Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Useful Rulings on Exhausting Administrative Remedies

Recent Rulings on Exhausting Administrative Remedies

GREGORY LUCAS VS CITY OF POMONA

More is required to exhaust administrative remedies than generalized environmental criticisms at public hearings: “It is difficult to imagine any derogatory statement about a land use project which does not implicate the environment somehow.” Coalition for Student Action v. City of Fullerton, (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1197. Once an issue is properly raised, the scope of judicial review is broad.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

More is required to exhaust administrative remedies than generalized environmental criticisms at public hearings: “It is difficult to imagine any derogatory statement about a land use project which does not implicate the environment somehow.” Coalition for Student Action v. City of Fullerton, (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1197. Once an issue is properly raised, the scope of judicial review is broad.

  • Hearing

LION EYE FARMS INC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Because the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a complete defense to both causes of action in plaintiffs’ complaint, plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the merits of their claims. Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the merits of their causes of action for the additional reason that County has presented compelling evidence that plaintiffs expanded and intensified their cannabis cultivation after January 19, 2016.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

TONY SPEARS VS WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies The 3rd cause of action for FMLA violations and 4th cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of the ADA are also barred because plaintiff did not timely exhaust his administrative remedies under FEHA or the ADA.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DEREK GEORGE VS CITY OF AVALON

Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 940, 946, the filing of an intake form is not sufficient to exhaust administrative remedies. Pursuant to Cole v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1511, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing a complaint in civil court, and must make the required DFEH complaint within one year after termination. Plaintiff cites George v. California Unemployment Ins.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARKS VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

Code §§ 818.2 and 821); and the ninth (failure to exhaust administrative remedies). ROA 155-160. The City filed opposition. ROA 162-167. Plaintiff filed reply. ROA 168-176. The court reviewed the papers and published a tentative ruling on February 26, 2020. ROA 178. The court heard thoughtful argument on February 28, took the motion under submission, and thereafter issued its ruling granting the motion in part and denying it in part. ROA 182-185.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EULICES JIMENEZ VS BIO-NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

Defendant argues that “because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of the FEHA should be sustained without leave to amend.” (Demurrer, p. 4:12-13.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because “Plaintiff’s DFEH complaint does not come close to complying [sic] the specificity requirements of Gov. Code § 12960(c).” (Id. at pp. 3:28-4:1.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EULICES JIMENEZ VS BIO-NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

Defendant argues that “because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of the FEHA should be sustained without leave to amend.” (Demurrer, p. 4:12-13.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because “Plaintiff’s DFEH complaint does not come close to complying [sic] the specificity requirements of Gov. Code § 12960(c).” (Id. at pp. 3:28-4:1.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BEDFORD, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.

The first (as offered by respondent) is whether the demurrer should be sustained because petitioner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Of course, for either cause of action, petitioners must plead that they exhausted all administrative remedies when an administrative remedy is available. (Temescal Water Co. v. Dept. of Public Works (1955) 44 Cal.2d 90, 106.)

  • Hearing

RENE VILLA VS HANDLE FINANCIAL INC, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that because he “does not contend that Handle itself violated FEHA, he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies as to them and the demurrer to the FEHA causes of action should be overruled.” (Opp., pp. 3:27-4:1.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MITCHELL BAKER VS MOSTAFA NARIMANZADEH, ET AL.

Under Section 430.80(a), Defendants can raise the failure to exhaust administrative remedies as a ground for a demurrer to a cause of action even though previous demurrers did assert this as a ground. Where a plaintiff alleges that a FEHA violation has occurred, a plaintiff must exhaust is or her administrative remedies with DFEH. (Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1345.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Tejon asserts Petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on this issue.[1] Tejon argues the EIR adequately discloses the risks of fire under its thresholds 3-8 and 3-9 analysis. (AR 34:19685.)[2] Moreover, according to Tejon, the EIR determined with mitigation all-fire related impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts. (AR 2:30-31, 2:135-146, 2:329- 334, 8:2074, 34:19686-19690.) The court agrees Petitioner’s argument appears to be without merit.

  • Hearing

YAMILET ROMO V. LARRY AUDET

They argue: (1) that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies – specifically, that she failed to submit a Government Tort Claim; (2) that plaintiff fails to comply with the mandatory requirements under Government Code section 910 and 910.2; and (3) the above listed causes of action fail to comply with the mandatory timeliness requirement and equitable tolling does not apply to plaintiff’s claim. The court finds the issues of equitable estoppel and compliance with the Act determinative.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEFFREY BARR VS ACTION SALES & METAL CO INC ET AL

(e) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to allegations in the third PAGA sub-cause of action at ¶¶ 105-106 of the 2AC (relating to vacation time and PTO and missed meal breaks), and the time to do so has expired. Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not timely exhaust administrative remedies with the LWDA as to the new allegations in ¶¶ 105-106 of the 2AC relating to vacation time, PTO, and missed meal breaks.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FIX THE CITY, INC. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Because Respondents were advised by commenters about the 0.75 FAR requirement and specifically analyzed the issue, Petitioner exhausted its administrative remedies. The EIR incorrectly concluded that the Project is exempt from parking impacts analysis under section 21099. (AR 1008.) However, as discussed below, this error was not prejudicial because the EIR also analyzes parking impacts of the Project.

  • Hearing

BUENA PARK SUCCESSOR AGENCY VS. BA HOTEL & RESORT, LLC

Government Claims Act Compliance The City’s papers contain a fleeting reference to the Government Claims Act’s pre-filing requirements, and the City briefly argues (without explanation) that the Developers’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars their claims. (See Gov’t Code § 900 et seq.) Although the City does not develop this claim, the Developers (as the party bearing the burden of proof on step two) respond to it at some length, arguing Government Claims Act compliance was not required.

  • Hearing

BUENA PARK SUCCESSOR AGENCY VS. BA HOTEL & RESORT, LLC

Government Claims Act Compliance The City’s papers contain a fleeting reference to the Government Claims Act’s pre-filing requirements, and the City briefly argues (without explanation) that the Developers’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars their claims. (See Gov’t Code § 900 et seq.) Although the City does not develop this claim, the Developers (as the party bearing the burden of proof on step two) respond to it at some length, arguing Government Claims Act compliance was not required.

  • Hearing

RAMIN M. ROOHIPOUR, M.D., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS AETNA, INC., A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION

Further, he contends that he was required to first exhaust administrative remedies before proceeding with judicial review and that a “participant’s cause of action under ERISA accordingly does not accrue until the plan issues a final denial.” Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Inc. Co. (2013) 571 U.S. 99, 105. “’A demurrer on the ground of the bar of the statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily barred.’

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VINCENTA GRISELDA RUIZ VS SERVTECH PLASTICS INC

Defendant Montano also argues that Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies. As a “jurisdictional prerequisite,” for statutory sexual harassment plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving timely filing of a sufficient complaint with the DFEH and obtaining a right-to-sue notice. (See Holland v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 940, 945.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CALIFORNIA FAIR PLAN ASSOCIATION VS RICARDO LARA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

However, the relevance of RFPs 11-12 and 15-16 to this writ action depends on other arguments raised by Respondent, specifically exhaustion of administrative remedies and mootness. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Plain, Speedy, Alternative Remedy; and Mootness For RFPs 11-16, Respondent also objected that “any claim by Petitioner in this action relating to its rates is jurisdictionally barred by Petitioner’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies.”

  • Hearing

LIONEL A. WYATT VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

“In a final attempt to exhaust all of the administrative remedies with the Department and Board of Commissioners. Petitioner prepared and filed an appeal with the City of Los Angeles Board of Building and Safety Commission, on 7/29/2019.” (Id. ¶ 8.) “City of Los Angeles Board of Building and Safety Commission, has failed and refused to address the appeal, set hearings or other evidentiary process to disposition the appeal.” (Id. ¶ 9.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOANNA RAMIREZ VS MICHAEL KORS USA, INC.

Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff’s PAGA claims are time-barred because she failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies. A PAGA claim is subject to a one-year statute of limitations. (Esparza v. Safeway, Inc. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 42, 59.) Judicially noticeable documents reveal that Plaintiff last worked for Defendant on November 15, 2018. (See Defendant’s RJN Ex., B.) This PAGA action was filed more than a year later by Plaintiff JOANNA RAMIREZ on February 26, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALBERTO GUTIERREZ VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ET AL.

Plaintiff responds generally that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is no basis for sustaining Defendant’s demurrer. (Opp. at p.6.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; and Plain, Speedy, and Adequate Alternative Remedy Respondents contend that Petitioner Lopez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he executed the settlement agreement prior to completion of the Civil Service Commission proceedings. (Dem. 16; see SAP ¶ 31.) Relatedly, Respondents contend that Lopez has a plain, speedy, and adequate alternative remedy in Commission proceedings. (Dem. 24.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HOUDA ASSALY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

First, Defendants contend that the twelfth cause of action is insufficiently pled as to Garland and Kalenich because Plaintiff’s pre-suit tort claims presentation did not indicate that she intended to bring a cause of action for IIED against either Garland and Kalenich, as she was required to do so and, thus, failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. (Demurrer, 14.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 43     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.