What is a Final Administrative Decision?

Useful Resources for 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

OTAY WATER DISTRICT VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The Malott court held that , even if an adequate administrative remedy was provided, the expert declaration should have been allowed under CCP section 1094.5., but even if CCP section 1094.5 were applicable, Petitioner has not met the requirements of CCP section 1094.5(e). Petitioner has not shown that it exercised reasonable diligence. No declaration has been provided alleging such.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

JOHN DOE V. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

On January 3, 2017, the court denied Doe’s request for a stay of the interim suspension order on the ground that there was no final administrative order. On February 3, 2017, Doe filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Second District Court of Appeal. On March 13, 2017, the Court of Appeal issued an order indicating this court should reconsider its January 2017 order.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

Standard of Review The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Courtfindsa 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

    Jan 22, 2021

ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

Standard of Review The instant petition is 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

    Jan 22, 2021

ASHAR VS HANLEY ET AL.

Administrative Mandamus Administrative mandamus under section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure might be available to Ashar here. And while both Defendants and the County argue that Ashar cannot prevail on a cause of action under section 1094.5, Ashar has not pled a cause of action for relief under section 1094.5, and neither the motion nor the operative complaint seek an injunction on the basis of section 1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

LAFAYETTE VS. TOWN OF MORAGA

Where the action is brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, petitioners must prove a “prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the agency “(1) has not proceeded in the manner required by law, (2) the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or (3) the findings are not supported by …substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.” ((b), (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

ERIC MOREJON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Los Angeles County (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 129, it was reasonable for Petitioner to pursue writ relief under CCP section 1094.5 as well. Indeed, as noted, Respondents have maintained that Petitioner’s exclusive remedy was under section 1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MARLON WATKINS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

(CCP § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COMMUNITY FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Third Cause of Action – CCP Section 1094.5 Petitioner challenges the October 21, 2019 APC Decision under CCP section 1094.5. (FAP ¶¶ 89-100 and Prayer ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEE RELATIO

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

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KATHY SMITH VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS REGULATION

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

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NIBBLE THIS - EL MONTE, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CITY OF EL MONTE, ET AL.

The Measure states: “Any decision of the City Manager or designee(s) under this Section 5.18.070 shall be a final administrative decision not subject to administrative appeal under any provisions of this Chapter 5.18 or any provisions of the City Municipal Code but, rather, subject to judicial review and remedies.” (Mot. RJN Exh. 1 at 13.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

IN THE MATTER OF: DANIELLE SALAZAR STERN

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

    Jan 14, 2021

HOPKINS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT

Standard of Review: Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §1094.5 provides an administrative writ may be issued for inquiring into 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, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board or officer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT VS. RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF

“[D]iscovery under section 1094.5, unlike general civil discovery, cannot be used to go on a fishing expedition looking for unknown facts to support speculative theories.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ALBINO GARCIA VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 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); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

R&H AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

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

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NANCY SEILER VS STEVEN GORDON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

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

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE SUNSET LANDMARK INVESTMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PETITIONER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Standard of Review The issuance of a CUP is a quasi-judicial administrative action which the trial court reviews under administrative mandamus procedures pursuant to CCP section 1094.5. (Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 997, 1005.) CCP section 1094.5 does not on its face specify which cases are subject to independent review and which cases are subject to the substantial evidence standard, leaving that issue to the courts. (Fukuda v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DENNY CAO VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Code of Civil Procedure sectionl 094.5 authorizes a pefition for writ of mandate "for the purpose of inquiring into 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, evidence, is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer[.]" (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

DENNY CAO VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Code of Civil Procedure section1094.5 authorizes a petition for writ of mandate “for the purpose of inquiring into 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, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer[.]” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

LIMPIN VS. SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION

Appellant's single argument is that the dismissal statutes (§ 581 et seq.) do not apply to writ proceedings for administrative mandamus under section 1094.5 and, therefore, the court was without authority to dismiss his action for delay in prosecution. Appellant maintains, correctly, that a mandamus proceeding is not an "action" but a "special proceeding" for purposes of section 583.120.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DONDELINGER VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

This action is a Petition for Writ of Mandate, which arises under section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and seeks to overturn the DMV's administrative decision. A petitioner has the burden to lodge the administrative record for the court's review on a petition for writ of mandate. (Elizabeth D. v. Zolin (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 347, 354-355.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE SUNSET LANDMARK INVESTMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PETITIONER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Standard of Review The issuance of a CUP is a quasi-judicial administrative action which the trial court reviews under administrative mandamus procedures pursuant to CCP section 1094.5. (Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 997, 1005.) CCP section 1094.5 does not on its face specify which cases are subject to independent review and which cases are subject to the substantial evidence standard, leaving that issue to the courts. (Fukuda v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 53     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.