Notice of Appeal to an Administrative Hearing?

“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.)

Legal Standard

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.)

Procedure

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).)

Labor Commission

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.)

Useful Rulings on Notice of Appeal to an Administrative Hearing

Recent Rulings on Notice of Appeal to an Administrative Hearing

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

HERBERT HO VS. VETERINARY MEDICAL 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

    Oct 20, 2020

710 AND 712 ARDMORE, LLC VS MARK ROTH & DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE

A traditional writ of mandate may be brought under CCP §1085 to challenge administrative actions which do meet the statutory criteria for review by way of administrative mandate under CCP §1094.5. Cal. Civil Writ Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed. 2017) § 2.32. “In traditional mandamus actions, the agency's action must be upheld upon review unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOHN DOE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Respondent does not cite any case holding that a student, who admittedly participated in part of the administrative proceedings (here, the initial investigation), waives arguments under CCP section 1094.5 by failing to appear at the administrative hearing or file an administrative appeal. The court concludes that the Student Conduct Code procedures were inadequate with respect to Petitioner’s contentions under section 1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOHN SANDY CAMPBELL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

“Although Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (f) generally prescribes that an administrative mandamus proceeding be disposed of by denial of the writ or a direction to a named respondent to set aside its decision, that section comes into play in commission matters only by application of Government Code section 11523, which specifies that judicial review may be had ‘by filing a petition for writ of mandate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, subject, however, to

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FUDGE VS CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, AND ITS PLANNING COMMISSION

Administrative Record Preparation CCP § 1094.5(a) provides that when the prevailing party in a writ proceeding has paid for preparation of the administrative record, the amount paid is taxable as costs. At Petitioner’s request, and pursuant to CEQA, the City prepared the record in this matter. (ROA 20; see also Pub. Res. Code, § 21667.6.) The City previously sought $13,219.03 for preparation of the supplemental administrative record in this matter.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

4741 SC LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Standard of Review Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate pursuant to CCP section 1094.5.[1] 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

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BRUCE EMERSON, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

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

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KORTH VS. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Proc., § 1094.5(g); Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1142.) Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

LEE ANN MORGAN VS JEFFREY WANG M D ET AL

Petition is not a writ of mandate under CCP §§1085 or 1094.5. A petition for writ of coram nobis is not a statutory petition for writ of mandate under either CCP §§1085 or 1094.5. “The writ of error coram nobis is a nonstatutory, common law remedy whose origins trace back to an era in England in which appeals and new trial motions were unknown.” People v. Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at 1091.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CANYON CREST CONSERVANCY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

On May 9, 2017, after a hearing, the court issued a written ruling granting Petitioner’s motion to stay pursuant to CCP section 1094.5(g). On or about December 14, 2017, Real Party requested that Respondent vacate the Project approvals. On or about February 27, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors vacated the approvals.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SAVE OUR RURAL TOWN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Extra-record evidence that is admissible for administrative mandamus challenges to quasi-adjudicatory decisions under CCP section 1094.5(e) is not admissible for challenges to quasi-legislative decisions except in those rare instances where (a) the evidence existed before the agency’s decision and (b) it was not possible in the exercise of due diligence to present it before the agency’s decision. Id. at 578.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS PALACIOS

As pointed out by the City, Section 1094.5 – not Section 1094.6 - provides the mechanism for seeking judicial review of an administrative order. CCP § 1094.6 only governs the time limits for filing a petition for writ of mandate under CCP § 1094.5 for certain types of administrative decisions. CCP § 1094.6(e) does not limit the categories of administrative decisions that are subject to review under § 1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT VS RESPONDENT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

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

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WILLIAM COURSON VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ET A

Weight of the Evidence Analysis Under CCP section 1094.5(b), an abuse of discretion is established if the agency’s findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b).) Accordingly, the court’s inquiry under section 1094.5(b) focuses on the findings made by the agency, as opposed to allegations in the Notice of Suspension. Petitioner contends that certain factual findings made by the hearing officer, and adopted by the Commission, are not supported by the weight of the evidence.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PAVEL ZAMOSHNIKOV VS. CODE COMPLIANCE OF CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Where writ relief is sought under Code ofCivil Procedure section 1094.5, the court may consider evidence outside the administrative record only if it "finds that there is relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or that was improperly excluded at the hearing." (Code Civ. Proc § 1094.5, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

PAVEL ZAMOSHNIKOV VS. CODE COMPLIANCE OF CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Where writ relief is sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the court may consider evidence outside the administrative record only if it “finds that there is relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or that was improperly excluded at the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc § 1094.5, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

CARPET AMERICA RECOVERY EFFORT VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY

Standard of Review CARE brings its petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The court's inquiry is thus whether CalRecycle proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supportied by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

RONALD AUSTIN VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

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.” Ibid. A traditional writ of mandate under CCP section 1085 is the method of compelling the performance of a legal, ministerial duty.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SABATINI VS CALIFORNIA BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING

Plaintiff properly challenged the Decision After Rejection under CCP § 1094.5. See Inzana v. Turlock Irrigation Dist. Bd. of Directors (2019) 35 Cal. App. 5th 429, 454 n. 11. CCP § 1094.5 allow the court to inquire "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." Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1094.5(b).

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MANN VS MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

. § 1094.5, the Court’s inquiry into the validity of an administrative order or decision extends to questions regarding: (1) whether the agency proceeded without or in excess of jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair trial; and, (3) whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. With narrow exceptions, the Court’s inquiry under section 1094.5 is limited to the administrative record made before the agency. (City of Hesperia v. Lake Arrowhead Community Services Dist. (2019) 37 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

CANYON CREST CONSERVANCY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

On May 9, 2017, after a hearing, the court issued a written ruling granting Petitioner’s motion to stay pursuant to CCP section 1094.5(g). On or about December 14, 2017, Real Party requested that Respondent vacate the Project approvals. On or about February 27, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors vacated the approvals.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CATHERINE BRUNI VS CITY OF ALHAMBRA

(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.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM VS AL MIJARES, ET AL.

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 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Under CCP section 1094.5(b), an abuse of discretion is established if the decision is not supported by the findings. (CCP § 1094.5(b).) In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515, the Supreme Court held that "implicit in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order."

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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.