Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
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
(Id.)
“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.)
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.)
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” 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.)
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.)
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.
LIONEL C WILLIAMS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD (CUIAB), ET AL.
22STCP04162
Mar 01, 2024
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.)
GEARY J. JOHNSON VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.
21STCP01911
Jun 29, 2022
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.)
JAMES E. SPEARS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE APPEALS BOARD
18STCP03228
Aug 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
CANDACE R SAUNDERS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
BS173783
Apr 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
DAVID STOPPELMAN VS EDD
23STCV06421
Aug 09, 2023
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.
CORTEZ V. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS BOARD
VCU 273936
Sep 20, 2018
Tulare 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.
LACEY V. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS
PC-20200620
Apr 23, 2021
El Dorado County, CA
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, et al.
LATESA COBBS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
20STCP02105
Mar 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
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.
MEDICAL LEGAL EXPERTS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
20STCP01896
Jun 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of proof under section 1094.5. Conclusion The petition is DENIED.
IN THE MATTER OF: JAE KYUNG KIM
19STCP03228
Aug 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of proof under section 1094.5. Conclusion The petition is DENIED.
J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.
19STCP00463
Aug 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
LESLIE PERALTA VS. SHARON HILLIARD AND/OR ACTING OR REPLACEMENT DIRECTOR, IN HIS/HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
34-2020-80003559-CU-WM-GDS
Aug 06, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
Section 1094.5 applies when someone challenges a decision made following an evidentiary hearing required by law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (a).)
LESLIE PERALTA VS. SHARON HILLIARD AND/OR ACTING OR REPLACEMENT DIRECTOR, IN HIS/HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
2020-80003559
Aug 06, 2021
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.
LACEY V. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS
PC-20200620
Mar 12, 2021
El Dorado County, CA
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.
RUBEN NICK RAMIREZ VS UNEMPLOYMENT OF APPEALS BOARD
BS168255
Dec 12, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.)
LATESA COBBS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
20STCP02105
May 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
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.)
SUSAN TEJEDA VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
23STCP02828
Mar 21, 2024
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).)
JOSE M FLORES RIVERA VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
34-2019-80003247-CU-WM-GDS
Jun 26, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
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.
DEBRESHADON HOLLINS VS ANN HASKINS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE), ET AL.
20STCP02844
Oct 26, 2021
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.
DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
22CV02796
Dec 15, 2023
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.
DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
22CV02796
Dec 14, 2023
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.
DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
22CV02796
Dec 13, 2023
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.
DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
22CV02796
Dec 12, 2023
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.
DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
22CV02796
Dec 16, 2023
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.
DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
22CV02796
Dec 18, 2023
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.
DAVID BALL VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
22CV02796
Dec 17, 2023
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.
ARTIS P. DULIN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.
19STCP00156
Sep 03, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
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).
ARTHUR WEBB VS. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
CGC07468442
Nov 04, 2008
San Francisco 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.)
SERJ STEPANIAN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
20STCP00698
Sep 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
(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.)
SABRINA FIELDS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.
18STCP02556
Jun 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
KATHY MCANANY VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
19STCP00634
Dec 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
JUAN SALAZAR VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
18STCP02760
Aug 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.
BLUE AIR FSE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
23STCP00004
Aug 03, 2023
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.)
TARA ALLEN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
20STCP00155
Mar 25, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.)
ACCUZIP, INC. V. CAL. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS BD.
16CV-0056
Jan 11, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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.
LUSINE GABRIELYAN VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
23STCP00186
Feb 08, 2024
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.
HOPKINS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
RIC1905615
Jan 12, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
BETH ANNE STEWART VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD
20CV01682
Jun 30, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
ROMANA MEDINA VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
30-2016-00838134-CU-WM-CJC
Jul 07, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
SODA CANYON GROUP VS COUNTY OF NAPA ET AL
17CV001063
Feb 01, 2019
Napa County, CA
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.
JAMES E. SPEARS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE APPEALS BOARD
18STCP03228
Aug 31, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
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.
CHIJIOKE NWAMO VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (EDD)
21STCP02421
Jan 27, 2023
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.
ABC CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION SERVICES INC. VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA
20STCP00643
Jul 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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).
EVERGREEN PHARMACEUTICAL OF CALIFORNIA INC VS BOARD OF PHARM
BS173680
Apr 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
VAXMONSKY V. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
30-2016-00869577-CU-WM-CJC
Apr 18, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.)
SANCHEZ VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSUR
RIC1806953
Apr 23, 2019
Riverside County, CA
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.
STRONGHOLD ENGINEERING INCORPORATED VS CITY OF MONTEREY
CVRI2103427
Apr 29, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
ANN DE JONG M.D. VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
34-2018-80002938-CU-WM-GDS
Oct 11, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
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.
LACEY V. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS
PC-20200620
Jan 29, 2021
El Dorado 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.)
VIRGINA SIERRA VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.
18STCP03457
Jul 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
RUIS RACING LLC VS CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD
20STCP00144
Apr 28, 2023
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.)
RASHID EL MALIK, SR VS KIMBERLY JOHNSON
20STCP03280
Sep 22, 2021
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).)
JOVANCE TUCKER VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT-HRSD
19STCP02846
Apr 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
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).
DOE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
37-2016-00011385-CU-WM-CTL
Oct 26, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
CATERINA LIPERA VS COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE ET
BS173096
Jan 24, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
TILLERY V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
VCU272796
Dec 17, 2018
Tulare County, CA
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
GREGORY SCOTT RUSSELL VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.
20STCP03183
Jun 22, 2022
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.)
GEARY J. JOHNSON VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.
21STCP01911
Jan 24, 2024
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.
DIANE YEAGER VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
34-2018-80003027-CU-WM-GDS
Nov 15, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
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.
TUSHAR RAMNIK DOSHI, MD VS MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
20STCP00113
May 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
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.
MIKE B SMITH VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
21CMCV00177
Oct 26, 2021
12/14/2022
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.
MIKE B SMITH VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
21CMCV00177
Oct 26, 2021
12/14/2022
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] .)
DEVELOPMENTAL PATHWAYS, INC., A CORPORATION VS LOCAL INITIATIVE HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY OF LOS ANGELES
22STCP00383
Apr 18, 2023
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.
DEMETRIX A BROWN VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD
34-2016-80002506-CU-WM-GDS
Jan 26, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
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.)
ROGERS VS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES
RIC1600241
Jun 07, 2019
Riverside County, CA
California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Brd. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 127, 138.)
CASTILLEJA VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS
RIC2000340
Mar 03, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
MARK A. BROWN VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD ET AL
CPF12512499
Jul 19, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
. §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.
APS WEST COAST, INC. V. CITY OF BENICIA, ET AL.
FCS050113
Mar 15, 2019
Solano County, CA
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)
SAINT FRANCIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, A CALIFORNIA VS. SUMMERLIN LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY A ET AL
CGC09494172
Sep 07, 2010
San Francisco County, CA
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.
BUXBAUM VS. MALLOY
37-2016-00037381-CU-WT-CTL
Apr 19, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.)
ROGERS VS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES
RIC1600241
Jul 26, 2019
Riverside County, CA
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).
JAMES BLANCHARD VS. EDMUND SOTELO IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF OXNARD
56-2011-00403332-CU-WM-VTA
Apr 29, 2013
Ventura County, CA
Administrative
Writ
California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 1475, 1483–84.)
CROFTS VS. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CA
30-2017-00922060-CU-WT-CJC
Apr 17, 2018
Orange County, CA
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
MOFFATT VS. CANDLE3, LLC
30-2019-01088841
Jan 08, 2020
Orange County, CA
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).)
NGUYEN VS CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE
BLC2000166
May 27, 2022
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.
LIONEL C WILLIAMS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD (CUIAB), ET AL.
22STCP04162
Nov 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 595.)
HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS LLC VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2015-80002244-CU-WM-GDS
Jun 22, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 595.)
ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD
34-2020-80003293-CU-WM-GDS
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.)
TOPOLEWSKI AMERICA, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
22STCV18199
Sep 02, 2022
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.
HERDBUILDERS INC VS. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
34-2011-00109497-CU-MC-GDS
Mar 14, 2012
Sacramento County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.
TIGER COMMUNICATIONS INC VS. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEAPRTMENT
34-2008-80000131-CU-MC-GDS
Sep 10, 2010
Sacramento County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.
LAND VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
RG16825540
Apr 20, 2021
Alameda County, CA
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.)
RICH V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
PC-20170442
Apr 25, 2018
El Dorado County, CA
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).
JENNIFER BROOKS VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
34-2020-80003321-CU-WM-GDS
Dec 18, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Proc., � 1094.5, subd. (a).)
LAZY LANDING LLC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL
1403359
Apr 29, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
LAUREN NICOLE ANDRES VS CA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
BS168145
Mar 01, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
BOCOX VS. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC
30-2016-00850625-CU-OR-CJC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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 . . . .”)
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE VS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
17CV02044
May 30, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
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)
SETH PAGE VS. UNITED HEALTHCARE
CPF09509436
Aug 17, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
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."
JERRY SYROVATKA VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
STK-CV-UWM-2021-0007090
Sep 08, 2021
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.
ALEX P. VS KIM JOHNSON, , DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY
21STCP00194
Oct 05, 2021
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.
KEN MENG VS ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES
KC069291
Dec 11, 2020
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)
SETH PAGE VS. UNITED HEALTHCARE
CPF09509436
Aug 24, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
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.
BRITTNEY L WALKER VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
19STCP00778
Sep 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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)
SETH PAGE VS. UNITED HEALTHCARE
CPF09509436
Oct 26, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
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.
GERALD LANGE VS MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY ET AL
BC697115
Jul 21, 2022
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.
NINFA GUZMAN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
BS173455
Sep 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DOUGLAS PETER RICHTER VS CA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: DEPARTMENT LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT (DIR DLSE), ET AL.
23STCP03872
Mar 19, 2024
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.
NUCCO LLC VS NON-NEWTONIAN MANAGEMENT LLC
37-2017-00044499-CU-PT-CTL
Nov 14, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS RICARDO LARA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
37-2016-00041469-CU-MC-CTL
Jan 18, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.