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

76-100 of 301 results

SUZANNE BUCKMASTER VS. WILL LIGHTBOURNE, DIRECTOR CDSS

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, May 3, 2019, at 2:00 p.m.

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2019

SUZANNE BUCKMASTER VS. WILL LIGHTBOURNE, DIRECTOR CDSS

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOFt 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, May 3, 2019, at 2:00 p.m.

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2019

RAMIREZ V. CITY OF BUENA PARK

Hearing on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate: Continued to 5/30/19 at 1:30 p.m. by the stipulation of the parties. Future Hearings: None

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

GRASSROOTS COMMUNITY GROUP OF ALHAMBRA VS CITY OF ALHAMBRA

Procedural History On March 27, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The petition challenges City’s approval of the construction of a Lowe’s home improvement store, two office buildings, and a parking structure under CEQA, the Planning and Zoning Law, and City’s municipal code. City filed an answer on March 20, 2018. Real Parties filed an answer on March 21, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RAMIREZ V. CITY OF BUENA PARK

Hearing on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate: Continued to 4/25/2019 by the order of the court. Future Hearings: None

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

HONEY A LEWIS VS THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate Here, Jefferson joined its inverse condemnation causes of action with a petition for writ of mandate, which was ruled upon first by the trial court and denied. Accordingly, we consider first Jefferson's contention the trial court erred by denying its petition for writ of mandamus.

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2019

LUCINDA MALOTT V. SUMMERLAND SANITARY DISTRICT

Patterson, Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP TENTATIVE RULING: For the reasons set forth herein, the petition of petitioner Lucinda Malott for issuance of writ of administrative mandate is denied. Background: This is a petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging residential sewer service (also known as wastewater) rates adopted by respondent Summerland Sanitary District (District) in its Ordinance 19.

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2019

ORANGE HOLDINGS, TWO, LLC V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

CCP §1085 Here, Orange Holdings based its 4th COA for “Writ of Administrative Mandate” on an allegation that the Board exceeded its legal authority. [Complaint, ¶¶42-45] A writ is available for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made after a hearing. CCP §1094.5(a). After the writ is considered, “the court shall enter judgment either commanding to set aside the order or decision or denying the writ.”

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

ALONZO V. CITY OF VISALIA

Motion: Continued Hearing on Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate Tentative Ruling: To Deny the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate. Petitioner seeks writ review pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code section 6.16.060(C) of a decision by the administrative hearing officer determining Petitioner’s dog “Jaxon” to be a dangerous or vicious animal and ordering the dog to be humanely destroyed.

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

CLARK FRATUS VS. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

The present action began when petitioners filed for a writ of administrative mandate to compel DCD to set aside the fines. The Court (Judge Brady) granted the petition in June 2011, determining that DCD’s actions were not supported by the weight of the evidence. For reasons not now clear, however, final judgment on that decision was not entered until July 2015. Petitioners then moved to recover attorney fees under a number of statutory provisions.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

TURPIN V. SUMMIT AND SANDS INTERIORS, LLC

Petitioner Fox Capital filed a verified petition for writ of administrative mandate alleging that Bobby Pages, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, is a real party in interest as a former operator of the subject site in South Lake Tahoe, California and has been identified by respondent Lahontan as a discharger responsible for investigating and remediating the site. (Petition, paragraph 11.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2019

PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-SHASTA, LLC VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

A petition for writ of administrative mandate is subject to an extremely short statute of limitations – just 30 days. (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

    Feb 22, 2019

PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-SHASTA, LLC VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

A petition for writ of administrative mandate is subject to an extremely short statute of limitations - just 30 days. (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

    Feb 22, 2019

JOHN DOE VS MARGARET KLAWUNN ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Return on Remittitur; Motion: Attorney Fees TENTATIVE RULING: (1) Hearing on return on Remittitur: Petitioner’s counsel is requested to submit to the Court a proposed order granting is petition for writ of administrative mandate, and issuing the writ, as directed by the Court of Appeal. (2) Motion for attorneys’ fees: The motion is granted, in the total amount of $170,141.30.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

RAMIREZ V. CITY OF BUENA PARK

Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate: Continued to 4/11/19 by the order of the court. Future Hearings: Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate: 4/11/19

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

BRENDA RILEY VS. DIRECTOR OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES

Respondent County of San Diego's Motion to Proceed Via Writ of Administrative Mandate is denied without prejudice. Respondent has not provided any authority that this court may compel a different proceeding than the one pled.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DANIEL LARSEN VS VICTIM COMPENSATION & GOVERNMENT CLAIMS

Larsen seeks a writ of administrative mandate pursuant to CCP section 1094.5. Larsen alleges that the Board misapplied the law in ruling that it was not bound by the factual findings and credibility determinations of the district court. Larsen alleges that, in so doing, the Board also incorrectly found that he failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is innocent. B.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JAMES CLAYBON VS DALE NOWICKI ET AL

The court construes the complaint as a petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging the November 3, 2017 Decision. On April 25, 2018, Respondents filed a demurrer. On July 3, 2018, the independent calendar department found that the action should be assigned to a writs and receivers department. On July 5, 2018, Department 1 transferred the matter to Department 82.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOSEPH P. RUIZ VS BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, (CALPERS)

Demurrer Analysis: As a preliminary matter, Defendant CalPERS argues that the Demurrer should be sustained because the Complaint should have been brought as a writ of administrative mandate instead. However, Defendant provides no case law in support of this position. Moreover, the statutes that Defendant cites to (CCP § 1094.5 and Gov. Code § 11523) do not require a plaintiff to bring a writ either. Accordingly, Defendant’s first argument is rejected.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Accordingly, Costa’s petition for writ of administrative mandate must dismissed. See id. at 242. 2. Statute of Limitations Assuming arguendo that the court does have jurisdiction to consider the incomplete administrative appeal, Costa argues that Counts 2-4 are barred by the statute of limitations. Pet. Op. Br. at 12-14. Costa argues that both section 1070(c) of the City Charter and Govt. Code section 3304(d) (“section 3304”) have one-year limitations periods.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

JOHN D COSTA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Accordingly, Costa’s petition for writ of administrative mandate must dismissed. See id. at 242. 2. Statute of Limitations Assuming arguendo that the court does have jurisdiction to consider the incomplete administrative appeal, Costa argues that Counts 2-4 are barred by the statute of limitations. Pet. Op. Br. at 12-14. Costa argues that both section 1070(c) of the City Charter and Govt. Code section 3304(d) (“section 3304”) have one-year limitations periods.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

TILLERY V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

Tillery seeks a writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The writ is directed to respondents California Employment Development Department and California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the board) and asks the court to set aside the board’s decision denying petitioner’s claim for disability insurance benefits.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2018

MARUTI GAS PLUS VS. HATHAWAY, ET AL

This action was filed on December 15, 2017 and involves a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate and an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Stay of Enforcement of an Order of the Department of Industrial Relations affirming a citation and penalty assessment against Petitioner in the amount of $9,000 for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for employees. Proof of service showing service on Respondent Department of Industrial Relations on November 1, Commissioner has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2018

J. CYRIL JOHNSON FAMILY L.P. V. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, ET AL.

Footnote 9: Under other circumstances, a court may issue a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (See Excelsior College v. Bd. of Registered Nursing (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1237–39 [discussing traditional and administrative writs of mandate].)

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

RICHARD BARAY VS JEAN SHIOMOTO

Jean Shiomoto, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, BS172249 Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: denied Petitioner Richard Baray (“Baray”) requests a writ of administrative mandate commanding Respondent Jean Shiomoto, the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”), to set aside the suspension of his driving privilege. The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision. A.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

  • 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.