What appeals can you make from Unemployment Insurance Board decisions?

Useful Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

Recent Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

SODA CANYON GROUP VS. COUNTY OF NAPA, ET AL.

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 596-597.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2019

CATERINA LIPERA VS COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE ET

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MARIA MAGDALENA SPITZ VS BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY ET AL

CCP §1094.5(b). An abuse of discretion is established if the respondent 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(c). CCP section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review of evidentiary findings. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 811. Instead, that issue was left to the courts.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2018

MAHEM HALIM KALDAS VS. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY

Standard of Review The instant petition is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Court finds a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which 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." (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

MAHEM HALIM KALDAS VS. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY

Standard of Review The instant petition is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Court finds a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which 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.” (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA VS. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

The party may then seek review ofthe final administrative decision under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (Ibid.) The rule requiring that a party exhaust its administrative remedies does not apply where an administrative remedy is unavailable or inadequate, or where pursuing the administrative remedy would be futile, idle or useless. (Bollengierv. Doctors Medical Center, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1126.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2018

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA VS. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

The party may then seek review of the final administrative decision under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (Ibid.) The rule requiring that a party exhaust its administrative remedies does not apply where an administrative remedy is unavailable or inadequate, or where pursuing the administrative remedy would be futile, idle or useless. (Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1126.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2018

DECKTECH INC., HUNTER JAMES, INC., V. REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS CONTRACTORS’ STATE LICENSE BOARD DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Proc., § 1094.5(b).) In cases such as this, 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 Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 (c); Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 562.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2018

CORTEZ V. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS BOARD

Cortez (“Cortez”) is a seasonal tax preparer who was granted unemployment benefits beginning April 23, 2017. Cortez subsequently filed applications with the EDD to extend his benefits through a training extension and through the California Training Benefits Program under California Unemployment Insurance Code (CIC) §1269 and 1271. These applications were denied on July 31, 2017. Mr. Cortez appealed those denials to an administrative law judge (ALJ) who affirmed the findings of the EDD on October 2, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2018

DECKTECH INC., HUNTER JAMES, INC., V. REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, ET AL.

Proc., § 1094.5(b).) In cases such as this, 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 Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 (c); Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 562.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

NICOLE SANDERS VS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION COUNTY OF LA ET

Standard of Review CCP section 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, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15. CCP section 1094.5 does not on 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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOHN DOE VS TIMOTHY P WHITE ET AL

Doe also met the criteria of irreparable harm and that a stay would not be against the public interest under CCP section 1094.5(g). On June 27, 2017, the court overruled White’s demurrer challenging his status as a proper Respondent and whether the FAP states a valid cause of action against him. B. Standard of Review CCP section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS LLC VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

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

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2018

HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS LLC VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

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

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2018

IAN MAIER VS CITY OF TORRANCE ET AL

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus contesting the City Council’s decision to uphold Plaintiff’s termination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5. (Strader Decl. ¶ 20.) In Opposition, Plaintiff merely reargues the same contentions made in the previous oppositions to the motions to stay and the court finds no reason to alter its prior decision that a stay is warranted.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2018

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

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 . . . .”)

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2018

WARREN M LENT ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Standard of Review CCP section 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, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15. CCP section 1094.5 does not on 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.

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

See CCP §1094.5(c). An administrative decision imposing discipline on a professional licensee is decided under the independent judgment standard. Griffiths v. Superior Court, (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 757, 767. This case involves uncontested facts, and the court need not review the accuracy of the Hearing Officer’s fact findings. The court exercises independent judgment as to questions of law. Lanigan v. City of Los Angeles, (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1029; see also Simpson v. Unemployment Ins. Comp.

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2018

RICH V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

(Code of Civil Procedure, § 1094.5(c).) “When a mandamus proceeding challenges an administrative decision affecting a fundamental vested right (such as the right to disability retirement benefits at issue here), the trial court must independently review the agency's findings to determine if they are supported by the weight of the evidence. (Welch, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 16, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 340; Code Civ. Proc., section 1094.5, subd.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2018

JAMES RUDROFF VS CITY OF WEST COVINA ET AL

Administrative Mandamus CCP section 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, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15. CCP section 1094.5 does not on 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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF S CALIF VS BARRY WINOGRAD

The decision of the hearing officer can be appealed pursuant to CCP section 1094.5. Id. 2. MWD’s Administrative Code MWD’s Admin.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LAUREN NICOLE ANDRES VS CA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

Standard of Review CCP section 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, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15. CCP section 1094.5 does not on 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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DEACON CORP VS LABOR COMMISSIONER STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Standard of Review CCP section 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, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15. CCP section 1094.5 does not on 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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

XXXXXXXX A XXXXX VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

Most of CDCR’s extra-record evidence deals with a related case (34-2015-80002137) involving the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s denial of xxxxx’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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

  « first    1 2 3 4     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.