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

126-150 of 301 results

CALLAYE JO STRAUSS VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

Usually judicial review of such a decision would be by writ of administrative mandate governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The question would be whether the Commission’s findings are supported by the evidence. (§ 1094.5, subds. (a), (b).) The court would apply one of two tests: (1) the independent judgment test; or (2) the substantial evidence test. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (c); Nathan G. v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1403.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2018

MISSION SPRINGS VS DESERT WATER

The foundational premise of this third amended petition for (1) writ of administrative mandate, (2) writ of mandate, and complaint for (3) breach of contract-specific performance of 2004 settlement agreement, (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (5) declaratory relief-Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), (6) Declaratory Relief-2004 settlement agreement and (7) injunctive relief is that P Mission Springs Water District (Mission) has the right to manage ground water resources

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2018

HOMAN DIBAGOHAR DC VS THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS

Cause of Action Dibagohar seeks a writ of administrative mandate for several reasons, including (1) the Board’s decision is unsupported by the findings, (2) its findings are unsupported by the weight of the evidence, (3) the Board did not proceed in the manner required by law, (4) the Board proceeded without and in excess of its jurisdiction, and (5) the punishment imposed is arbitrary and excessive.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ROBERT KIRSCH VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

By this petition for writ of administrative mandate, Kirsch challenges the Commission’s determination to deny Kirsch back pay. The petition is opposed by the County. Analysis: (1) Standard of Review The parties agree that the court reviews the Commission’s factual determinations applying the independent judgment test. (Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 13; Respondents’ Opposition, p. 16.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

JOHN DOE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Order: The court finds respondent Regents of the University of California in contempt of the court’s Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2018

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

LUPIEN VS. CALIFORNIA

HEARING ON WRIT OF MANDATE FILED BY OLIVA LUPIEN * TENTATIVE RULING: * Petitioner Oliva Lupien’s application for writ of administrative mandate compelling Respondent California Department of Social Services to set aside a September 23, 2016 administrative decision, is denied. STANDARD OF REVIEW Petitioner contends that the standard on review is “abuse of discretion.”

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2018

DAVID M MANNING VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD ET AL

Notably, the plaintiff waited more than 18 months before filing in his petition for writ of administrative mandate. (Id.) The California Supreme Court in relevant part held that given the unreasonable delay, the doctrine of laches barred the plaintiff's petition for writ of administrative mandate brought in superior court. (Id. at 69.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2018

PAULO CRUZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

The Petition alleges one cause of action for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1094.5. Petitioner Cruz alleges that the Commission prejudicially abused its discretion because (1) the decision is not supported by the findings and the findings are not supported by the evidence and (2) the penalty imposed is disproportionately harsh and excessive. B.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DOE VS. ST. MARY’S COLLEGE

On a writ of administrative mandate, this Court’s task is the same as that of the courts of appeal in the published case law. E.g., Doe v. Regents (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1072 (hereinafter Doe v. UCSD). The Court must we determine “whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.” Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(b).

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2018

MICHAEL MEOLI VS SAN DIEGO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

A petition for writ of administrative mandate may be granted where there has been an abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established, in a mandamus proceeding to inquire into the validity of a final administrative order, if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, if the decision is not supported by the findings, or if the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JUAN BARILLAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Barillas seeks a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1094.5. He argues that Respondents committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion by (1) failing to proceeding a manner required by law, (2) issuing a decision not supported by the findings, (3) making findings not supported by the evidence, and (4) imposing an excessive and capricious penalty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SANDRA OBANDO VS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELE

Causes of Action The Petition alleges a cause of action for writ of administrative mandate.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

LABOR COMMISSIONER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS JOSE REFUGIO RODRIGUEZ

Nature of Proceedings: Writ of Mandate Tentative Ruling: At the April 11, 2018, hearing in this case, the court continued the matters to July 25, 2018, to address the petition of petitioner Rodriguez for writ of administrative mandate. No administrative record has been filed. No papers in support of or in opposition to the petition have been filed. The court orders the hearing on the petition for writ of mandate off calendar, to be reset upon appropriate notice by petitioner.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2018

KONIER VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Writ Petition Petitioners Barry Konier and KS Carwash LLC (dba Town & Country Hand Car Wash) seek a writ of administrative mandate compelling the Labor Commissioner to vacate its 7/13/17 decision to impose damages and penalties for various wage and hour violations. The initial citation sought $180,070 jointly and severally from each petitioner, but the hearing officer reduced that amount to $104,541.92 for Konier and $148,210.92 for KS Carwash LLC. (CCP 1094.5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2018

KONIER VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Writ Petition Petitioners Barry Konier and KS Carwash LLC (dba Town & Country Hand Car Wash) seek a writ of administrative mandate compelling the Labor Commissioner to vacate its 7/13/17 decision to impose damages and penalties for various wage and hour violations. The initial citation sought $180,070 jointly and severally from each petitioner, but the hearing officer reduced that amount to $104,541.92 for Konier and $148,210.92 for KS Carwash LLC. (CCP 1094.5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2018

KONIER VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Writ Petition Petitioners Barry Konier and KS Carwash LLC (dba Town & Country Hand Car Wash) seek a writ of administrative mandate compelling the Labor Commissioner to vacate its 7/13/17 decision to impose damages and penalties for various wage and hour violations. The initial citation sought $180,070 jointly and severally from each petitioner, but the hearing officer reduced that amount to $104,541.92 for Konier and $148,210.92 for KS Carwash LLC. (CCP 1094.5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2018

JOHN FORSMAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Forsman’s first cause of action is for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOHN DOE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFONRIA

On January 8, 2018, the court entered judgment granting the petition and entered a peremptory writ of administrative mandate commanding Regents to file, no later than 30 days after the date the writ was served on Regents, a return to the writ setting forth what it had done to comply with the writ. Doe filed a proof of service indicating personal service of the writ on January 10, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2018

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SILVIA VAN STEYN ET AL. VS SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR

The Van Steyns filed their Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 on September 6, 2017, one day late.

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2018

SANDRA OBANDO VS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELE

The Petition The Petition alleges a cause of action for writ of administrative mandate.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2018

COMFORT HEALTH THERAPY INC ET AL VS THE CITY OF SAN GABRIEL

On December 18, 2017, Petitioners filed a verified first amended petition (FAP) for writ of administrative mandate and complaint for civil rights violations. The parties stipulated that Petitioners could file a second amended petition “in order to attempt to obviate Respondents’ objections to the First Amended Petition” raised in meet and confer. On January 25, 2018, Petitioners filed a verified second amended petition for writ of administrative mandate and complaint for civil rights violations (“SAP”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2018

VICTOR FERNANDEZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISS

Fernandez seeks a writ of administrative mandate pursuant to CCP section 1094.5. Fernandez asserts inter alia that (1) he did not engage in misconduct on May 25, 2013, (2) he did not violate the Department’s Manual of Policy and Procedures (“MPP”), and (3) the penalty of discharge is disproportionately harsh and excessive. B.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WARREN M LENT ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Petitioners seek a writ of administrative mandate on the basis that (1) the Commission committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion by issuing the Order, (2) the Commission committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion by imposing the administrative penalties, and (3) Pub. Res. Code section 30821 is unconstitutional on its face and as-applied. 2. Course of Proceedings On October 19, 2017, the court granted Petitioners’ ex parte application for a stay of the Order.

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RUPERT STAINE VS BOARD OF CIVIL SERVICE COMM'R FOR CITY OF L

The Petition seeks a writ of administrative mandate to remedy errors present in the Amended Decision. The Petition alleges that Respondents abused their discretion because the Amended Decision (1) imposes and sustains severe and unconscionable punishment and (2) is not supported by the findings. Respondents have also acted arbitrarily and in excess of their jurisdiction by imposing discipline in violation of the applicable statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MONTEREY COASTKEEPER VS. CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Petitioners seek a writ of administrative mandate declaring the San Joaquin Waiver unlawful and directing the State Board and Central Valley Regional Board to make revisions to bring it into compliance with the law. The third and fourth causes of action are derived from the original second cause of action challenging the State Board’s alleged “pattern and practice” of failing to comply with state law mandates.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2018

  « 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.