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

226-250 of 301 results

NICK CAI V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The court sustains respondent/defendant The Regents of the University of California’s demurrer to petitioner/plaintiff Nick Cai’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages, without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2015

BAY AREA DIABLO V. COUNTY OF SLO

The second cause of action seeks issuance of a writ of administrative mandate relief based upon similar allegations and that the ALJ determination is not supported by the evidence. The third cause of action alleges violations of 42 USC §1983 based upon allegations that the County violated Plaintiff’s right to substantive and procedural due process by interfering with Plaintiff’s property rights.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2015

MARK A. BROWN VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD ET AL

Amended Notice Of Motion For Enforcement Of Writ Of Administrative Mandate And Related Relief Matter on calendar for Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Line 2, PETITIONER MARK BROWN Amended Motion For Enforcement Of Writ Of Administrative Mandate And Related Relief. Granted in part and denied in part. Respondents did not reasonably comply with the Court's May 23, 2013 Order and Writ of Administrative Mandamus.

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2015

MARK A. BROWN VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD ET AL

Amended Notice Of Motion For Enforcement Of Writ Of Administrative Mandate And Related Relief Matter on calendar for Thursday, February 26 2015, Line 2, PETITIONER MARK BROWN Amended Motion For Enforcement Of Writ Of Administrative Mandate And Related Relief. The matter is continued to March 16, 2015 to give moving party the opportunity to comply with Local Rule 2.6B.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2015

IVAN CHAVEZ VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

3300, et seq.) because Plaintiff must first petition the court for a writ of administrative mandate following the Defendants' decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Gales v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1602-03. The First Amended Complaint also fails to state a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy because this cause of action is not authorized by statute. Govt. Code ?? 815(a) & 815.6; Miklosky v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2014

CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION VS. ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY ANAD COUNTY

Ntc Of Hearing On Amended Petition For Writ On Mandate And/Or Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar for Friday, October 31, 2014, Line 1, PETITIONER CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC.'s Amended Petition For Writ On Mandate And/Or Writ Of Administrative Mandate. Further hearing required. The Court finds no prejudice to the Assessment Appeals Board ("the Board")- not the Real Party in Interest - in hearing argument by Petitioner as well as Real Party in Interest in a refund hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2014

ROBERT LEUNG VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Re-Notrice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar for Thursday, October 23, 2014, Line 1, PETITIONER ROBERT LEUNG's Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate. The petition for writ of mandate is denied. The admission of the Cantamount testimony and invoice (Exhibit 29) does not mandate reversal of respondent's decision. In Thornbrough v. W. Placer Unified Sch.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2014

ROBERT LEUNG VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Re-Notrice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on Calendar for Monday, October 6, 2014, Line 1, PETITIONER ROBERT LEUNG Re-Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Continued to October 23, 2014. Petitioner's motion was previously taken off calendar on August 12, 2014 for failure to provide a courtesy copy of the administrative record.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2014

CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION VS. ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY ANAD COUNTY

Ntc Of Hearing On Amended Petition For Writ On Mandate And/Or Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar for Tuesday, September 30, 2014, Line 14, PETITIONER CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC.'s Amended Petition For Writ On Mandate And/Or Writ Of Administrative Mandate. The court denies the petition for writ of mandate/administrative mandamus. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that respondent abused its discretion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2014

CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION VS. ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY ANAD COUNTY

Ntc Of Hearing On Amended Petition For Writ On Mandate And/Or Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar on Wednesday, September 24, 2014, Line 10, PETITIONER CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC.'s Amended Petition For Writ Of Mandate And/Or Writ Of Administrative Mandate. Continued to September 30, 2014 per the agreement of the parties. =(302/EHG)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2014

CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION VS. ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY ANAD COUNTY

Ntc Of Hearing On Amended Petition For Writ On Mandate And/Or Writ Of Administrative Mandate THE MATTER IS ON CALENDAR FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014, lINE 3, PETITIONER CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION'S Notice Of Hearing On Amended Petition For Writ On Mandate And/Or Writ Of Administrative Mandate The hearing is continued to September 24, 2014. The opposing party shall immediately provide a courtesy copy of the exhibits referenced in the opposition brief.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2014

CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION VS. ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY ANAD COUNTY

Ntc Of Hearing On Amended Petition For Writ On Mandate And/Or Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on Calendar for Thursday, August 14, 2014, Line 2, PETITIONER CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION's Amended Petition For Writ On Mandate And/Or Writ Of Administrative Mandate. Continued on the Court's motion to September 15, 2014.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2014

ROBERT LEUNG VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

(Amended) Ntc Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on Calendar for Tuesday, August 12, 2014, Line 1, PETITIONER ROBERT LEUNG's (Amended) Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate. The hearing on petition for writ of mandate is off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2014

PATRICK NESBITT ET AL VS MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT

(3) Request for Judicial Notice In support of this motion to bifurcate, MWD request that the Court take judicial notice of: (exhibit 1) the order denying petitioners� petition for writ of administrative mandate, dated July 18, 2011, in Nesbitt, et al., v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2014

ROBERT LEUNG VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

(Amended) Ntc Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar for Monday, June 23, 2014, Line 2, PETITIONER ROBERT LEUNG's (Amended) Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate. Continued to August 12, 2014 for the following reasons: (1) The Court is not in receipt of Courtesy Copies of the Petition filed on December 20, 2011 and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed on November 8, 2013.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2014

ROBERT LEUNG VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

(Amended) Ntc Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar on Thursday, May 8, 2014, Line 2, PETITIONER ROBERT LEUNG's Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate. Continued to June 23, 2014 for the following reasons: (1) The Court is not in receipt of Courtesy Copies of the Petition filed on December 20, 2011 and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed on November 8, 2013.

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2014

LAZY LANDING LLC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

As Hamrick also notes, under appropriate circumstances, a petitioner may join its petition for writ of administrative mandate with a cause of action for declaratory relief that the underlying ordinance is unconstitutional. (State of California v. Superior Court (Veta Co.) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 251.) Declaratory relief actions are classified as civil actions. (Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society (1944) 23 Cal.2d 719, 733.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2014

THOMAS GARRISON MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Ntc Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar on Monday, March 17, 2014, Line 19, PETITIONER THOMAS GARRISON's Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate. The petition for administrative mandamus is denied. Petitioner fails to establish that the penalty of revocation was a clear abuse of discretion. In Lake v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2014

THOMAS GARRISON MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Ntc Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate On calendar for Monday, March 10, 2014, Line 6, PETITIONER THOMAS GARRISON'S Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Continued per stipulation of counsel to March 17, 2014. =302/EG

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2014

TERRA BELLA COMMUNITIES, INC. V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,

Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Demurrer to the first amended petition for writ of administrative mandate by respondents California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and Labor Commissioner of the State of California (collectively “respondents”) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(f), states that a memorandum exceeding ten pages must include a table of contents and a table of authorities.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2014

  • Judge

    Kevin E. McKenney

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

MONARCH COUNTY MOBILEHOME OA VS CITY OF GOLETA ET AL

On March 7, 2013, the Court of Appeal issued its opinion reversing the judgment (order granting petition for a writ of administrative mandate) in favor of Monarch and remanding with directions to deny the petition. Monarch Country Mobilehome Owners Ass'n v. City of Goleta, 2013 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 1713, 36 (2013). Remittitur was filed in this court on June 26, 2013.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2014

VERONICA MARIONA VS. RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

Ntc Of Mtn And Mtn To Amend Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on calendar for Monday, October 28, 2013, Line 5, PETITIONER VERONICA MARIONA's Motion To Amend Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate. Granted. Motion is not opposed. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2013

CROWN CASTLE NG WEST INC. VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

("CC") petition for writ of administrative mandate is denied. CC's request for judicial notice is granted. The Court finds that the City and County of San Francisco Board of Appeals' ("Board") decision to revoke CC's permit to install a wireless facility is supported by substantial evidence in the Administrative Record.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2013

TINA MARIE ENGLE VS. BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING

Ntc Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on Calendar for Thursday, July 18, 2013, Line 6, PETITIONER TINA ENGLE's Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate. Denied. (CCP ? 1094.5.) Respondent Board of Registered Nursing did not abuse its discretion in revoking Petitioner's license. On December 2, 2012, Petitioner was convicted of grand theft pursuant to Penal Code ? 487(a) for stealing a medical monitoring device. (Admin. Record, p. AR0004.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2013

STEVE EDELSON VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY

A petition for writ of administrative mandate may be resolved upon motion of a party when it is based solely on the administrative record. However, a petition for traditional mandate may be resolved by way of motion only where the material facts are undisputed; where there is a factual question affecting a substantial right of the parties, the trial court must conduct a trial on the petition. (See Code of Civil Procedure §1094; Cal. Standardbred Sires Stakes Com. v. Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2013

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.