supervisors can formally approve the results and amend the county charter. The amendment takes effect 10 days after, then Corpus could be served with a written notice outlining grounds for removal, before facing possible removal hearings.

Corpus, so far, has not indicated she will resign, maintaining that investigations against her are biased and politically motivated.

She has not responded to multiple requests for comment on Callagy’s claim.

“Please bear in mind that Mr. Callagy’s claim is personally made under penalty of perjury. Corpus has not even sat for an interview other than to the press much less under penalty of perjury. I can’t wait to take her deposition, which would be under oath.” Hartnett said. “Corpus has not only attacked Mr. Callagy but has also attacked the Board of Supervisors, the County Attorney, Judge Cordell, and the unions.”

Hartnett added, “the real issue is how the conduct of Corpus is affecting the Sheriff’s Office and all the sworn and civilian staff. From Captains to deputies and the civilian staff, Corpus has irreparably lost trust, confidence and respect.”