What is a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate?

Useful Rulings on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate

Recent Rulings on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, ET AL.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate alleges that Plaintiff filed an appeal after June 3, 2015 and the Plaintiff’s Board of Civil Service Commission appeal claim was denied on May 25, 2017. (RJN, Exh. 2, ¶¶ 6-7.) The doctrine of equitable tolling will “suspend or extend a statute of limitations as necessary to ensure fundamental practicality and fairness.” (McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 99.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

Indeed, the “[f]ailure to obtain judicial review of a discretionary administrative action by a petition for a writ of administrative mandate renders the administrative action immune from collateral attack … by any other action.” (Beach v. Bluff Conservancy v. City of Solano Beach (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 244, 263.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

Standard of Review While Krok purports to seek a writ of administrative mandate pursuant to CCP section 1094.5 (Pet. Op. Br. at 3), the City correctly notes that the proper standard of review is for traditional mandate pursuant to CCP section 1085. Opp. at 10.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

FRANCISCA EUGENIA NUNEZ VS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Dept. of DMV, Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: July 2, 2020 19STCP01822 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate Petitioner Francisca Nunez (“Petitioner”), in pro per, petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent Director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“Respondent” or “DMV”) to set aside an administrative decision that suspended Petitioner’s driver’s license for failure to prove financial responsibility pursuant to Vehicle Code section 16070.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOE HARDESTY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD

Thus, the Legislature has expressed an intent that judicial review ofthe penalties, like those at issue here, shall be by section 1094.5—the statute that provides for review of administrative decisions by way of a petition for writ of administrative mandate The Second Cause of Action in the Cross-Complaint is authorized by Public Resources Code section 2774.1, subdivision (f), which allows, but does not require, "an action to recover administrative, and other, penalties under this section."

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

JOE HARDESTY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD

Thus, the Legislature has expressed an intent that judicial review of the penalties, like those at issue here, shall be by section 1094.5—the statute that provides for review of administrative decisions by way of a petition for writ of administrative mandate The Second Cause of Action in the Cross-Complaint is authorized by Public Resources Code section 2774.1, subdivision (f), which allows, but does not require, “an action to recover administrative, and other, penalties under this section.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

PETER HEFFNER VS CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIAL

[Tentative] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD ORDER _________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STEWART V. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEAL BOARD

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

FELIPA BACCARI VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, ET AL.

Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: June 30, 2020 19STCP01622 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate Petitioner Felipa Baccari (“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of administrative mandate directing Respondent Long Beach Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) to set aside the Commission’s decision terminating her employment as a police officer with the City of Long Beach Police Department (“Department”; collectively “Respondents”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STEPHEN DOBBS VS. STEVEN GORDON, DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FORI WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE I. TENTATIVE RULING. The following shall constitute the Court's tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing In Department 34, on Wednesday, June 24, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

STEPHEN DOBBS VS. STEVEN GORDON, DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE I. TENTATIVE RULING. The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing in Department 34, on Wednesday, June 24, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL

Real Parties’ Evidence In the last four years, the Petitioner Rudisill, has filed at least 17 petitions for writ of administrative mandate. Perry Decl. ¶2. These lawsuits are filed against any persons in Petitioner's neighborhood whom Petitioner believes to be requesting permits to build on their property. Perry Decl. ¶2, Ex. A.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JESSE ARVIZU VS PARTNERSHIPS TO UPLIFT COMMUNITIES SCHOOLS E

Procedural History On July 17, 2018, Petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of administrative mandate. In the petition, Petitioner included causes of action under CCP sections 1094.5 and 1085. On August 28, 2018, Petitioner dismissed from the action Respondent Los Angeles County Office of Education and Real Party in Interest LAUSD. On August 29, 2018, Respondent Uplift Communities Lake View Terrace, erroneously sued as Partnerships to Uplift Communities Schools, filed an answer.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SABRINA FIELDS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Respondent Reid Group Enterprises dba TwentyTwenty Insurance Services, Real Party in Interest Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: June 23, 2020 18STCP02556 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate: DENIED Petitioner Sabrina Fields (“Petitioner”) seeks a writ of administrative mandate commanding Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“Respondent” or “CUIAB”) to set aside its final decision that disqualified Petitioner from receiving unemployment

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHIQUITA CANYON LLC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Conclusion The fourteenth cause of action for writ of administrative mandate is granted in part and denied in part. After entry of judgment, the court will issue a writ directing Board to set aside its CUP decision with respect to Conditions 43(G), 111, 115-123, and 126 and to reconsider the case in light of the court’s ruling. (CCP § 1094.5(f).) The writ petition is denied as to all other conditions.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JAYME S. HENSON V. STEVEN GORDON

On April 10, 2020, Henson filed this petition for judicial review of the DMV administrative decision by writ of administrative mandate. On April 22, by order following an ex parte application, the Court stayed the license revocation imposed on Henson by the DMV pending disposition of this petition. The court also set this hearing on the petition. The petition is opposed by the DMV.

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2020

SANDRA MARTIN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Stated another way, “[i]n a proceeding on a writ of administrative mandate, ‘the party challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence.’” San Diego Unified School District v. Commission on Professional Competence (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1141. There is no basis for this Court to grant Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Barbara A. Kronlund

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

BLAIR V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

Petitioners Fox Capital Management Corp. and Seven Springs, Limited Partnership each filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate for review of respondent Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board’s issuance of a cleanup and abatement order directed at petitioners on May 12, 2017. (Case Numbers SC-20170189 and SC-20180061.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

STEVEN STROBLE VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

On December 12, 2017, pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s decision, the trial court entered judgment granting the Department’s petition for writ of administrative mandate ordering that a writ of mandamus issue remanding the proceedings to the Commission. SAR 1710-11.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

RICHARD STANGER, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, ET AL.

Petitioners’ “[f]ailure to obtain judicial review of a discretionary administrative action by a petition for a writ of administrative mandate renders the administrative action immune from collateral attack, either by inverse condemnation action or by any other action.” Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. California Coastal Com., (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 592, 608. City Opp. at 9 Comm. Opp. at 17-18. These arguments fail.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOHN DOE VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Background: On July 14, 2017, petitioner John Doe filed his petition for writ of administrative mandate in this action to require respondent Regents of the University of California (Regents) to set aside findings and sanctions issued against Doe. On July 3, 2019, the court held a hearing on the petition. On July 8, 2019, the court issued its order after hearing granting the petition. On October 21, 2019, the court entered judgment in favor of Doe and issued its writ of mandate.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

DONALD MCPHERSON ET AL VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH ET AL

Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate Petitioners seek administrative mandamus to set aside the Resolution as violating the MBMC. A. 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 Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

ERIC CHARLES JOHNSON VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE I. TENTATIVE RULING. The following shall constitute the Court's tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing in Department 27, on Friday, January 24, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

ERIC CHARLES JOHNSON VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE I. TENTATIVE RULING. The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing in Department 27, on Friday, January 24, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

SAMUEL J CROSS, ET AL. VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL.

Analysis Petitioners seek a writ of administrative mandate compelling the Housing Authority to set aside its decision upholding the termination of their Section 8 housing assistance benefits. Petitioners’ Section 8 housing benefits were terminated on the grounds that Bradshaw did not report her income in connection with her employment with Hammer and Nails, which would have made Petitioners ineligible for housing benefits.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.