What is a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate?

Useful Rulings on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate

Recent Rulings on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate

NICOLE MEHRINGER VS MICHAEL MOORE, ET AL.

A court will not issue a writ of administrative mandate unless the petitioner shows that the agency’s error “prejudicially affect[ed] the petitioner's substantial rights.” (Thornbrough v. Western Placer Unified School Dist. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 169, 200.) Alleged Concealment of Witnesses and Evidence Petitioner contends that LAPD waited until the day Petitioner was to testify to produce videotapes of the April 27, 2018, incident.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NINFA GUZMAN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Strobel Hearing: September 8, 2020 BS173455 Tentative Decision on Motion to Vacate Judgment on Petition for Writ of Mandate: DENIED Petitioner Ninfa Guzman (“Petitioner”) moves for an order pursuant to CCP section 473 vacating the judgment entered on May 7, 2019, that denied her petition for writ of administrative mandate. Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“Respondent” or “CUIAB”) opposes the motion. Judicial Notice Respondent’s RJN Exhibits A-C – Granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

JIMMY YEE VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

Writ Proceedings On November 30, 2018, Petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. On January 10, 2019, Real Parties County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“Real Parties”) filed their answer to the petition. On January 16, 2019, Petitioner filed his replication to the answer. On March 12, 2019, at a trial setting conference, the court set the writ petition for hearing and set a briefing schedule.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MANUEL CARLOS LOPEZ VS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: September 8, 2020 19STCP00670 Tentative Decision Petition for Writ of Mandate: GRANTED Petitioner Manuel Carlos Lopez (“Petitioner”) seeks a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent Department of Motor Vehicles (“Respondent” or “DMV”) to set aside an administrative decision that suspended Petitioner’s driving privilege based on his refusal to complete a chemical test.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RIZOR VS THE COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENC

The petition for writ of administrative mandate is DENIED. The Court independently reviewed the evidence and analyzed the Morrison factors. There is a nexus between Petitioner’s conduct and his fitness to teach. The unfitness is “evident”. Petitioner’s behavior evidences either a defect in temperament or fixed character trait. Petitioner’s conduct is not remediable. He received notices on multiple occasions from the District to stop engaging in unprofessional behavior.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

JAMES B. MORELL VS BOARD OF RETIREMENT ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Morell, in pro per (“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent Board of Retirement, Orange County Employees Retirement System (“Respondent” or “Board”) to set aside its final administrative decision excluding Optional Benefit Plan (“OBP”) benefits from the calculation of Petitioner’s pension.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DALE TARR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Strobel Hearing: August 18, 2020 BS174197 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate Petitioner Dale Tarr (“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent City of Los Angeles (“Respondent”) to set aside a final decision of the Rent Adjustment Commission Appeals Board denying Petitioner’s appeal of the placement of his real property into the Rent Escrow Account Program (“REAP”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ELUSIVE 8307 LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Procedural History On June 14, 2018, Petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of administrative mandate or writ of traditional mandate. On July 16, 2018, City filed an answer. On July 19, 2019, Petitioner filed its opening brief in support of the petition. The court received City’s opposition, Petitioner’s reply, and the administrative record. On September 19, 2019, after a hearing, the court granted the writ petition in part.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

IN THE MATTER OF: JAE KYUNG KIM

(“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“CUIAB”) to set aside its July 16, 2018 Decision affirming the ALJ's May 3, 2018 Decision affirming the EDD's March 5, 2018 Ruling that Real Party in Interest Ethel-Thamis Abling-Garcia was not disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits under section 1256 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, and that Petitioner’s reserve account shall not be relieved of charges Procedural

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

JAMES E. SPEARS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE APPEALS BOARD

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Respondent Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: August 4, 2020 18STCP03228 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate Petitioner James E. Spears, in pro per (“Petitioner”) seeks a writ of administrative mandate commanding Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“Respondent” or “CUIAB”) to set aside its final decision that dismissed his administrative appeal as untimely.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

(“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“CUIAB”) to set aside its July 16, 2018 Decision affirming the ALJ's May 3, 2018 Decision affirming the EDD's March 5, 2018 Ruling that Real Party in Interest Ethel-Thamis Abling-Garcia was not disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits under section 1256 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, and that Petitioner’s reserve account shall not be relieved of charges Procedural

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GENERAL MOTORS LLC VS CALIFORNIA NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD

., Real Party in Interest Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: July 30, 2020 BS175257 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate Petitioner General Motors, LLC (“Petitioner” or “GM”) petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent California New Motor Vehicle Board (“Board”) “to set aside and vacate its Decision dated August 13, 2018, in Protest No. PR-2483-16, and to adopt and issue a new and different decision overruling the Protest.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

JULIAN OSCAR GERSON V. STEVEN GORDON

The DMV administrative hearing officer reimposed the license suspension and Manriquez petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate. Id. at 1231-1232. The trial court granted the writ overturning the DMV’s decision. The DMV appealed. The court of appeal reversed, holding “that continuous observation for purposes of compliance with regulation 1219.3 does not mean an officer must keep his or her eyes focused on the subject for an uninterrupted 15-minute period.” Id. at 1235-1236.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

VIRGINA SIERRA VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

(AR 94.)[1] 1 Writ Petition On December 28, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate. On February 28, 2018, Petitioner filed her opening brief and declaration to offer evidence under CCP section 1094.5(e). On March 30, 2020, Respondent filed an opposition brief and objections to Petitioner’s declaration to offer evidence under CCP section 1094.5(e).

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PARK ANAHEIM HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC, DBA PARK ANAHEIM HEALTHCARE CENTER VS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

First Cause of Action – Writ of Administrative Mandate Respondent DHCS demurs to the first cause of action for nonjoinder of parties. (CCP § 430.10(d).) Respondent DHCS contends that Resident is an indispensable party, and that the action must be dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired and Resident cannot be joined. (Dem. 10-12.) Respondent also seems to challenge other causes of action on the same basis. (See e.g. Reply 4:23-24.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CARMEN A PULIAFITO M D VS MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPT

(“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent Medical Board of California (“Respondent” or “Board”) to set aside an administrative decision that revoked Petitioner’s medical license.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOHN DOE VS AINSLEY CAREY ET AL

On January 8, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued its Opinion which reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case with directions to grant the petition for writ of administrative mandate. Doe now moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 in the total amount of $157,561.25, plus a lodestar multiplier of 2.0 for a total award of $315,122.50. USC opposes the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ANTONIO JOSEPH GARCIA VS JEAN SHIOMOTO

Here, Lewin has similarities to the instant case, especially with respect to the first causes of action for writ of administrative mandate. Under the final part of section 1032(a)(4), “the trial court in its discretion determines the prevailing party, comparing the relief sought with that obtained, along with the parties’ litigation objectives as disclosed by their pleadings, briefs, and other such sources.” (Friends of Spring St. v. Nevada City (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1104.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, ET AL.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate alleges that Plaintiff filed an appeal after June 3, 2015 and the Plaintiff’s Board of Civil Service Commission appeal claim was denied on May 25, 2017. (RJN, Exh. 2, ¶¶ 6-7.) The doctrine of equitable tolling will “suspend or extend a statute of limitations as necessary to ensure fundamental practicality and fairness.” (McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 99.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

LUIS CRUZ VS CIVIL SERVICES COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF LA

Strobel Hearing: July 14, 2020 BS170143 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate Following Remand Petitioner Luis Cruz (“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (“Respondent” or “Commission”) to set aside its decision discharging Petitioner from his position as Deputy Sheriff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

Indeed, the “[f]ailure to obtain judicial review of a discretionary administrative action by a petition for a writ of administrative mandate renders the administrative action immune from collateral attack … by any other action.” (Beach v. Bluff Conservancy v. City of Solano Beach (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 244, 263.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

Standard of Review While Krok purports to seek a writ of administrative mandate pursuant to CCP section 1094.5 (Pet. Op. Br. at 3), the City correctly notes that the proper standard of review is for traditional mandate pursuant to CCP section 1085. Opp. at 10.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

FRANCISCA EUGENIA NUNEZ VS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Dept. of DMV, Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: July 2, 2020 19STCP01822 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate Petitioner Francisca Nunez (“Petitioner”), in pro per, petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent Director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“Respondent” or “DMV”) to set aside an administrative decision that suspended Petitioner’s driver’s license for failure to prove financial responsibility pursuant to Vehicle Code section 16070.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOE HARDESTY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD

Thus, the Legislature has expressed an intent that judicial review ofthe penalties, like those at issue here, shall be by section 1094.5—the statute that provides for review of administrative decisions by way of a petition for writ of administrative mandate The Second Cause of Action in the Cross-Complaint is authorized by Public Resources Code section 2774.1, subdivision (f), which allows, but does not require, "an action to recover administrative, and other, penalties under this section."

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

JOE HARDESTY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD

Thus, the Legislature has expressed an intent that judicial review of the penalties, like those at issue here, shall be by section 1094.5—the statute that provides for review of administrative decisions by way of a petition for writ of administrative mandate The Second Cause of Action in the Cross-Complaint is authorized by Public Resources Code section 2774.1, subdivision (f), which allows, but does not require, “an action to recover administrative, and other, penalties under this section.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.