“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.)
“A writ of (ordinary) mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1085.) “The trial court that issues a writ of mandate retains continuing jurisdiction to make any orders necessary for complete enforcement of the writ.” (Los Angeles Int'l Charter High Sch. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1355.)
“Mandamus has long been recognized as the appropriate means by which to challenge a government official’s refusal to implement a duly enacted legislative measure.” (Morris v. Harper (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 52, 58.) A petitioner may seek a writ of mandate to compel a public agency to perform acts required by law. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1085; Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, 539.) There are two essential requirements to the issuance of an ordinary writ of mandate:
(California Ass’n for Health Services at Home v. Department of Health Services (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 696, 704.)
A “ministerial act,” for purposes of a writ mandate, “is an act that a public officer is required to perform in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority and without regard to his own judgment or opinion concerning such act’s propriety or impropriety, when a given state of facts exists.... Thus, [w]here a statute or ordinance clearly defines the specific duties or course of conduct that a governing body must take, that course of conduct becomes mandatory and eliminates any element of discretion.” (Schwartz v. Poizner (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 592, 596-597.) “Discretion... is the power conferred on public functionaries to act officially according to the dictates of their own judgment.” (AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Los Angeles County Dep't of Pub. Health (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 693, 700.)
“There are two prongs to the test for the beneficial interest required to pursue an action in mandamus. The first, as noted in Parker v. Bowron [40 Cal.2d 344, 351] is whether the plaintiff will obtain some benefit from issuance of the writ or suffer some detriment from its denial. The plaintiff’s interest must be direct, and it must be substantial. Also, it generally must be special in the sense that it is over and above the interest held in common by the public at large. The second prong of the beneficial interest test is whether the interest the plaintiff seeks to advance is within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the legal duty asserted.” (Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1233-1234.)
Further, the controversy must not be moot. (Rust v. Roberts (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 772, 776.) “A writ of mandate will not issue to enforce an abstract right, when the occurrence of an event subsequent to the commencement of the proceeding makes the issuance of the writ of no practical benefit to the petitioner.” (Clementine v. Board of Civil Service Comm’rs (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 112, 114.)
The petitioner always bears the burden of proof in an ordinary mandate proceeding. (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1154.)
Proceedings on a petition for writ of mandate are special proceedings rather than civil actions. (California Employment Com. v. Sutton (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 181, 184.) “[A] writ of mandate may not be issued where the petitioner's rights are otherwise adequately protected.” (Code of Civ. Proc, § 1086; County of San Diego v. State of Califomia (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580, 596.) “Therefore, if the petitioner has an adequate remedy in the form of an ordinary cause of action... a writ of mandate must be denied.” (Agosto V. Board of Trustees of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 330, 345.)
To obtain writ review, a petitioner must show not only the presence of a ministerial duty, but that “his or her remedy in the ordinary course of law is inadequate or that petitioner would suffer irreparable injury were the writ not granted.” (Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club v. Super. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1225.) “Although the statute does not expressly forbid the issuance of the writ if another adequate remedy exists, it has long been established as a general rule that the writ will not be issued if another such remedy was available to the petitioner.” (Phelan v. Super. Ct. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 366.) It is Plaintiff’s burden to show that he does not have such a remedy. (Id.) “[G]eneral allegations, without reference to any facts, are not sufficient to sustain [the] burden of showing that [an alternative] remedy... would be inadequate.” (Phelan v. Super. Ct. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 370.)
“[W]hen review is sought by means of ordinary mandate the inquiry is limited to whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support.” (Bunnett v. Regents of University of California (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 843, 849.) “Mandate will not issue to compel action unless it is shown the duty to do the thing asked for is plain and unmixed with discretionary power or the exercise of judgment.” (Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees of Saint Agnes Medical Center (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 618.)
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.
Jan 25, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.)
Jan 25, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
The petition for writ of mandate is DENIED.
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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).)
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jan 21, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
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).
Jan 21, 2021
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 21, 2021
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
(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.
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Jan 19, 2021
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jan 15, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.)
Jan 15, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 15, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 15, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Jan 15, 2021
Sacramento County, CA
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).
Jan 15, 2021
El Dorado County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.