Exhausting Administrative Remedies in California

What Are the Laws on Exhausting Administrative Remedies?

Purpose and Scope of Administrative Remedy

“‘[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.

Labor Commissioner and Labor Code Distinction

“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.)

“Exhaustion” Defined

“[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.)

Rulings for Exhausting Administrative Remedies in California

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.

  • Name

    CLARK V. TAHOE TURNING POINT

  • Case No.

    PC-20170185

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2017

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.

  • Name

    HOUSING REFORM COALITION OF LA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BS144425

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2018

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.

  • Name

    BERNARD ALLER VS SARAH CANNON

  • Case No.

    BC706163

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JACKSON VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    RIC1715688

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

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.

  • Name

    RIVERSIDE EMERGENCY V VANTAGE MEDICAL

  • Case No.

    RIC1405100

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2016

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.

  • Name

    ALVIN SYKES VS. DONNA BORLAND ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC06448665

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2007

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.

  • Name

    ALFRED KING AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HAN, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1900724

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2021

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.

  • Name

    ALFRED KING AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HAN, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1900724

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2021

  • Judge

    STEPHEN P, FRECCERO

  • County

    Marin 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.

  • Name

    KARIMI VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CA TRANS

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00916063-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

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 .

  • Name

    ANNA KATONO, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV03322

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    TOPOLEWSKI AMERICA, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

  • Case No.

    22STCV18199

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19STCV19808

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. =(302/LMG)

  • Name

    PETER HEIN VS. CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC09494744

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2011

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.

  • Name

    MARTHA RUMBO ET AL VS 3044 LEE WARD AVENUE LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC702472

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2021

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.

  • Name

    CHRISTOPHER GOORIS VS ROBERT WYAR

  • Case No.

    19STCV09644

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

In opposition, ALADS contends that certain facts excuse ALADS from having to first exhaust administrative remedies.

  • Name

    ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES DEPUTY SHERIFFS VS COUNTY OF LA

  • Case No.

    BC684856

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2018

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.]

  • Name

    JOEY MORALES, A.K.A. JOEY HERNANDEZ VS COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UWT-2019-0000614

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2019

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.

  • Name

    ARAYAN VEERAPAN VS. CALIFORNIA MASSAGE THERAPY COUNCIL

  • Case No.

    34-2019-80003069-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2019

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.

  • Name

    ORSBORN, TIFFANY A VS SUPERCUTS ET AL

  • Case No.

    17CV01144

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

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.

  • Case No.

    April J Grundfor v California Department of State Hospitals, et al. 17CVP0107

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2017

  • County

    San Luis Obispo 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.

  • Name

    HAUGEN VS ATTIC CONSTRUCTION INC

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00033020-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2018

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.

  • Name

    AURICE VELOSO VS LEO DAVID, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV35085

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2024

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    ARTHUR LITTLE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV36102

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2023

  • County

    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

  • Name

    GRACIELA E ORTIZ VS COMPASSIONATE CARE HOSPICE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC646004

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    JONES VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA,BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

  • Case No.

    RIC2000035

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    JONES VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA,BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

  • Case No.

    RIC2000035

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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.

  • Name

    ELLISON V. RENOVATE AMERICA, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01103023

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2021

“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.

  • Name

    RANDI WINTER VS EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV15305

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

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.)

  • Name

    ANGELICA MARI RIVERA DE NUNEZ VS. DREAM TEAM SERVICES INC

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00457510-CU-OE-VTA

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2015

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.

  • Name

    JOHN DOE, II VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    21CV-01690

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    TATUM V. MT. SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY COLLEGE

  • Case No.

    RIC2003189

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2021

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.").

  • Name

    BYRD VS. VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00020461-CU-OE-NC

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

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.").

  • Name

    BYRD VS. VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00020461-CU-OE-NC

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

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.

  • Name

    RENE TREJO V. BORGA STEEL BUILDINGS AND COMPONENTS, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    16CECG00111

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2016

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).)

  • Name

    JOSE RODRIGUEZ VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

  • Case No.

    19CV04331

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

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.

  • Name

    CAROLINA SALAZAR VS. THE BAY CLUBS COMPANY, LLC, ET AL

  • Case No.

    YC073022

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2021

  • Judge

    Timothy Lee Johnson

  • County

    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.”].)

  • Name

    MARK PENN VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

  • Case No.

    BS162647

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2017

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.

  • Name

    CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS ALPINE ROOF COMPANY, INC.

  • Case No.

    19LBCV00210

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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)

  • Name

    MICHAEL T ULAND VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CIVIL SERVICE ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF06506776

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2006

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.

  • Name

    FALCO VS. CITY OF MENIFEE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6

  • Case No.

    MCC1700399

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2017

  • Judge

    Raquel A. Marquez

  • County

    Riverside 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.

  • Name

    MINOR DARBY VS RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

  • Case No.

    RIC1500915

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2018

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.

  • Name

    PETITION OF CALIFORNIA CATTLEMENS ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00006135-CU-WM-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2016

Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. = (501/EHG)

  • Name

    O.K. INVESTMENTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPALITY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC12526263

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2013

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.)

  • Name

    CITY OF IRWINDALE VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00464100-CU-WM-VTA

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2015

““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.

  • Name

    ROBERT MATTHEWS VS. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UOE-2015-0008208

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

The racing association argued that the horsemens association was required to exhaust administrative remedies with the CHRB, citing CHRB Rule 2043.

  • Name

    GEORGE SHARP VS SANTA ANITA PARK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV04582

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF SILICON VALLEY VS COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC

  • Case No.

    19CV357287

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2020

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)

  • Name

    US PARKING INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO A MUNICIPAL ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08483696

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2009

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.

  • Name

    4348 LOCKWOOD AVE VS THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

  • Case No.

    RIC1703102

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2017

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Temporary Restraining Order is dissolved. =(302/CWW/BD)

  • Name

    SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER VS. SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

  • Case No.

    CPF08509107

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2009

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.

  • Name

    PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS VS CITY OF MENIFEE

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000531

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS VS CITY OF MENIFEE

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000531

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS VS CITY OF MENIFEE

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000531

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    GREGORY DAVENPORT VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC718192

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2019

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.

  • Case No.

    CV-2021-0297

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2023

  • County

    Yolo 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.

  • Name

    ELIZABETH TAYLOR ET AL VS ALKIVIADES DAVID ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC649025

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2017

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.

  • Name

    MCINNIS V COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

  • Case No.

    20CV02234

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Judge

    : Timothy Volkmann</p>

  • County

    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].)

  • Name

    VINCENT CALLENDER V. JESUS PEREZ, M.D. ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CVP0055

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2019

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.

  • Name

    CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE VS GRASSLAND GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CV-02127

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2022

  • County

    Merced County, CA

Consequently, it does not appear that Defendant exhausted its administrative remedies, and relief is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Name

    MEJIA, GERSON VS MALTZMAN, DANIEL

  • Case No.

    13K08064

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Consequently, it does not appear that Defendant exhausted its administrative remedies, and relief is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Name

    MEJIA, MOISES VS MALTZMAN, DANIEL

  • Case No.

    13K09704

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    RICHARD QUIROGA VS SANTA BARBARA COMMUNITY COLLEGE ETC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1418131

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2014

THERE ARE NO ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES THAT PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO EXHAUST. =(302/LMG)

  • Name

    FOUNDERS REALTY, INC. VS. MARIA IRMA LOPEZ ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10505309

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2011

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).)

  • Name

    MAHTAB TABAN VS GURSEY, SCHNEIDER & CO. LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV25387

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE INCO VS. THE INDEPENDENT TAXI OWNERS

  • Case No.

    15A16869

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    DAVID LEON VS. SWH MIMI'S CAFE, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00978815-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2019

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.

  • Name

    FREEMAN VS OPERATING ENGINEERS TRAINING TRUST

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00011091-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2017

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.

  • Name

    SELENE GONZALEZ VS. MELISSA HOULIHAN

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00487394-CU-OE-VTA

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2018

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.

  • Name

    CHOI VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    30-2016-01037669

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2021

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.

  • Name

    JOHN EGAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC684064

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2018

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.

  • Name

    KIMBERLY A UNGAR VS. CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA

  • Case No.

    56-2012-00413272-CU-CR-VTA

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2012

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.)

  • Name

    REGINALD GILL VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

  • Case No.

    34-2018-80002994-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

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.

  • Name

    JOSEPH DDS VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS

  • Case No.

    RIC1607364

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2018

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].)

  • Name

    MAKENA COURT, LLC VS CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

  • Case No.

    21CV02041

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2021

  • County

    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].)

  • Name

    MAKENA COURT, LLC VS CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

  • Case No.

    21CV02041

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2021

  • County

    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].)

  • Name

    MAKENA COURT, LLC VS CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

  • Case No.

    21CV02041

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2021

  • County

    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].)

  • Name

    MAKENA COURT, LLC VS CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

  • Case No.

    21CV02041

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2021

  • County

    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].)

  • Name

    MAKENA COURT, LLC VS CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

  • Case No.

    21CV02041

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2021

  • County

    Santa Cruz 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.

  • Name

    BEATRICE HAMLIN, ET AL. VS EMERICARE, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV27312

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

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.

  • Name

    SACKS VS. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00965590

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

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

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF ANDREW LEE VALLES

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00468470-PR-CP-OXN

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2016

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.

  • Name

    RICHTER VS UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC

  • Case No.

    CGC01322022

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2002

Therefore, Patrick’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is dispositive.[7] E. Conclusion The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Name

    SELWYN J. PATRICK, M.D. VS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCP02834

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

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.

  • Name

    HALE VS. SAN RAMON VALLEY USD

  • Case No.

    MSC17-01079

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2018

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).)

  • Name

    MICHAEL COREY SPEARS VS STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS GROUP

  • Case No.

    BC701853

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JOSEPH RIVERA ET AL VS CITY OF WHITTIER ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC574443

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2018

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.)

  • Name

    MARTINEZ V. TRUE BLUE, INC.

  • Case No.

    17CECG00652

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2019

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.

  • Name

    SILVA VS. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01094708

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

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.

  • Name

    RODRIGUES V. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CECG03478

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

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)

  • Name

    NEIL ADAMS VS. CORT BUSINESS SERVICES CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC06454846

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2007

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.)

  • Name

    TINA MADATIAN VS MANAGEMENT SUCCESS INC

  • Case No.

    BC685746

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2018

BF’s motion may be granted in its entirety on the single ground that Holmes failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit.

  • Name

    MICHAEL J HOLMES VS BEHAVIOR FRONTIERS LLC

  • Case No.

    BC689599

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

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.

  • Name

    RANCHO MIRAGE MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY, LP V. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    PSC 1705021

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2018

Defendant fails to cite any authority for the proposition that Plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before filing this action. SF Admin. Code 37.8 is not applicable to this case based on allegations in the First Amended Complaint; and is not mandatory. Advancing new theories in reply (i.e. availability of an adequate alternative relief) and reliance on unpublished opinions is improper. = (501/REQ)

  • Name

    CIARAN O'SULLIVAN VS. WILBUR WOO AS TRUSTEE OF THE WOO FAMILY TRUST ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC13533220

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2015

Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the causes of action 1-3 as plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies under SF Admin. Code 41A. Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the 4th cause of action to clarify that this cause of action is not brought by Plaintiffs Gamache and McGee who concede that they are barred from bringing this claim be the release in the settlement agreement. = (501/REQ)

  • Name

    DIANE SCHOBER ET AL VS. KAMRAN ARDEBILCHI ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC13533713

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2015

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.

  • Name

    CHERI GURGANUS VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    21STCP00827

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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.

  • Name

    CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE VS SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CV-01691

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2022

  • County

    Merced County, CA

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.)

  • Name

    LAURIE LASHOMB VS TJX COMPANIES INC

  • Case No.

    22STCV10433

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS SCHON TEPLER CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV03859

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Case No.

    April J. Grundfor v. California Department of State Hospitals, et al. 17CVP0107

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2017

  • County

    San Luis Obispo County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope