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 Resources for 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

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.

Analysis Likelihood of Success on the Merits Standard of Review for Writ Petition Petitioner does not specify whether the writ petition is brought pursuant to CCP section 1085 or section 1094.5. Nor does Petitioner analyze the standard of review that would apply to the writ petition. As argued in opposition, this omission from Petitioner’s briefs is significant. (City Oppo. 14.) The likelihood of success on a legal claim depends on the elements of such claim and the underlying standard of review.

  • 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

Respondent contends that the request for revise and change EDD’s counseling and documentation procedures is improper under CCP § 1094.5 and should be stricken.

  • 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

Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (a).) The challenged decision in this case was made following an evidentiary hearing required by law, and a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to section 1094.5 is thus the proper way to inquire into that decision's validity. One of the mostfrequentlylitigated issues in a petition for writ of mandate brought imder section 1094.5 is whether the challenged decision is supported by the findings, and whether the findings are supported by the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

DENNY CAO VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (a).) The challenged decision in this case was made following an evidentiary hearing required by law, and a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to section 1094.5 is thus the proper way to inquire into that decision’s validity. One of the most frequently litigated issues in a petition for writ of mandate brought under section 1094.5 is whether the challenged decision is supported by the findings, and whether the findings are supported by the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd.

  • 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

RYAN MACABULOS VS BOARD OF VOCATIONAL NURSING & PSYCHIATRIC TECHNICIANS

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

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT VS THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Standard of Review A party may seek to set aside an agency decision for failure to comply with CEQA by petitioning for either a writ of administrative mandamus (CCP § 1094.5) or of traditional mandamus (CCP § 1085).

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SMITH VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE HEARING RE: DEMURRER ON BY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO

., §§ 312, 363 [“action,” as used in title 2 of the code (Of the Time of Commencing Civil Actions), is construed “as including a special proceeding of a civil nature”); special proceedings of a civil nature include all proceedings in title 3 of the code, including mandamus actions under §§ 1085, 1088.5, and 1094.5—all the types of petitions for writ made for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and land use challenges]; see also Pub.

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2020

SAVE THE FIELD VS DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

., on the grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of this division shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure." Pub. Resources Code 21168. In reviewing an agency's compliance with CEQA in the course of its legislative or quasi-legislative actions, the Court's inquiry "shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion." Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

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

The evidence is not relevant for the purposes of Section 1094.5, subdivision (e). Even if SCIF could meet this requirement, SCIF fails to meet the other prong of the test for admissibility of extra-record evidence: SCIF makes no showing that in the exercise of reasonable diligence, this evidence could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the underlying administrative hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

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

The evidence is not relevant for the purposes of Section 1094.5, subdivision (e). Even if SCIF could meet this requirement, SCIF fails to meet the other prong of the test for admissibility of extra-record evidence: SCIF makes no showing that in the exercise of reasonable diligence, this evidence could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the underlying administrative hearing. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1094.5, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

EGAN BADART VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (b) provides the grounds for the issuance of a writ of administrative mandamus. Included therein is any prejudicial abuse of discretion based on the evidence not supporting the findings. Here Petitioner has alleged the hearing officer’s decision to award liquidated damages was not supported by the evidence. The hearing officer’s discretionary decision is subject to court review.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VENICE SUITES LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Because CCP § 1094.5 requires that material findings be made by the agency . . ., and because the [City] failed to make said findings, the Court should use its own independent judgment when reviewing the [City’s] decision to determine whether it complies with CCP § 1094.5 and Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Comm. v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 [Cal.3d] 506 . . . .” (Opening Brief 2:27-3:5.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LARS LUTHER V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

Petitioner seeks mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Under section 1094.5(b), there are three grounds of inquiry when reviewing an administrative decision (such as that issued by the Commission): (1) whether the agency proceeded without or in excess of its jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair trial; and (3) whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

RAY FU VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

(CCP § 1094.5(b).) Conclusion The Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus is denied.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 52     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.