Notice of Appeal to an Administrative Hearing?

“Judicial review of most public agency decisions is obtained by a proceeding for a writ of ordinary or administrative mandate. The applicable type of mandate is determined by the nature of the administrative action or decision. Usually, quasi-legislative acts are reviewed by ordinary mandate and quasi-judicial acts are reviewed by administrative mandate.” (McGill v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1776, 1785.)

Legal Standard

Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies. (Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15.) It provides that a writ “issued for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer, the case shall be heard by the court sitting without a jury.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.)

Procedure

The court may stay the operation of an administrative order or decision pending judgment, or until the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the notice, whichever occurs first. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(g).)

“Within 20 days after service of the final administrative order or decision of the local agency is made... a person contesting that final administrative order or decision may seek review by filing an appeal to be heard by the superior court, where the same shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the local agency's file in the case shall be received in evidence." (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(b)(1).)

Labor Commission

Within 15 days after an administrative hearing, the Labor Commissioner must file his or her decision and serve a copy on the parties. (Lab. Code, § 98.1(a).) Within 10 days of service (or 15 days if service is by mail), a party may seek review of the Commissioner’s decision by filing an appeal in the superior court. (Lab. Code, § 98.2(a).) The time limit is jurisdictional, and absent statutory authority, may not be extended. (Pressler v. Donald L. Bren (1982) 32 Cal.3d 831, 837.) “[T]imely filing of a notice of appeal forestalls the [C]ommissioner’s decision, terminates his or her jurisdiction, and vests jurisdiction in the superior court to conduct a hearing de novo.” (Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1116.)

"If the party seeking review by filing an appeal to the superior court is unsuccessful in the appeal, the court shall determine the costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the other parties to the appeal, and asses that amount as a cost upon the party filing the appeal. An employee is successful if the court awards an amount greater than zero." (Lab. Code, § 98.2(c).) The statute "acts as a disincentive to appeal the commissioner's decision." (Arias v. Kardoulias (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1438.)

Useful Rulings on Notice of Appeal to an Administrative Hearing

Recent Rulings on Notice of Appeal to an Administrative Hearing

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

The Court has also again reviewed CCP § 1094.5 (the section invoked by Petitioners) regarding judgment on a writ. The relevant subsection is (f) which reads: (f) The court shall enter judgment either commanding respondent to set aside the order or decision, or denying the writ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

PAVEL ZAMOSHNIKOV VS. CODE COMPLIANCE OF CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Where writ relief is sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the court may consider evidence outside the administrative record only if it “finds that there is relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or that was improperly excluded at the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc § 1094.5, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

MANN VS MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

. § 1094.5, the Court’s inquiry into the validity of an administrative order or decision extends to questions regarding: (1) whether the agency proceeded without or in excess of jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair trial; and, (3) whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. With narrow exceptions, the Court’s inquiry under section 1094.5 is limited to the administrative record made before the agency. (City of Hesperia v. Lake Arrowhead Community Services Dist. (2019) 37 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

CATHERINE BRUNI VS CITY OF ALHAMBRA

(CCP § 1094.5(e); Pomona Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 100.) “If the moving party fails to make the required showing [under section 1094.5(e)], it is an abuse of the court's discretion to allow posthearing discovery [or augment the record].” (Pomona Valley, supra at 102.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CANYON CREST CONSERVANCY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

On May 9, 2017, after a hearing, the court issued a written ruling granting Petitioner’s motion to stay pursuant to CCP section 1094.5(g). On or about December 14, 2017, Real Party requested that Respondent vacate the Project approvals. On or about February 27, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors vacated the approvals.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM VS AL MIJARES, ET AL.

Standard of Review A party may seek to set aside an agency decision by petitioning for either a writ of administrative mandamus (CCP §1094.5) or of traditional mandamus. CCP §1085. A petition for traditional mandamus is appropriate in all actions “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station....” CCP §1085.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Under CCP section 1094.5(b), an abuse of discretion is established if the decision is not supported by the findings. (CCP § 1094.5(b).) In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515, the Supreme Court held that "implicit in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order."

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PISMO BEACH SELF-STORAGE, L.P. V. CITY OF PISMO BEACH, ET AL.

Petitioner argues the Court should review the City’s conduct prior to its adoption of the Resolution under the administrative mandamus standard of review articulated in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (Section 1094.5). Petitioner claims this standard applies because the “conduct” complained of is the City’s assessment of ad hoc development impact fees, which are reviewed under Section 1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This rule limiting the admission of extra-record evidence also applies to proceedings reviewable by administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section'* 1094.5. (See Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (Cadiz) (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 120.) Additionally, Section 1094.5 specifically limits the admission of extra-record evidence, as discussed below.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This rule limiting the admission of extra-record evidence also applies to proceedings reviewable by administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 4 1094.5. (See Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (Cadiz) (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 120.) Additionally, Section 1094.5 specifically limits the admission of extra-record evidence, as discussed below.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

HERMOSA FITNESS, LLC VS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, ET AL.

Standard of Review Under CCP section 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DISTRICT SQUARE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY

CCP §1094.5(b). An abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. CCP §1094.5(c). CCP section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review of evidentiary findings. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 811. Instead, that issue was left to the courts.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WORTHINGTON CONSTRUCTION INC VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner's Motion for Writ of Mandate Under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5, Prohibition or Other Appropriate Relief is GRANTED. Petitioner challenges the decision of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE") and the confirmation of that decision by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS' ("DIR") to classify Pedro Refugio as a Landscape Operating Engineer, which resulted in a Civil Wage and Penalty Assessment ("Assessment"), under CCP section 1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FULTON VS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 456; CCP §1094.5. In making that determination, the court acts as a trier of fact; it has the power and responsibility to weigh the evidence and make its own determination about the credibility of witnesses. Barber v. Long Beach Civil Service Com. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 652, 658.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

F.M.G., INC. DBA HADLEY TOW VS CITY OF BALDWIN PARK

While noting that the petitioners could seek a review of the denial under CCP section 1094.5 administrative mandamus, the court held that traditional mandamus relief under section 1085 was not available. The court observed that the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (governing the issuance of the permit at issue) gave the Coastal Commission discretion to determine whether an applicant qualified for a permit. 12 Cal.3d at 247.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LEGADO DEL MAR, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY

In the four pages of briefing on “Legal Standards and Standard of Review,” Petitioner does not address either 1094.5 or 1085. In the language of 1094.5 and 1085, how does Petitioner frame the issues to be decided? [The court requests Petitioner be prepared to put its argument into the framework/outline of 1094.5 and/or 1085. From the court’s perspective in large part, the parties’ briefs address different issues.] AS TO THE CDP When does Petitioner contend its application was complete?

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHRISTIE WARD VS. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

Standard of Review The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Court finds a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

LOREN ROBINSON VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD

Standard of Review A party may seek to set aside an agency decision by petitioning for either a writ of administrative mandamus (CCP §1094.5) or of traditional mandamus. CCP §1085. A petition for traditional mandamus is appropriate in all actions “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station....” CCP §1085.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DAVIDSON VS. ORANGE COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Upon losing the arbitration, the officer filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The trial court sustained the county's demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding administrative mandate was not applicable.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

TRASK PROPERTIES III, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Standard of Review Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate pursuant to CCP section 1094.5. Under CCP section 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

BRINA WASHINGTON, ET AL. VS VANETTA N MOSBY, ET AL.

Under CCP § 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are: (1) whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair trial; and (3) whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MR. BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY VS CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD

Standard of Review CCP section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies. Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15. CCP section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999)20 Cal.4th 805, 811.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT VS. WATTS

Proc., § 1094.5) is the appropriate means for overturning the denial of a claim for excess proceeds from a default tax sale”]; Mission Valley East, Inc. v. County of Kern (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 89, 99, fn. 6 [“[t]his is a ‘common law’ or traditional mandamus proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, not administrative mandamus under section 1094.5”].) Nevertheless, the Court must pick one or the other mode of judicial review before it can proceed with its analysis.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

SLS VENICE HOLDINGS, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Standard of Review Petitioner’s first cause of action for writ of mandate is brought pursuant to CCP sections 1094.5 “or” 1085. (Pet. ¶ 1.) “[J]udicial review via administrative mandate is available ‘only if the decision[] resulted from a 'proceeding in which by law: 1) a hearing is required to be given, 2) evidence is required to be taken, and 3) discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the agency.’

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ADRIAN QUINTERO VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

Standard of Review The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Court finds a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).) 233Cal.App.3d 813, 823.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 47     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.