A final administrative decision (also known as a final administrative order) is sometimes a jurisdictional prerequisite the petitioner must satisfy before being able to bring a controversy for adjudication in a court. "[W]here an adequate administrative remedy is provided by statute, resort to that forum is a 'jurisdictional' prerequisite to judicial consideration of the claim." (Styne v. Stevens (2001) 26 Cal.4th 42, 56.)

“Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, [the] petitioner must go through the administrative proceedings triggered by the Accusation to a final decision on the merits of the entire controversy before resorting to the courts for relief.” (Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center, 222 Cal.App.3d 1115,1124 (1990).) After that requirement is satisfied, the petitioner may file a writ of administrative mandamus to request the court to review the final administrative decision for the petitioner under the California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5. (Id. at 1125.) However, "until an available 'administrative procedure has been invoked and completed, there is nothing that the... court may review; it cannot interfere in the intermediate stages of the proceeding.'" (McAllister v. County of Monterey, 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).)

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 lays out the guidelines on the procedures for an administrative order review. The CCP holds that the hearing shall be held in front of the court with no jury and “all or part of the record of the proceedings before the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer may be filed with the petition, may be filed with respondent's points and authorities, or may be ordered to be filed by the court.” (CCP § 1094.5.) “Except when otherwise prescribed by statute, the cost of preparing the record shall be borne by the petitioner.” (Id.) Further, “the determination [of the court] shall not be considered to have become moot in cases where the penalty imposed by the administrative agency has been completed or complied with during the pendency of the proceedings.” (Id.) Finally, the CCP states that a petitioner may bring a cause of action disputing an excess of jurisdiction by the administrative tribunal, a lack of a fair trial, or an abuse of discretion. (Id.)

A party can be excused from this requirement only if it can show the administrative remedies are “unavailable or inadequate, or where pursuing the administrative remedy would be futile, idle, or useless.” (Bollengier, 222 Cal.App.3d at 1126.) But, for this argument to be effective the petitioner must first present its claim to the “administrative tribunal in the disciplinary proceedings on the accusation.” (Id. at 1130.) The court is concerned that “if a party could obviate the exhaustion requirement by simply claiming that the [agency’s] action was improper, the [exhaustion] doctrine would effectively be emasculated.” (Id.)

In Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, the court found that the failure to give the public notice of the director’s approval within the 10-day period provided by the MDP for appeal to the appeal excused any failure to exhaust that administrative remedy. (Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 48 Cal.4th 481, 497 (2010).) The court indicated that “assuming such a prior-notice requirement was implicit in the MDP's provision for a 10–day right of appeal to the planning commission, the omission of such notice would, at most, excuse exhaustion of this administrative remedy before filing a lawsuit.” (Id. at 506.)

The court has also held that declaratory relief is “not an appropriate method for review of an administrative order; rather, administrative mandamus is the proper remedy.” (Guilbert v. Regents of University of California, 93 Cal.App.3d 233, 244 (1979).)