Local governments are authorized to enact an administrative process to enforce violations of any local ordinance through the imposition and collection of administrative fines or penalties. (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(1).) This authorization was intended “to provide a faster and more cost-effective enforcement mechanism than criminal prosecution for the violation of a local ordinance.” (94 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 39, 43 (2011).)
Despite its broad applicability, the requirements for implementing a code enforcement process are relatively basic: “The local agency shall set forth by ordinance the administrative procedures that shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review by the local agency of those administrative fines or penalties.” (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(1).)
Any such administrative procedures must provide for “a reasonable period of time, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, when the violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety.” (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(2)(A).)
However, “the ordinance adopted by the local agency pursuant to this subdivision may provide for the immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for the violation of building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural, health and safety, or zoning requirements if the violation exists as a result of, or to facilitate, the illegal cultivation of cannabis. This subparagraph shall not be construed to apply to cannabis cultivation that is lawfully undertaken pursuant to Section 11362.1 of the Health and Safety Code.” (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(2)(B).) Such an ordinance shall provide for “a reasonable period of time for the correction or remedy of the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties... if all of the following are true:
(Gov. Code, § 53069.4(a)(2)(C).)
Section 53069.4 provides for judicial review of a local agency's final administrative order in a code enforcement action. (Gov. Code § 53069.4(b)(1).) Great specificity in the administrative decision is not required and an administrative decision may be deemed satisfactory if the findings form an analytic bridge between the evidence and the agency's decision. (Fair Employment Practice Com. V. State Personnel Bd. (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 322.)
After obtaining an unfavorable administrative decision in a code enforcement proceeding, a challenge to a final administrative order may be brought by either writ of mandate or a Section 53069.4 request for trial de novo. (Martin v. Riverside Co. Dept. of Code Enforcement (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1406.) “[W]ithin 20 days after service of the final administrative order or decision of the local agency is made pursuant to an ordinance enacted in accordance with this section regarding the imposition, enforcement, or collection of the administrative fines or penalties, a person contesting that final administrative order or decision may seek review by filing an appeal to be heard by the superior court, where the same shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the local agency’s file in the case shall be received in evidence.” (Id.)
The de novo review process authorized by the statute is, in essence, an original proceeding in the superior court reviewing the propriety of a local agency’s final administrative decision after hearing to impose fines or penalties; it is “tantamount to a superior court judgment in mandamus,” which is generally appealable. (Cruz v. Patel (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 234, 242; JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1056–1057 & fns. 9–10.)
These proceedings are only applicable to limited civil cases. (Gov. Code § 53069.4(b)(1).) The statutory scheme governing the designation of civil actions makes clear that “a civil case is classified as unlimited by default; extra requirements must be satisfied to render a case limited.” (Stratton v. Beck (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 483, 493.) “[N]otwithstanding any statute that classifies an action or special proceeding as a limited civil case, an action or special proceeding shall not be treated as a limited civil case unless all of [three] conditions are satisfied.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85.) The first of these three conditions requires that “[t]he amount in controversy does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85(a).) In addition, the relief sought must be of “a type that may be granted in a limited civil case” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85(b)) and must be “exclusively of a type described in one or more statutes that classify an action or special proceeding as a limited civil case.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 85(c).)
death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.”
Jul 26, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
(“Coastal Act”), and § 35-169 of Article II of the County of Santa Barbara Coastal Zoning Ordinance (“CZO”). [PCC ¶2] On October 10 and 24, 2016, MBAR considered the CDP application for conceptual review by the MBAR. The Project description subject to MBAR conceptual review included habitat and vegetation restoration on portions of Parcel 004 and Parcel 024. [PCC ¶3] MPC considered and approved the CDP application on February 15, 2017.
Jul 13, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
"The doctrine of exhaustion of administrafive remedies requires that where a remedy before an administrative agency is provided by statute, regulation, or ordinance, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act." (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 85, 99-100.)
Jul 10, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
“The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where a remedy before an administrative agency is provided by statute, regulation, or ordinance, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act.” (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 85, 99-100.)
Jul 10, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
However, when the language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part.” (Nolan v. City of Anaheim (2004) 33 Cal.4th 335, 340.)
Jul 10, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the TOT Ordinance does apply because there is no definition of “other amenities” in the TOT Agreement and the TOT Agreement specifically refers to the TOT Ordinance in Paragraph 6(c). Under the TOT Ordinance, the amount of TOT due is 15% of the “rent”.
Jul 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
From a code enforcement perspective, it is imperative that the penalty for violations of the City’s short-term vacation rental ordinance be sufficient to deter violators. Id. The City has a fee schedule for violations of its short-term rental ordinance. Holub Decl. ¶2, Ex. G.
Jul 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
“In exercising its independent judgment, a trial court must afford a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings, and the party challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Fukuda, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 817.
Jul 09, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
For purposes of this Agreement, “Dispute” does not include a claim for workers’ compensation or unemployment compensation benefits; a claim under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended; an administrative charge before a federal, state or local governmental agency; a claim by Employer for injunctive or other equitable relief, including without limitation claims for unfair competition and the use or unauthorized disclosure of Confidential Information (as the term is defined in the Confidentiality,
Jul 09, 2020
Orange County, CA
An “enactment” is statutorily defined as “a constitutional provision, statute, charter provision, ordinance or regulation.” (Gov. Code, § 810.6.) The cause of action must specifically allege the particular enactment that creates the mandatory duty. (See, e.g., Washington v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 890.)
Jul 06, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
Issue 5: Administrative Exhaustion Before filing a PAGA claim, a plaintiff must provide the LWDA and the employer notice of “the specific provisions of [the Labor Code] alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation.” (Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(1)(A).)
Jun 29, 2020
Orange County, CA
Issue 5: Administrative Exhaustion Before filing a PAGA claim, a plaintiff must provide the LWDA and the employer notice of “the specific provisions of [the Labor Code] alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation.” (Labor Code § 2699.3(a)(1)(A).)
Jun 27, 2020
Orange County, CA
Ordinance No. 19-0007 simply added new compliance tools to facilitate enforcement efforts. AR 19-21. The new administrative and enforcement tools —penalizing advertising of STRs and imposing information-sharing obligation on platforms—do not create a new use or prohibit a previously permitted use of land, they only assist the City in achieving compliance with its preexisting prohibition to respond to the rapid increase of an illegal land use in the City.
Jun 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 8, 2019, the Office of the City Attorney transmitted a draft ordinance and report to the City Council which stated that the City Council incorporated by reference in error portions of the CFC and International Fire Code. City RJN Ex. 1. The draft ordinance cures the error by repealing LAMC section 57.108 in its entirety. City RJN Ex. 1. The City Council adopted the ordinance on August 28, 2019, and it became effective on October 21, 2019. City RJN Exs. 2-4. D.
Jun 25, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.”
Jun 24, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
, tort claims, and claims for discrimination, claims for wrongful discharge, violations of the Family Medical Leave Act, violations of confidentiality or breaches of trade secrets, and claims for violation of any federal, state, or other governmental law, statute, regulation, or ordinance whether based on statute or common law.
Jun 24, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
The Urgency Ordinance also expressly disclaimed that no site would acquire any ongoing right to continue cultivating industrial hemp under the Urgency Ordinance. (Id. at § 8.) On July 16, 2019, prior to the Urgency Ordinance’s expiration, the Board of Supervisors extended the Urgency’s Ordinance through June 18, 2020. (County RFJN, Ex. B; see Gov. Code, § 65858.)
Jun 23, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
On March 18, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the March 17, 2020, Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge, the Court continued the instant motion to April 17, 2020, with no change in the briefing schedule. Counsel for Defendant was informed telephonically, and directed to give notice. On March 25, 2020, and in response to the continuing pandemic conditions, the Court continued the matter again, setting the motion for hearing on May 22, 2020.
Jun 23, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The owner may do so, where appropriate, by a facial challenge to the ordinance, but in most cases must seek a variance if that relief is available and then exhaust other administrative and judicial remedies… The latter, an ‘as applied’ challenge to the development restrictions imposed by the administrative agency, may be properly made in a petition for writ of ‘administrative’ mandamus to review the final administrative decision (Code Civ.
Jun 23, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Legal Standard Health and Safety Code § 17980.6 reads, in relevant part, that “[i]f any building is maintained in a manner that violates any provisions of this part, the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code relating to the provisions of this part, any other rule or regulation adopted pursuant to the provisions of this part, or any provision in a local ordinance that is similar to a provision in this part, and the violations are so extensive and of such a nature that the health and
Jun 23, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
The City shall prescribe by ordinance the process for purchases of materials consistent with the requirements of the Charter. Charter §380. 2. LAAC The City shall have the right and power, subject to the restrictions in the Charter, to make contracts. Los Angeles Administrative Code (“LAAC”) §10.1. All purchases of materials shall be made by the Purchasing Agent in accordance with the provisions of Charter sections 371 and 380. LAAC §9.1.
Jun 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Section 40059.3(a) similarly provides: “ An ordinance adopted by a city or county or an ordinance enacted by initiative by the voters of a city or county shall not restrict or limit the importation of solid waste into a privately owned facility in that city or county based on the place of origin.”
Jun 22, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
On October 12, 2018, absent Chavez class member Sanket Thakur filed an administrative claim with OCTA. (FAC, ¶ 10.) Thakur’s claim attached the Chavez FAC and expressly referred OCTA to its allegations. (Id., Ex. 1.) On October 15, 2018, Skogebo—also an absent class member in Chavez—filed an administrative claim with RCTC. (Id., ¶ 11.) Like Thakur, Skogebo’s claim attached the Chavez FAC and expressly referred RCTC to its allegations. (Id., Ex. 2.)
Jun 19, 2020
Orange County, CA
The City of Antioch enacted an ordinance requiring that “all claims for money and damages against the city…” Here, Defendant argues the Board of Administrative Appeals’ decision became final on November 14, 2017. Although Plaintiffs allege compliance, the claims are all dated more than year after the Council’s decision. Plaintiffs allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement. (SAC, ¶¶41-43.) The City of Antioch denied the claims as untimely.
Jun 17, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
Administrative Permit Process and Authority of Electorate to Enact Initiatives Plaintiff argues that Measure T is an Invalid Exercise of the Initiative Process, because it interferes with the administrative permit process as Measure T is not a legislative zoning ordinance and, in fact, the electorate has impermissibly made an administrative/quasi-judicial decision related to conditional use permits for vacation house rentals, which interferes with the City’s administrative permit process.
Jun 12, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
