“Judicial review of most public agency decisions is obtained by a proceeding for a writ of ordinary or administrative mandate. The applicable type of mandate is determined by the nature of the administrative action or decision. Usually, quasi-legislative acts are reviewed by ordinary mandate and quasi-judicial acts are reviewed by administrative mandate.” (McGill v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1776, 1785.)

“The appropriate type of mandate is determined by the nature of the administrative action or decision under review.” (Beach & Bluff Conservancy v. City of Solana Beach (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 244, 258.) Ordinary mandamus applies to quasi-legislative decisions, defined as those involving “the formulation of a rule to be applied to all future cases,” while administrative mandamus applies to quasi-judicial decisions, which involve “the actual application of such a rule to a specific set of existing facts.” (Id. at 259.)

An administrative mandate is available only if the decision resulted from a “proceeding in which by law:

1. a hearing is required to be given,
2. evidence is required to be taken, and
3. discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the agency.”

(McGill v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1776, 1785.)

“If the administrative agency provides a hearing but was not required [to do so] by law, administrative mandamus does not apply.” (Shelden v. Marin Cnty. Employees’ Retirement Ass’n (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 458, 463; Ideal Boat & Camper Storage v. Cnty. of Alamdea (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 301, 310-11.)

Legal Standard

Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies. (Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15.) It provides that a writ “issued for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which 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, corporation, board, or officer, the case shall be heard by the court sitting without a jury.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) Generally, a petition for writ of mandate is used when challenging any administrative decision, even when the reason for challenging is underlined by another law. (Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1582.)

A proceeding under section 1094.5 is the “exclusive remedy for judicial review of the quasi-adjudicatory administrative action of the local-level agency.” (City of Santee v. Super. Ct. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 713.) The trial court may issue a writ of administrative mandate where the agency has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, deprived petitioner of a fair hearing, or committed prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Clark vs. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152.) “Abuse of discretion is established if the [agency] has not proceeded in a manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Id. at 1169.) “Foundational factual findings must be sustained if supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at 1169.)

“[J]udicial review is limited to an examination of the proceedings before the agency to determine whether its actions have been arbitrary or capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or whether it failed to follow proper procedures or failed to give notice as required by law.” (Taylor Bus Serv. v. San Diego Bd. of Educ. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1331, 1340.) Where the issue is whether the action is lacking in evidentiary support, “the applicable standard of review is the substantial evidence test.” (Taylor Bus Serv. v. San Diego Bd. of Educ., supra, at p. 1340.) “Substantial evidence has been defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate support for a conclusion. A presumption exists that an administrative action was supported by substantial evidence. The burden is on the appellant to show there is no substantial evidence whatsoever to support the findings.” (Id. at pp. 1340-1341.)

Issues of procedure and whether findings support an agency decision are reviewed de novo. (Nasha, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, 482.) The agency’s decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing. (Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Super. Ct. (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 860, 862.) The hearing officer is only required to issue findings that give enough explanation so that parties may determine whether, and upon what basis, to review the decision. (Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at 514-15.) Implicit in section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. (Id. at 515.)

The standard of review on administrative mandamus is independent review. (Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees’ Retirement Association (1974) 11 Cal.3rd 28, 32.) Under the independent review standard, the trial court determines whether the weight of the evidence supports the agency’s findings. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(c).) Petitioner has the burden of persuading the Court that agency's findings are incorrect and against the weight of the evidence. (Fukuda v. City of Angeles (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 817.)

An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties, and the petitioner therefore has the burden of proof. Steele v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 129, 137. “[T]he burden of proof falls upon the party attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate wherein the proceedings were unfair, in excess of jurisdiction or showed prejudicial abuse of discretion.” Afford v. Pierno, (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 691. Where there has been an opportunity to present evidence on an issue in an administrative hearing, a party is not entitled to present new evidence on remand. CCP §1094.5(e); Ashford v. Culver City Unified School Dist., (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 344, 351.

Procedure

For purposes of obtaining personal jurisdiction and consistent with constitutional due process, a petition for administrative writ of mandate must be served in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. (Board of Supervisors v. Super. Ct. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 830, 839.) “When an application is filed for the issuance of any prerogative writ, the application shall be accompanied by proof of service of a copy thereof upon the respondent and the real party in interest named in such application.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1107; Younger v. Jordan (1954) 42 Cal.2d 757, 758.)

A petition for writ of administrative mandate must be filed within the agency's timeline.