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

176-200 of 301 results

SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff/Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Under the San Diego City Charter, Proposition G, the California Environmental Quality Act is DENIED. Mission Beach Park was originally developed in 1925 as an amusement park by John D. Spreckels. Admin. Record ("AR") 438.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2017

MELBA TYSON VS. SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL

AMENDED MOTION For Peremptory Writ Of Administrative Mandate Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 13, 2017 line 1. PETITIONER MELBA TYSON AMENDED MOTION For Peremptory Writ Of Administrative Mandate Continued to November 2, 2017. Opposing party to provide courtesy copy of opposition no later than October 16, 2017 with a cover letter reflecting new hearing date.= (501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2017

PETITION OF VALLEY CENTER-PAUMA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE by petitioner Valley Center – Pauma Unified School District is DENIED. There is no Proof of Service in the court file indicating that respondent Office of Administrative Hearings was notified of this hearing date and that after petitioner sought to move the date, that the hearing was still going forward on October 13, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SYED K. ZAIDI MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Set for hearing on Monday, October 2, 2017, Line 1, PETITIONER SYED ZAIDI's Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandate Hearing required.=(302/CPK)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2017

RAMIREZ VS. CITY OF BUENA PARK

Petitioner Daniel Ramirez seeks a writ of administrative mandate to set aside respondent City of Buena Park’s decision to discharge petitioner, to reinstate petitioner with back-pay and all benefits, and award petitioner his attorney’s fees. Respondent City of Buena Park seeks to have the writ of administrative mandate denied and its decision to terminate petitioner Daniel Ramirez thereby affirmed. In Nelson v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2017

MELBA TYSON VS. SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Peremptory Writ Of Administrative Mandate Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for September 29, 2017 line 1. PETITIONER MELBA TYSON's Motion For Peremptory Writ Of Administrative Mandate OFF CALENDAR, re-noticed for October 13, 2017.= (501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2017

COOPER VS. THE CAL DEPT CORR AND REHAB

"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; see also Langsam v. City of Sausalito (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 871, 879 (section 1094.5 permits "judicial review only of the exercise by an administrative agency of an adjudicatory or quasi-judicial function.")

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COOPER VS. THE CAL DEPT CORR AND REHAB

"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; see also Langsam v. City of Sausalito (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 871, 879 (section 1094.5 permits "judicial review only of the exercise by an administrative agency of an adjudicatory or quasi-judicial function.")

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KRISS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Tentative ruling for August 21, 2017 on Writ Petition Deny Petitioner Kriss's request for writ of administrative mandate. First, the Petition is not verified pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1069 and 1082. Second, Petitioner has failed to file an opening brief which supports her request for relief with citations to the Administrative Record. (See Advanced choices, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1661, 1671; Fox v. Erickson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 740, 741-42.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DONALD LOCKWOOD VS CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD ET AL

Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate. The petition was granted. Board appealed, but abandoned the appeal and the decision is now final. Board’s failure to discharge its mandatory duty caused plaintiff harm for which he now seeks redress. He timely filed a Victim Compensation claim, which was rejected.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2017

MACK VS. CITY OF DEL MAR [E-FILED]

TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner Steven Mack's Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate is DENIED. Standard of Review Under CEQA, courts review quasi-legislative agency decisions for an abuse of discretion. (§ 21168.5.) At both the trial and appellate level, the court examines the administrative record anew. (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 427, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 150 P.3d 709.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2017

JOHN DOE V. WESTMONT COLLEGE, ET AL.

On January 17, 2017, Doe filed this petition for issuance of a writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. On June 30, 2017, Doe filed this motion requesting that this Court order a stay of Doe’s suspension and other administrative action against him pending disposition of this petition. Among other things, Doe argues he has a colorable claim and is entitled to a stay.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2017

TOM GUTIERREZ VS. FULLERTON JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Ruling: The Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate is DENIED. Pursuant to CCP § 1094.5 (b), the court finds that there was a fair hearing and no abuse of discretion. The Respondent’s decision to terminate Petitioner was supported by the findings, and the findings were supported by the weight of the evidence. (AR 00178-204.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2017

MARJORIE MCCUNE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION

A petitioner who receives an adverse finding in a final administrative order or decision must first petition to the superior court for a writ of administrative mandate pursuant to [CCP] section 1094.5. [Citations.] .... Government Code section 19630 establishes a one-year statute of limitations for challenging civil service rulings.

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2017

JOHN DOE VS AINSLEY CARRY ED.D ET AL

., BS159332, JUNE 6, 2017 [tentative] order re: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE Petitioner JOHN DOE’S Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate is DENIED. Background Petitioner John Doe (“Petitioner”) filed this Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate on November 9, 2015. The Petition is directed to Respondents Ainsley Carry, Ed.D. in his official capacity as University of Southern California’s (“USC”) Vice Provost for Student Affairs (“Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ABM FACILITY SERVICES, INC. VS. THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Abuse of agency discretion, warranting a writ of administrative mandate, is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by findings, or the findings are not supported by evidence.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2017

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION VS CALIFORNIA STATE

CDCR seeks a stay of administrative decision based on its intention to “to file a notice of appeal from the judge in In re Cruz Castillo, SPB Case # 15-0665K” and its contention CDCR will suffer “irreparable harm” and that “immediate danger [will] result from placing [Castillo] back on duty before the merits of [CDCR’s] Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate are determined.” Petitioner further argues it would be “against the public interest” to have Castillo report for duty at this point.

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RIC1607364

“[O]nce the board has issued findings, the employee need not pursue additional administrative remedies and need not challenge the findings by way of a petition for a writ of administrative remedies and need not challenge the findings by way of a petition for a writ of administrative mandate.” State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court, supra at page 979.

  • Hearing

    May 19, 2017

JAMES EDWARD O'DORISIO MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Granting Writ Of Administrative Mandate Matter on Calendar for Tuesday, May 16, 2017, Line 2, PETITIONER JAMES O'DORISIO's Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Granting Writ Of Administrative Mandate. Petitioner James O'Dorisio's motion for reconsideration of the order granting writ of administrative mandate is denied. Dr.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

BRYCE DIXON VS KEGAN ALLEE PH D ET AL

On petition for writ of administrative mandate, “[t]he trial court presumes that the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating the contrary.” (McAllister v. California Coastal Comm'n (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 921.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RIC1607364

“[O]nce the board has issued findings, the employee need not pursue additional administrative remedies and need not challenge the findings by way of a petition for a writ of administrative remedies and need not challenge the findings by way of a petition for a writ of administrative mandate.” State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court, supra at page 979.

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2017

JAMES EDWARD O'DORISIO MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner James O'Dorisio's petition for writ of administrative mandate is granted. The case is remanded to Respondent Medical Board of California for reassessment of the penalty against Dr. O'Dorisio. The increased practice monitor probationary term imposed by the Board after this court reversed four of the Board's findings and remanded for assessment of discipline and the Board itself reversed two additional findings is grossly excessive and a manifest abuse of discretion.

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2017

JOHN DOE VS MARGARET KLAWUUN ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate Tentative Ruling: For reasons stated below, the court denies petitioner John Doe’s petition for writ of mandate. Background: In this proceeding, petitioner John Doe, a UCSB student, seeks a writ of mandate challenging his two-year suspension by UCSB, after he was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student (the court will refer to her as “Roe”) on June 26, 2015, while she was asleep at an off-campus apartment.

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2017

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MICHAEL LEIZEROVITZ D D S VS DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Procedural History On March 2, 2016, Petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of administrative mandate. On April 13, 2016, Respondent filed an answer. On December 16, 2016, Petitioner filed his opening brief. On January 23, 2017, Respondent filed its opposition. Petitioner filed a reply on January 27, 2017. On February 16, 2017, the court continued the hearing on the petition to March 30, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Mar 30, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GLOBAL DISCOVERIES VS. CONTRA

Therefore, the demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained with leave to amend. 2. 2nd C/A—Writ of Administrative Mandate, CCP § 1094.5 Respondents’ demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is sustained with leave to amend. Petitioner alleges it was denied a fair hearing because Respondents failed to diligently review the claims and supporting evidence. Therefore, Respondents abused their discretion by failing to deny ARL’s claims and refusing to grant Petitioner’s respective claims.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2017

  « 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.