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

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

PATRICK KELLEY ET AL VS JENNIFER KENT ET AL

., BS170173 Tentative decision on: (1) petition for writ of administrative mandate: denied; (2) petition for writ of traditional mandate: granted in part Petitioners Patrick Kelley (“Kelley”) and Matthew Reed (“Reed”), by and through his guardian ad litem Vicki Reed, petition the court for a writ of traditional mandate compelling Respondents Department of Health Care Services and Jennifer Kent, in her official capacity as Director (collectively, “DHCS”), comply with their legal duties to (1) ensure individuals

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

RAYMOND DOUGLAS VS. STATE OF CALIFONTNA HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES - STATE HEARINGS DIVISION

Petitioner’s proposed judgment states, “It is, hereby, ordered and adjudged that . . . a Writ of Administrative Mandate not be issued [and] this Petition be dismissed on the merits.” This is not entirely accurate, as the petition was denied, not dismissed. Petitioner’s proposed judgment also cites Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962, which provides a petitioner in case like this “shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, if he obtains a decision in his favor.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2020

RAYMOND DOUGLAS VS. STATE OF CALIFONTNA HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES - STATE HEARINGS DIVISION

Petitioner's proposed judgment states, "It is, hereby, ordered and adjudged that... a Writ of Administrative Mandate not be issued [and] this Petition be dismissed on the merits." This is not entirely accurate, as the petition was denied, not dismissed. Petitioner's proposed judgment also cites Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962, which provides a petitioner in case like this "shall be entitled to reasonable attomey's fees and costs, if he obtains a decision in his favor."

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2020

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM

On June, 26, 2019, the District filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1 1094.5, challenging the results of CalSTRS’ decision following that administrative hearing. On August 19, 2019, the District filed a First Amended Petition, “reframing the [P]etition under [S]ection 1085….” (FAP, p. 1:25-26.) The First Amended Petition seeks a writ of mandate ordering CalSTRS to reverse its administrative decision, and other related relief.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM

On June, 26, 2019, the District filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section^ 1094.5, challenging the results of CalSTRS' decision following that administrative hearing. On August 19, 2019, the District filed a First Amended Petition, "reframing the [P]etition under [S]ection 1085...." (PAP, p. 1:25-26.) The First Amended Petition seeks a writ of mandate ordering CalSTRS to reverse its administrative decision, and other related relief.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

ONICA COLE VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Cole contends that the final administrative decision was not served upon Cole in a manner consistent with CCP section 1094.6(a)-(f) in that the decision was not served upon Cole, did not contain a notification of the time within which to file a petition for writ of administrative mandate, and was not accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of service.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The court found that “[a]n action for declaratory or injunctive relief is not an appropriate action for the review of the denial of a petition for a variance, the agency's decision is reviewable only in a petition for a writ of administrative mandate.” (Id.) Although this Court may construe the Complaint as a Petition for Writ of Administrative mandate, the Complaint must allege facts that would entitle him to such a writ. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

TIBURON OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE VS. COUNTY OF MARIN

The County filed its Notice of Determination on October 6, 2017, (AR 1 Petitioners On November 3, 2017 Petitioners Tiburon Open Space Committee (TOSC) and its president, Jerry Riessen filed a timely verified petition for writ of administrative mandate. (§ 21168; Code Civ, Proc, § 10945,) The petition alleges a single cause of action alleging the FEIR violated CEQA as follows: 1 — The 2007 federal stipulated judgment was void against public policy because County unlawfully relinquished its police powers by agreeing

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

LUIS ZULETA ET AL VS HOUSING AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPART

Marasigan’s Petition for Administrative Mandate Marasigan filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate, Jessie Marasigan v. Housing and Community Investment Department of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BS166059 (“Marasigan I”), which was heard in Department 86 on August 2, 2017. AR 34. While the proceedings were pending, on July 31, 2017, Nooravi, through Park View, acquired the Nooravi Property. AR 537.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ANDRE HILL VS CITY OF RICHMOND

The petition for writ of administrative mandate is therefore denied.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2019

ROBERTS V. OWEN

Petition for Writ - DENIED Petitioner Sean Robert’s petition for a writ of administrative mandate is DENIED. On 4/9/08, Petitioner’s California Financing Law (“CFL”) license was revoked and he agreed to be barred from any position of employment, management or control of any finance lender/broker (“Order Barring” or “Order”); Petition was permitted, however, to petition for reinstatement of his CFL license on a later date. Petitioner requested reinstatement in 2013 and was denied.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

A PASSION FOR PAWS RESCUE VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Motion to Strike is DENIED and the County shall file an Answer to the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate within 20 days. Petitioner, A Passion for Paws Rescue, Inc., is an Akita dog rescue organization. It seeks a Writ of Mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Riverside County Ordinance No. 630 and the County’s administrative hearing process on the grounds that they fail to satisfy due process requirements. (Phillips vs.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

ADAMS VS. DIRECTOR FOR THE DMV

Where the petition for a writ of administrative mandate follows an order of suspension, the superior court is required to determine, based on the exercise of its independent judgment, whether the weight of the evidence supports the administrative decision. (Morgenstern v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 366, 372.) “In reviewing the administrative record, the court makes its own determination about the credibility of the witnesses.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2019

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.