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

GOODNESS CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA LEELIN BAKERY & CAFE, ET AL.

.: 19NWCP00037 HEARING: 09/05/19 JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER #2 TENTATIVE ORDER Respondent CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of Petitioners’ Writ of Administrative Mandate and Stay of Administrative Proceedings is GRANTED without prejudice. Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

ERICK GUERRERO VS RICK CARUSO ET AL

A writ of administrative mandate is available only where 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. (Wasko v. Department of Corrections (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 996, 1000; Pomona College v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1716, 1727, fn. 10 [stating mandamus available where hearing required by statute, internal rules and regulations, or due process].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ERICK GUERRERO VS RICK CARUSO ET AL

A writ of administrative mandate is available only where 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. (Wasko v. Department of Corrections (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 996, 1000; Pomona College v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1716, 1727, fn. 10 [stating mandamus available where hearing required by statute, internal rules and regulations, or due process].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FRIENDS OF THE CANYON VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

City of Solana Beach (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 244, 253 (“we conclude that BBC's exclusive remedy to challenge policies in the ALUP on the ground they are inconsistent with the Coastal Act was to file a petition for writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 rather than an action for declaratory relief and traditional mandamus.”) Third, the writ does not invoke § 1085 (and Petitioner has made no attempt to amend the petition to invoke that section).

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

JOHN S. LUPO V. TUOLUMNE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.

Pleading: Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate Petitioner: John S. Lupo Petition filed: March 20, 2019 (hearing continued from August 6, 2019) Petition hearings are not governed by local rule 3.11 [see footnote below] regarding tentative rulings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2019

JOHN S. LUPO V. TUOLUMNE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.

Pleading: Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate Petitioner: John S. Lupo Petition filed: March 20, 2019 Petition hearings are not governed by local rule 3.11 [see footnote below] regarding tentative rulings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

BULLETTI VS. CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF REHAB OFFICIALS

“Failure 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 v. Coastal Comm’n (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) This is just such a forbidden collateral attack.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

ALICE R. BERKOWITZ VS BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, ET AL.

On April 11, 2018, the court entered a judgment of remand and issued a writ of administrative mandate directing the Board to re-evaluate the penalty in light of the court’s decision. On April 24, 2018, the Board stayed its February 28, 2017 decision and order, pending a new decision. On August 14, 2018, the Board issued its decision after remand, effective September 13, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE VS BIERSMITH

Accordingly, the petition for a writ of administrative mandate is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

VALENCIA VS. BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING

HEARING ON MOTION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE FILED BY JANET ANNE BAENA VALENCIA R.N. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Petitioner Janet Anne Baena Valencia’s Motion for Writ of Administrative Mandate, pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 is granted. Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

KHOURI VS. 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

    Jun 07, 2019

VALENCIA VS. BOARD OF REGISTER

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE FILED BY JANET ANNE BAENA VALENCIA RN * TENTATIVE RULING: * The Court continues this hearing to June 12, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

THERIAULT VS CALIFORNIA STATE

SUMMARY OF FACTS By this petition for writ of administrative mandate, Petitioner Donald Theriault (“Petitioner”) challenges the 5/17/18 State Board of Personnel resolution and order adopting the 3/28/18 decision of Administrative Law Judge Ralph Kasarda (ALJ), which upheld the 24 workday suspension of Petitioner. Page 12 of 14 Petitioner is a Transportation Officer assigned to California Institution for Women (CIW.) In 2016, Petitioner was partnered with Charlene Santa Cruz.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

RAMIREZ V. CITY OF BUENA PARK

Hearing on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate: Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP 1094.5) Petitioner Daniel Ramirez worked as a police officer for the City of Buena Park for about nine years. But the chief of police terminated his employment on 4/27/15. The reasons the chief of police gave for terminating his employment were that Petitioner had violated two departmental policies, and that he had made two false statements to his superiors. (AR 135-136.)

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

ERICK GUERRERO VS RICK CARUSO ET AL

A writ of administrative mandate is available only where 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. (Wasko v. Department of Corrections (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 996, 1000; Pomona College v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1716, 1727, fn. 10 [stating mandamus available where hearing required by statute, internal rules and regulations, or due process].)

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ALLEN C HASSAN, MD., JD VS. THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

A petition for writ of administrative mandate is subject to a 30 day statute of limitations. (Gov. Code § 11523.) As a general rule, “the petition shall be filed within 30 days after the last day on which reconsideration can be ordered.” (Id., emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2019

ALLEN C HASSAN, MD., JD VS. THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

A petition for writ of administrative mandate is subject to a 30 day statute of limitations. (Gov. Code § 11523.) As a general mle, "the petition shall be filed within 30 days after the last day on which reconsideration can be ordered." (Id., emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2019

WARREN-TAYLOR VS. PALOMAR HEALTH

Department of Corrections (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 996, explains that [a] writ of administrative mandate is available only where 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. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5; Keeler v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 596, 297 P.2d 967.) Wasko, 211 Cal.App.3d at 1000.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRIS HONEYCUTT VS. CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT

Department of Corrections (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 996, explains that [a] writ of administrative mandate is available only where 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. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5; Keeler v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 596, 297 P.2d 967.) Wasko, 211 Cal.App.3d at 1000.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WARREN-TAYLOR VS. PALOMAR HEALTH

Department of Corrections (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 996, explains that [a] writ of administrative mandate is available only where 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. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5; Keeler v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 596, 297 P.2d 967.) Wasko, 211 Cal.App.3d at 1000.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WARREN-TAYLOR VS. PALOMAR HEALTH

Department of Corrections (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 996, explains that [a] writ of administrative mandate is available only where 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. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5; Keeler v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 596, 297 P.2d 967.) Wasko, 211 Cal.App.3d at 1000.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MAGISTRALE VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Thus, "[e]xtra-record evidence is not admissible on a petition for writ of administrative mandate absent a showing that the evidence could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing." (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Winograd (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 881, 897 (Metropolitan); see also Sierra Club v.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ORANGE HOLDINGS TWO, LLC V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

The First and Second Causes of Action clearly intersect with and are impacted by the court’s ruling on plaintiff’s petition for writ of administrative mandate.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

CHRIS HONEYCUTT VS. CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT

Department of Corrections (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 996, explains that [a] writ of administrative mandate is available only where 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. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5; Keeler v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 596, 297 P.2d 967.) Wasko, 211 Cal.App.3d at 1000.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHRIS HONEYCUTT VS. CULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT

Department of Corrections (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 996, explains that [a] writ of administrative mandate is available only where 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. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5; Keeler v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 596, 297 P.2d 967.) Wasko, 211 Cal.App.3d at 1000.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  « 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.