Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Useful Rulings on Exhausting Administrative Remedies

Recent Rulings on Exhausting Administrative Remedies

FRANCISCO VACA VS. RAYPAK INC

To GRANT Defendant's motion to bifurcate issues related to Defendant's affirmative defenses, including the Statute of Limitations, failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies and judicial estoppel. The Court has the inherent authority to decide Defendant's affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations, prior to proceeding with the trial of the Plaintiff's case. C.C.P. § 1048.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FOOTHILL-DE ANZA ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES (ACE) VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM

represents a “class of individuals” so it is not required to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner also requests leave to file an amended writ if the court finds the writ “deficient in any area.” b. Discussion. A defendant may demur to the entire complaint or any of the causes of action within it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.50(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The County also argues the request for mandate relief must be denied because Petitioners have failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. As a general rule, a party must exhaust all administrative remedies and obtain a final decision before resorting to the courts. (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Board (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1072, 1080.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

Exhaustion Administrative Remedies The City argues that Krok’s claim is barred due to her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. Opp. at 11. CCP section 1086 provides that mandate will only issue when the petition has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. As a general rule, a court will not issue a writ of mandate unless a petitioner has first exhausted its available administrative remedies. See, e.g., Alta Loma School Dist. v. San Bernardino County Com. On School Dist.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

LAWRENCE CHIBUEZE, ET AL. VS TELOPS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.

Tax and Administrative Remedies Ygrene argues plaintiffs cannot maintain their suit because they have not exhausted their administrative remedies: “ ‘[n]o suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any amount alleged to have been erroneously or illegally determined or collected unless a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed . . .’ pursuant to provisions of the tax code. [Citation.]” (Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1081, 1108.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AFFORDABLE CLEAN WATER ALLIANCE, A CALIFORNIA UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, A SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies The District argues that, even if ACWA is correct in claiming that CEQA applies to the District’s rejection of the Recycled Water Project, ACWA cannot bring this claim because it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by objecting during the administrative process. Mot. at 6-7.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PATRICK FINN VS. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOLD DISTRICT, ET AL

Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to his FEHA age discrimination claim, and Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to the second cause of action is granted. 2. Whether Plaintiff established a prima facie case for disability discrimination?

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MAYRA I JONES VS LAW OFFICES OF ALFONSO MORALES

Defendant next argues the claim is barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because she did not assert it in her DFEH complaint. When an administrative remedy is provided by a statute, relief must first be sought from the administrative body of the remedy before a plaintiff may turn to the courts. (Okoli v. Lockheed Technical Operations Co. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1607, 1612.) To properly exhaust one’s remedies as to a certain act, they “ ‘must specify that act in the administrative complaint.’

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Although California courts have found the legislative history on Labor Code section 1102.5 to be somewhat unclear, generally, an employee is required to exhaust his or her administrative remedies prior to pursuing a cause of action under section 1102.5. (Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, 333.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LIN VS. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC

Issue No. 3: The Third Causes of Action for Failure to Engage in Interactive Process failed, because there was no duty, Plaintiff did not request accommodate and he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (UMF 33 to 34). DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

BENITEZ VS. MEDTRONIC, INC.

Since Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his PAGA claim against Covidien, he lacks standing to pursue the claim. Covidien’s demurrer to the PAGA claim is sustained. Because the defect cannot be cured via amendment to the FAC, Covidien’s demurrer to the PAGA claim is sustained without leave to amend. 2. Whether the facts and theories provided in Plaintiff’s PAGA notices were sufficient to exhaust his administrative remedies.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

BOURDASE V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

Explanation: Demurrer The Fair Employment and Housing Act requires plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the DFEH within one year of the alleged unlawful practice. (Gov. Code § 12960; Okoli v. Lockheed Technical Operations Co. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1607, 1613.) In the context of the FEHA, the failure to exhaust an administrative remedy is a jurisdictional, not procedural, defect. (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LAKHIYIA HICKS VS REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Discussion Defendant demurrers to the SAC on the ground plaintiff failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies. A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SERNA VS. MITCHEL

But while Serna’s letter was insufficient to exhaust her administrative remedies, summary adjudication is inappropriate. “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty . . . .” (CCP § 437c(f)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

GOLDEN STATE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, INC., ET AL. VS ANGELES-IPA, A MEDICAL CORPORATION

(Notice at p. 2. ) The original Answer previously alleged only that Plaintiffs “failed to exhaust administrative remedies.” The Amended Answer’s Second Affirmative Defense now alleges that Plaintiffs “failed to exhaust the administrative remedies” created by Health & Safety Code §§ 1367, 1371.38, and Code of Regulations § 130071.38. (FAA ¶ 3.) The Amended Answer further alleges that Plaintiffs were given notice of the administrative remedies, noting that they were required to exhaust these remedies.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

SERNA VS. MITCHEL

But while Serna’s letter was insufficient to exhaust her administrative remedies, summary adjudication is inappropriate. “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty . . . .” (CCP § 437c(f)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2020

COLEMAN VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

For Whistleblower Retaliation, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies since her pre-litigation claim does not apprise CDCR of CDCR’s alleged unlawful actions. For Harassment and Failure to Prevent Harassment, there are no allegations that CDCR knew or should have known about the harassment, and since the underlying claim fails, so, too, does the claim for Failure to Prevent Harassment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

ELENA BARRIOS VS WEST HILLS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Defendants contend that Barrios failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her second, third, fourth, and seventh causes of action for violation of FEHA.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CRAIG ROSS, ET AL., VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CAL. STATE UNIV.

Fourth, the 3rd (legitimate business reason), 4th (Government Code §945.6—failure to comply with Government Claims Act, 6th (failure to exhaust administrative remedies) 9th through 16th (unclean hands, pre-existing injuries/conditions, failure to avoid or mitigate, offset, ratification, collateral source, immunity from punitive damages, waiver) and 22nd affirmative defenses are sufficiently pleaded (statute of frauds).

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FE&M INC VS CITY OF GLENDALE

“Moreover, the responsible governmental entity has the option of exempting the property from the ordinance or regulation, or even repealing the ordinance as an alternative to paying compensation for a permanent taking if it is judicially determined, after administrative remedies have been exhausted, that application of the restrictions to the property will constitute a compensable taking.” (Id. at 11.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LENA GRANT VS IVONNE CASTANEDA, ET AL.

LEXIS 26908, for the proposition that the she was not required to exhaust further administrative remedies since Labor Code section 1102.5 does not expressly provide for such exhaustion. The Court in Howard held that section 244(a) expressly rejected a general mandatory exhaustion requirement.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA VS. CUZINS

This court sees this case as the exact type of case where the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is most appropriate. Therefore, this court applies the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies to Cuzins’ sole claim in its defense and forecloses that claim because Cuzins has failed to exhaust administrative remedies on its claim before raising it in the Superior Court.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CHIQUITA CANYON LLC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Respondents contend that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to Condition 9. (See Oppo. 11-12.) Petitioner has not shown, including in reply, that it objected to Condition 9 at any stage of the administrative proceedings. (See OB 17, fn. 7 and Reply 19; see also AR 10085-120, 12981, 13217-300 [Petitioner’s administrative filings].) Accordingly, Petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies with respect to Condition 9.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MYRALYN OA NARTEY VS BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Defendant demurs to the entire action on the basis Plaintiff has failed to properly allege an exhaustion of administrative remedies. For complaints of unlawful discrimination, students must bring a formal complaint in accordance with UCLA’s Grievance Procedure 230.1. (See Dem., Ford Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

BENSON V. LINVILLE

Moreover, this appears to be an administrative matter that, at a minimum, requires exhaustion of the plaintiff’s administrative remedies before filing an action, such as this one, for damages. There is no allegation that the plaintiff has exhausted, or even attempted to exhaust, his administrative remedies first.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 38     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.