What is a Writ of Mandate / Mandamus?

Useful Rulings on Writ of Mandate / Mandamus

Recent Rulings on Writ of Mandate / Mandamus

PROTECT TUSTIN RANCH VS. THE CITY OF TUSTIN

On February 13, 2020, petitioner attempted to file a Request for Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate, but the court clerk rejected the filing on February 18, 2020, apparently because petitioner did not propose a particular hearing date. Petitioner resubmitted its Request for Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate the next day, on February 19, 2020, with a proposed hearing date of July 24, 2020, and the clerk filed the document that date, which the moving parties contend was one day too late.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

., BS175256 Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: denied Petitioners Mary Jack (“Jack”) and Sue Kaplan (“Kaplan”) petition the court for a writ of mandate directing Respondent California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) to set aside its decision that there is no substantial issue for appeal of the three Coastal Development Permits (“CDPs”) issued by the City of Los Angeles (“City”) for a project to partially demolish, relocate, and remodel a craftsman bungalow (“Craftsman”) and construct two

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

TERRY D CARLONE VS. ALTERGY SYSTEMS

The underlying petition for writ of mandate involves a shareholder’s access to corporate records.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff counters that the abeyance period naturally lapsed, and no representative of the Estate of San-Cheng Lai elected to file a writ of mandate with the superior court thereby rendering the decision final.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

FRIENDS OF OCEANO DUNES, INC. V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Petitioner sought a writ for administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 against the CCC for an alleged unlawful issuance of a coastal development permit to CDPR for a public works project related to dust control measures at the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (“SVRA” or the “Oceano Dunes”). On February 26, 2020, this Court issued a Final Judgment and Peremptory Writ against the Commission.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

MALIBU TOWNSHIP COUNCIL INC VS CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF M

Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief asserted the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) writ of mandate under the Brown Act pursuant to California Government Code, Section 54960.1; (2) declaratory relief under the Brown Act pursuant to California Government Code, Section 54960; (3) injunctive relief under the Brown Act pursuant to California Government Code, Sections 54960 and 54960.1; (4) writ of mandate under the California Public Records Act pursuant to

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MICHAEL GOLDBERG VS HALLORAN & SAGE LLP, ET AL.

The Supreme Court concluded the statement of benefits was not protected by the litigation privilege, stating “the private processing of dental claims cannot be deemed part of any ‘legislative,’ ‘judicial,’ or ‘official’ proceeding, or indeed any proceeding ‘authorized by law’. . . ” and reviewable by writ of mandate.” (Id. at p. 156.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

SUREN SAHAKYAN VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT, ET AL.

., 19STCP03117 Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: granted in part Petitioner Suren Sahakyan (“Sahakyan”) seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondent Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) to set aside its decision upholding his termination as an employee of the Real Party-in-Interest City of Los Angeles (“City”). The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ELIZABETH NOEMY ZETINO ET AL VS 15025 SATICOY STREET INC ET

We answer this question in the negative and therefore issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate an order authorizing parties who move for summary judgment in this action to notice the hearing only 21 days in advance.” (emphasis added)]; Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 760 [“In this case we hold the trial court did not have authority to shorten the minimum notice period for hearing a motion for summary judgment in the absence of the parties' consent.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANTONIO JOSEPH GARCIA VS JEAN SHIOMOTO

Procedural Background On February 7, 2018, Petitioner Garcia filed his petition for writ of mandate pursuant to CCP section 1094.5 (first cause of action) and CCP section 1085 (second cause of action). On May 11, 2018, Respondent answered. The action has been consolidated with Petitioner Steska’s writ petition filed in LASC Case No. 19STCP00965, which was filed September 6, 2018. On February 7, 2019, the court denied Respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, ET AL.

However, the TAC alleges that after Plaintiff’s termination, he pursued an appeal with the Civil Service Commission and then filed a writ of mandate, which was denied and is currently under appeal. While the TAC does not provide dates for the Civil Service Commission appeal and the writ of mandate, such administrative proceeding may toll the statute of limitations. (Marcario v. County of Orange (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 397, 409.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

R. MORGAN HOLLAND V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

Petitioners’ request for a writ of mandate on this ground is denied. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

RONALD AUSTIN VS BURBANK POLICE DEPARTMENT

., 19STCP04741 Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: denied Petitioner Ronald Austin (“Austin”) seeks a writ of mandate directing Respondent City of Burbank[1] (“City”) to comply with Austin’s California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request to disclose the name of the homeowner of the residence where the Burbank Police Department (“BPD”) discovered a drug lab in May 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LOUIS LOZANO, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICPAL CORPORATION AND CHARTER CITY WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: July 14, 2020 19STCP00168 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate: DENIED Petitioners Louis Lozano and Eric Mitchell (“Petitioners”) petition for a writ of mandate directing Respondents City of Los Angeles and Michel Moore, Chief of Police (“Respondents” or “City”) to set aside City’s decision to terminate Petitioners from their positions as police officers with the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD” or “Department”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SUREN SAHAKYAN VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT, ET AL.

., 19STCP03117 Revised Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: granted in part Petitioner Suren Sahakyan (“Sahakyan”) seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondent Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) to set aside its decision upholding his termination as an employee of the Real Party-in-Interest City of Los Angeles (“City”). The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LUIS CRUZ VS CIVIL SERVICES COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF LA

Writ Proceedings Before Remand On July 7, 2017, Petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of mandate pursuant to CCP sections 1094.5 and 1085, and for extraordinary relief pursuant to Government Code section 3309.5. On December 6, 2018, after full briefing and a hearing, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the petition for writ of mandate. The court rejected Petitioner’s argument that the Commission’s first decision did not comply with Topanga. (See AR 1767-68.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BALDOMERO ENRIQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

Los Angeles Civil Service Commission, 19STCP03436 Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: denied Petitioner Baldomero Enriquez (“Enriquez”) seeks a writ of mandate directing Respondent Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) to set aside its decision to discharge him from employment with Real Party-in-Interest Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD” or “Department”) and to restore all back pay and benefits lost.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. TRUE HORIZONS, LLC, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference; Demurrer to Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Cross-Complaint; Motion for Prejudgment Possession Tentative

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. TRUE HORIZONS, LLC, ET AL.

[PCC ¶24] The causes of action in the PCC are: 1) writ of mandate (CCP § 1085); 2) writ of mandate (CCP § 1094.5); 3) declaratory and injunctive relief (Public Resources Code § 30803; violation of Coastal Act); 4) civil penalties (Public Resources Code §§ 30805, 30820). 2. Demurrer: County demurs to each cause of action on the ground that True Horizons fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

STARR VS ASCENSION

Deny Petition for a Writ of Mandate. Proposition B was lawfully enacted in March of 2020. It supersedes Petitioner's initiative which was lawfully adopted by the City Council in January of 2020. Elections Code 9217 applies by its own language to voter initiatives only. Govt Code section 36934 does not apply to initiative petitions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FOOTHILL-DE ANZA ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES (ACE) VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Nature of Proceedings: DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS I. TENTATIVE RULING. The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing in Department 27, on Friday, July 10, 2020, at 11:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Although Petitioners (again) provide no citation to authorifies, the Court can at least make sense of this claim in light of the large body of law regarding petitions for writ of mandate brought under sectionl085. As noted above, section 1085 allows the court to issue a writ of mandate to compel a public entity to perform a ministerial act required by law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085; Young, supra, 97 Cal.App.4"' at 22\; AIDS Healthcare Foundation, supra, 197 Cal.App.4"' at 700-701.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

EVA STEPHANIE MUNOZ VS STEVE GORDON

Nature of Proceedings: Writ of Mandate Tentative Ruling: This matter is not ready for hearing. The parties are directed to appear by Zoom, and to be prepared to discuss with the court the status of the preparation of the administrative record, and a briefing and hearing schedule for the petition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

EVA STEPHANIE MUNOZ VS STEVE GORDON

Nature of Proceedings: Writ of Mandate Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

GLEN BREGMAN VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner may seek a writ of mandate to compel an agency to act and comply with a “clear, present and usually ministerial duty.” (Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 657 [citation omitted]; Code of Civ. Proc., § 1085; see also California Corr. Peace Officers Assoc. v. State Pers. Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th1133, 1153-1154 [in an action for writ of mandate, the petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving the facts on which the claim for relief is based].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 200     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.