What is a Petition for Writ of Mandate?

Useful Resources for Petition for Writ of Mandate

Recent Rulings on Petition for Writ of Mandate

JOHN DOE V. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

Background: On October 21, 2016, petitioner John Doe filed a petition and complaint for declaratory relief, peremptory writ of mandate, alternative writ of mandate, and injunction. On December 14, 2016, Doe filed a first amended petition and complaint (“FAP”), adding a cause of action for administrative mandamus. Doe named the University of California, Santa Barbara (“UCSB”), and the Regents of the University of California (“Regents”) as respondents/defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

JEFFREY B. PANOSIAN, ET AL. V. BRISTOL FARMS, ET AL.

The insurer and broker filed petitions for writ of mandate, challenging the trial court’s rulings.” (Travelers, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 565.) Addressing the issue of the negligence claim against the broker, the Travelers court noted that the claim was based on the theory that the insurance broker breached a duty to the investor, as a loss payee, to provide coverage for the loss. (Travelers, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 578.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND DEMURRERS THERETO Following is the Court’s tentative ruling on the petition for writ of mandate and the demurrers thereto.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

The petition for writ of mandate is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

ARNO PATRICK KUIGOUA VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

Nature of Proceedings: MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the motion to augment the record and the petition for writ of mandate which are scheduled to be heard by the Court on Friday, January 22, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 21.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

MIRA'JE MCCOFFIN VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

In a judgment entered on August 5, 2020, the court granted Petitioner's petition for administrative writ of mandate and remanded for reconsideration and clarification. In her petition. Petitioner prayed for a writ determining her eligible for regional center services pursuant to the "fifth category" of developmental disability. (See Welf. & Inst.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

MIRA'JE MCCOFFIN VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

In a judgment entered on August 5, 2020, the court granted Petitioner's petition for administrative writ of mandate and remanded for reconsideration and clarification. In her petition. Petitioner prayed for a judgment determining her eligible for regional center services pursuant to the "fifth category" of developmental disability. (See Welf. & Inst. Code § 4012(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

NICK NICHOLS VS CITY OF BURBANK

The complaint alleges a cause of action for a writ of mandate, inquiring into the validity of the administrative order terminating Nichols, and causes of action for violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (“POBRA”), and Violation of Civil Rights. ANALYSIS: Procedural Defendants argue in the opposition that the motion must be denied on the ground it was not brought on sufficient notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND DEMURRERS THERETO Following is the Court's tentative ruling on the petition for writ of mandate and the demurrers thereto.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

MANUEL CHAVEZ VS BALUBHAI PATEL, ET AL.

The Countersuit also included a petition for writ of mandate seeking reversal of the ODA. Concurrently with the filing of the Countersuit, Defendants posted with the trial court a certified copy of a surety bond in the amount of the ODA pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2. (Lee Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 1.) Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“PIIC”) was the surety of the bond.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

LAFAYETTE VS. TOWN OF MORAGA

The “standing” requirements to seek a writ of mandate have been described by our Supreme Court in Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155, 165-166: As a general rule, a party must be ‘beneficially interested” to seek a writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1086.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

ERIC MOREJON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

For the reasons stated in this ruling and the court’s December 3, 2020, the petition for writ of mandate under CCP section 1085 is GRANTED. Respondents have a ministerial duty to set aside the dismissal, pay Petitioner backpay as required by law, and provide Petitioner all pre-disciplinary rights to which he is entitled as a permanent employee. Plaintiff to prepare, serve, and lodge a proposed form of judgment in accordance with Local Rules, Rule 3.231(n).

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MARLON WATKINS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

Second Writ Proceeding On August 8, 2019, Petitioner filed his second petition for writ of mandate challenging the Commission’s decision after remand. The court has received Petitioner’s opening brief, Department’s opposition, Petitioner’s reply, the administrative record, and the joint appendix.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COMMUNITY FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Procedural History On December 20, 2019, Petitioner filed its verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief and taking of property without just compensation. On July 17, 2020, Petitioner filed its first amended petition (“FAP”) for writ of mandate and complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

MARIO TAYLOR VS EMBASSY SUITES

If an order is made transferring an action, the clerk shall, after expiration of the time within which a petition for writ of mandate could have been filed, and upon payment of the costs and fees, transmit the pleadings and papers of the action or proceeding to the clerk of the court to which the action is transferred.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

SIEMSEN, ET AL., V. QUAIL MEADOWS EAST, LLC, ET AL.

On November 2, 2020, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, summarily denied plaintiffs’ request for writ of mandate/prohibition. (Siemsen v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, B308537.) It appears no petition for review was filed. On December 17, 2020, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed defendant Devon Weber as a party. A CMC is scheduled for February 22, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

ANNA BASA VS LUIS ARIAS, ET AL.

(e) [“When a determination of the good faith or lack of good faith of a settlement is made, any party aggrieved by the determination may petition the proper court to review the determination by writ of mandate. The petition for writ of mandate shall be filed within 20 days after service of written notice of the determination . . . .”].) Additionally, Uber filed the instant motion too late.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

SUREN SAHAKYAN VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT, ET AL.

On July 14, 2020, the court granted in part Sahakyan’s petition for writ of mandate and remanded the case to the Commission for Sahakyan to receive an award of backpay from the date of the Notice until the Commission’s previous decision. The remand will include a re-evaluation whether Sahkayan’s discharge must be upheld based on Charge 1’s misconduct involving theft from Target, Charge 2’s failure to report outside employment, and two previous NTCDs. B.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEE RELATIO

Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission, BS174826 Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: granted in part Petitioner County of Los Angeles (the “County”), seeks a writ of mandate to compel the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (“ERCOM”) to set aside its Reconsidered Decision and Order (“Decision”) finding that that County violated its Employee Relations Ordinance by making revisions to the class specification for Eligibility Worker (“EW”) II without meeting and conferring

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF RANCHO CORDOVA LLC VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL

The prayer for relief in connection with the second cause of action (the only cause of action Respondent demurs to via this motion) requests the Court issue a “writ of mandate and/or injunction commanding DTSC to provide Stericycle to immediate access and splits of the physical samples DTSC took on February 11, 2020 from the Rancho Cordova facility.” (Id., p. 8, ¶ B.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF RANCHO CORDOVA LLC VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL

The prayer for relief in connection with the second cause of action (the only cause of action Respondent demurs to via this motion) requests the Court issue a "writ of mandate and/or injunction commanding DTSC to provide Stericycle to immediate access and splits of the physical samples DTSC took on February 11, 2020 from the Rancho Cordova facility." (Id, p. 8, ^ B.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

ALLIANCE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SEX OFFENSE LAWS VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE The hearing set for this matter on January 15, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. is hereby VACATED. Respondents are ordered to file a brief, no more than 5 pages in length, addressing Petitioner's argument made on reply that the Califomia Supreme Court's recent decision in In re Gadlin (S254599) is dispositive of this matter. Such brief shall be filed by January 29, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

FRIENDS OF OCEANO DUNES INC VS. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Writ of Mandate - Tentative Ruling * * If oral argument is requested, then it will be conducted remotely through the Zoom Application. Counsel are encouraged to use headsets during Zoom appearances. Experience has shown that the use of headsets improves sound quality. See further instructions at the end of this tentative ruling. * * The petition for writ of mandate is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The parties' requests for Judicial notice are GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

ALLIANCE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SEX OFFENSE LAWS VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE The hearing set for this matter on January 15, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. is hereby VACATED. Respondents are ordered to file a brief, no more than 5 pages in length, addressing Petitioner’s argument made on reply that the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in In re Gadlin (S254599) is dispositive of this matter. Such brief shall be filed by January 29, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

TANN V. HALEY

Lakeview Creamery Co. (1937) 9 Cal.2d 16, 20-21, 68 P.2d 968 (Boyle)), seek a writ of mandate (Brown v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 519, 522, 51 Cal.Rptr. 633), or renew a judgment obtained prior to suspension (Timberline, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1367, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 4).

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 210     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.