“Judicial review of most public agency decisions is obtained by a proceeding for a writ of ordinary or administrative mandate. The applicable type of mandate is determined by the nature of the administrative action or decision. Usually, quasi-legislative acts are reviewed by ordinary mandate and quasi-judicial acts are reviewed by administrative mandate.” (McGill v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1776, 1785.)
Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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.) It provides that a writ “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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.)
The court may stay the operation of an administrative order or decision pending judgment, or until the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the notice, whichever occurs first. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(g).)
“Within 20 days after service of the final administrative order or decision of the local agency is made... a person contesting that final administrative order or decision may seek review by filing an appeal to be heard by the superior court, where the same shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the local agency's file in the case shall be received in evidence." (Gov. Code, § 53069.4(b)(1).)
Within 15 days after an administrative hearing, the Labor Commissioner must file his or her decision and serve a copy on the parties. (Lab. Code, § 98.1(a).) Within 10 days of service (or 15 days if service is by mail), a party may seek review of the Commissioner’s decision by filing an appeal in the superior court. (Lab. Code, § 98.2(a).) The time limit is jurisdictional, and absent statutory authority, may not be extended. (Pressler v. Donald L. Bren (1982) 32 Cal.3d 831, 837.) “[T]imely filing of a notice of appeal forestalls the [C]ommissioner’s decision, terminates his or her jurisdiction, and vests jurisdiction in the superior court to conduct a hearing de novo.” (Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1116.)
"If the party seeking review by filing an appeal to the superior court is unsuccessful in the appeal, the court shall determine the costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the other parties to the appeal, and asses that amount as a cost upon the party filing the appeal. An employee is successful if the court awards an amount greater than zero." (Lab. Code, § 98.2(c).) The statute "acts as a disincentive to appeal the commissioner's decision." (Arias v. Kardoulias (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1438.)
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.
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
Jul 10, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Jul 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Jul 09, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
Jul 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 09, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 02, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
(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.
Jul 02, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 02, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 02, 2020
David E. Gregory
Riverside County, CA
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.)
Jul 01, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
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.)
Jul 01, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
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).)
Jul 01, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jun 30, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.)
Jun 30, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
Jun 30, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (f).)
Jun 26, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jun 26, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
. § 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.”
Jun 26, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
. § 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.)
Jun 26, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jun 25, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
. § 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.
Jun 24, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
. § 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.
Jun 24, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
. - 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.”
Jun 23, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
