Former San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus has filed a claim demanding the county pay for her legal defense in two civil lawsuits brought against her by sheriff's office employees, arguing the county is legally obligated to foot the bill. The county says otherwise, telling her she's on the hook for the costs herself.
According to SFGATE, Corpus's claim says San Mateo County has declined since May to pay for her defense or reimburse her legal fees in the two pending cases, which were brought by sheriff's office employees Carlos Tapia and Valerie Barnes. The claim seeks reimbursement of both past and future legal fees tied to the two lawsuits. The county, for its part, has said it acknowledges the claim and considers Corpus responsible for the legal costs, though it has not commented further.
Corpus's attorney in the two pending suits, Thomas Mazzucco, said county officials involved in removing her from office also denied her a defense, per the same SFGATE account. James Quadra, who represents Corpus in her claim against the county, said the county's refusal violates its obligations under California's Government Code and is driven by retaliation. Corpus's attorneys argue that some of the conduct described in the lawsuits occurred within the scope of her employment as sheriff — a distinction that matters under state law.
What State Law Says About Defending Public Employees
California Government Code section 995 generally requires a public entity to provide a defense upon request to an employee or former employee sued over an act or omission committed in the course of their public employment, according to California Legislative Information.
The question of selective treatment has already come up elsewhere in the broader legal fallout from Corpus's tenure. The county agreed to cover former acting Assistant Sheriff Matthew Fox's legal defense fees, per the SFGATE report, even as it declined to pay for former Undersheriff Dan Perea's defense. Christopher J. Rillo, who represents Perea, said the county's selective defense funding raises questions about whether requests are being evaluated fairly.
The Lawsuits Behind the Claim
One of the two suits was filed by Carlos Tapia, who accused Corpus of ordering his unlawful arrest after she authorized his custody on suspicion of timecard fraud. Matthew Fox led the investigation into the alleged timecard fraud, and Dan Perea ordered Tapia's arrest, according to the San Mateo Daily Journal. The San Mateo County District Attorney's Office later dropped all charges against Tapia. That lawsuit, filed June 13, also named Perea, Fox and the county as defendants and sought a jury trial over claims including unreasonable arrest, free-speech and free-association violations, interference with union activities, and false imprisonment.
The second suit came from Valerie Barnes, who accused Corpus of discrimination and retaliation after Barnes objected to the hiring of Victor Aenlle, a reserve officer who had helped on Corpus's campaign, as chief of staff. Barnes's complaint alleged that Corpus directed her to research wedding venues in Maui for Corpus and Aenlle, procure alcohol, conceal condoms and clean up apparent crushed-pill residue, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post. The report also noted that Barnes said she knew about Corpus's alleged affair with Aenlle before Corpus took office.
How Corpus Lost the Sheriff's Office
Corpus's legal troubles trace back to a lengthy removal process. San Mateo County voters approved a charter amendment in March 2025 granting the Board of Supervisors temporary power to remove the sheriff, and an independent law firm conducted a May 2025 investigation into complaints against Corpus that included allegations of retaliation, intimidation and a secret affair with Aenlle. A retired judge later presided over the August removal hearing. Corpus refused to step down, and her lawyers tried unsuccessfully to halt the removal process, arguing it was illegal.
An administrative hearing lasted 10 days in August 2025, and the judge ultimately upheld allegations that Corpus retaliated against sheriff's office members and had a conflict of interest in hiring Aenlle. The County of San Mateo said the Board of Supervisors then voted 5-0 to remove Corpus from office under the new measure. The county paid for Corpus's lawyers during that 10-day hearing, a separate arrangement from the two employee lawsuits now at the center of her new claim.
The cost of ousting Corpus has drawn scrutiny well beyond the current dispute. The Mercury News reported that the county had spent at least $4.8 million on the removal process, not counting legal bills from four additional law firms. Separately, KTVU reported that the county was covering legal costs for two firms representing both the county and Corpus in the broader battle, while declining to cover costs tied to attorney Tom Perez, and that it would not disclose specific figures, citing legal privilege.
Corpus remains entangled in numerous pending lawsuits stemming from her time as sheriff, and her latest claim adds another front to a legal fight that has already cost San Mateo County millions of dollars and shows no sign of winding down.
