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

PISMO BEACH SELF-STORAGE, L.P. V. CITY OF PISMO BEACH, ET AL.

The Court is not convinced that the referenced “conduct” in the supplemental brief is the type of activity referenced in Section 1094.5, which involves a “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[…]” (Section 1094.5(a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This rule limiting the admission of extra-record evidence also applies to proceedings reviewable by administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section'* 1094.5. (See Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (Cadiz) (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 120.) Additionally, Section 1094.5 specifically limits the admission of extra-record evidence, as discussed below.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This rule limiting the admission of extra-record evidence also applies to proceedings reviewable by administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 4 1094.5. (See Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (Cadiz) (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 120.) Additionally, Section 1094.5 specifically limits the admission of extra-record evidence, as discussed below.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

HERMOSA FITNESS, LLC VS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, ET AL.

The abatement order was part of a final administrative decision which Petitioner could challenge immediately under CCP section 1094.5. Respondents cite to language in Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (“HBMC”) section 8.28.070(E) and (F) suggesting that the property owner can request an extension of time to comply with an abatement order or may make “further appeal” to the Council. (Oppo. 11-12; RJN Exh. C.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DISTRICT SQUARE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY

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

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WORTHINGTON CONSTRUCTION INC VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner's Motion for Writ of Mandate Under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5, Prohibition or Other Appropriate Relief is GRANTED. Petitioner challenges the decision of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE") and the confirmation of that decision by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS' ("DIR") to classify Pedro Refugio as a Landscape Operating Engineer, which resulted in a Civil Wage and Penalty Assessment ("Assessment"), under CCP section 1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FULTON VS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 456; CCP §1094.5. In making that determination, the court acts as a trier of fact; it has the power and responsibility to weigh the evidence and make its own determination about the credibility of witnesses. Barber v. Long Beach Civil Service Com. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 652, 658.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

F.M.G., INC. DBA HADLEY TOW VS CITY OF BALDWIN PARK

While noting that the petitioners could seek a review of the denial under CCP section 1094.5 administrative mandamus, the court held that traditional mandamus relief under section 1085 was not available. The court observed that the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (governing the issuance of the permit at issue) gave the Coastal Commission discretion to determine whether an applicant qualified for a permit. 12 Cal.3d at 247.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LEGADO DEL MAR, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY

In the four pages of briefing on “Legal Standards and Standard of Review,” Petitioner does not address either 1094.5 or 1085. In the language of 1094.5 and 1085, how does Petitioner frame the issues to be decided? [The court requests Petitioner be prepared to put its argument into the framework/outline of 1094.5 and/or 1085. From the court’s perspective in large part, the parties’ briefs address different issues.] AS TO THE CDP When does Petitioner contend its application was complete?

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHRISTIE WARD VS. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

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

    Sep 22, 2020

LOREN ROBINSON VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD

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

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

TRASK PROPERTIES III, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Standard of Review Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate pursuant to CCP section 1094.5. 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

    Sep 22, 2020

DAVIDSON VS. ORANGE COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Zazueta explained Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 authorizes a writ of mandate for inquiring into the validity of a final administrative order or decision as a result of an evidentiary hearing, and was inapplicable since the officer elected to participate in binding arbitration rather than pursue his administrative remedies. (38 Cal.App. 4th at 110.) Further, Zazueta held “[j]udicial review of arbitration awards is limited to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286 et seq.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

BRINA WASHINGTON, ET AL. VS VANETTA N MOSBY, ET AL.

Section 1094.5(a) states, in pertinent part, that “[w]here the writ is issued 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, the case shall be heard by the court sitting without a jury.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MR. BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY VS CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD

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

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT VS. WATTS

Proc., § 1094.5) is the appropriate means for overturning the denial of a claim for excess proceeds from a default tax sale”]; Mission Valley East, Inc. v. County of Kern (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 89, 99, fn. 6 [“[t]his is a ‘common law’ or traditional mandamus proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, not administrative mandamus under section 1094.5”].) Nevertheless, the Court must pick one or the other mode of judicial review before it can proceed with its analysis.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

SLS VENICE HOLDINGS, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Standard of Review Petitioner’s first cause of action for writ of mandate is brought pursuant to CCP sections 1094.5 “or” 1085. (Pet. ¶ 1.) “[J]udicial review via administrative mandate is available ‘only if the decision[] resulted from a 'proceeding in which by law: 1) a hearing is required to be given, 2) evidence is required to be taken, and 3) discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the agency.’

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ADRIAN QUINTERO 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).) 233Cal.App.3d 813, 823.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

ADRIAN QUINTERO 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).) 233Cal.App.3d813, 823.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

RESIDENTS FOR ORCUTT SENSIBLE GROWTH V. COUNTY OF SB

., § 1094.5), the court’s review of a governmental agency’s actions or decisions is generally limited to the administrative record. Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e) describes the content of the record as follows: “The record of proceedings shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following items:....” Subdivision (e) enumerates 11 categories of material that must be included in the administrative record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

NICOLE MEHRINGER VS MICHAEL MOORE, 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

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BULLETTI VS. CALIFORNIA DEPT.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 authorizes review of an administrative decision when a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of contested factual issues is vested in the administrative decision-maker. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5.) Judicial review of a denial of benefits from the DOR is governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 (Hoitt v. Dept. of Rehabilitation (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 513, 521.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Petitioner Cadiz opposed the project and challenged the EIR under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5. The trial court found that the EIR certification was adequate and denied petitioner’s motion to compel deposition of Mr. Lauricella. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the EIR was inadequate in some respects. The Court of Appeal also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to depose Mr. Lauricella.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 48     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.