“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.)
Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Entry of Judgment Tentative Ruling: The court enters judgment pursuant to the court of appeal’s order of remand, denies petitioner and plaintiff Monarch Country Mobilehome Owners Association’s verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint, and orders this action dismissed, with prejudice. Background: On May 18, 2009, petitioner and plaintiff Monarch...
..of mandate. Park Owner and the City appealed. On March 7, 2013, the Court of Appeal issued its opinion reversing the judgment (order granting petition for a writ of administrative mandate) in favor of Monarch and remanding with directions to deny the petition. Monarch Country Mobilehome Owners Ass'n v. City of Goleta, 2013 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 1713, 36 (2013). Remittitur was filed in this court on...
Feb 05, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: HEARING ON DEMURRER — AND DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [RESP] CSP — SAN QUENTIN [RESP] DAVIS, RON RULING The court overrules the demurrer by respondents CSP-San Quentin and R. Davis (“Respondents”) to the ﬁrst amended petition (“amended petition”) of petitioner Noel P. Scott (“Petitioner”). Petitioner has stated facts sufﬁcient to constitute a val...
..ormance of an act which the law speciﬁcally enjoins, as a duty resulting from an ofﬁce, trust, or station,’ Under this section, mandate will lie to compel performance of a clear, present, and usually ministerial duty in cases where a petitioner has a clear, present and beneﬁcial right to performance of that duty. [Citations] Mandamus has long been recognized as the appropriate means by which to ch...
Oct 04, 2019
Marin County, CA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME July 20, 2018, 11:00 a.m. DEPT. NO 28 JUDGE HON. RICHARD K. SUEYOSHI CLERK E. GONZALEZ SOURCEWISE, Case No.: 34-2018-80002795 Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AG...
..come the final mling of the Court unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this Department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear. In the event that a hearing is requested, oral argument shall be limited to no more than 20 minutes per side. ...
Jul 20, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Young Tockgo, et al., v. Hanin Federal Credit Union, et al. Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: January 5, 2017 Tentative Decision on Demurrer to First Amended Petition: OVERRULED BS163396 Respondents Hanin Federal Credit Union, Choon Hyung Jhoun, James Lee, Bog Sub Lee, Juan Lee, Young Hwan Cho, Tai Ho Kang and Teahyon Leem (“Respondents”) demur to the first amended petition for writ of mandate...
..lege that Respondents distributed inaccurate minutes of the June 26, 2016 Board meeting to legitimize the removals of Petitioners. (Pet. ¶¶ 26-27.) On July 21, 2016, the court denied Petitioners’ ex parte application for a TRO and OSC re: preliminary injunction. The court noted that “Petitioners’ counsel represented at the hearing that the [June 26] meeting had been recorded, but that a tra...
Jan 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Background.On July 19, 2019, Clyde Davis (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit stylized as a “Petition for Writ of Mandate (Code of Civil Proc., §§ 1085, 1086 et seq.)” against Defendants J. Costelo – Warden, P. Denny – Assoc. Warden, Lt. Arebelo – Fox Yard Lieutenant, Sgt. McEwan – Fox Yard Sergeant, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff is currently an inmate at...
..ies, 6 AAA batteries, and a book lamp. (Pet., p. 1, and Exs. B, F, G.)On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, requesting $65 as compensation for his allegedly missing property. (Ex. B.) The administrative appeal was accepted at the first level review by Ass...
Nov 21, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION; Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.; Defendants. CH PALLADIUM, LLC; CH PALLADIUM HOLDINGS, LLC; 5929 SUNSET (HOLLYWOOD) LLC; CRE-HAR CROSSROADS SPV, LLC; 6400 SUNSET, LLC Real Parties in Interest. Case No.: 19STCP03387 Related Case: 19STCP00520 Hearing Date: November 15, 2019 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND LOS ANGELES CITY COUN...
..SHIP DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LITIGATION The Demurrers to the Complaint of Defendants City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles City Council, and Real Parties in Interest CH Palladium, LLC, CH Palladium Holdings, LLC, 5929 Sunset (Hollywood), LLC, CRE-HAR Crossroads SPV, LLC and 6400 Sunset LLC are SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Real Party in Interest CRE-HAR Crossroads SPV, LLC’s Motion for Order Confi...
Nov 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
226-250 of 10000 results
Aug 11, 2020
Butte County, CA
Aug 11, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 11, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 10, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 10, 2020
Placer County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.