What is a Petition for Writ of Mandate?

Useful Rulings on Petition for Writ of Mandate

Recent Rulings on Petition for Writ of Mandate

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, ET AL.

However, the TAC alleges that after Plaintiff’s termination, he pursued an appeal with the Civil Service Commission and then filed a writ of mandate, which was denied and is currently under appeal. While the TAC does not provide dates for the Civil Service Commission appeal and the writ of mandate, such administrative proceeding may toll the statute of limitations. (Marcario v. County of Orange (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 397, 409.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. TRUE HORIZONS, LLC, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference; Demurrer to Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Cross-Complaint; Motion for Prejudgment Possession Tentative

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. TRUE HORIZONS, LLC, ET AL.

[PCC ¶24] The causes of action in the PCC are: 1) writ of mandate (CCP § 1085); 2) writ of mandate (CCP § 1094.5); 3) declaratory and injunctive relief (Public Resources Code § 30803; violation of Coastal Act); 4) civil penalties (Public Resources Code §§ 30805, 30820). 2. Demurrer: County demurs to each cause of action on the ground that True Horizons fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

STARR VS ASCENSION

Deny Petition for a Writ of Mandate. Proposition B was lawfully enacted in March of 2020. It supersedes Petitioner's initiative which was lawfully adopted by the City Council in January of 2020. Elections Code 9217 applies by its own language to voter initiatives only. Govt Code section 36934 does not apply to initiative petitions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FOOTHILL-DE ANZA ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES (ACE) VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Petitioner, the Foothill-De Anza Association of Classified Employees, filed a petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief asking the court to require Respondent, the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS), to find that a 2018-2019 negotiated five percent salary increase will be pensionable The real party in interest is the Foothill De Anza Community College District that employs Petitioner’s members.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE R E L I E F Following is the court's tentative ruling on the petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

EVA STEPHANIE MUNOZ VS STEVE GORDON

Nature of Proceedings: Writ of Mandate Tentative Ruling: This matter is not ready for hearing. The parties are directed to appear by Zoom, and to be prepared to discuss with the court the status of the preparation of the administrative record, and a briefing and hearing schedule for the petition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

EVA STEPHANIE MUNOZ VS STEVE GORDON

Nature of Proceedings: Writ of Mandate Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

GLEN BREGMAN VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner may seek a writ of mandate to compel an agency to act and comply with a “clear, present and usually ministerial duty.” (Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 657 [citation omitted]; Code of Civ. Proc., § 1085; see also California Corr. Peace Officers Assoc. v. State Pers. Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th1133, 1153-1154 [in an action for writ of mandate, the petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving the facts on which the claim for relief is based].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Following is the court’s tentative ruling on the petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

PRESERVATION OF BENEFIT PLAN RETIREES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. V. CITY OF SAN JOSE, ET AL.

The court in its Order Re: Motion for 17 Leave to File Verified Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint (“Order re 18 Leave to File SAC”), filed August 23, 2019, specifically observed with respect to the allegations 19 of the FAC: “while the first cause of action was titled one for Unconstitutional Impairment or 20 Breach of Contracts, the allegations of that claim in the FAC made clear it was based on 21 impairment of contract, not breach.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SOLOFF VS. CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH

SPECIAL SET HEARING ON: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE SET AT REQUEST OF BOTH PARTIES * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued to 7/31/20 at the request of all parties by stipulated letter.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

YELENA TUMANOVA VS A & R CARPET CARE AND PROFESSIONAL CLEANI

We will issue a peremptory writ of mandate requiring the trial court to do so. The court of appeals essentially held that where, as here, the responding party provides responses that consist of both objections and substantive responses, the proper motion to be filed is a motion to compel further responses, not a motion to compel initial responses. In such a case, the objections are not waived, but instead are preserved.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

HACIENDA LA PUENTE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK, A PUBLIC AGENCY

Procedural History On July 1, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate naming Registrar, LACOE, and Duardo as Respondents. That same date, the court denied Petitioner’s ex parte application for an alternative writ of mandate. Attorneys for Respondents appeared at the ex parte hearing and filed written oppositions. The court set a hearing on the writ petition for July 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ALPHA UPSILON OF SIGMA CHI, A STUDENT ORGANIZATION VS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

[Tentative] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WHITNEY SPRINGER VS KEITH STEPHENSON, ET AL.

In Calcor, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling the defendant to produce records because the plaintiff had failed to provide specific facts showing good cause for their production. Subsequently, in Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

HERRERA VS. RESIDENCE INN

The Court also notes that the costs associated with the petition for writ of mandate would not be available in any event. Defendant seeks those costs as either motion and filing fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(c)(1), or discretionary additional items under section 1033.5(b)(4). A petition for writ of mandate, however, is not simply a part of this case, it is an “original proceeding” that must be viewed separately.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

KRIPLE V. CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD

Petitioner submitted a proposed writ of mandate with the court but apparently never served it on the respondent. The motion to tax three items on the Memorandum of Costs is GRANTED. None of those charges are authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure. Costs are TAXED in the amount of $2,028.50. Entry of Mandate Unless the respondent objects, the court intends to sign the proposed Writ of Mandate.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

., BS172553 Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: denied Petitioner Janice Krok (“Krok”) seeks a writ of mandate directing Respondent City of West Hollywood (“City”) to reverse a citation against her in the amount of $44,250 (“Citation”). The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1. Petition Petitioner Krok commenced this proceeding on February 15, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

BALDOMERO ENRIQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

Los Angeles Civil Service Commission, 19STCP03436 Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: denied Petitioner Baldomero Enriquez (“Enriquez”) seeks a writ of mandate directing Respondent Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) to set aside its decision to discharge him from employment with Real Party-in-Interest Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD” or “Department”) and to restore all back pay and benefits lost.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AFFORDABLE CLEAN WATER ALLIANCE, A CALIFORNIA UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, A SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Specifically, section 1094 provides that if a “petition for a writ of mandate ... presents no triable issue of fact or is based solely on an administrative record, the matter may be determined by the court by noticed motion of any party for a judgment on the peremptory writ.” “[T]he motion for judgment provided by CCP section 1094 is the proper, and exclusive, procedural means for seeking a streamlined review of an agency’s decision.” Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara, (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1293.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ADRIAN RISKIN VS HISTORIC CORE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

Petition On August 13, 2018, Riskin filed the Petition for writ of mandate, which alleges in pertinent part as follows.[2] Riskin is a resident of Los Angeles who publishes a blog where he regularly reports on information obtained through CPRA requests. Pet. §The Parties, ¶1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ADAM NADELSON MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Following is the court's tentative ruling denying the petition for writ of mandate. INTRODUCTION Petitioner Adam Nadelson challenges a decision by Respondent Medical Board of Califomia ("the Board") placing him on probation for five years. For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ADAM NADELSON MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Following is the court’s tentative ruling denying the petition for writ of mandate. INTRODUCTION Petitioner Adam Nadelson challenges a decision by Respondent Medical Board of California (“the Board”) placing him on probation for five years. For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 3, AFL-CIO VS. SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT

Petitioner now challenges, via petition for writ of mandate, Respondent’s refusal to provide OE3 employees with merit-based pay increases for Fiscal Year 2019. II. Standard of Review Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 permits the issuance of a writ of mandate “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 182     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.