What is a Final Administrative Decision?

Useful Rulings on Final Administrative Decision

Recent Rulings on Final Administrative Decision

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

The Court has also again reviewed CCP § 1094.5 (the section invoked by Petitioners) regarding judgment on a writ. The relevant subsection is (f) which reads: (f) The court shall enter judgment either commanding respondent to set aside the order or decision, or denying the writ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

AMETHOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS VS. WEST CONRA COSTA

Yet petitioner has brought a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under § 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner should be prepared to address which form of mandamus relief petitioner is actually seeking.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

WORLDMARK, THE CLUB VS CITY OF ANAHEIM

Standard of Review: Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, provides, in relevant part: (b) 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

They argue that the issue of the Falcocchia’s liability to the City for unpaid fines and costs was fully and finally adjudicated in the Board hearing, and that result is res judicata based on their failure to timely seek judicial review of the Board’s decision under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

CCP 1094.5 is only available to review the validity the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the decisionmaker. No hearing was held on the Citation, nor is the discretionary decision of a City body, employee, or hearing officer challenged, making CCP section 1094.5 inapplicable.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

BALDOMERO ENRIQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 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 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED

Standard of Review A party may seek to set aside an agency decision by petitioning for either a writ of administrative mandamus (CCP §1094.5) or of traditional mandamus. CCP §1085. A petition for traditional mandamus is appropriate in all actions “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station....” CCP §1085.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

NATIONAL RETAIL TRANSPORTATION, INC. VS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Implicit in section 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. Topanga, 11 Cal.3d at 515. An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties (Evid. 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FRANCISCA EUGENIA NUNEZ VS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

(CCP § 1094.5(e); Pomona Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 100.) “If the moving party fails to make the required showing [under section 1094.5(e)], it is an abuse of the court's discretion to allow posthearing discovery [or augment the record].” (Pomona Valley, supra at 102.) Petitioner has not made any argument to show that the requirements of CCP section 1094.5(e) are met.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE 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 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS SUBSIDIARIA DE SAN TIMOTEO

Proc., §1094.5(a).) In administrative mandamus cases, that will be the entity that rendered the adjudicatory decision being challenged. (see State of Calif. v. Sup.Ct. (Veta Co.) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 255.) This would mean that the City would be naming itself as the respondent in a petition for writ of mandate under §1094.5, which suggests this section does not provide a mechanism by which a local agency may seek review of its own administrative decisions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    David E. Gregory

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

JOE HARDESTY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD

Petitioners seek review ofthe Board's decision pursuant to Section 1094.5. In Section 1094.5 cases, the Court's review ofthe evidence is generally confined to the administrative record. (Code Civ. Proc, section 1094.5, subd. (e); Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov't V. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 367.) Thus, discovery in writ proceedings is usually not necessary. (See San Joaquin Local Area Formation Commission v. Superior CourX (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 159, 167.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

JOE HARDESTY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD

In both cases, Petitioners seek review of the Board’s decision pursuant to Section 1094.5. In Section 1094.5 cases, the Court’s review of the evidence is generally confined to the administrative record. (Code Civ. Proc., section 1094.5, subd. (e); Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 367.) Thus, discovery in writ proceedings is usually not necessary. (See San Joaquin Local Area Formation Commission v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 159, 167.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

AMNAH ESSA VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

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. 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STEWART V. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEAL BOARD

She now files a petition for writ of administrative mandate with this court under Code of Civil Procedures section 1094.5. Petitioner alleges that “the appeals board abused its discretion [in affirming the decision of the administrative law judge] and acted in excess of its jurisdiction by refusing additional evidence for proper review and Exhibits of the original hearing are missing; an incomplete record.” (Petition, ¶ 10.) However, the writ is not yet at issue.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

MICHELE SIMS VS COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING, ET AL.

In the FAP, Petitioner alleges that Commission’s final decision is “invalid” for several reasons under CCP section 1094.5. (FAP ¶¶ 5-12.) Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing Commission to set aside the decision. (Id. p. 7:22-3.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FELIPA BACCARI VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, ET AL.

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).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOSE M FLORES RIVERA VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JOSE M FLORES RIVERA VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (f).) Instead, it is simply directing the Board to decide that appeal on the merits rather than Q dismissing it as untimely.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JOSE FERNANDEZ VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

. § 1094.5, subd. (f).) It simply finds that it is an abuse of discretion to set his payrate at the same level as an Assistant Superintendent, with no adjustments for the fact that he was a Superintendent. The Court thus remands this case to CalPERS with instructions to reconsider this one issue. 4. Longevity Pay Pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, Fernandez was entitled to an annual 9 percent “longevity pay salary adjustment . . . for his long-term service to the District.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JOSE FERNANDEZ VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

. § 1094.5, subd. (f).) It simplyfindsthat it is an abuse of discretion to set his payrate at the same level as an Assistant Superintendent, with no adjustments for the fact that he was a Superintendent. The Court thus remands this case to CalPERS with instmctions to reconsider this one issue. 4. Longevity Pay Pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, Femandez was entitled to an annual 9 percent "longevity pay salary adjustment... for his long-term service to the District." (AR 6.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1902, AFL-CIO, ET AL. VS FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The petition includes the following causes of action: (1) writ of mandate pursuant to CCP section 1085; (2) writ of mandate pursuant to CCP section 1094.5; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) a claim for damages pursuant to 42 USC § 1983. On August 2, 2019, Respondent filed its demurrer and meet and confer declaration. The court received Petitioners’ opposition and Respondent’s reply.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STEPHEN DOBBS VS. STEVEN GORDON, DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

. § 1094.5, subd. (c).) In this case, the Court reviews whether the DMVs findings are supported by the weight of the evidence. {Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Gal.4th 448, 456.) Petitioner bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to a writ of mandate. {Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Gal.4th 805, 819-820; see also Elizabeth D. v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

STEPHEN DOBBS VS. STEVEN GORDON, DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

. § 1094.5, subd. (c).) In this case, the Court reviews whether the DMV’s findings are supported by the weight of the evidence. (Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 456.) Petitioner bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to a writ of mandate. (Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 819-820; see also Elizabeth D. v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

COALITION FOR AGRICULTURAL RIGHTS V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

. - The requirement that an agency make findings is not the same under Sections 1085 and 1094.5. In contrast to Section 1085 review, detailed findings are essential where an adjudicatory action is reviewed under Section 1094.5. The finding requirement is explicitly codified in Section 1094.5, and the court should grant the writ if “the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 43     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.