Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals in California

What Are the Laws on Appealing Unemployment Insurance Board Decisions?

Purpose and Scope of Unemployment Insurance Code

California Unemployment Insurance Code § 1253(c) provides that an unemployed individual is eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits if “[h]e or she was able to work and available for work for that week.” In Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 55, 67, the California Supreme Court found that “availability for work” within the meaning of § 1253(c) “requires no more than

  1. that an individual claimant be willing to accept suitable work which he has no good cause for refusing and
  2. that the claimant thereby make himself available to a substantial field of employment.”

(Id.)

Trial Court Review of Administrative Decisions

“When reviewing a decision of the Board on a petition for writ of mandate . . . the superior court must exercise its independent judgment on the evidence in the administrative record.” (Macgregor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 205, 211–12.)

Additionally “[i]n 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 v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 805, 817.)

Standard of Review

CCP § 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies. (Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15.)

CCP § 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. (Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 811.) In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. (Bixby v. Pierno, (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143; See CCP §1094.5(c).) Independent judgement is the appropriate standard for review of a decision by the (California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 774-782.)

Independent Judgment Test

Under the independent judgment test, “the trial court not only examines the administrative record for errors of law but also exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo.” (Id. at 143.) The court must draw its own reasonable inferences from the evidence and make its own credibility determinations. (Morrison v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Board of Commissioners, (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 860, 868.) In short, the court substitutes its judgment for the agency’s regarding the basic facts of what happened, when, why, and the credibility of witnesses. (Guymon v. Board of Accountancy, (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 1010, 1013-16.)

However, “[i]n 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.) Unless it can be demonstrated by petitioner that the agency’s actions are not grounded upon any reasonable basis in law or any substantial basis in fact, the courts should not interfere with the agency’s discretion or substitute their wisdom for that of the agency. (Bixby, supra, 4 Cal.3d 130, 150-151; Bank of America v. State Water Resources Control Board, (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 198, 208.)

In cases other than those requiring the court to exercise its independent judgment, the substantial evidence test applies. CCP §1094.5(c).

Substantial Evidence Defined

“Substantial evidence” is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board, (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575, 585) or evidence of ponderable legal significance, which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. (Mohilef v. Janovici, (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 305, n.28.) The trial court considers all evidence in the administrative record, including evidence that detracts from evidence supporting the agency’s decision. (California Youth Authority, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at 585.)

“The agency’s decision must be based on a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing.” (Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Superior Court, (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 860, 862.) “The hearing officer is only required to issue findings that give enough explanation so that parties may determine whether, and upon what basis, to review the decision.” (Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15.) “Implicit in § 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order.” (Id. at 115.)

An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties (Evidence Code §664), and the petitioner therefore has the burden of proof. (Steele v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 129, 137.) “[T]he burden of proof falls upon the party attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate wherein the proceedings were unfair, in excess of jurisdiction or showed prejudicial abuse of discretion.” (Afford v. Pierno, (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 691.)

Disability Benefits and Unemployment Insurance

Unemployment compensation insurance provides benefits from the disability fund to disabled persons who, because of their physical or mental condition, are unable to perform their regular or customary work. Unemployment Insurance Code (“UIC”) § 2601. A person may file a first claim for disability benefits after being unemployed and disabled for a period of eight consecutive days, provided that a claimant has been examined by or is under the care of a physician or practitioner during some portion of that period. 22 CCR § 2706-1(a). By filing the first claim, the claimant establishes his or her disability period and EDD computes the weekly benefit amount and maximum benefits potentially payable for the disability period. 22 CCR § 2706-1(b).

If a beneficiary has been receiving disability benefits on an automatic payment cycle for a disability period, the claimant must timely submit the Disability Claim Continuing Eligibility Certification form (“Form”) to EDD to continue receiving disability benefits for the next period. See 22 CCR §2706-3. Specifically, the claimant must submit the Form to EDD within 20 days from either the last day covered by the most recent continued claim or from the day he or she receives the continued claim form from the department, whichever day is later. 22 CCR §2706-3(a). The 20-day period shall be extended by EDD upon a showing of good cause. (Id.) Good cause includes but is not limited to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Gruschka v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 789, 792.)

Rulings for Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals in California

The ALJ denied Petitioners appeal in part. The ALJ determined Petitioner was required to disclose his IHSS wages to the EDD for purposes of calculating entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. (See, e.g., AR 177.) Thus, the ALJ decided Petitioner had been overpaid unemployment insurance benefits. The ALJ did find Petitioner not liable, however, as to the 30 percent penalty assessment the EDD had imposed. (See, e.g., AR 177, 189.) Respondent adopted the decision of the ALJ as its own.

  • Name

    LIONEL C WILLIAMS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD (CUIAB), ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCP04162

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Petitioner thereafter withdrew the appeal believing he could get an explanation from the EDD about the contradictory notices. After finding no success with an explanation from the EDD, Petitioner reinstated the appeal. (AR 187.) On February 11, 2021, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted an administrative hearing. (AR 56-94.)

  • Name

    GEARY J. JOHNSON VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCP01911

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(CCP § 1094.5(b); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.) Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. (Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 110, 114.)

  • Name

    JAMES E. SPEARS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    18STCP03228

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

See CCP §1094.5(c). Independent judgement is the appropriate standard for review of a decision by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 774-782. Under the independent judgment test, “the trial court not only examines the administrative record for errors of law but also exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo.” Id. at 143.

  • Name

    CANDACE R SAUNDERS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    BS173783

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b); Jacobs v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 25 Cal. App. 3d 1035, 102 Cal. Rptr. 364 (3d Dist. 1972); see Windigo Mills v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 92 Cal. App. 3d 586, 155 Cal. Rptr. 63 (5th Dist. 1979) (mandamus sought by employer)] The standard of review for both employee and employer appeals is the independent judgment test, not the substantial evidence test.

  • Name

    DAVID STOPPELMAN VS EDD

  • Case No.

    23STCV06421

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Cortez did not file an appeal until January 18, 2018, and on February 9, 2018 the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB)dismissed Cortez’s untimely appeal under UIC §1334. Mr. Cortez filed this petition for writ of mandate on May 16, 2018 to challenge the CUISB’s February 9. 2018 decision. In this petition, Mr.

  • Name

    CORTEZ V. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    VCU 273936

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2018

(Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5, subds. (b) and (c).)” (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 231.) On February 4, 2021 the court received unauthenticated copies of documents, which is not the certified administrative record required to be filed in order for the court to review the previous administrative hearing related to petitioner’s claim for unemployment benefits and the appeal from the initial decision concerning that claim.

  • Name

    LACEY V. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS

  • Case No.

    PC-20200620

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2021

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, et al.

  • Name

    LATESA COBBS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    20STCP02105

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STANDARD OF REVIEW Petitioner brings this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (b), the issues for review of an administrative decision are: whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.

  • Name

    MEDICAL LEGAL EXPERTS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    20STCP01896

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of proof under section 1094.5. Conclusion The petition is DENIED.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF: JAE KYUNG KIM

  • Case No.

    19STCP03228

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of proof under section 1094.5. Conclusion The petition is DENIED.

  • Name

    J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCP00463

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

The notice also advised Peralta she could file an appeal if she did not agree with the decision. Peralta did file an appeal and a hearing was held before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). The Court has not been provided with a copy of the appeal, a transcript of the hearing. '* Unless the effective period is actually the week ending 10/06/2019 through the week ending 01/18/2020, in which case it is a period of 16 weeks.

  • Name

    LESLIE PERALTA VS. SHARON HILLIARD AND/OR ACTING OR REPLACEMENT DIRECTOR, IN HIS/HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

  • Case No.

    34-2020-80003559-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2021

Section 1094.5 applies when someone challenges a decision made following an evidentiary hearing required by law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (a).)

  • Name

    LESLIE PERALTA VS. SHARON HILLIARD AND/OR ACTING OR REPLACEMENT DIRECTOR, IN HIS/HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

  • Case No.

    2020-80003559

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2021

  • County

    Sacramento County, CA

(Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5, subds. (b) and (c).)” (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 231.) On February 4, 2021 the court received unauthenticated copies of documents, which is not the certified administrative record required to be filed in order for the court to review the previous administrative hearing related to petitioner’s claim for unemployment benefits and the appeal from the initial decision concerning that claim.

  • Name

    LACEY V. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS

  • Case No.

    PC-20200620

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2021

See CCP §1094.5(c). Independent judgement is the appropriate standard for review of a decision by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 774-782. Under the independent judgment test, “the trial court not only examines the administrative record for errors of law but also exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo.” Id. at 143.

  • Name

    RUBEN NICK RAMIREZ VS UNEMPLOYMENT OF APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    BS168255

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2017

Standard of Review Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate under CCP section 1094.5. [1] Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. ( Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 110, 114.)

  • Name

    LATESA COBBS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    20STCP02105

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

Petitioner appealed the determination to respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB). (AR 4.) In her appeal letter, petitioner stated that she had attempted to locate documentation of employment but was unable to do so because she was paid in cash and did not request receipts. (AR 5.) C. Administrative Hearing On August 3, 2022, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing in reference to petitioners appeal. (AR 15.)

  • Name

    SUSAN TEJEDA VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    23STCP02828

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court thus concludes the Board’s findings regarding timeliness and the lack of good cause are not supported by the evidence, and that this case must be remanded to the Board with directions to consider Rivera’s appeal on the merits. In remanding this case the Court stresses that it is not directing the Board how to decide Rivera’s appeal. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (f).)

  • Name

    JOSE M FLORES RIVERA VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    34-2019-80003247-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

Standard of Review Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right, the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. ( Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143 ( Bixby ).) Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. ( Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

  • Name

    DEBRESHADON HOLLINS VS ANN HASKINS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE), ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCP02844

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CUIAB PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Petitioner, David Ball, seeks to overturn the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“CUIAB”) decision affirming the ALJ decision that Ball was not entitled to unemployment benefits due to being fired for misconduct. Ball, a former police sergeant with the City of Scotts Valley (“City”), was fired in 2021.

  • Name

    DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    22CV02796

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

CUIAB PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Petitioner, David Ball, seeks to overturn the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“CUIAB”) decision affirming the ALJ decision that Ball was not entitled to unemployment benefits due to being fired for misconduct. Ball, a former police sergeant with the City of Scotts Valley (“City”), was fired in 2021.

  • Name

    DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    22CV02796

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

CUIAB PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Petitioner, David Ball, seeks to overturn the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“CUIAB”) decision affirming the ALJ decision that Ball was not entitled to unemployment benefits due to being fired for misconduct. Ball, a former police sergeant with the City of Scotts Valley (“City”), was fired in 2021.

  • Name

    DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    22CV02796

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

CUIAB PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Petitioner, David Ball, seeks to overturn the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“CUIAB”) decision affirming the ALJ decision that Ball was not entitled to unemployment benefits due to being fired for misconduct. Ball, a former police sergeant with the City of Scotts Valley (“City”), was fired in 2021.

  • Name

    DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    22CV02796

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

CUIAB PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Petitioner, David Ball, seeks to overturn the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“CUIAB”) decision affirming the ALJ decision that Ball was not entitled to unemployment benefits due to being fired for misconduct. Ball, a former police sergeant with the City of Scotts Valley (“City”), was fired in 2021.

  • Name

    DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    22CV02796

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

CUIAB PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Petitioner, David Ball, seeks to overturn the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“CUIAB”) decision affirming the ALJ decision that Ball was not entitled to unemployment benefits due to being fired for misconduct. Ball, a former police sergeant with the City of Scotts Valley (“City”), was fired in 2021.

  • Name

    DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    22CV02796

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

CUIAB PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Petitioner, David Ball, seeks to overturn the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“CUIAB”) decision affirming the ALJ decision that Ball was not entitled to unemployment benefits due to being fired for misconduct. Ball, a former police sergeant with the City of Scotts Valley (“City”), was fired in 2021.

  • Name

    DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    22CV02796

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Dulin, seeks a writ of administrative mandamus compelling Respondent, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, to set aside its July 9, 2018 decision finding Petitioner liable for overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits and imposing a penalty. Respondent opposes the petition. STATEMENT OF THE CASE From August 12, 2009 to March 26, 2011, Petitioner claimed and received weekly unemployment insurance benefits of $450.

  • Name

    ARTIS P. DULIN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCP00156

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DEFENDANT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD'S DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff is challenging the denial of Employment Development Department benefits. The benefits were denied in case #A0-138442 by defendant on October 27, 2006 and plaintiff did not take a writ pursuant to CCP section 1094.5, from that decision. The decision by Judge Berger in case #1942825 only allowed plaintiff to reopen that case, not the prior case (#1892564/A0-138442).

  • Name

    ARTHUR WEBB VS. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    CGC07468442

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2008

(CCP § 1094.5(b); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.) Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. (Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 110, 114.)

  • Name

    SERJ STEPANIAN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    20STCP00698

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2021

(CCP § 1094.5(b); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.) Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. (Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 110, 114.)

  • Name

    SABRINA FIELDS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCP02556

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

McAnany fails to support her claim with a financial statement and relies solely on her Notice of Appeal and supporting list of monthly expenses. AR 158-60. Even if her claim of financial hardship is true, that would be true for most unemployment benefit recipients. Most people who receive unemployment benefits are impoverished or border on poverty and a greater showing is required.

  • Name

    KATHY MCANANY VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    19STCP00634

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

CCP section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999)20 Cal.4th 805, 811. In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. Bixby v. Pierno, (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143. See CCP §1094.5(c). Independent judgement is the appropriate standard for review of a decision by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

  • Name

    JUAN SALAZAR VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    18STCP02760

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.

  • Name

    BLUE AIR FSE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCP00004

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(CCP § 1094.5(b); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.) Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. (Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 110, 114.)

  • Name

    TARA ALLEN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    20STCP00155

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2021

Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Where “the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §1094.5, subd. (c); Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 562.)

  • Name

    ACCUZIP, INC. V. CAL. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS BD.

  • Case No.

    16CV-0056

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2017

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 23STCP00186 Decision on petition for writ of mandate: denied Petitioner Lucine Gabrielyan (Gabrielyan) seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) to set aside its decision affirming a determination by the California Employment Development Departments (EDD) that she is ineligible for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits.

  • Name

    LUSINE GABRIELYAN VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    23STCP00186

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Respondent contends that the request for revise and change EDD’s counseling and documentation procedures is improper under CCP § 1094.5 and should be stricken.

  • Name

    HOPKINS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT

  • Case No.

    RIC1905615

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The claim was denied by the California Employment Development Department on June 30, 2019, which found that petitioner’s resignation to be due to dissatisfaction with the terms of employment. Petitioner filed an appeal with California Unemployment Insurance Board and the administrative law judge affirmed the Department’s determination by decision dated August 15, 2019.

  • Name

    BETH ANNE STEWART VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD

  • Case No.

    20CV01682

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

In the case of unemployment benefits, these are generally considered to be both vested and fundamental. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Bd. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 774. Under the independent judgment test, the trial court is free to reweigh the evidence and inferences to determine if the “correct” result was reached. Candari v. LA Unified School Dist (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 402, 407.

  • Name

    ROMANA MEDINA VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00838134-CU-WM-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2017

Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (b) and (e).) It argues that the Supplemental Reports were not before the Planning Commission when it rendered its decision on the matter in January 2017.

  • Name

    SODA CANYON GROUP VS COUNTY OF NAPA ET AL

  • Case No.

    17CV001063

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2019

CUIAB found that Petitioner’s “board appeal was untimely and no reason for the delay was provided in the appeal correspondence.” (AR 116.) CUIAB concluded that it had no jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. CUIAB prejudicially abused its discretion by dismissing Petitioner’s appeal as untimely. In his appeal correspondence, Petitioner clearly gave a reason for the delay in filing the appeal and attached supporting evidence.

  • Name

    JAMES E. SPEARS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    18STCP03228

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

Along with other documents, Petitioner attached his Petition for Writ of Mandate Against California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) Pursuant to Sec. 1094.5 of the Civil Code. A letter attached to the petition explained Petitioner began receiving a weekly pandemic unemployment insurance benefit from February 2 nd , 2020 with a weekly payment of $337.

  • Name

    CHIJIOKE NWAMO VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (EDD)

  • Case No.

    21STCP02421

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Unemployment Insurance Code (“UIC”) §1222. The petitioner or the director may, within 30 days after the service of notice of an administrative law judge's decision under this article, file an appeal to the appeals board. The appeals board may for good cause extend the appeal period.

  • Name

    ABC CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION SERVICES INC. VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    20STCP00643

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

Unemployment Ins. Comp. Appeals Bd., (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 342, 350. This includes an agency’s application of law to undisputed facts. Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 575, 585. C. Governing Law 1. Business and Professions Code[1] Pharmacy technicians are not authorized to perform any act requiring the exercise of professional judgment by a pharmacist. §4115(c).

  • Name

    EVERGREEN PHARMACEUTICAL OF CALIFORNIA INC VS BOARD OF PHARM

  • Case No.

    BS173680

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2019

Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256 states, in pertinent part, “An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.” Steinberg v. Unemployment Ins.

  • Name

    VAXMONSKY V. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00869577-CU-WM-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2017

Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Abuse of discretion occurs if the agency has not proceeded as required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Ibid.) The applicable standard of review for review of a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that the findings are not supported by the evidence is the independent judgment test. (MacGregor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 205, 211-212.)

  • Name

    SANCHEZ VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSUR

  • Case No.

    RIC1806953

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2019

Dept. of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, the court of appeal analyzed whether a report prepared after the administrative hearing fits into the augmentation requirements of section 1094.5(e) because since it did not exist at the time of the hearing, it “in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced” at the hearing. The trial court had admitted the new evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether to remand in light of the new evidence.

  • Name

    STRONGHOLD ENGINEERING INCORPORATED VS CITY OF MONTEREY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2103427

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2022

While Petitioner alleges she contacted Respondent and requested it void the administrative decision in light of subsequent legal proceedings, she does not appeal a decision on such facts by way of the present matter. There is no evidence before the Court as to the request to vacate or rescind the 2015 decision.

  • Name

    ANN DE JONG M.D. VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    34-2018-80002938-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2019

Petitioner seeks to overturn the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s decision to reverse an Employment Development Department examiner’s decision granting petitioner’s claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The real party in interest, Cameron Park Rent A Storage, answered the petition and filed an opposition. Petitioner filed a response to the answer and opposition.

  • Name

    LACEY V. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS

  • Case No.

    PC-20200620

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

(CCP § 1094.5(b); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.) Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. (Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 110, 114.)

  • Name

    VIRGINA SIERRA VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCP03457

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 101, Respondent argues a non-participant at an administrative hearing, such as Petitioner, should not be permitted to challenge the agencys action. ( Id . at 108-111.) Respondent argues as a non-party to the administrative action, Petitioner could not and did not appeal the Stewards decision to Respondent. Respondents argument is largely undeveloped. Contrary to Petitioners position, Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

  • Name

    RUIS RACING LLC VS CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD

  • Case No.

    20STCP00144

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On April 2, 2018, Petitioner requested a rehearing of the Department’s February 20, 2018 decision denying his appeal. (AR 163-164.) On March 6, 2019, the Department denied Petitioner’s rehearing request as untimely. The Department informed Petitioner he could challenge the Department’s decision through a writ petition in court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (AR 169-170.)

  • Name

    RASHID EL MALIK, SR VS KIMBERLY JOHNSON

  • Case No.

    20STCP03280

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Standard of Review Under CCP section 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b).)

  • Name

    JOVANCE TUCKER VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT-HRSD

  • Case No.

    19STCP02846

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 595.) Petitioner had the burden to produce any relevant documents. Petitioner does not cite any legal authority that the OSC had any duty to obtain the OPHD investigation materials. The court finds the documents were not improperly excluded under CCP section 1094.5(e).

  • Name

    DOE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00011385-CU-WM-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

CCP §1094.5(a). LAUSD argues that Lipera’s record preparation costs were incurred prior to the October 26, 2018 approval of her fee waiver, and nothing in CCP section 1094.5(a) requires her reimbursement. Opp. at 3 is not persuasive. CCP section 1095.5(a) has no temporal requirement that a fee waiver be obtained before the costs of preparing the record are incurred. The evidence shows that Lipera stopped receiving unemployment benefits several months before she paid for the record. Lipera Decl. ¶2.

  • Name

    CATERINA LIPERA VS COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE ET

  • Case No.

    BS173096

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

Tillery seeks a writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The writ is directed to respondents California Employment Development Department and California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the board) and asks the court to set aside the board’s decision denying petitioner’s claim for disability insurance benefits.

  • Name

    TILLERY V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    VCU272796

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2018

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD Case Number: 20STCP03183 Hearing Date: June 22, 2022 [Tentative] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Petitioner, Gregory Scott Russell, filed a petition seeking an order commanding Respondent, Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, to set aside its decision denying Petitioners eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits relating to his former employment with Real Party

  • Name

    GREGORY SCOTT RUSSELL VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCP03183

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Petitioner thereafter withdrew the appeal believing he could get an explanation from the EDD about the contradictory notices. After finding no success with an explanation from the EDD, Petitioner reinstated the appeal. (AR 187.) On February 11, 2021, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted an administrative hearing. (AR 56-94.)

  • Name

    GEARY J. JOHNSON VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCP01911

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

At first blush, it appears that Yeager challenges an order by Respondent Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board denying her appeal of several decisions issued by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The net result of the ALJ's decisions is that Yeager must repay $3,312 in unemployment benefits she received in 2014 because she was not actually unemployed v^thin the meaning ofthe Unemployment Insurance Code (hereafter "the Code") during the relevant time period.

  • Name

    DIANE YEAGER VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    34-2018-80003027-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

STANDARD OF REVIEW Petitioner brings this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. He seeks of writ of administrative mandamus. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (b), the issues for review of an administrative decision are: whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.

  • Name

    TUSHAR RAMNIK DOSHI, MD VS MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    20STCP00113

  • Hearing

    May 12, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

As Plaintiff alleges, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who heard Plaintiff’s appeal, awarded Plaintiff back pay. Plaintiff’s benefits have been reinstated. Even if Plaintiff did state a case or controversy, Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies. If Plaintiff disagreed with the ALJ’s decision, which Plaintiff did not allege, Plaintiff’s remedy was to appeal to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

  • Name

    MIKE B SMITH VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    21CMCV00177

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2021

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As Plaintiff alleges, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who heard Plaintiffs appeal, awarded Plaintiff back pay. Plaintiffs benefits have been reinstated. Even if Plaintiff did state a case or controversy, Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies. If Plaintiff disagreed with the ALJs decision, which Plaintiff did not allege, Plaintiffs remedy was to appeal to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

  • Name

    MIKE B SMITH VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    21CMCV00177

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2021

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Under CCP section 1094.5(e), the court may augment the record with evidence post-dating the administrative proceedings if the relevance and reasonable diligence requirements are met. (See Windigo Mills v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 596-97 [ We conclude that the superior court is authorized under section 1094.5 , subdivision (e) to receive relevant evidence of events which transpired after the date of the agency's decision] .)

  • Name

    DEVELOPMENTAL PATHWAYS, INC., A CORPORATION VS LOCAL INITIATIVE HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    22STCP00383

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Most of CDCR’s extra-record evidence deals with a related case (34-2015-80002137) involving the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s denial of Brown’s application for unemployment benefits. The merits of that decision are not at issue here. The court thus did not rely on this extra-record evidence.

  • Name

    DEMETRIX A BROWN VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

  • Case No.

    34-2016-80002506-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Abuse of discretion occurs if the agency has not proceeded as required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Ibid.) The applicable standard of review is the independent judgment test when there is a contention that the findings are not supported by the evidence. (MacGregor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 205, 211-212.)

  • Name

    ROGERS VS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES

  • Case No.

    RIC1600241

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Brd. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 127, 138.)

  • Name

    CASTILLEJA VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS

  • Case No.

    RIC2000340

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2021

The Court of Appeal stated: "Pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (c) of section 965.5 of the Government Code, interest on a 'judgment for the payment of money against the state or a state agency' commences to accrue '180 days from the date of the final judgment or settlement.' The rate is the constitutional rate of 7 percent." (Brown v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1107, 1120). There is nothing equivocal or uncertain about the quoted language.

  • Name

    MARK A. BROWN VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF12512499

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2018

. §1094.5(e) provides an exception to this rule, authorizing the court to also consider relevant evidence which was either improperly excluded from the administrative record, or that could not have been produced in the exercise of reasonable diligence, by the party now attempting to rely upon it.

  • Name

    APS WEST COAST, INC. V. CITY OF BENICIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS050113

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

Cal Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 1494, 1503. Merely engaging in informal negotiations does not equitably toll the statute. See 65 Butterfield v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1047, 1063. Plaintiff's delay in filing this action after learning on August 28, 2008 that defendant paid the patient/member was not reasonable. Plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to commence a timely action after learning of the true facts. =(302/CWW)

  • Name

    SAINT FRANCIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, A CALIFORNIA VS. SUMMERLIN LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY A ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC09494172

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2010

The misrepresentations were allegedly made in the unemployment benefit proceeding and were not made to the cross-defendants. Moreover, as cross-defendants prevailed in the proceeding and plaintiff withdrew her appeal, cross-defendants have not suffered any damages. Thus, cross-defendants have not alleged fraud.

  • Name

    BUXBAUM VS. MALLOY

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00037381-CU-WT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Abuse of discretion occurs if the agency has not proceeded as required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Ibid.) The applicable standard of review is the independent judgment test when there is a contention that the findings are not supported by the evidence. (MacGregor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 205, 211-212.)

  • Name

    ROGERS VS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES

  • Case No.

    RIC1600241

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

CCP § 1094.5(a). The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. CCP § 1094.5(b).

  • Name

    JAMES BLANCHARD VS. EDMUND SOTELO IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF OXNARD

  • Case No.

    56-2011-00403332-CU-WM-VTA

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2013

California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 1475, 1483–84.)

  • Name

    CROFTS VS. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00922060-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2018

And, that WHITE attended Plaintiffs’ appeal of their unemployment benefits with the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals on 11-30-18, 12-21-18, 1-8-19, 2-12-19, and 3-12-19 telephonically as the “corporate representative for Net Zero Energy LLC” and WHITE provided testimony that: n He is the President of NETZERO (which is a CA LLC); He made the decision to terminate Plaintiff; n Plaintiffs reported to WHITE; n NETZERO was formed in California, pays CA taxes, he is Acting President of NETZERO, and all employees

  • Name

    MOFFATT VS. CANDLE3, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01088841

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

In evaluating a writ brought pursuant to CCP section 1094.5, the court is generally limited to evidence included in the administrative record. (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 577-578; CCP, § 1094.5, subd. (e).)

  • Name

    NGUYEN VS CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE

  • Case No.

    BLC2000166

  • Hearing

    May 27, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

[Generally, [i]n a section 1094.5 proceeding, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to produce a sufficient record of the administrative proceedings; . . . otherwise the presumption of regularity will prevail . . . . ] S ee also City of South San Francisco v. Board of Equalization (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 707, 720 [in mandate proceeding brought under Code Civ. Proc. § 1085, petitioner always bears burden of proof] ; South Orange County Wastewater Authority v.

  • Name

    LIONEL C WILLIAMS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD (CUIAB), ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCP04162

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 595.)

  • Name

    HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS LLC VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

  • Case No.

    34-2015-80002244-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2018

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 595.)

  • Name

    ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

  • Case No.

    34-2020-80003293-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

Plaintiff submitted an appeal to the garnishment of the accounts, explaining that no funds were due to EDD because there were no California employees in order to exhaust its administrative remedies. EDD responded that there was nothing to appeal, confirming that levies on the bank accounts of Plaintiff were made without even an assessment. ( Id ., at ¶15.)

  • 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

No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Case Management Conference is continued to 8/23/2012, to allow time for the Plaintiff's appeal to be heard before the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Defendant's motion, which is described in the Case Management Statement, is to be filed forthwith. Case Management Conference - Case Management Program continued to 08/23/2012 at 08:30 in this department.

  • Name

    HERDBUILDERS INC VS. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00109497-CU-MC-GDS

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2012

New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 11.055 The plaintiff shall diligently proceed to obtain the answer, default, and/or dismissal of defendant, Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, as to the second amended complaint filed on 4/24/2009 prior to the next hearing. Absent a request to appear and be heard for any matter on the Case Management Calendar, all tentative rulings shall become the final ruling of the court.

  • Name

    TIGER COMMUNICATIONS INC VS. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEAPRTMENT

  • Case No.

    34-2008-80000131-CU-MC-GDS

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2010

On August 1, 2016, Land filed a Petition for a Writ of Administrative Mandamus seeking a writ ordering the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ("CUIAB")and the Employment Development Department (collectively "Respondents") to set aside their previous decisions and award Land retroactive unemployment benefits plus interest. Land filed an Amended Petition on September 26, 2016.

  • Name

    LAND VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    RG16825540

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2021

In a previous published opinion, the Court of Appeal had decided that the state was obligated to reimburse the City of Sacramento and the County of Los Angeles for the cost of providing state-mandated unemployment insurance coverage. (See City of Sacramento v. State of California (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 182, 203 Cal.Rptr. 258, hereafter Sacramento I.)

  • Name

    RICH V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

  • Case No.

    PC-20170442

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2018

The Board also noted that, under federal law, state unemployment agencies were required to use the Treasury Offset Program (TOP) to collect unpaid unemployment compensation debts and penalties and interest thereon, and that the TOP program recovers such debts by intercepting the claimant’s federal tax refund (which is apparently what happened in this case).

  • Name

    JENNIFER BROOKS VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    34-2020-80003321-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

Proc., � 1094.5, subd. (a).)

  • Name

    LAZY LANDING LLC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

  • Case No.

    1403359

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2014

VI, section 1 expressly states that courts of record are the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts. Administrative tribunals are not on this list. The courts of appeal have expressly stated that administrative tribunals are not courts of record within the meaning of art. VI. See, e.g., Caressa Camille, Inc. v.

  • Name

    LAUREN NICOLE ANDRES VS CA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

  • Case No.

    BS168145

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2018

The appeal was denied orally via telephone on 03/27/16. (Id). Plaintiffs claim that they have not received a denial of the appeal in writing to date. (Id). Civ. Code § 2923.6(d) addresses the denial of an appeal of a lender/servicer’s adverse decision on a borrower’s application for a loan modification.

  • Name

    BOCOX VS. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00850625-CU-OR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 779, fn. 5; Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 144 (“In determining whether the right is fundamental the courts do not alone weigh the economic aspect of it, but the effect of it in human terms and the importance of it to the individual . . . .”)

  • Name

    SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE VS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

  • Case No.

    17CV02044

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2018

Notice Of Hearing Of Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (Ccp 1094.5) Set for hearing on Monday, August 17, 2009, line 10, PETITIONER SETH PAGE Notice Of Hearing Of Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (CCP 1094.5). Denied. Plaintiff failed to serve Defendant. =(302/CWW)

  • Name

    SETH PAGE VS. UNITED HEALTHCARE

  • Case No.

    CPF09509436

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2009

According to the "Further Appeal Information" provided to petitioner with the decision, "The Appeals Board does not process petitions for court review. You must file such petitions directly with the Superior Court not later than six (6) months after the date of the decision of the Appeals Board. You must also serve a copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandate on the Appeals Board at its headquarters, 2400 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100, Sacramento, California 95833."

  • Name

    JERRY SYROVATKA VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UWM-2021-0007090

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2021

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board , (“ Sanchez ”) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 55, an unemployed waitress sought unemployment benefits and stated an inability to work on weekends because she had no one to care for her young son. The agency and trial court found that restaurants were open on weekends and the waitress therefore did not meet the statutory available for work requirement to obtain unemployment.

  • Name

    ALEX P. VS KIM JOHNSON, , DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY

  • Case No.

    21STCP00194

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

This provision is entitled “Unemployment insurance and compensation funds; exemption; child support judgments.” The claim, however, is not clear; in his financial statement, the income Meng lists is a combination of unemployment benefits which it appears are paid to Cheung, and Cal-Fresh, in a total combined amount of $1,016.00. These are two distinct types of income. The amount of unemployment benefits is not given. No code section is cited for an exemption for Cal-Fresh.

  • Name

    KEN MENG VS ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES

  • Case No.

    KC069291

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Notice Of Hearing Of Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (Ccp 1094.5) Set for hearing on Monday, August 24, 2009, line 13, PETITIONER SETH PAGE Notice Of Hearing Of Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (CCP 1094.5). Is denied, without prejudice. Plaintiff fails to provide a proof of service, demonstrate that the responding agency was named and served, and there is no administrative record. =(302/CWW)

  • Name

    SETH PAGE VS. UNITED HEALTHCARE

  • Case No.

    CPF09509436

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2009

Although unclear, it appears that Walker seeks to appeal the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s (“CUIAB”) decision to deny her unemployment benefits because she did not leave her employment with good cause. Walker’s employer made a false statement regarding her license being canceled. The allegation that Walker knew she had to apply for a new license and failed to do so is false.

  • Name

    BRITTNEY L WALKER VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    19STCP00778

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (Ccp 1094.5) Set for hearing on Monday, October 26, 2009, line 7, PETITIONER SETH PAGE Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (CCP 1094.5). Denied without prejudice for the same reasons cited on August 24, 2009. That is, there is no showing that plaintiff named the Board of Appeals as the respondent and the Court does not have the complete administrative record. =(302/CWW)

  • Name

    SETH PAGE VS. UNITED HEALTHCARE

  • Case No.

    CPF09509436

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2009

Monster asserts that Unemployment Insurance Code sections 1094 and 2111 do not apply because they concern unemployment benefits, not disability benefits. Monster notes that Section 1094 is set forth in Part 1 of Division 1 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, which is entitled Part 1. Unemployment Compensation. Monster notes that Section 2111 is also contained in Part 1. Unemployment Compensation.

  • Name

    GERALD LANGE VS MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC697115

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, et al. Judge Mary H. Strobel Hearing: September 8, 2020 BS173455 Tentative Decision on Motion to Vacate Judgment on Petition for Writ of Mandate: DENIED Petitioner Ninfa Guzman (“Petitioner”) moves for an order pursuant to CCP section 473 vacating the judgment entered on May 7, 2019, that denied her petition for writ of administrative mandate. Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“Respondent” or “CUIAB”) opposes the motion.

  • Name

    NINFA GUZMAN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    BS173455

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

CCP section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies.¿ Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v.

  • Name

    DOUGLAS PETER RICHTER VS CA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: DEPARTMENT LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT (DIR DLSE), ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCP03872

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Hernandez argues that this Court should not "overrule" the October 7, 2019 decision in Donna's unemployment benefits appeal. The Administrate Law Judge concluded that AGA/Receiver had not met its burden of showing Donna was discharged for misconduct in connection with writing the checks. The propriety of the ALJ's decision is not before the Court; the Court is neither overruling or affirming that decision.

  • Name

    NUCCO LLC VS NON-NEWTONIAN MANAGEMENT LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00044499-CU-PT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

In Bodinson, an employer sought a traditional writ of mandate to set aside an award of unemployment benefits. Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California Employment Commission (1941) 17 Cal.2d 321. At that time, Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 had not been enacted, so there was no statutory procedure for challenging an agency's decision after an administrative hearing. Bodinson concluded that mandamus relief was proper under the circumstances. Id. at 330.

  • Name

    STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS RICARDO LARA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00041469-CU-MC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope