Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“‘[W]here an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act.’” (Terris v. County of Santa Barbara (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 551, 555 citing Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, 320.)
Administrative remedies include ‘internal grievance procedures’ provided by a public entity. (Id.) “County employees must exhaust internal administrative remedies that are provided in county civil service rules.” (Id.)
“The Government Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) requires that ‘[b]efore suing a public entity, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages to the entity.’” (A.M. v. Ventura Unified School District (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1257.) “A claim relating to a cause of action for ... injury to person[s] ... shall be presented ... not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Id.) ‘Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is ... “ ‘ “a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action against defendant” ’ ” [citations], and thus an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (A.M. v. Ventura Unified School District (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1257.) It is therefore clear that the presentation of a claim is not the same as filing a judicial action for damages because the presentation of the claim is condition precedent to the filing of a judicial action.
“Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 320, 106 P.3d 976 holds that public employees must pursue appropriate internal administrative remedies before filing a civil action against their employer.” (Terris v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 551, 553.) “Labor Code § 244 does not require a litigant to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a civil action.” (Id.) “Here we hold § 244 applies only to claims before the Labor Commissioner. It has no effect on the Campbell rule.” (Id.)
In Terris, the plaintiff filed a complaint with County’s Civil Service Commission, alleging that the termination procedure violated her seniority rights and that the County had discriminated against her for exercising her rights as a County employee. (Id. at 554.) The Commission ruled that it could decide whether the County had followed the proper procedures for terminating the plaintiff, but could not decide the discrimination claim because the plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative remedy of filing a discrimination complaint with the EEOC. (Id.)
The appeals court concluded: “The Commission also advised [the plaintiff] and her counsel that if [the plaintiff] wanted to raise her Labor Code discrimination/retaliation issues, she first had to file an EEOC complaint. Because she had not filed it, the Commission could only decide whether proper job termination procedures were followed. It offered her a continuance so that issue and the discrimination/retaliation issues could be decided together. But she and her counsel rejected that alternative and elected to have a Commission hearing only on the procedural issues. [The plaintiff] decided not to file the EEO complaint. Consequently, her §§ 1101, 1102, and 1102.5 claims are barred.” (Id. at 559.)
“[A]n administrative remedy is exhausted only upon ‘termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.’” (Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080.)
Ordinarily, filing a claim with a public entity pursuant to the Claims Act is a jurisdictional element of any cause of action for damages against the public entity (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 454; Snipes v. City of Bakersfield (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 861, 865) that must be satisfied in addition to the exhaustion of any administrative remedies (Richards v. Department of Alcoholic Beverages Control (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 304, 315 [mere filing of claim does not satisfy need to exhaust remedy by applying for license before bringing suit]; see Ortiz v. Lopez (E.D.Cal.2010) 688 F.Supp.2d 1072, 1079– 1080; Creighton v. City of Livingston (E.D.Cal.2009) 628 F.Supp.2d 1199, 1221– 1222 [both holding that allegation of compliance with Claims Act insufficient without allegation of exhaustion of administrative remedy as well].)
“There are certain types of claims in Government Code § 905 expressly exempted from the presentation requirement; otherwise, a court will infer a legislative intent to excuse compliance only where a claim is based on a statutory scheme with a ‘functionally equivalent claim process’ and a comparable scheme for administrative enforcement.” (Gatto v. County of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 744, 763–764 [state civil rights actions lack such equivalency and are therefore not exempt from Claims Act; as a result, limitations period extended and action is timely]; accord, Bates v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 367, 373, 383–385, [agency's violations of restrictions on disseminating personal information; Information Practices Act of 1977 (Civ.Code, § 1798 et seq.) does not have an administrative mechanism for enforcement of its provisions, and nothing gives agency notice that damages might be sought for noncompliance; thus failure to file claim bars action].) Such exceptions to the presentation procedure are rarely found. (Gatto, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 764.) (Cornejo v. Lightbourne (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 932, 938–39.)
Defendant argues that plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing an action for violation of Section 230.1 and she has not alleged exhaustion of those administrative remedies.
CLARK V. TAHOE TURNING POINT
PC-20170185
Sep 08, 2017
El Dorado County, CA
Petitioners were required to exhaust their administrative remedies Petitioners do not argue that they have exhausted their administrative remedies. Rather, they argue that they should be excused from exhausting their administrative remedies for several reasons. First, they argue that “a party is not required to exhaust the available administrative remedies when those administrative procedures are the very source of the asserted injury.
HOUSING REFORM COALITION OF LA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
BS144425
Mar 27, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Issue No. 1: Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies under FEHA Defendant’s demurrer is based upon the fact that all of Plaintiff’s causes of action are brought under FEHA, as evidenced by the FAC’s caption and substance. Defendant contends that Plaintiff does not, however, identify any FEHA laws violated by Defendant. More generally, Defendant asserts that because Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies under FEHA, the FAC must be dismissed its entirety.
BERNARD ALLER VS SARAH CANNON
BC706163
Mar 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Truong (which it is not), Plaintiff failed to exhaust her grievance through the Second and Third Levels of Review, and her administrative remedies cannot therefore be deemed exhausted. (15 CCR § 3084.1(b); Wright v. State of California (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 659; Parthemore v. Col (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1380.) Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not excused.
JACKSON VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RIC1715688
Jul 30, 2019
Riverside County, CA
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: HEARING ON DEMURRER — TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT [DEFT] LIEUTENANT ERNST RULI'NG The Court previously sustained Defendant’s demurrer because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for negligence. The Court, however) granted leave to amend. Plaintiff has now submitted an amended complaint which fails to cure these defects.
ALFRED KING AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HAN, ET AL
CV1900724
May 11, 2021
Marin County, CA
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: HEARING ON DEMURRER — TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT [DEFT] LIEUTENANT ERNST RULING The Court previously sustained Defendant’s demurrer because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and allege facts sufficient to state a. cause of action for negligence. The Court, however, granted leave to amend. Plaintiff has now submitted an amended complaint which fails to cure these defects.
ALFRED KING AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HAN, ET AL
CV1900724
May 04, 2021
STEPHEN P, FRECCERO
Marin County, CA
SUSTAIN THE DEMURRER TO THE 6TH (CLAIM PRECLUSION), 7TH (IMPLIED CONTRACT), 9TH (FILED RATE DOCTRINE) AND 10TH (FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES-MEDI-CAL CLAIMS) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. OVERRULE THE DEMURRER TO THE 11TH (FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES-MEDICARE CLAIMS) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.
RIVERSIDE EMERGENCY V VANTAGE MEDICAL
RIC1405100
Dec 20, 2016
Riverside County, CA
DECEDENT AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RETALIATION: DECEDENT AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF RETALIATION. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY MAY NOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A PUBLIC ENTITY. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY. U. C. WAS NOT DECEDENT'S EMPLOYER.
ALVIN SYKES VS. DONNA BORLAND ET AL
CGC06448665
Sep 05, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
Issues 1-8: Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Due to Lack of Specificity of June 5, 2019 Administrative Complaint Issues 1-8 address whether Katono's June 5, 2019 administrative complaint to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DEFH") was sufficiently specific to exhaust administrative remedies as required by FEHA . As an initial point, the Court notes that Defendants already raised this issue in an earlier motion for summary adjudication .
ANNA KATONO, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV03322
Nov 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
However, Defendant did not previously move for summary adjudication on the grounds Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and it appears Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(f) does not prevent Defendant from moving for judgment on the pleadings on such grounds. Plaintiff also contends Plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Labor Code sections 98.7 and 244. However, such contention was addressed and rejected in Terris v.
KARIMI VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CA TRANS
30-2017-00916063-CU-WT-CJC
Jul 11, 2019
Orange County, CA
On August 8, 2022, Defendant filed a reply arguing that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies is applicable to everything seeking a refund from EDD, regardless of whether based in California or another State. Further Defendant argues that Plaintiff is attempting to litigate the merits of the case using extrinsic evidence and the arguments still do not excuse the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies. ANALYSIS I.
TOPOLEWSKI AMERICA, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
22STCV18199
Sep 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(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.
GOLDEN STATE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, INC., ET AL. VS ANGELES-IPA, A MEDICAL CORPORATION
19STCV19808
Jun 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
DISCUSSION Second Cause of Action for Whistleblower Retaliation Labor Code § 1102.5 Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs second cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing his claim. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he is not required to exhaust administrative remedies and any failure to exhaust is based on Defendants improper conduct.
ANTHONY RUSSO VS CITY OF PASADENA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.
23AHCV01866
Apr 22, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
As explained below, however, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to Le. Issue No.3: Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to Le and SMH. Plaintiff presents no argument that she was not required to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to claims against Le. Plaintiff, however, argues that she was not required to exhaust administrative remedies in connection with the sixth cause of action.
CHRISTOPHER GOORIS VS ROBERT WYAR
19STCV09644
Aug 12, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
As Plaintiffs point out in their opposition, there appear to be no published cases on the issue of whether a plaintiff asserting a housing discrimination claim is required to exhaust his or her administrative remedies before filing suit.
MARTHA RUMBO ET AL VS 3044 LEE WARD AVENUE LLC ET AL
BC702472
Apr 30, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. =(302/LMG)
PETER HEIN VS. CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
CGC09494744
Mar 10, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
In opposition, ALADS contends that certain facts excuse ALADS from having to first exhaust administrative remedies.
ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES DEPUTY SHERIFFS VS COUNTY OF LA
BC684856
Feb 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
DEMURRER Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (as to all five causes of action of Complaint) Basurto v. Imperial Irrigation District (2012) 211 C.A.4th 866, 879 explains: “Employees who believe they have suffered discrimination at the hands of their employers and wish to file civil claims for damages under the FEHA must first exhaust their administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and obtaining a right-to-sue notice. [Citations.]
JOEY MORALES, A.K.A. JOEY HERNANDEZ VS COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN ET AL.
STK-CV-UWT-2019-0000614
Jul 02, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Indeed, it is clear from the face of the petition that Veerapan did not exhaust her administrative remedies, and that she filed this action before the last steps in the administrative process were completed. 3 Veerapan also fails to allege facts that demonstrate she was not required to exhaust her administrative remedies. Simply alleging the administrative remedies are “worthless,” without more, is insufficient.
ARAYAN VEERAPAN VS. CALIFORNIA MASSAGE THERAPY COUNCIL
34-2019-80003069-CU-WM-GDS
Sep 20, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
It states: The district court granted summary judgment on Ramirez's retaliation claim under California Labor Code § 6310 because Ramirez had not exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing his complaint. At the time, the California Labor Code was silent as to whether a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing a complaint.
April J Grundfor v California Department of State Hospitals, et al. 17CVP0107
Jul 11, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
On Cross-Defendants Dahl, Thompson, Dippel and Dippel's demurrer to all causes of action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the demurrer to the first, second and third causes of action is sustained without leave to amend. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is overruled on the grounds that a wrongful discharge claim is not subject to an exhaustion requirement. Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 65.
ORSBORN, TIFFANY A VS SUPERCUTS ET AL
17CV01144
Aug 14, 2019
Butte County, CA
Instead, the Courts minute order (also dated November 15) stated that [b]ecause the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled that FEHA applies to David, it does not reach Defendants argument that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. There is no inconsistency between this final November 15 order and the subsequent November 21 order which concluded that Veloso failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
AURICE VELOSO VS LEO DAVID, ET AL.
22STCV35085
Jan 08, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Second, plaintiff argues estoppel bars from asserting he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. [A] government entity will be estopped from asserting as a defense a failure to exhaust administrative remedies when a government agent has negligently or intentionally caused a party to fail to comply with a procedural precondition to recovery. ( Shuer v. County of San Diego (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 476, 486.)
ARTHUR LITTLE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV36102
Jun 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has thus failed to show she can successfully amend her complaint to overcome her failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Therefore, leave to amend is denied unless Plaintiff can allege facts supporting compliance with the requirements to exhaust administrative remedies. Dated this 15th day of August, 2017. HON. MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT Judge of the Superior Court
GRACIELA E ORTIZ VS COMPASSIONATE CARE HOSPICE ET AL
BC646004
Aug 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
DISCUSSION Second Cause of Action for Whistleblower Retaliation Labor Code § 1102.5 Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs second cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing his claim. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he is not required to exhaust administrative remedies and any failure to exhaust is based on Defendants improper conduct.
CAVANAUGH THOMPSON VS CITY OF PASADENA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.
23AHCV01862
Apr 22, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
ORTIZ ("Plaintiffs") are required to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3, before bringing the instant claims and have not yet exhausted their administrative remedies, is GRANTED. Defendants' Request (ROA # 15) for judicial notice is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court takes judicial notice only of the date on which Plaintiffs filed their Complaint with the Court; otherwise, the Request is DENIED.
HAUGEN VS ATTIC CONSTRUCTION INC
37-2018-00033020-CU-OE-CTL
Oct 02, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Exhaustion of administrative remedies “Under both state and federal law, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. By 1941, as a rule of general application, state courts required litigants to exhaust their administrative remedies. [Citations.] The exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional: a court cannot hear a case before a litigant exhausts administrative remedies.” (Wright v. State of California (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 659, 664–665.)
JONES VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA,BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
RIC2000035
Jun 02, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Exhaustion of administrative remedies “Under both state and federal law, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. By 1941, as a rule of general application, state courts required litigants to exhaust their administrative remedies. [Citations.] The exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional: a court cannot hear a case before a litigant exhausts administrative remedies.” (Wright v. State of California (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 659, 664–665.)
JONES VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA,BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
RIC2000035
Jun 03, 2022
Riverside County, CA
“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the courts.” ( Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 63.) Defendants demur to the entire complaint arguing that Plaintiff has failed to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies, a prerequisite to resort to the court.
RANDI WINTER VS EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.
20STCV15305
Feb 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Here, the Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) does not allege exhaustion of administrative remedies. Instead, Plaintiff contends that she is excused or that there are exceptions to the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
ELLISON V. RENOVATE AMERICA, INC.
30-2019-01103023
Apr 28, 2021
Orange County, CA
To exhaust his or her administrative remedies as to a particular act made unlawful by the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the claimant must specify that act in the administrative complaint, even if the complaint does specify other cognizable wrongful acts. (Yurick v. Superior Court, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1121-1123.)
ANGELICA MARI RIVERA DE NUNEZ VS. DREAM TEAM SERVICES INC
56-2014-00457510-CU-OE-VTA
Feb 09, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The Demurrer to the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as it is premature because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies and is seeking an order governing the procedure that should be followed prior to completion of any investigation.
JOHN DOE, II VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
21CV-01690
Nov 15, 2021
Merced County, CA
The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because petitioner has failed to allege that she has exhausted her administrative remedies prior to bringing this petition. Petitioner was required to bring a grievance procedure under the Education Code, and the FAP does not contain sufficient allegations demonstrating that a contractual grievance procedure resulting in arbitration, was pursued. Nor has petitioner shown that the requirement to exhaust her administrative remedies was excused.
TATUM V. MT. SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
RIC2003189
Jul 20, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Defendant Borga, Inc., demurs on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as against this defendant, and that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendants Borga, Inc., and BSCS are joint employers as alleged.
RENE TREJO V. BORGA STEEL BUILDINGS AND COMPONENTS, INC., ET AL.
16CECG00111
May 10, 2016
Fresno County, CA
As such, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to her CFRA claim. See Martin, 29 Cal.App.4th at 1724 ("[F]ailure to exhaust administrative remedies is a ground for a defense summary judgment.").
BYRD VS. VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2017-00020461-CU-OE-NC
Jul 26, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
As such, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to her CFRA claim. See Martin, 29 Cal.App.4th at 1724 ("[F]ailure to exhaust administrative remedies is a ground for a defense summary judgment.").
BYRD VS. VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2017-00020461-CU-OE-NC
Aug 01, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Even if plaintiff had not been precluded from pursuing his FEHA claims by his failure to exhaust his judicial remedies, his FEHA claims would still be precluded by his failure to timely exhaust his administrative remedies under FEHA. FEHA requires that an employee exhaust his or her administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (c)), and obtain a notice of right to sue. (Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (b).)
JOSE RODRIGUEZ VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
19CV04331
Feb 11, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to provide any authority that she need not exhaust administrative remedies against the individual defendants. Further, defendants assert, the Labor Code sections cited by plaintiff does not alleviate her obligation to exhaust administrative remedies against them by timely giving notice to the LWDA of their alleged violations of the Labor Code.
CAROLINA SALAZAR VS. THE BAY CLUBS COMPANY, LLC, ET AL
YC073022
Nov 19, 2021
Timothy Lee Johnson
Los Angeles County, CA
The defendant demurred to the complaint, contending the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. The P.W. Court explained that plaintiffs must exhaust all administrative remedies prior to filing litigation.
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS ALPINE ROOF COMPANY, INC.
19LBCV00210
Oct 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court SUSTAINS Respondent’s demurrer WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (See Tejon Real Estate, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 149, 156 [“A demurrer may properly be sustained based on the failure to adequately plead exhaustion of administrative remedies.”].)
MARK PENN VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
BS162647
Mar 08, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
The racing association argued that the horsemens association was required to exhaust administrative remedies with the CHRB, citing CHRB Rule 2043.
GEORGE SHARP VS SANTA ANITA PARK, ET AL.
20STCV04582
Aug 15, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Exhaust administrative remedies issue. Because the request for judicial notice is denied, the Court cannot make a determination from the face of the Petition as to whether Ps were required to exhaust. They allege they were not required to exhaust and the Court must take this as true on demurrer. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515-516.)
CITY OF IRWINDALE VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
56-2015-00464100-CU-WM-VTA
Apr 07, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Administrative
Writ
““In the enforcement of this section, there is no requirement that an individual exhaust administrative remedies or procedures.” Cal. Lab. Code § 98.7(g). The Legislature also enacted Labor Code section 244, which provides that, “An individual is not required to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in order to bring a civil action under any provision of this code, unless that section under which the action is brought expressly requires exhaustion of an administrative remedy.” Cal. Lab.
ROBERT MATTHEWS VS. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STK-CV-UOE-2015-0008208
Jul 09, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
As explained below, the gravamen of the 4th through 6th causes of action against defendant Alvord Unified School District (“defendant AUSD”) is the denial of Free and Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) and Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies.
MINOR DARBY VS RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
RIC1500915
Aug 20, 2018
Riverside County, CA
Defendant County contends plaintiff Church’s submission of a claim for Welfare Exemption subsequent to the institution of this action amounts to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In opposition, plaintiff Church contends the timing of its submission of a claim for Welfare Exemption to the County Assessor does not amount to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SILICON VALLEY VS COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC
19CV357287
Jun 04, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Respondents make various arguments in demurring, with the principal arguments being that Petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and that Plaintiff lacks standing. The Court rejects the first argument. Although administrative remedies may have been required to be exhausted if Petitioner were seeking to, for example, delist any plant or animal under the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA"), that is not the relief Petitioner seeks.
PETITION OF CALIFORNIA CATTLEMENS ASSOCIATION
37-2016-00006135-CU-WM-CTL
Dec 08, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Accordingly, even if the action were not moot, dismissal would have been appropriate in light of petitioners’ failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The court will therefore respectfully DENY the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS VS CITY OF MENIFEE
CVRI2000531
Aug 07, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Accordingly, even if the action were not moot, dismissal would have been appropriate in light of petitioners’ failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The court will therefore respectfully DENY the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS VS CITY OF MENIFEE
CVRI2000531
Aug 08, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Accordingly, even if the action were not moot, dismissal would have been appropriate in light of petitioners’ failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The court will therefore respectfully DENY the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS VS CITY OF MENIFEE
CVRI2000531
Aug 06, 2022
Riverside County, CA
As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action arising under FEHA in the FAC are SUSTAINED without leave to amend as Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies.
GREGORY DAVENPORT VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC718192
Jun 18, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Amended Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Mandate Set For Hearing On Thursday, December 21, 2006, Line 15, PETITIONER MICHAEL ULAND'S Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Mandate IS DENIED, FAILED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. SEE RULE 105.12.4. =(302/REQ/PB)
MICHAEL T ULAND VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CIVIL SERVICE ET AL
CPF06506776
Dec 21, 2006
San Francisco County, CA
SUSTAIN the demurrer based upon failure to exhaust administrative remedies, based solely on Plaintiff’s erroneous “citation” allegations; OVERULE the demurrer on all other grounds asserted. GRANT the motion to strike the prayer for attorney’s fees. THIRTY DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. Prevailing party to give notice.
FALCO VS. CITY OF MENIFEE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6
MCC1700399
Sep 28, 2017
Raquel A. Marquez
Riverside County, CA
Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 109, 115 – 119 [naming of the person who allegedly committed the unlawful practice is mandatory; failure to do so is a failure to exhaust administrative remedies as against said person]; (Davenport v.
CV-2021-0297
Feb 28, 2023
Yolo County, CA
Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. = (501/EHG)
O.K. INVESTMENTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPALITY ET AL
CGC12526263
Apr 24, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
Taylor did not exhaust her administrative remedies with regards to these moving defendants. Further, Plaintiff Taylor does not oppose the motion as to these defendants. 2. Judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as to defendant FilmOn.TV, Inc. because Taylor’s original DFEH complaint did list this defendant as a respondent. 3.
ELIZABETH TAYLOR ET AL VS ALKIVIADES DAVID ET AL
BC649025
Sep 28, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Although Plaintiff admits that the tax sale was authorized by law in arguing that hi failure to exhaust administrative remedies would have been futile, he raises new challenges t the conduct of the sale based on several procedural constitutional grounds. Plaintiff contend that the sale was procedurally improper due to a lack of notice of the sale.
MCINNIS V COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
20CV02234
Mar 03, 2020
: Timothy Volkmann</p>
Santa Cruz County, CA
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The Johnson Defendants argue that Plaintiff was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit. (Wright v. State of California (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 659, 663, 666-667 [plaintiff prisoner asserting medical malpractice claims was required to exhaust his administrative remedies via administrative appeal process prior to filing his lawsuit].)
VINCENT CALLENDER V. JESUS PEREZ, M.D. ET AL.
18CVP0055
Feb 26, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
The Supreme Court concluded that “the exhaustion rule requires university employees to exhaust university administrative remedies before proceeding to suit.” (Ibid.) The Campbell court did not expressly consider an exhaustion requirement under Labor Code section 98.7, but reached a more general conclusion addressing university administrative remedies not applicable here.
RICHARD QUIROGA VS SANTA BARBARA COMMUNITY COLLEGE ETC ET AL
1418131
Jan 07, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, San Francisco Business & Tax Regulations Code, article 6 sections 6.13-5 and 6.15-4. =(302/CWW/JW)
US PARKING INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO A MUNICIPAL ET AL
CGC08483696
Feb 24, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
ANALYSIS A party seeking relief pursuant to FEHA must first exhaust his or her administrative remedies. ( Wills v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 153 (Before filing a civil action alleging FEHA violations, an employee must exhaust his or her administrative remedies with DFEH).)
MAHTAB TABAN VS GURSEY, SCHNEIDER & CO. LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV25387
Jan 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the demurrer on the grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies is OVERRULED without prejudice to raising the exhaustion issue in a dispositive motion or at trial.
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE VS GRASSLAND GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY, ET AL.
21CV-02127
Jan 21, 2022
Merced County, CA
Demurring parties have failed to establish that none of the causes of action is ripe and/or that all of the causes of actions are barred by plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Demurring parties has also failed to demonstrate that the City Council is not a proper party.
4348 LOCKWOOD AVE VS THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
RIC1703102
Jul 11, 2017
Riverside County, CA
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Temporary Restraining Order is dissolved. =(302/CWW/BD)
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER VS. SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT
CPF08509107
Feb 27, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
Defendant asks the Court to strike the SAC and award Defendant’ its attorneys’ fees pursuant to CCP § 128.5 and 128.7 on the following grounds: (i) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he filed his initial PAGA claim (asserted in the First Amended Complaint) one day before the 65-day waiting period set by Cal.
DAVID LEON VS. SWH MIMI'S CAFE, LLC
30-2018-00978815-CU-OE-CXC
Apr 12, 2019
Orange County, CA
Accordingly, Cross-Complainant’s allegation that it need not exhaust administrative remedies because Cross-Defendant authorized the original suit fails. The Court finds that the First Amended Cross-Complaint has failed to sufficiently allege exhaustion of administrative remedies and thus has failed to sufficiently plead jurisdiction.
AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE INCO VS. THE INDEPENDENT TAXI OWNERS
15A16869
Jan 22, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk
Los Angeles County, CA
Consequently, it does not appear that Defendant exhausted its administrative remedies, and relief is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff to give notice.
MEJIA, GERSON VS MALTZMAN, DANIEL
13K08064
Oct 06, 2016
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Consequently, it does not appear that Defendant exhausted its administrative remedies, and relief is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff to give notice.
MEJIA, MOISES VS MALTZMAN, DANIEL
13K09704
Oct 06, 2016
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
As such, Plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to commencing this lawsuit.[1] Defendant asserts that the language in Page makes it clear that Plaintiff must exhaust his chosen administrative remedies. (See Reply, p. 2, lines 23-24.) The Court disagrees. The language in Page is not so broad as to preclude a plaintiff from pursuing a FEHA action after withdrawing a request of an administrative remedy before any evidentiary hearings have been held.
JOHN EGAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
BC684064
Apr 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
It is well established that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the remedies sought cannot be provided by the administrative entity. (See, e.g., Glendale City Employees' Assn., Inc. v. City of Glendale (1975) 15 Cal.3d 328, 342 [the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply if the remedy is inadequate].) (Emphasis added.)
REGINALD GILL VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
34-2018-80002994-CU-WM-GDS
Feb 07, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Moving parties, referred to here, as “Individual Defendants”, contend Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to them. They allege that under Government Code §8547, a plaintiff must first exhaust his or her administrative remedies with the SPB (State Personnel Board) before filing a lawsuit. The Individual Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s claim is time barred. Individual Defendants fail to meet their burden on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
JOSEPH DDS VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS
RIC1607364
Aug 08, 2018
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiffs cite the Roth case in support of their argument that they didn't have to exhaust administrative remedies before suing because, inter alia, their claims are constitutional in nature.
KIMBERLY A UNGAR VS. CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA
56-2012-00413272-CU-CR-VTA
May 29, 2012
Ventura County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Rather, they hold that when a plaintiff’s claim “arises under” or is “inextricably intertwined” with a Medicare benefits determination, the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Claims that are not “inextricably intertwined” with a benefits determination need not be exhausted before filing.
SACKS VS. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN
30-2018-00965590
Dec 04, 2020
Orange County, CA
“Before filing a civil action alleging FEHA violations, an employee must exhaust his or her administrative remedies with DFEH. Exhaustion includes the timely filing of administrative complaints addressing the claims and parties at issue, as well as the procurement of right-to-sue letters.
BEATRICE HAMLIN, ET AL. VS EMERICARE, INC., ET AL.
19STCV27312
Mar 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
A demurrer may properly be granted based on the failure to adequately plead an exhaustion of administrative remedies. A plaintiff must exhaust the administrative remedies available before resorting to the courts. The issue is one of jurisdiction. (Shuer v. County of San Diego (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 476, 482 [11 Cal.Rptr.3d 776].)
MAKENA COURT, LLC VS CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
21CV02041
Dec 07, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
A demurrer may properly be granted based on the failure to adequately plead an exhaustion of administrative remedies. A plaintiff must exhaust the administrative remedies available before resorting to the courts. The issue is one of jurisdiction. (Shuer v. County of San Diego (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 476, 482 [11 Cal.Rptr.3d 776].)
MAKENA COURT, LLC VS CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
21CV02041
Dec 06, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
A demurrer may properly be granted based on the failure to adequately plead an exhaustion of administrative remedies. A plaintiff must exhaust the administrative remedies available before resorting to the courts. The issue is one of jurisdiction. (Shuer v. County of San Diego (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 476, 482 [11 Cal.Rptr.3d 776].)
MAKENA COURT, LLC VS CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
21CV02041
Dec 05, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
A demurrer may properly be granted based on the failure to adequately plead an exhaustion of administrative remedies. A plaintiff must exhaust the administrative remedies available before resorting to the courts. The issue is one of jurisdiction. (Shuer v. County of San Diego (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 476, 482 [11 Cal.Rptr.3d 776].)
MAKENA COURT, LLC VS CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
21CV02041
Dec 04, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
A demurrer may properly be granted based on the failure to adequately plead an exhaustion of administrative remedies. A plaintiff must exhaust the administrative remedies available before resorting to the courts. The issue is one of jurisdiction. (Shuer v. County of San Diego (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 476, 482 [11 Cal.Rptr.3d 776].)
MAKENA COURT, LLC VS CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
21CV02041
Dec 08, 2021
Santa Cruz County, CA
Therefore, Patrick’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is dispositive.[7] E. Conclusion The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.
SELWYN J. PATRICK, M.D. VS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.
18STCP02834
May 14, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
THERE ARE NO ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES THAT PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO EXHAUST. =(302/LMG)
FOUNDERS REALTY, INC. VS. MARIA IRMA LOPEZ ET AL
CGC10505309
Jun 17, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
The Shelley-Maloney Apprentice Labor Standards Act of 1939 does not expressly require plaintiff to exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing this legal action. (Labor Code §§ 244(a), 3078(h), 3081, and 3082; see also, Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1089, as modified (Dec. 23, 2003); Sheridan v.
FREEMAN VS OPERATING ENGINEERS TRAINING TRUST
37-2017-00011091-CU-OE-CTL
Aug 31, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Plaintiffs argue that regardless of Terris, their whistleblower retaliation claim does not fail because they were not required to exhaust administrative remedies on account of no administrative remedies were available for the adverse actions they suffered. (See Life Care Centers of America v. CalOptima (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1177; see also Payne v.
JOSEPH RIVERA ET AL VS CITY OF WHITTIER ET AL
BC574443
Apr 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Movant is making the same argument it made previously, to wit: Rodrigues did not exhaust administrative remedies as to sexual harassment. With regard to this exact argument, this court previously ruled: In the case at bench. Defendant demurs on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Plaintiff alleges she filed a complaint for sexual harassment with DFEH and received a right to sue letter. This is sufficient against a demurrer.
RODRIGUES V. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, ET AL.
17CECG03478
Sep 25, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Since exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to filing a complaint, Plaintiff cannot now cure his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claims based on sexual orientation. Accordingly, Defendants demur to the Seventh and Eighth causes of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
SILVA VS. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY
30-2019-01094708
Feb 06, 2020
Orange County, CA
It held that “a trial court may not award a defendant attorney fees under section 12965 where, as here, summary judgment is granted for failure to exhaust administrative remedies[.]” (Id. at p. 478.) Defendants urge a contrary ruling, and in fact argue that the “failure to exhaust administrative remedies is sufficient by itself to trigger an award of costs.” (Oppo, p. 5:17-18, emphasis added.)
MARTINEZ V. TRUE BLUE, INC.
17CECG00652
May 15, 2019
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Sustain demurrers of 7980 Balcom, BC Pet Boarding, and Balcom Canyon Pet Lodge to causes of action 1-5 based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The right to sue letter from the DFEH references only Gonzalez/Melissa Houlihan. There is no mention of other defendants.
SELENE GONZALEZ VS. MELISSA HOULIHAN
56-2016-00487394-CU-OE-VTA
Feb 01, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Defendant met its burden on Issue No. 3, regarding plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (UMF #24-29.) Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact. Issue No. 3 is fatal to the entire action. The court GRANTS the motion for summary adjudication as to Issue No. 3 and summary judgment. Defendant is to give notice.
CHOI VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
30-2016-01037669
May 21, 2021
Orange County, CA
BF’s motion may be granted in its entirety on the single ground that Holmes failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit.
MICHAEL J HOLMES VS BEHAVIOR FRONTIERS LLC
BC689599
Dec 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
ANALYSIS: Defendant demurs to the second and third causes of action on the ground that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. (See Demurrer, p. 3:4-16.)
TINA MADATIAN VS MANAGEMENT SUCCESS INC
BC685746
Apr 09, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant’s motion rests on its argument that plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be dismissed because she does not allege that she exhausted administrative remedies. Defendant offers no proof of failure to exhaust (e.g., seeking judicial notice of the absence of any record of an administrative claim). Its judicial-notice evidence is limited to proof of the existence of the administrative remedy that plaintiff supposedly didn’t exhaust.
HALE VS. SAN RAMON VALLEY USD
MSC17-01079
Oct 05, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
Second cause of action Violation of FEHA - Discrimination: DENY triable issue of fact re adverse employment decision Third cause of action Violation of FEHA - Hostile Environment: GRANT no triable issue of fact re failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 437c(h) request denied because Plaintiff does not show any likelihood that there is evidence that he had actually exhausted administrative remedies.
RICHTER VS UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC
CGC01322022
Jun 26, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
Thereafter, Moving Defendant filed a motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s first cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not plead or prove that he exhausted his administrative remedies. DISCUSSION “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437(f)(1).)
MICHAEL COREY SPEARS VS STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS GROUP
BC701853
Jun 14, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant Coachella Valley Water District demurs to Plaintiff Rancho Mirage Mobile Home Community, LP’s First Amended Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, which deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, Plaintiff is time barred from pursuing its administrative remedies. To withstand a demurrer the complaint must contain “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (Code Civ. Proc.
RANCHO MIRAGE MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY, LP V. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
PSC 1705021
May 01, 2018
Riverside County, CA
The failure to arbitrate before a civil action is analogous to the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Charles J. Rounds Co. v. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 42 , (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 888, 894.
CHERI GURGANUS VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
21STCP00827
Aug 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
To the extent conservatee, his counsel or his mother as an interested party wish to challenge those findings, they must exhaust administrative remedies associated with the provision of services by the CDDS, and must do so timely. In the meantime, the Public Guardian is the temporary conservator only until August 16, 2016. Should the Public Guardian be appointed general conservator in light of the reticence of the regional center to provide services ? Discuss. gmr
IN THE MATTER OF ANDREW LEE VALLES
56-2015-00468470-PR-CP-OXN
Aug 16, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Family Law
Conservatorship
As such, even assuming Plaintiffs workers compensation claim and 132a petition equitably tolled the statute of limitations, Plaintiff still failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by failing to include these claims in her administrative charge. ( Yurick , supra , 209 Cal.App.3d at p. 1121-23.)
LAURIE LASHOMB VS TJX COMPANIES INC
22STCV10433
Dec 09, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, the information alleged in the cross-complaint is enough to determine, at least for pleading purposes, that Schon Tepler was not required to exhaust administrative remedies. CONCLUSION SCIFs demurrer to cross-complaint is OVERRULED.
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS SCHON TEPLER CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.
23STCV03859
Feb 16, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the demurrer on the grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies is OVERRULED without prejudice to raising the exhaustion issue in a dispositive motion or at trial.
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE VS SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, ET AL.
21CV-01691
Jan 21, 2022
Merced County, CA
PLAINTIFF DID EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY FILING AN AMENDED D.F.E.H. COMPLAINT AND ISSUES RELATED TO KLIPPEL WERE ADDRESSED. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS TO CONNECT KLIPPEL'S ALLEGED STATEMENTS TO PLAINTIFF OR TO ALLEGE FACTS DEMONSTRATING PERVASIVE OR SEVERE CONDUCT. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS TO ALLEGE HOW A CO-WORKER DID ENGAGE IN RETALIATION. =(302/PJM/AP)
NEIL ADAMS VS. CORT BUSINESS SERVICES CORPORATION ET AL
CGC06454846
May 22, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
As discussed in the prior demurrer, Plaintiff also alleges that on June 1, 2017, she received correspondence from the Board in which Plaintiff was informed that the dismissal of her complaint constituted an exhaustion of her administrative remedies with regard to her case with the Board. Defendant does not address this allegation. Thus, it is not established, as a matter of law, that there was a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
April J. Grundfor v. California Department of State Hospitals, et al. 17CVP0107
Sep 19, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.