You have no items in your shopping cart.
Search
Filters

California Administrative Mandamus

Depend on this comprehensive guide for obtaining judicial review of state and local agency decisions. Includes in-depth treatment of applicable standards of review.

Depend on this comprehensive guide for obtaining judicial review of state and local agency decisions. Includes in-depth treatment of applicable standards of review.

  • Laying the foundation at the administrative hearing
  • Proceedings and entities subject to writ
  • Identifying respondent and real party interest
  • Court's scope of review under CCP §1094.5
  • Statutes of limitations
  • Initiating review proceedings
  • Requesting and preparing the administrative record
  • Stay orders, noticed motions, and alternative writs
  • Pleadings and procedures before trial
  • Trial and judgment; procedures after trial
  • Appeal from Superior Court judgment
OnLAW CP94890

Web access for one user.

 

$ 445.00
Print CP32890

3d edition, 2 looseleaf volumes, updated June 2021

 

This book is out of stock through 5/25/22. Need immediate access? OnLAW version is available now.

$ 445.00
Add Forms CD to Print CP22895
$ 99.00

Depend on this comprehensive guide for obtaining judicial review of state and local agency decisions. Includes in-depth treatment of applicable standards of review.

  • Laying the foundation at the administrative hearing
  • Proceedings and entities subject to writ
  • Identifying respondent and real party interest
  • Court's scope of review under CCP §1094.5
  • Statutes of limitations
  • Initiating review proceedings
  • Requesting and preparing the administrative record
  • Stay orders, noticed motions, and alternative writs
  • Pleadings and procedures before trial
  • Trial and judgment; procedures after trial
  • Appeal from Superior Court judgment

1

Nature of Proceeding

Beth Faber Jacobs

  • I.  INTRODUCTION
    • A.  Method of Judicial Review  1.1
    • B.  Governing Law  1.2
    • C.  Historical Background  1.3
    • D.  Constitutionality of CCP §1094.5 [Deleted]  1.4
  • II.  DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS REVIEW
    • A.  In General  1.5
    • B.  Attributes  1.6
    • C.  Applicability of CCP §1094.5  1.7
      • 1.  Governmental Agency Decisions  1.8
      • 2.  Adjudicatory Decisions of Private Organizations  1.9
      • 3.  Exceptions to Judicial Review by Administrative Mandamus  1.10
    • D.  Joinder With Other Causes of Action  1.11
    • E.  Damages Unavailable  1.12
  • III.  COMPARISON WITH OTHER WRITS AND PROCEDURES
    • A.  Traditional Mandamus
      • 1.  To Compel Ministerial Duty  1.13
      • 2.  When Agency Not Required to Hold Evidentiary Hearing  1.14
      • 3.  Review of Quasi-Legislative Acts  1.15
    • B.  Certiorari  1.16
    • C.  Prohibition  1.17
    • D.  Injunction  1.18
    • E.  Declaratory Relief  1.19

2

Considerations in Deciding Whether to Petition for Writ

  • I.  COUNSELING THE CLIENT
    • A.  Preliminary Considerations  2.1
    • B.  Effect of Leaving Agency’s Action Unchallenged  2.2
    • C.  Comparison With Decision to Appeal From Civil Judgment  2.3
    • D.  Summarizing Risks  2.4
      • 1.  Risk of Inferior Result  2.5
      • 2.  Possibility of Lesser Penalty  2.6
      • 3.  Liability Under Antitrust Law  2.7
    • E.  Weighing Intangibles
      • 1.  Recognition of Agency’s Expertise  2.8
      • 2.  Effect of Applicable Test  2.9
  • II.  ESTIMATING EXPENSES  2.10
    • A.  Filing Fees  2.11
    • B.  Fees for Service of Documents  2.12
    • C.  Preparation of Administrative Record  2.13
      • 1.  APA Cases  2.14
      • 2.  Non-APA Cases  2.15
      • 3.  Reducing Expenses  2.16
  • III.  RECOVERING ATTORNEY FEES
    • A.  Estimating Fee; Written Fee Agreement  2.17
    • B.  Recovery Under Govt C §800
      • 1.  General Rule  2.18
      • 2.  Action by State Agencies  2.19
      • 3.  Application to Administrative Adjudicatory Proceedings  2.20
      • 4.  Not Applicable to Purely Legislative Functions  2.21
      • 5.  Requesting Fees  2.22
      • 6.  Appellate Proceedings  2.23
    • C.  Other Specific Statutes Authorizing Recovery  2.24
  • IV.  FORMS
    • A.  Checklist: Determining Whether to Petition for Administrative Mandamus  2.25
    • B.  Procedural Guide: Chronology of Typical Case  2.26

3

Laying the Foundation at the Administrative Hearing

Mitchell E. Abbott

David M. Snow

Sonali S. Jandial

  • I.  ANTICIPATING JUDICIAL REVIEW  3.1
    • A.  Limited Scope of Judicial Review  3.2
    • B.  Preserving Issues at Administrative Hearing  3.3
    • C.  Reasons for Rule Requiring Full Presentation  3.4
    • D.  Evidentiary Issues at Administrative Level
      • 1.  Discovery in APA Proceedings  3.5
      • 2.  Discovery in Non-APA Proceedings  3.6
      • 3.  Disputes Pertaining to Subpoenas  3.7
      • 4.  Refusal of Continuances of Administrative Hearings  3.8
  • II.  EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
    • A.  General Principles
      • 1.  Description of Doctrine  3.9
      • 2.  When Applicable  3.10
      • 3.  Jurisdictional Prerequisite  3.11
        • a.  No Waiver or Consent  3.12
        • b.  No Circumvention by Action for Declaratory or Injunctive Relief  3.13
      • 4.  Policy Behind Exhaustion Requirement
        • a.  Administrative Autonomy  3.14
        • b.  Subject Matter of Case  3.15
        • c.  Burden on Court; Development of Record  3.16
        • d.  Separation of Powers  3.17
      • 5.  Agency’s Failure to Act in Timely Manner  3.18
    • B.  Finality Requirement
      • 1.  Administrative Decision Must Be Final  3.19
      • 2.  When Decision Is Final
        • a.  Final When Rendered  3.20
        • b.  Not Final Until Interagency Appeal Completed  3.21
        • c.  Not Final Until Petition for Reconsideration Completed
          • (1)  Alexander Doctrine  3.22
          • (2)  Statutory Exceptions
            • (a)  Administrative Procedure Act  3.23
            • (b)  Other Statutes and Regulations  3.24
        • d.  When Agency Lacks Jurisdiction to Make New Decision  3.25
        • e.  When Administrative Process Halts  3.26
        • f.  Inverse Condemnation and Regulatory Takings Cases  3.27
    • C.  Application of Exhaustion Doctrine
      • 1.  In General  3.28
      • 2.  Class Actions  3.29
      • 3.  Taxpayer Suits  3.30
      • 4.  Actions Under Bus & P C §17200  3.31
    • D.  Exceptions to Exhaustion Requirement
      • 1.  Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine and Cumulative Remedies
        • a.  Doctrines Distinguished  3.32
        • b.  Administrative Remedy Cumulative to Judicial Remedies  3.33
      • 2.  When Agency Lacks Jurisdiction  3.34
        • a.  Challenge to Statute Under Which Agency Functions  3.35
        • b.  When Case Involves Civil Rights Act Claims  3.36
        • c.  Land Use Cases  3.37
        • d.  Federal Claims Other Than Civil Rights  3.38
        • e.  Rule That Is Inconsistent With State Statute  3.39
      • 3.  Inadequate Remedy
        • a.  Ineffective Remedy  3.40
        • b.  No Provision for Payment of Damages  3.41
        • c.  No Specific Remedy Available  3.42
      • 4.  Futility of Administrative Remedy  3.43
      • 5.  When Irreparable Injury Will Result  3.44
      • 6.  Public Rights Enforcement  3.45
      • 7.  Resolution of Important Legal Issues  3.46
    • E.  Time to Object for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies  3.47
    • F.  Procedure When Court Proceeds Erroneously  3.48
  • III.  PRESERVING ISSUES AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
    • A.  Requirement of Full Presentation  3.49
      • 1.  Objecting to Administrative Charges  3.50
      • 2.  Documenting Defenses at Hearing  3.51
        • a.  Statute of Limitations; Prejudicial Delay  3.52
        • b.  Burden of Proof  3.53
        • c.  Res Judicata  3.54
        • d.  Estoppel  3.55
        • e.  Statutory Interpretation and Construction; Validity of Regulations  3.56
        • f.  Duress and Necessity  3.57
      • 3.  Changing Theory of Case  3.58
      • 4.  Charging Bias
        • a.  Raising the Issue  3.59
        • b.  Nature of Bias Requiring Disqualification  3.60
          • (1)  Impairment of Impartiality  3.60A
          • (2)  Disqualification Required  3.60B
          • (3)  Bias in Small Communities  3.60C
        • c.  Ex Parte Communications  3.61
        • d.  “Rule of Necessity” Exception  3.62
      • 5.  Offering Evidence  3.63
      • 6.  Objecting to Evidence
        • a.  Objections at Administrative Hearing  3.64
        • b.  Hearsay Evidence
          • (1)  Admissibility of Hearsay  3.65
          • (2)  Use of Hearsay to Support Administrative Finding  3.66
        • c.  Illegally Obtained Evidence  3.67
          • (1)  Agency Determination of Legality of Arrest  3.68
          • (2)  Evidence Collected in Violation of Statutory Right  3.69
          • (3)  Validity of Search  3.70
          • (4)  Entrapment  3.71
      • 7.  Requesting Reconsideration  3.72
      • 8.  Specifying Grounds for Agency Appeal  3.73
    • B.  Exceptions to Requirement of Full Presentation
      • 1.  Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction  3.74
      • 2.  Failure to State Cause of Action  3.75
      • 3.  Constitutional Issues  3.76
  • IV.  PRESERVING RIGHT TO DAMAGES AND OTHER REMEDIES  3.77
    • A.  Compliance With State Government Claims Act
      • 1.  General Considerations  3.78
      • 2.  Compliance With Applicable Governmental Claim Statutes  3.79
      • 3.  Combining Mandamus Petition With Damage Claim  3.79A
      • 4.  Time Limitations; Pleadings  3.80
      • 5.  Local Claim Requirements  3.81
      • 6.  Interest Awards  3.82
      • 7.  Bifurcation  3.83
    • B.  When Failure to Seek Administrative Mandamus May Bar Subsequent Action for Damages
      • 1.  Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel  3.84
      • 2.  Land Use Cases  3.85
      • 3.  Fair Employment and Housing (FEHA) Cases  3.86

4

The Administrative Record

Rochelle Browne

T. Peter Pierce

Stephen D. Lee

  • I.  COURT’S CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
    • A.  General Rule  4.1
    • B.  Exceptions to Rule  4.2
    • C.  Importance of Presenting Sufficient Record  4.3
    • D.  Use of Judicial Notice  4.4
  • II.  REQUESTING THE RECORD
    • A.  When to Make Request  4.5
    • B.  Statute of Limitations Issues  4.6
    • C.  Time Required to Prepare Record  4.7
  • III.  PREPARING THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
    • A.  Who Prepares the Record  4.8
    • B.  What Constitutes the Administrative Record  4.8A
      • 1.  Transcript of Administrative Proceedings  4.8B
      • 2.  Audio Recordings  4.8C
    • C.  Making the Record User Friendly  4.9
    • D.  Ensuring Completeness of the Record Prepared by Opposing Party
      • 1.  Inclusion of Desired Documents in Request  4.10
      • 2.  Differences of Opinion Concerning Completeness of the Record  4.11
      • 3.  Insufficiency of the Record  4.11A
      • 4.  Motions to Correct, Augment, or Exclude Items From the Record  4.12
        • a.  Error Not Appearing in the Administrative Record  4.12A
        • b.  Evidence of Events Occurring After Completion of Administrative Hearing  4.12B
        • c.  Discovery Issues Related to Augmentation of the Record  4.12C
        • d.  Procedure if Augmentation Granted  4.12D
  • IV.  SERVING AND LODGING THE RECORD WITH COURT  4.12E
    • A.  Copies to Opposing Parties  4.13
    • B.  Payment of Costs  4.14
  • V.  DIRECTING COURT TO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
    • A.  Use of Quotations and Excerpts of the Record  4.15
    • B.  Use of Citation Format  4.16
    • C.  Blow-ups and PowerPoint® Presentations  4.17
    • D.  Return of Record to Party  4.18

5

Proceedings and Entities Subject to Writ

Geoffrey L. Robinson

  • I.  PROCEEDINGS SUBJECT TO WRIT
    • A.  General Requirements  5.1
    • B.  Adjudicatory Proceedings
      • 1.  Adjudicatory Versus Informal Administrative Proceedings  5.2
      • 2.  Adjudicatory Versus Nonadjudicatory Decision Making  5.3
      • 3.  Examples of Adjudicatory Decisions
        • a.  Land Use Decisions
          • (1)  General Rules  5.4
          • (2)  Decisions Characterized as Adjudicatory  5.5
        • b.  Employment and Tenure  5.6
        • c.  Licenses, Permits, and Privileges  5.7
    • C.  Evidentiary Hearing  5.8
    • D.  Required “by Law”  5.9
      • 1.  Statute, Ordinance, or Regulation  5.10
        • a.  Importance of Internal Agency Rules or Procedures  5.11
        • b.  When Important Rights Are Involved  5.12
      • 2.  Due Process Rights  5.13
        • a.  Non-De Minimis Property Interests  5.14
        • b.  Licenses and Permits  5.15
        • c.  State Civil Service Employees  5.16
        • d.  Liberty Interests  5.17
        • e.  Other Constitutional Issues  5.18
  • II.  PROCEEDINGS NOT SUBJECT TO WRIT
    • A.  Quasi-Legislative Action  5.19
      • 1.  Adoption Versus Application of Regulations and Policies
        • a.  General Rule  5.20
        • b.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  5.21
      • 2.  Land Use Cases  5.22
    • B.  Ministerial Actions
      • 1.  Traditional Mandamus Appropriate  5.23
      • 2.  Examples of Ministerial Acts  5.24
    • C.  Informal Administrative Actions  5.25
      • 1.  Line Has Become Blurred  5.26
      • 2.  Nature of Rights at Stake  5.27
    • D.  Ongoing Administrative Proceedings  5.28
    • E.  Tax Matters  5.29
  • III.  ENTITIES SUBJECT TO WRIT
    • A.  Governmental Entities  5.30
    • B.  Nongovernmental Entities
      • 1.  In General  5.30A
      • 2.  Private Hospitals
        • a.  Administrative Mandamus Available  5.31
        • b.  Fair Procedure Versus Due Process  5.32
      • 3.  Other Nongovernmental Entities
        • a.  Expansion of Law  5.33
        • b.  Examples of Public and Private Institutions  5.34
      • 4.  Seeking Review Under Administrative and Traditional Mandamus  5.35

6

Court’s Scope of Review Under CCP §1094.5

Susan A. Ruff

  • I.  INTRODUCTION
    • A.  Scope of Inquiry Generally  6.1
    • B.  Checklist: Analytical Questions  6.2
  • II.  AGENCY ACTED WITHOUT, OR IN EXCESS OF, ITS JURISDICTION  6.3
    • A.  Pleadings Initiating Agency Action  6.4
    • B.  When Jurisdictional Defect May Be Raised  6.5
    • C.  Raising Jurisdictional Issue in Petition  6.6
    • D.  Situations in Which Jurisdictional Issue May Arise
      • 1.  Withdrawal of Applications for Licenses or Permits  6.7
      • 2.  Expired or Surrendered Licenses  6.8
      • 3.  Failure of Agency to Comply With Time Limits  6.9
      • 4.  Conduct of Administrative Proceedings  6.10
        • a.  Failure to Hold an Administrative Hearing  6.11
        • b.  Jurisdictional Issues During Hearing  6.12
      • 5.  Agency Rehearings  6.13
      • 6.  Agency’s Modification of Decision  6.14
    • E.  Role of Trial Court in Reviewing Jurisdictional Issues
      • 1.  Review After Final Agency Decision on Merits  6.15
      • 2.  When Jurisdictional Issue Is Question of Law  6.16
      • 3.  When Jurisdictional Issue Is Question of Fact  6.17
        • a.  When Agency Made Finding on Jurisdictional Fact  6.18
        • b.  When Agency Has Not Made Finding on Jurisdictional Fact  6.19
    • F.  Trial Court Disposition  6.20
      • 1.  Entire Matter Remanded to Agency  6.21
      • 2.  Scope of Appellate Review  6.22
  • III.  LACK OF FAIR TRIAL AT ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL  6.23
    • A.  Checklist: Analyzing Issue  6.24
    • B.  Determining Whether There Was a Trial  6.25
    • C.  Determining Whether Trial Was Fair  6.26
      • 1.  Rights Under Administrative Adjudication Bill of Rights and Due Process  6.27
      • 2.  “Trial” Involves More Than Hearing  6.28
      • 3.  Pleading and Prehearing Stage  6.29
        • a.  Inadequate Notice  6.30
        • b.  Insufficiency of Charging Document  6.31
        • c.  Inadequate Service  6.32
        • d.  Amendment of Pleadings  6.33
        • e.  Notice of Hearing, Discovery, and Pretrial Motions  6.34
      • 4.  Hearing  6.35
      • 5.  Posthearing Procedures  6.36
    • D.  Trial Court Review of Fair Trial Issue
      • 1.  Question of Law or Fact  6.37
      • 2.  Evidence Considered  6.38
      • 3.  Independent Evaluation of Administrative Record  6.39
      • 4.  Findings  6.40
    • E.  Disposition When Trial Court Determines No Fair Trial
      • 1.  Judgment or Order  6.41
      • 2.  Remand to Agency  6.42
      • 3.  Appeal  6.43
    • F.  Disposition When Trial Court Determines Fair Trial  6.44
  • IV.  AGENCY DID NOT PROCEED IN MANNER REQUIRED BY LAW  6.45
    • A.  Checklist: Analyzing Issue  6.46
    • B.  Prejudicial Abuse of Discretion Required  6.47
    • C.  Determining if Agency Proceeded in Manner Required by Law
      • 1.  Identifying Laws Governing Agency’s Practices and Procedures  6.48
      • 2.  Showing Agency Failed to Proceed in Manner Required by Law  6.49
    • D.  Time Limitations for Agency Action  6.50
      • 1.  Express Statutory Limitations  6.51
      • 2.  Laches: Prejudicial Delay  6.52
      • 3.  Equitable Estoppel  6.53
    • E.  Requirements for Agency Hearing
      • 1.  Presence of Accused Not Required  6.54
      • 2.  Right to Counsel  6.55
      • 3.  Testimony Under Oath  6.56
      • 4.  Burden of Proof
        • a.  Who Has Burden  6.57
        • b.  Degree of Proof
          • (1)  Criminal Law Standard Inapplicable  6.58
          • (2)  Preponderance of Evidence  6.59
          • (3)  Clear and Convincing Evidence  6.60
      • 5.  Order of Proof; Cross-Examination of Witnesses  6.61
      • 6.  Motions for Nonsuit  6.62
      • 7.  Admission of Evidence  6.63
        • a.  Liberal Admissibility  6.64
        • b.  Rules of Criminal Law Generally Inapplicable  6.65
          • (1)  Uncorroborated Accomplice Testimony  6.66
          • (2)  Extrajudicial Admissions  6.67
          • (3)  Illegal Search and Seizure Evidence  6.68
          • (4)  Entrapment  6.69
          • (5)  Illegal Arrest  6.70
        • c.  Evidentiary Privileges  6.71
        • d.  Limitations on Hearsay
          • (1)  General Rule  6.72
          • (2)  Record of Criminal Conviction  6.73
          • (3)  Collateral Estoppel  6.74
          • (4)  Admission of Record of Prior Disciplinary Proceedings  6.75
          • (5)  Affidavits and Petitions  6.76
        • e.  Requirement of Timely Objection  6.77
        • f.  Evidence Received by Agency Outside Hearing  6.78
      • 8.  Effect of Exoneration or Acquittal  6.79
      • 9.  Service of Proposed Decision  6.80
    • F.  Common Situations in Which Agency Did Not Proceed in Manner Required by Law
      • 1.  Pleadings Did Not Give Fair Notice  6.81
      • 2.  Discovery Abuses  6.82
      • 3.  Denial of Continuance  6.83
      • 4.  Errors Regarding Presence or Absence of Hearing Officer  6.84
      • 5.  Errors Regarding Presence or Absence of Agency Members  6.85
      • 6.  Bias of Hearing Officer or Agency Members  6.86
        • a.  Pecuniary Interest  6.87
        • b.  Personal Involvement  6.88
        • c.  Other Types of Bias  6.89
        • d.  Combination of Functions in Agency  6.90
        • e.  Raising Issue of Bias  6.91
      • 7.  Improper Denial of Issuance of Subpoena  6.92
      • 8.  Failure to Give Notice of Right to Interpreter  6.93
    • G.  Determination and Review of Penalty
      • 1.  Determination of Penalty by Agency
        • a.  After Reference to Administrative Law Judge  6.94
        • b.  Mandatory Penalty  6.95
        • c.  Findings on Penalty  6.96
        • d.  Cost Recovery  6.97
      • 2.  Review of Penalty by Court
        • a.  Manifest Abuse of Discretion  6.98
        • b.  Court Cannot Fix Penalty  6.99
    • H.  No Right to Rehearing by Agency  6.100
  • V.  AGENCY’S ORDER OR DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS  6.101
    • A.  Requirements Regarding Agency Findings
      • 1.  Sources of Findings Requirement  6.102
      • 2.  Findings Requirements Under APA Bill of Rights  6.103
        • a.  Credibility of Witnesses  6.104
        • b.  No Findings Required Regarding Hearing Officer’s Expertise  6.105
        • c.  Topanga Rule  6.106
      • 3.  Formality of Findings  6.107
      • 4.  Implied Findings  6.108
      • 5.  Standard of Review Does Not Affect Findings Requirement  6.109
      • 6.  Findings Requirement Does Not Apply to Quasi-Legislative Action  6.110
      • 7.  Insufficient Findings  6.111
      • 8.  When Findings Prescribed by Statute  6.112
    • B.  Trial Court’s Review of Sufficiency of Findings
      • 1.  Sufficiency of Findings Reviewed De Novo  6.113
      • 2.  Conclusions of Law Reviewed De Novo  6.114
      • 3.  Trial Court Need Not Review Administrative Evidentiary Record  6.115
      • 4.  Remand Appropriate for Ambiguous, Uncertain, or Conclusory Findings  6.116
      • 5.  Trial Court Must Give Deference to Agency’s Determination of Penalty  6.117
    • C.  When Trial Court Determines Findings Do Not Support Agency’s Decision
      • 1.  Error Must Have Been Prejudicial  6.118
      • 2.  Trial Court Cannot Substitute Its Own Findings  6.119
      • 3.  Remand Order or Judgment When Writ Granted  6.120
      • 4.  Trial Court Does Not Retain Jurisdiction to Try Other Issues  6.121
      • 5.  Further Proceedings by Agency  6.122
      • 6.  Trial Court’s Findings Are Not Conclusive on Appeal  6.123
  • VI.  AGENCY’S FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE  6.124
    • A.  Determining Whether Trial Court Review Is Under Independent Judgment or Substantial Evidence Test  6.125
      • 1.  Checklist: Standard of Review  6.126
      • 2.  Seminal Cases
        • a.  Bixby v Pierno  6.127
        • b.  Strumsky v San Diego County Employees Retirement Ass’n  6.128
        • c.  Tex-Cal Land Mgmt., Inc. v ALRB  6.129
      • 3.  Independent Judgment Test; When Applicable  6.130
        • a.  Statutory Authority: General Rule  6.131
        • b.  When Fundamental Vested Right Involved and Substantial Evidence Test Not Legislatively Mandated  6.132
        • c.  Fundamental Vested Right Defined  6.133
        • d.  Nature of Petitioner’s Interest  6.134
        • e.  Exercise of Constitutional Rights  6.135
        • f.  Examples of Cases Involving Fundamental Vested Rights  6.136
      • 4.  Substantial Evidence Test; When Applicable  6.137
        • a.  When Fundamental Vested Right Not Involved  6.138
        • b.  Agencies Authorized by California Constitution to Exercise Adjudicatory Powers  6.139
        • c.  When Fundamental or Vested Rights Involved But Legislature Authorized Review by Substantial Evidence Test  6.140
        • d.  Examples of Cases Reviewed Under Substantial Evidence Test  6.141
      • 5.  Particular Agencies; Standard of Review  6.142
        • a.  Special Situations Involving Professional Licenses  6.143
        • b.  Land Use  6.144
        • c.  When Petitioner Is Public Employee or Officer
          • (1)  Civil Service Employees  6.145
          • (2)  Probationary Employees  6.146
          • (3)  Employees Serving at Pleasure of Appointing Power  6.147
          • (4)  Contract Employees  6.148
          • (5)  Public Employment Retirement and Other Benefits  6.149
      • 6.  When Petitioner Participated in Administrative Proceedings in Third Party Capacity  6.150
      • 7.  Remedy if Improper Standard Is Used  6.151
    • B.  Evidence in Administrative Record That Trial Court Is Required to Consider  6.152
      • 1.  Unobjected-to Hearsay  6.153
      • 2.  Other Unobjected-to Evidence  6.154
      • 3.  Judicial Notice  6.155
      • 4.  Agency and Hearing Officer Expertise  6.156
    • C.  How Independent Judgment Test Is Applied
      • 1.  Burden of Proof: Administrative Versus Trial Court Level  6.157
      • 2.  Determination of Whether Agency’s Findings Are Supported by Weight of Evidence  6.158
        • a.  Presumption of Correctness of Agency Decision  6.159
        • b.  Credibility of Witnesses  6.160
        • c.  Propriety of Penalty Imposed by Agency  6.161
        • d.  Court’s Consideration of Legal Issues  6.162
        • e.  Limits on Trial Court’s Independent Review  6.163
        • f.  When Findings Are Omitted, Uncertain, or Conclusory  6.164
        • g.  When Agency Record Is Augmented  6.165
    • D.  How Substantial Evidence Test Is Applied  6.166
      • 1.  Nature of Substantial Evidence Review  6.167
      • 2.  Court’s Function to Determine Whether Agency’s Findings Supported by Substantial Evidence
        • a.  Substantial Evidence in Light of Whole Record Is Proper Standard  6.168
        • b.  Court Is Not Trier of Fact  6.169
        • c.  When Agency’s Findings Are Defective or Uncertain  6.170
        • d.  When Administrative Record Is Augmented  6.171

7

Who May Obtain Writ

  • I.  PETITIONER MUST BE BENEFICIALLY INTERESTED
    • A.  General Principles  7.1
      • 1.  “Beneficial Interest” Defined  7.2
      • 2.  More Than Abstract Right Must Be Involved  7.3
      • 3.  Pleading and Proof  7.4
      • 4.  Jurisdictional Nature of Standing  7.5
      • 5.  No Plain, Speedy, and Adequate Remedy at Law  7.6
    • B.  Establishing Beneficial Interest
      • 1.  Participants in Administrative Hearing
        • a.  Participation Authorized by Statute or Ordinance  7.7
        • b.  Effect of Nonparticipation Under Statute  7.8
        • c.  Other Participants in Hearing  7.9
      • 2.  Nonparticipants to Administrative Proceeding  7.10
        • a.  Corporations  7.11
        • b.  Associations  7.12
        • c.  Private Associations  7.13
        • d.  Adjoining Property Owners  7.14
        • e.  Class Actions  7.15
        • f.  Relaxed Standing Requirement in CEQA Cases  7.16
        • g.  Taxpayer Standing  7.17
        • h.  Public Interest Standing  7.18
      • 3.  Agency as Petitioner
        • a.  Standing of Public Agencies and Officials  7.19
        • b.  Statewide Agencies  7.20
          • (1)  Effect of Governing Statute  7.21
          • (2)  Absence of Statute  7.22
        • c.  Local Agencies  7.23
        • d.  Public Officials  7.24

8

Identifying Respondent and Real Party in Interest

Geoffrey L. Robinson

  • I.  NAMING RESPONDENT  8.1
    • A.  State Entities
      • 1.  State Agency  8.2
      • 2.  Specific Division Within Agency  8.3
      • 3.  Appeals Board  8.4
      • 4.  De Novo Review by Independent Agency  8.4A
    • B.  Local Entities (City, County, Special District)
      • 1.  Name Local Entity and Specific Body or Individual  8.5
        • a.  Importance of Naming Local Entity  8.6
        • b.  Naming Governing Body Alone  8.7
        • c.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  8.8
      • 2.  Board or Commission  8.9
      • 3.  Agency Head  8.10
      • 4.  Subordinate Officials or Hearing Officers  8.11
    • C.  Naming More Than One Agency as Respondent  8.12
    • D.  Private or Nonprofit Organizations  8.13
    • E.  When Service on Attorney General Is Required for Complete Relief  8.14
  • II.  NAMING REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
    • A.  Defined  8.15
    • B.  Effect and Manner of Naming in Petition  8.16
    • C.  Failure to Name Real Party in Interest  8.17
    • D.  Indispensable Party
      • 1.  When Party Is Indispensable  8.18
      • 2.  Governmental Agencies  8.19
      • 3.  Land Use Cases  8.20
      • 4.  Failure to Name Indispensable Party in Petition  8.21
    • E.  Other Private Party Participants in Administrative Hearings  8.22

9

Statutes of Limitations

Geoffrey L. Robinson

  • I.  DETERMINING APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
    • A.  General Rules  9.1
      • 1.  Filing Within Shortest Applicable Period  9.2
      • 2.  Specific Statute Prevails Over Conflicting General Limitation Period  9.3
      • 3.  When Two Applicable Statutes Can Be Harmonized, Courts Will Apply Both  9.3A
      • 4.  Gravamen of Claim Determines Applicable Statute  9.4
      • 5.  Limitations Period Not Dependent on Validity of Challenged Decision or Action  9.4A
      • 6.  Service Requirements  9.5
      • 7.  Laches May Bar Otherwise Timely Action  9.6
      • 8.  Checklist: What Statute of Limitations Applies  9.7
    • B.  Specific Limitations Periods
      • 1.  Statute or Ordinance Governing Agency  9.8
      • 2.  Statute Governing Subject Matter  9.8A
      • 3.  Local Statutes of Limitations  9.8B
      • 4.  If No Period Specified, General Statutes of Limitation Govern  9.9
        • a.  Claims Based on Liability Created by Statute (CCP §338(a))  9.10
        • b.  Penalty or Forfeiture Under Statute (CCP §340(a))  9.10A
        • c.  Four-Year Catch-All Statute (CCP §343)  9.11
        • d.  When Limitations Period Begins  9.12
    • C.  When Administrative Procedure Act Applies
      • 1.  Relevant Code Sections  9.13
      • 2.  Agencies and Activities Governed  9.14
      • 3.  Calculating Limitations Period  9.15
      • 4.  Request for Record May Extend Time  9.16
    • D.  Actions Involving Local Agencies
      • 1.  When CCP §1094.6 Applies  9.17
      • 2.  Notice to Party  9.18
      • 3.  Calculating 90-Day Limitations Period  9.19
        • a.  Written Decision or Findings  9.20
        • b.  Provision for Reconsideration  9.21
        • c.  No Reconsideration or Written Decision or Findings  9.22
      • 4.  Effect of Request for Record  9.23
  • II.  DEFENSES
    • A.  Laches
      • 1.  Application  9.24
      • 2.  Prejudice to Respondent  9.25
      • 3.  Situations in Which Laches Commonly Arise  9.26
    • B.  Statute of Limitations Defense
      • 1.  Whether Statutory Periods Are Jurisdictional  9.27
      • 2.  Rules Governing Ordinary Civil Actions Apply  9.28
  • III.  AVOIDING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE
    • A.  Estoppel  9.29
    • B.  Tolling of Statute of Limitations  9.30

10

Initiating Proceedings to Review

Gregory M. Kunert

  • I.  REQUESTING ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
    • A.  What Constitutes Entire Administrative Record
      • 1.  Under Administrative Procedure Act  10.1
      • 2.  Under Specific Statutes  10.2
      • 3.  When Entire Record Required  10.3
      • 4.  When Entire Record Not Required  10.4
    • B.  Who May File Record  10.5
    • C.  Petitioner’s Responsibility to Produce Record  10.6
    • D.  When to Request Record  10.7
    • E.  How to Request Record
      • 1.  Requirements for Request  10.8
      • 2.  Preparation by Office of Administrative Hearings  10.9
      • 3.  Request to Local Agencies  10.10
    • F.  Timetable for Delivery of Record; Continuances  10.11
    • G.  Problems With Incomplete Administrative Record  10.12
    • H.  Time and Place for Filing Record  10.13
    • I.  Cost of Record
      • 1.  Petitioner Responsible for Costs  10.14
      • 2.  Recoverable Costs  10.15
      • 3.  Waiver of Costs for Indigent Petitioners  10.16
  • II.  PREPARING THE PETITION
    • A.  Applicable Rules  10.17
    • B.  Noticed Motion or Alternative Writ  10.18
    • C.  Choice of Court  10.19
    • D.  Venue  10.20
    • E.  The Parties  10.21
      • 1.  The Petitioner  10.22
      • 2.  The Respondent  10.23
      • 3.  Real Party in Interest  10.24
    • F.  Petition
      • 1.  Caption  10.25
      • 2.  Allegations
        • a.  Checklist: Essential Allegations  10.26
        • b.  Petitioner’s Beneficial Interest  10.27
        • c.  Capacity of Respondent  10.28
        • d.  Capacity of Real Party in Interest  10.29
        • e.  Description of Respondent’s Adjudicatory Action  10.30
        • f.  Grounds on Which Respondent’s Decision Is Invalid
          • (1)  Specific Facts; Scope of Review  10.31
          • (2)  Evidence; Attachments  10.32
          • (3)  Multiple Grounds May Be Alleged  10.33
          • (4)  Errors Not Appearing in Record  10.34
          • (5)  Issues Not Raised Are Waived on Appeal  10.35
        • g.  Standard of Review  10.36
        • h.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  10.37
        • i.  Absence of Other Adequate Remedy  10.38
        • j.  Necessity for Granting Stay  10.39
        • k.  Improperly Excluded Evidence  10.40
        • l.  Newly Produced Evidence  10.41
        • m.  Damages  10.42
        • n.  Attorney Fees Under Govt C §800  10.43
        • o.  Request for Administrative Record; Lodging  10.44
      • 3.  Prayer for Relief  10.45
      • 4.  Verification  10.46
    • G.  Memorandum in Support of Petition  10.47
    • H.  Exhibits  10.48
    • I.  No Summons Required for Petition  10.49
    • J.  Amendments  10.50
  • III.  FILING AND SERVING
    • A.  Time Limitations  10.51
    • B.  When Proof of Service Required Before Filing  10.52
    • C.  Where to File Petition  10.53
    • D.  Filing Fees  10.54
    • E.  Papers Required in Addition to Petition  10.55
    • F.  Manner of Service
      • 1.  Whom to Serve  10.56
      • 2.  Alternative Writ Procedure  10.57
      • 3.  Noticed Motion Procedure  10.58
  • IV.  JOINDER OF OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION
    • A.  General Rule  10.59
    • B.  Potential Problems
      • 1.  Delay in Bringing Case to Final Judgment  10.60
      • 2.  Delay in Entry of Writ  10.61
    • C.  Filing Actions as Separate Cases  10.62
  • V.  FORMS
    • A.  Form: Request for Administrative Record  10.63
    • B.  Form: Certified Administrative Record Order (DGS-OAH-7)  10.64
    • C.  Form: Petition  10.65

11

Stay Orders, Noticed Motions, and Alternative Writs

Heidi R. Weisbaum

  • I.  OVERVIEW
    • A.  Two Methods for Obtaining Administrative Writ  11.1
    • B.  Factors to Consider in Choosing Method  11.2
  • II.  STAYING AGENCY’S DECISION
    • A.  Introduction  11.3
    • B.  Checklist: Obtaining Stay Order  11.4
    • C.  Requirements for Stay  11.5
      • 1.  Stays Under CCP §1094.5(h)
        • a.  Applies to Agencies Governed by APA  11.6
        • b.  Criteria for Granting Stay  11.7
          • (1)  Public Interest Will Not Suffer  11.8
          • (2)  Agency Unlikely to Prevail on Merits  11.9
      • 2.  Stays Under CCP §1094.5(g)
        • a.  Applicable to Non-APA Proceedings  11.10
        • b.  Requirements  11.11
      • 3.  Length of Stay  11.12
    • D.  Preparation of Documents  11.13
      • 1.  Stay Application  11.14
      • 2.  Supporting Documents  11.15
        • a.  Petition  11.16
        • b.  Memorandum  11.17
        • c.  Declaration From Petitioner  11.18
        • d.  Declaration From Petitioner’s Counsel  11.19
      • 3.  Proposed Order  11.20
    • E.  Filing Documents  11.21
    • F.  Stay Hearing  11.22
    • G.  Grant or Denial of Stay Request  11.23
    • H.  Appellate Relief  11.24
    • I.  Power to Modify or Dissolve Stay  11.25
    • J.  Special Considerations
      • 1.  Third Party Beneficially Interested and Real Parties in Interest  11.26
      • 2.  First Amendment Issues  11.27
  • III.  NOTICED MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    • A.  Advantages and Disadvantages  11.28
    • B.  Checklist: Noticed Motion Procedure  11.29
    • C.  Preparation of Documents  11.30
      • 1.  Petition  11.31
      • 2.  Notice of Motion  11.32
      • 3.  Memorandum  11.33
      • 4.  Exhibits and Administrative Record  11.34
    • D.  Filing and Service of Motion Documents  11.35
      • 1.  When Petition Has Been Filed and Served With Stay Request  11.36
      • 2.  When Petition Has Been Filed But Not Served  11.37
      • 3.  When Petition Has Not Been Filed  11.38
    • E.  Hearing on Motion  11.39
    • F.  Grant or Denial of Peremptory Writ
      • 1.  Grant on Merits  11.40
      • 2.  Denial on Merits  11.41
  • IV.  ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    • A.  Issuance of Two Writs  11.42
    • B.  Advantages and Disadvantages  11.43
    • C.  Checklist: Alternative Writ Procedure  11.44
    • D.  Preparation of Documents  11.45
      • 1.  Ex Parte Application for Alternative Writ and/or Stay  11.46
      • 2.  Alternative Writ  11.47
      • 3.  Order Directing Issuance of Alternative Writ  11.48
      • 4.  Petition  11.49
      • 5.  Memorandum  11.50
      • 6.  Declarations  11.51
    • E.  Filing and Service of Documents  11.52
    • F.  Grant or Denial of Alternative Writ  11.53
      • 1.  Grant and Service of Alternative Writ  11.54
      • 2.  Denial of Alternative Writ  11.55
      • 3.  Remedies When Alternative Writ Denied  11.56
    • G.  OSC Hearing  11.57
  • V.  RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION
    • A.  Available Options  11.58
    • B.  Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Stay  11.59
    • C.  Opposition to Application for Alternative Writ  11.60
    • D.  Opposition to Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus by Alternative Writ or Noticed Motion  11.61
    • E.  Answer; Demurrer  11.62
  • VI.  FORMS
    • A.  Stay Application and Supporting Documents
      • 1.  Form: Stay Application  11.63
      • 2.  Form: Order Staying Decision  11.64
    • B.  Noticed Motion for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus
      • 1.  Form: Notice of Motion for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus  11.65
      • 2.  Form: Memorandum in Support of Motion for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus  11.66
      • 3.  Form: Notice of Lodging Administrative Record  11.67
    • C.  Alternative Writ of Mandamus
      • 1.  Form: Application for Alternative Writ  11.68
      • 2.  Form: Order Directing Issuance of Alternative Writ of Mandamus  11.69
      • 3.  Form: Alternative Writ of Mandamus  11.70
      • 4.  Form: Alternative Writ of Mandamus Combined With Order Directing Issuance  11.71
      • 5.  Form: Order to Show Cause and Temporary Stay  11.72
      • 6.  Form: Memorandum in Support of Application for Alternative Writ of Mandamus  11.73
    • D.  Respondent’s Opposition
      • 1.  Form: Memorandum in Opposition to Application for Stay Order  11.74
      • 2.  Form: Peremptory Writ of Administrative Mandamus  11.75

12

Pleadings in Response to Petition

Mitchell E. Abbott

David M. Snow

  • I.  PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
    • A.  Responsive Filings  12.1
    • B.  Compliance  12.2
  • II.  DEMURRER
    • A.  When Appropriate  12.3
    • B.  Filing Demurrer and Answer Simultaneously  12.4
    • C.  Timing  12.5
    • D.  Procedure  12.6
    • E.  Grounds  12.7
    • F.  Court’s Ruling on Demurrer  12.8
  • III.  ANSWER
    • A.  Timing  12.9
    • B.  Procedure  12.10
    • C.  Denials  12.11
    • D.  Affirmative Allegations  12.12
    • E.  Affirmative Defenses  12.13
  • IV.  OPPOSITION BRIEF  12.14
    • A.  Strategy of Opposition Brief  12.15
    • B.  Applicable Standard of Review  12.16
    • C.  Summary of Findings Supporting Agency’s Determination  12.17
    • D.  Attorney’s Duty of Candor  12.18
    • E.  Telling Court What It Should Do  12.19
  • V.  INTERVENTION BY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
    • A.  When Appropriate  12.20
    • B.  Procedure; Timing  12.21
    • C.  Grounds  12.22
    • D.  Right to Appeal  12.23
  • VI.  FORMS
    • A.  Form: Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandamus  12.24
    • B.  Form: Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandamus  12.25
    • C.  Form: Notice of Motion for Leave to Intervene  12.26

13

Other Pleadings and Procedures Before Trial

Steven H. Kaufmann

Kelly A. Casillas

Ginetta L. Giovinco

  • I.  REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PETITION
    • A.  Petitioner’s Replication to Answer
      • 1.  Petitioner Must Countervail Affirmative Allegations of Answer  13.1
        • a.  Countervailing by Proof  13.2
        • b.  Countervailing by Replication  13.3
      • 2.  Filing and Serving Replication  13.4
    • B.  Demurrer to Answer  13.5
    • C.  Motion to Strike  13.6
  • II.  DISCOVERY
    • A.  General Rules and Limitations  13.7
      • 1.  Extra-Record Evidence: Two-Part Test  13.8
        • a.  Improperly Excluded Evidence  13.9
        • b.  Additional Evidence Not Available at Hearing  13.10
      • 2.  May Not Probe Mental Processes  13.11
      • 3.  Judicial Notice  13.12
    • B.  Timing  13.13
    • C.  Objections and Sanctions  13.14
    • D.  Review of Trial Court’s Order  13.15
  • III.  DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL
    • A.  Abatement  13.16
    • B.  Voluntary and Involuntary Dismissal  13.17
    • C.  Dismissal for Failure of Petitioner to Appear  13.18
    • D.  Dismissal for Mootness  13.19
    • E.  Dismissal for Loss of Jurisdiction  13.19A
    • F.  Peremptory Writ May Not Be Granted by Default  13.20
    • G.  Motion to Quash Alternative Writ  13.21
    • H.  Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings  13.22
    • I.  Motion for Judgment  13.23
    • J.  Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication
      • 1.  Grounds  13.24
      • 2.  Procedure  13.25
      • 3.  Timing  13.26
  • IV.  FORM: VERIFIED REPLICATION TO ANSWER  13.27

14

Trial and Judgment

Mitchell E. Abbott

Patrick K. Bobko

  • I.  NATURE OF TRIAL
    • A.  Few Similarities to Ordinary Civil Action  14.1
    • B.  Importance of Administrative Record  14.2
  • II.  PRETRIAL PROCEDURES
    • A.  Briefing Schedule
      • 1.  Trial Date  14.3
      • 2.  Applicable Rules of Court  14.4
      • 3.  Desirability of Stipulated Briefing Order  14.5
    • B.  Supporting Memorandum  14.6
      • 1.  When to File and Serve  14.7
      • 2.  Citations to Administrative Record  14.8
      • 3.  Petitioner’s Memorandum  14.9
      • 4.  Respondent’s Memorandum  14.10
    • C.  Continuance  14.11
    • D.  Court Reporter  14.12
  • III.  TRIAL
    • A.  Burden of Proof and Review Standard
      • 1.  Who Has Burden  14.13
      • 2.  Standard of Evidentiary Review  14.14
    • B.  Administrative Record  14.15
      • 1.  Necessity of Adequate Administrative Record or Transcript
        • a.  Petitioner’s Duty to Request  14.16
        • b.  Importance of Transcript  14.17
      • 2.  Augmenting Record  14.18
    • C.  Oral Argument  14.19
    • D.  Judicial Notice  14.20
      • 1.  Types of Judicial Notice  14.21
        • a.  Mandatory Judicial Notice  14.22
        • b.  Permissive Judicial Notice  14.23
      • 2.  Requesting Judicial Notice  14.24
      • 3.  Use of Judicial Notice in Demurrers  14.25
      • 4.  Judicial Notice of Fact Not Asserted at Administrative Level  14.26
  • IV.  REMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF RECORD OR TRANSCRIPT
    • A.  When Remand May Be Ordered for Clarification  14.27
    • B.  Remand Without Entry of Judgment  14.28
      • 1.  Remand Procedure Without Entry of Judgment  14.29
      • 2.  Disadvantages of Remand Without Entry of Judgment  14.30
    • C.  Remedy When Findings Were Not Made  14.31
  • V.  DECISION AND JUDGMENT
    • A.  Statement of Decision  14.32
    • B.  Remedies  14.33
      • 1.  Remand
        • a.  Limitation on Trial Court Authority  14.34
        • b.  Agency’s Further Proceedings  14.35
        • c.  Court’s Refusal to Supplant Agency’s Decision-Making Power  14.36
        • d.  Continuing Jurisdiction  14.37
      • 2.  When Petition Combined With Other Actions: The One-Final-Judgment Rule  14.38
        • a.  Severance Not Solution  14.39
        • b.  Significance of One-Final-Judgment Rule
          • (1)  To Petitioner  14.40
          • (2)  To Respondent  14.41
    • C.  Judgment  14.42
    • D.  Writ  14.43
      • 1.  Service of Writ  14.44
      • 2.  Return to Peremptory Writ  14.45
  • VI.  POSTJUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS  14.46
  • VII.  RECOVERY OF COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES  14.47

15

Procedures After Trial

John P. Wagner

  • I.  IF PEREMPTORY WRIT GRANTED
    • A.  Documents Required  15.1
    • B.  Statement of Decision
      • 1.  Requirements  15.2
      • 2.  Form of Statement of Decision  15.3
      • 3.  Request for Statement of Decision
        • a.  Timing and Form of Request  15.4
        • b.  Determining Length of Trial  15.5
      • 4.  Sufficiency of Details  15.6
      • 5.  Submission to Court and Service  15.7
      • 6.  Omission or Ambiguity  15.8
    • C.  Judgment Granting Writ and Notice of Entry of Judgment
      • 1.  Judgment Granting Writ  15.9
      • 2.  Entry of Judgment  15.9A
      • 3.  Notice of Entry of Judgment  15.9B
    • D.  Peremptory Writ
      • 1.  Submission of Proposed Peremptory Writ  15.10
      • 2.  Function of Writ  15.11
      • 3.  Importance of Specificity  15.12
      • 4.  Issuance and Service  15.13
      • 5.  Finality  15.14
    • E.  Remand  15.14A
    • F.  Return to Writ  15.15
      • 1.  Respondent Will Appeal  15.16
      • 2.  Respondent Has Complied  15.17
        • a.  Proceedings Dismissed  15.18
        • b.  Penalty Reduced  15.19
        • c.  Decision Reaffirmed  15.20
        • d.  Further Proceedings Ordered  15.21
      • 3.  Challenging Agency Decisions After Remand  15.22
        • a.  Due Process Rights  15.23
        • b.  Level of Scrutiny  15.24
    • G.  Objecting to Return  15.25
    • H.  Penalty for Failure to Comply With Peremptory Writ  15.26
  • II.  IF PEREMPTORY WRIT DENIED
    • A.  Documents Required  15.27
    • B.  Statement of Decision
      • 1.  Requirements  15.28
      • 2.  Contents  15.29
    • C.  Judgment  15.30
  • III.  RECOVERY OF COSTS; ATTORNEY FEES
    • A.  Procedure  15.31
    • B.  Entitlement to Costs  15.32
    • C.  Attorney Fees  15.32A
    • D.  Cost of Administrative Record  15.33
    • E.  Costs Against Agency If Officer Is Respondent  15.34
    • F.  Costs Against Petitioner  15.35
  • IV.  MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL  15.36
  • V.  MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT  15.37
  • VI.  FORMS
    • A.  Writ Granted
      • 1.  Form: Statement of Decision  15.38
      • 2.  Form: Judgment (Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandamus)  15.39
      • 3.  Form: Notice of Entry of Judgment  15.40
      • 4.  Form: Peremptory Writ of Mandamus  15.41
      • 5.  Form: Return to Peremptory Writ of Mandamus  15.42
    • B.  Writ Denied
      • 1.  Form: Statement of Decision  15.43
      • 2.  Form: Judgment (Denying Peremptory Writ of Mandamus)  15.44

16

Appeal From Superior Court Judgment

Elizabeth E. Bader

John P. Wagner

  • I.  DECISION WHETHER TO APPEAL  16.1
    • A.  Cost/Benefit Analysis  16.2
    • B.  Time Considerations  16.3
    • C.  Likelihood of Success  16.4
    • D.  Adverse Effects of Failure to Appeal  16.5
    • E.  Prospects of Settlement on Appeal  16.6
  • II.  APPEALABILITY ISSUES  16.7
    • A.  Orders Denying Alternative Writs  16.8
    • B.  Stay Orders  16.9
    • C.  Orders and Judgments on Merits of Petition  16.10
    • D.  Remand Orders  16.11
    • E.  Petition Joined With Other Causes of Action  16.12
  • III.  INITIATING APPEAL  16.13
    • A.  Notices of Appeal and Their Timing
      • 1.  Timeliness of Notice Is Jurisdictional  16.14
      • 2.  When to File Notice of Appeal  16.15
      • 3.  Checklist: Timing and Appealability  16.16
      • 4.  Extensions of Time  16.17
        • a.  Notice of Intention to Move for New Trial  16.18
        • b.  Notice of Intention or Valid Motion to Vacate Judgment  16.19
        • c.  Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict  16.20
        • d.  Motion to Reconsider  16.21
        • e.  Cross-Appeals  16.22
    • B.  Reporter’s Transcript
      • 1.  Notice to Prepare Reporter’s Transcript  16.23
      • 2.  Procedural Requirements for Designating Reporter’s Transcript
        • a.  Timing  16.24
        • b.  Deposit for Costs  16.25
        • c.  Respondent’s Designation of Additional Transcript  16.26
    • C.  Clerk’s Transcript
      • 1.  Notice to Prepare Clerk’s Transcript
        • a.  Timing  16.27
        • b.  Deposit for Costs  16.28
      • 2.  Using Appendixes in Place of Clerk’s Transcript  16.29
      • 3.  Use of Superior Court File in Place of Clerk’s Transcript  16.30
      • 4.  Use of Agreed Statement or Settled Statement in Place of Clerk’s Transcript  16.30A
    • D.  The Administrative Record  16.31
    • E.  Transmittal of Exhibits  16.31A
    • F.  Notice of Completion of the Record  16.31B
    • G.  Filing Fees  16.32
    • H.  Penalties for Failure to Procure Record  16.33
  • IV.  STAY PENDING APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
    • A.  Whether Stay Is Automatic  16.34
    • B.  Appellate Court’s Power to Stay  16.34A
    • C.  Issuance of Stay of Agency’s Decision Under CCP §1094.5  16.35
      • 1.  Requirements
        • a.  Public Interest  16.36
        • b.  Likely Outcome  16.37
      • 2.  Procedure for Obtaining Stay
        • a.  When Peremptory Writ Is Granted  16.38
        • b.  When Peremptory Writ Is Denied and Petitioner Appeals  16.39
    • D.  Issuance of Stay by Reviewing Court
      • 1.  Alternative Procedures to Obtain Stay  16.40
        • a.  Differences Between Motion and Writ Procedures  16.41
        • b.  Showing Required  16.42
        • c.  Procedural Requirements  16.43
        • d.  Issuance of Temporary Stay  16.44
      • 2.  Opposition to Stay
        • a.  Procedural Requirements  16.45
        • b.  Grounds in Opposition  16.46
      • 3.  Grant or Denial of Stay Order  16.47
  • V.  STANDARDS OF REVIEW BY REVIEWING COURTS  16.48
    • A.  Questions Regarding Agency’s Jurisdiction  16.49
    • B.  Whether There Was Fair Trial Before Agency or Agency Proceeded in Manner Required by Law  16.50
    • C.  Whether Agency’s Findings Are Supported by Evidence  16.51
      • 1.  Independent Judgment Standard
        • a.  When Appropriate  16.52
        • b.  Standard on Appeal  16.53
        • c.  Insufficiency of Statement of Decision  16.54
        • d.  Trial Court’s Failure to Follow Proper Presumptions and Burdens of Proof  16.55
      • 2.  Substantial Evidence Test  16.56
    • D.  Whether Agency’s Findings Support Agency’s Decision  16.57
    • E.  Review of Penalty  16.58
  • VI.  WRIT REVIEW AS AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF OBTAINING APPELLATE REVIEW  16.59
    • A.  Adequacy of Appeal as Remedy  16.60
    • B.  Physician Licensing Matters
      • 1.  Writ Petition as Only Method for Review  16.61
      • 2.  Validity of Bus & P C §2337  16.62
      • 3.  Due Process and Equal Protection Challenges to Bus & P C §2337  16.63
  • VII.  FORMS
    • A.  Form: Case Screening Form—First Appellate District [Deleted]  16.64
    • B.  Form: Mandatory Docketing Statement—Second Appellate District [Deleted]  16.65
    • C.  Form: Settlement Conference Information Form—Fourth Appellate District [Deleted]  16.66
    • D.  Form: Notice of Appeal  16.67
    • E.  Form: Notice Designating Record on Appeal  16.68
    • F.  Form: Notice to Prepare Clerk’s Transcript [Deleted]  16.69
    • G.  Form: Cover for Petition for Writ of Supersedeas or Other Appropriate Stay Order  16.70
    • H.  Form: Petition for Writ of Supersedeas or Other Appropriate Stay Order  16.71
    • I.  Form: Opposition to Petition for Writ of Supersedeas or Other Appropriate Stay Order  16.72

17

Procedures Unique to Special Writ Proceedings

Steven H. Kaufmann

Ginetta L. Giovinco

Kelly A. Casillas

Beth Faber Jacobs

  • I.  OVERVIEW  17.1
  • II.  ACTIONS UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
    • A.  Overview  17.2
    • B.  Filing and Service Requirements
      • 1.  Notice of Commencement of Action  17.3
      • 2.  Service of Petition and Notice of Action  17.4
    • C.  Preparation of the Administrative Record
      • 1.  Who May Prepare the Record  17.5
      • 2.  Contents of the Record  17.6
      • 3.  Cost of Record  17.7
      • 4.  Time Limitations  17.8
      • 5.  Lodging or Filing the Record With Court  17.9
      • 6.  Optional Process for Preparation of Record Concurrently With CEQA Process  17.9A
    • D.  Statutory Settlement Meeting  17.10
    • E.  Statement of Issues  17.11
    • F.  Responsive Pleadings  17.12
    • G.  Hearing on Petition
      • 1.  Time to Request Hearing  17.13
      • 2.  Procedure for Setting Hearing  17.14
  • III.  FIRST AMENDMENT CASES
    • A.  Requirement for Prompt Judicial Review  17.15
    • B.  Challenging Action on Permit for Expressive Conduct  17.16
    • C.  Requesting the Record  17.17
    • D.  Service of Petition; Court’s Hearing and Decision  17.18
  • IV.  ACTIONS INVOLVING THE MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA
    • A.  Overview  17.19
    • B.  Prerequisites  17.20
    • C.  Agencies and Licensees Covered Under the Medical Practice Act  17.21
    • D.  Purpose of the Boards  17.22
    • E.  Applicability of Typical Procedures for Administrative Mandate  17.23
      • 1.  Ordering the Administrative Record
        • a.  Contents  17.24
        • b.  Who Prepares  17.24A
        • c.  Requesting Hearing Transcripts  17.24B
        • d.  Requesting Other Parts of Record  17.24C
        • e.  Costs  17.24D
      • 2.  Who to Name as Respondent  17.25
      • 3.  Service of Petition  17.26
      • 4.  Requesting a Stay  17.27
    • F.  Provisions Unique to Cases Filed Under the Medical Practice Act
      • 1.  Venue  17.28
      • 2.  Calendar Preference in Setting Hearing Date  17.29
      • 3.  Remand by Superior Court  17.30
      • 4.  Settlement Before Judgment  17.31
      • 5.  Appellate Review  17.32
      • 6.  Time for Filing  17.33

CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS

(3d Edition)

June 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

File Name

Book Section

Title

CH02

Chapter 2

Considerations in Deciding Whether to Petition for Writ

02-025

§2.25

Checklist: Determining Whether to Petition for Administrative Mandamus

02-026

§2.26

Procedural Guide: Chronology of Typical Case

CH06

Chapter 6

Court’s Scope of Review Under CCP §1094.5

06-002

§6.2

Checklist: Analytical Questions

06-024

§6.24

Checklist: Analyzing Issue

06-046

§6.46

Checklist: Analyzing Issue

06-126

§6.126

Checklist: Standard of Review

CH09

Chapter 9

Statutes of Limitations

09-007

§9.7

Checklist: What Statute of Limitations Applies

CH10

Chapter 10

Initiating Proceedings to Review

10-026

§10.26

Checklist: Essential Allegations

10-063

§10.63

Request for Administrative Record

10-065

§10.65

Petition

CH11

Chapter 11

Stay Orders, Noticed Motions, and Alternative Writs

11-004

§11.4

Checklist: Obtaining Stay Order

11-029

§11.29

Checklist: Noticed Motion Procedure

11-044

§11.44

Checklist: Alternative Writ Procedure

11-063

§11.63

Stay Application

11-064

§11.64

Order Staying Decision

11-065

§11.65

Notice of Motion for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus

11-066

§11.66

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus

11-067

§11.67

Notice of Lodging Administrative Record

11-068

§11.68

Application for Alternative Writ

11-069

§11.69

Order Directing Issuance of Alternative Writ of Mandamus

11-070

§11.70

Alternative Writ of Mandamus

11-071

§11.71

Alternative Writ of Mandamus Combined With Order Directing Issuance

11-072

§11.72

Order to Show Cause and Temporary Stay

11-073

§11.73

Memorandum in Support of Application for Alternative Writ of Mandamus

11-074

§11.74

Memorandum in Opposition to Application for Stay Order

11-075

§11.75

Peremptory Writ of Administrative Mandamus

CH12

Chapter 12

Pleadings in Response to Petition

12-024

§12.24

Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandamus

12-025

§12.25

Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandamus

12-026

§12.26

Notice of Motion for Leave to Intervene

CH13

Chapter 13

Other Pleadings and Procedures Before Trial

13-027

§13.27

FORM: VERIFIED REPLICATION TO ANSWER

CH15

Chapter 15

Procedures After Trial

15-038

§15.38

Statement of Decision

15-039

§15.39

Judgment (Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandamus)

15-040

§15.40

Notice of Entry of Judgment

15-041

§15.41

Peremptory Writ of Mandamus

15-042

§15.42

Return to Peremptory Writ of Mandamus

15-043

§15.43

Statement of Decision

15-044

§15.44

Judgment (Denying Peremptory Writ of Mandamus)

CH16

Chapter 16

Appeal From Superior Court Judgment

16-016

§16.16

Checklist: Timing and Appealability

16-067

§16.67

Notice of Appeal

16-068

§16.68

Notice Designating Record on Appeal

16-070

§16.70

Cover for Petition for Writ of Supersedeas or Other Appropriate Stay Order

16-071

§16.71

Petition for Writ of Supersedeas or Other Appropriate Stay Order

16-072

§16.72

Opposition to Petition for Writ of Supersedeas or Other Appropriate Stay Order

 

Selected Developments

June 2021 Update

The current update includes changes that reflect recent developments in case law, legislation, and court rules. Summarized below are some of the more important developments since publication of the 2020 update.

In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all statutes of limitations exceeding 180 days for civil causes of action were tolled from April 6, 2020, to October 1, 2020. All statutes of limitations that were 180 days or less were tolled from April 6, 2020, to August 23, 2020. Cal Rules of Ct Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, Rule 9.

Overview. If the petitioner requests mandamus relief under both CCP §§1085 and 1094.5, the court may look to the substance of the challenge and grant the appropriate relief. See, e.g., City of Hesperia v Lake Arrowhead Community Servs. Dist. (2019) 37 CA5th 734, discussed in §1.15.

In Malott v Summerland Sanitary Dist. (2020) 55 CA5th 1102, the court of appeal treated the action as one for declaratory relief rather than administrative mandamus when the allegations of the petition were sufficient to state a cause of action for declaratory relief. See §1.19.

Exhaustion of remedies. In SLPR, LLC v San Diego Unified Port Dist. (2020) 49 CA5th 284, the plaintiffs’ failure to seek review of a California Coastal Commission decision by administrative mandamus, as required by Pub Res C §30801, barred their causes of actions for inverse condemnation and related claims. See §3.9.

In LA Live Props., LLC v County of Los Angeles (2021) 61 CA5th 363, a taxpayer suit, the court of appeal held that the nullity exception to exhaustion of remedies did not apply and explained how only a “narrow nullity exception” was left intact after the California Supreme Court’s decision in Williams & Fickett v County of Fresno (2017) 2 C5th 1258. See §3.30.

In Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v County of Los Angeles (2019) 42 CA5th 918, the court of appeal held that the grievance procedures in a labor agreement provided only individual remedies, not classwide relief, and therefore were an inadequate remedy for enforcement of compensation provisions. See §3.40.

Administrative record. In Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 CA5th 665, the court of appeal held that evidence submitted for the first time with the petitioner’s reply in the writ proceeding was admissible because it filled a gap in the evidence on an issue first raised in the opposition; alternatively, it was admissible under CCP §1094.5(e) as evidence that could not have been produced at the administrative hearing. See §§4.2, 13.2.

In Land v California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2020) 54 CA5th 127, the court of appeal held that extra-record evidence was admissible at the administrative hearing under CCP §1094.5(e) and directed the trial court to remand the matter to the agency to consider the evidence and allow the opposing party to present further evidence on the issue. See §4.2.

In Golden Door Props., LLC v Superior Court (2020) 53 CA5th 733, the court of appeal held that discovery was appropriate to compel production of documents in a CEQA case when their inclusion in the administrative record was mandatory. See §13.7.

Adjudicatory decision making. In Alborzi v University of S. Cal. (2020) 55 CA5th 155, the court of appeal explained that administrative mandamus review is the correct procedure when a physician’s individual medical staff privileges are denied or curtailed because the physician failed to comply with established standards; however, when a physician’s staff privileges are denied or curtailed because of the implementation of a hospital policy, the administrative action is classified as quasi-legislative and reviewable by traditional mandamus. See §5.3.

In Petrovich Dev. Co. v City of Sacramento (2020) 48 CA5th 963, a city council’s decision was reviewable by administrative mandamus because it acted in a quasi-adjudicatory capacity when it heard and decided an appeal from a planning commission’s grant of a conditional use permit. See §5.3.

In Stanford Vina Ranch Irrig. Co. v State (2020) 50 CA5th 976, the court of appeal reiterated that whether an administrative action is quasi-legislative or quasi-adjudicative is a question of law. See §5.19.

Scope of review. The court in Nolte Sheet Metal, Inc. v Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (2020) 44 CA5th 437 discussed the scope of judicial review when an administrative decision is made by an agency of constitutional, rather than legislative, origin. See §6.140.

In Barclay Hollander Corp. v California Reg’l Water Quality Control Bd. (2019) 38 CA5th 479, the court of appeal held that the Administrative Procedure Act’s Administrative Adjudication Bill of Rights (Govt C §§11425.10–11425.60) applied to a regional water board proceeding because, although no federal or state constitution or statute required an evidentiary hearing, the board in its regulations elected to adopt those procedures. See §6.26.

In Malaga County Water Dist. v Central Valley Reg’l Water Quality Control Bd. (2020) 58 CA5th 418, the court of appeal held that portions of a regional water board’s hearing procedure were void as an underground regulation, but it was error for the trial court to remand without considering whether using those procedural rules was harmless. See §6.48.

Courts continue to refine due process requirements in the context of student discipline for sexual misconduct or relationship violence. The California Supreme Court granted review in Boermeester v Carry (review granted Sept. 16, 2020, S263180; opinion at 49 CA5th 682 depublished and not citable) to decide, among other issues, whether the common law right to fair procedure requires that a private university must provide an accused student the right to cross-examine witnesses at a live hearing. See §6.61.

In Petrovich Dev. Co. v City of Sacramento (2020) 48 CA5th 963, the court of appeal held that the probability of actual bias by a hearing officer must be proven with “concrete facts.” The court upheld a finding of bias when a city council member took affirmative steps to assist opponents of the planning commission’s approval of a conditional use permit and organized the opposition at the hearing. See §§5.8, 6.86. Note that the California Supreme Court granted review in Natarajan v Dignity Health (2019) 42 CA5th 383 (review granted Feb. 26, 2020, S259364; superseded opinion at 42 CA5th 38) to decide whether a physician facing revocation of privileges at a private hospital may disqualify a hearing officer based on an appearance of bias, or whether actual bias must be shown. See §§5.32, 6.89.

Standard of review. The California Supreme Court held in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 C5th 989, 995, that when the standard of proof in a trial court proceeding is “clear and convincing evidence,” on appeal the standard of review must reflect that heightened burden of proof. At least one court has rejected the argument that O.B. requires a heightened standard of review when the standard of proof in an administrative hearing is “clear and convincing evidence,” such as in a hearing to revoke or suspend a professional license. In Yazdi v Dental Bd. (2020) 57 CA5th 25, 33, the court held that O.B. does not apply in the administrative mandamus setting in which an administrative body, not a trial court, was the original finder of fact. See §6.157.

Recent cases illustrated the degree to which courts will defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation on administrative writ review. In Obbard v State Bar (2020) 48 CA5th 345, the State Bar’s interpretation of continuing legal education requirements to include court research attorneys was not afforded judicial deference, in part because the Bar’s interpretation of the statute was applied inconsistently and without careful consideration. In Akella v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2021) 61 CA5th 801, the court of appeal deferred to the university’s interpretation of a policy regarding faculty workload requirements and upheld disciplinary sanctions against a professor; the court noted that the university’s policy-making power is constitutionally derived and has the force of statute. See §6.49.

In Nolte Sheet Metal, Inc. v Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (2020) 44 CA5th 437, the court of appeal held that the legislature authorized the Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board to make findings of fact subject to judicial review under the more lenient substantial evidence test, not independent judgment review. See §6.140.

Mootness. In Malaga County Water Dist. v Central Valley Reg’l Water Quality Control Bd. (2020) 58 CA5th 396, the court of appeal decided a controversy involving the board’s issuance of certain permits because, even though the trial court ruled the case was moot, it involved a matter of continuing public interest that was likely to recur and the limited timeframe of the permits meant that similar challenges might evade review if mootness was strictly enforced. See §7.3.

In Parkford Owners for a Better Community v County of Placer (2020) 54 CA5th 714, the court of appeal held that petitioner’s challenge to a county’s approval of a construction project was rendered moot by completion of the project. See §13.9.

Public interest standing. In Spotlight on Coastal Corruption v Kinsey (2021) 57 CA5th 874, the court of appeal emphasized that the public interest exception to the beneficial interest standing requirement is not a matter of right; the court in a mandamus case has the discretion to deny standing based on countervailing policies. See §7.18.

Statute of limitations. In Saint Francis Mem. Hosp. v State Dep’t of Pub. Health (2020) 9 C5th 710, the California Supreme Court stated that statutes of limitations are presumed subject to the court’s inherent equitable powers unless explicit statutory language or a manifest policy underlying the statute cannot be reconciled with equitable tolling. Considering a claim that Govt C §11523’s 30-day limitations period was equitably tolled by the petitioner’s mistake—apparently shared by the agency—about the filing deadline, the court held that Govt C §11523’s 30-day limitation period was subject to equitable tolling and the filing deadline could be tolled if the petitioner established that (1) the petitioner gave the agency timely notice of intent to file the petition; (2) the agency was not prejudiced by the late filing; and (3) the petitioner acted reasonably and in good faith. See §9.30.

In Ventura Coastal, LLC v Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (2020) 58 CA5th 1, the court of appeal followed Saint Francis Mem. Hosp. to hold that an employer should be granted leave to amend its writ petition to allege equitable tolling under Lab C §6627 when it had filed an impermissible second petition for reconsideration by the Board and so missed the statute’s 30-day deadline to file the writ petition. See §9.30.

In Alford v County of Los Angeles (2020) 51 CA5th 742, the court of appeal strictly applied the notice requirements in CCP §1094.6 (90-day statute of limitations), finding that plaintiff’s administrative writ petition, filed over 4 months after receiving notice of the agency’s decision, was timely because the notice contained conflicting information about the filing deadline. See §9.18.

Recent cases illustrated the circumstances under which a public agency may be equitably estopped from invoking a limitations statute when the agency induced the petitioner’s delay. In Citizens for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v Department of Transp. (2020) 46 CA5th 1103, estoppel was upheld when the agency in its Environmental Impact Reports stated it would file a Notice of Determination (NOD) if the project were approved, but instead filed a Notice of Exemption, which the petitioner did not become aware of until after the statute of limitations had run. In Organizacion Communidad de Alviso v City of San Jose (2021) 60 CA5th 783, estoppel did not prevent dismissal of the petition for failure to name an indispensable party before the statute of limitations had run. Even though the agency failed to send a corrected NOD to petitioner as required by CEQA, the court of appeal held that the agency’s timely filing of a second NOD with the county clerk gave constructive notice to all potential litigants of the correct parties to name in the action. See §9.29.

Demurrer to petition. In New Livable Cal. v Association of Bay Area Gov’ts (2020) 59 CA5th 709, the court of appeal held that, although on demurrer judicially noticed matters prevail over contrary allegations in the writ petition, it was error for the trial court to take judicial notice of a document that was open to interpretation without giving the parties an opportunity to present extrinsic evidence on the matter. See §§12.6, 14.25.

In Deiro v Los Angeles County Civil Serv. Comm’n (2020) 56 CA5th 925, the court of appeal held that a local civil service commission lost jurisdiction over an employee’s challenge to his discharge, and properly dismissed the matter, when the employee retired due to a service-connected disability during the pendency of his administrative appeal. See §13.19A.

Attorney fees. In Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 CA5th 665, the court of appeal held that a real party in interest with a direct interest in the litigation was jointly and severally liable for attorney fees under CCP §1021.5 when that party actively participated in the defense against the mandamus petition. See §14.47.

Appeal from the superior court. In Lateef v City of Madera (2020) 45 CA5th 245, the court of appeal reiterated that a challenge to the procedural fairness of an administrative hearing must be reviewed de novo on appeal because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law. See §16.50.

In Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 CA5th 665, the court of appeal held that petitioners did not forfeit the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies by addressing it for the first time in their reply brief. They preserved the issue for appeal by alleging in the writ petition that they “performed all conditions precedent to filing this action, including exhaustion of all administrative remedies available to them”; by lodging the complete administrative record with the court; and by citing the relevant portions of the administrative record supporting their claims in their opening brief. See §10.37.

About the Authors

The Late Mitchell E. Abbott, a partner with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles, was an appellate practitioner for over 40 years. Mr. Abbott was a chair of the State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Appellate Courts and specialized in the representation of municipalities and other public entities at both the trial and appellate level and in both state and federal courts. He was a contributing author to California Civil Appellate Practice (3d ed Cal CEB) and California Civil Discovery Practice (2d ed Cal CEB), and a consulting editor on governmental immunities in Bancroft Whitney’s California Civil Practice. Mr. Abbott received his A.B. from the University of California, Davis, in 1972 and his J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School in 1975. Mr. Abbott was a co-author of chapters 3, 12, and 14.

Elizabeth E. Bader is a sole practitioner with an office in San Francisco. Ms. Bader specializes in appeals, writs, and mediation. She is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization). Ms. Bader has authored numerous articles on California law and has spoken at many MCLE programs for California attorneys. She has argued before the California Supreme Court and has represented many parties in cases of first impression under California law. Ms. Bader received her B.A. from Bard College and her J.D. from the University of California, Davis, School of Law in 1987. Ms. Bader is the author of chapter 16.

Patrick K. Bobko is an associate with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles. Mr. Bobko specializes in litigation, appellate law, and municipal law. He received his B.S. from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1991; his M.A. from the University of South Carolina in 1997; and his J.D. from George Washington University in 2000. Mr. Bobko is a co-author of chapter 14.

Rochelle Browne is a partner with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles. Ms. Browne specializes in trial and appellate litigation in the areas of land use, CEQA, and governmental and constitutional law. She is a past chair of the LA County Bar Association, Land Use Section, and a former executive committee member of the Real Property Section of the LA County Bar Association. She is also a member of the Advisory Panel of the California Community Land Use Project at the Institute of Local Self-Government. Ms. Browne received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1960 and her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law in 1977 (Order of the Coif). Ms. Browne is the author of chapter 4.

Kelly A. Casillas is an associate with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles. Ms. Casillas specializes in land use and planning, CEQA litigation, public law, and civil, municipal and public agency litigation. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 1993; her M.A. in Urban Planning from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1997; and her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law in 2001. Ms. Casillas is a co-author of chapters 13 and 17.

Ginetta L. Giovinco is an associate with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles. Ms. Giovinco specializes in litigation and municipal law. She received her B.A. from American University in 1997 and her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law in 2003. Ms. Giovinco provided assistance for chapters 13 and 17.

Beth Faber Jacobs is a Deputy Attorney General with the California Office of the Attorney General in San Diego. Ms. Jacobs specializes in writs in the area of Medical Board Licensing. Ms. Jacobs received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her J.D. from Southwestern University School of Law. Ms. Jacobs consulted extensively with CEB attorneys on chapters 1 and 17.

Sonali S. Jandial is an associate with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles. Ms. Jandial specializes in litigation, appellate practice, and bankruptcy. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1995; her M.A. from Columbia University in 1997; and her J.D. from the University of California, Davis, School of Law in 2001. Ms. Jandial is a co-author of chapter 3.

Steven H. Kaufmann is a partner with the firm of Nossaman LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. Kaufmann specializes in state and municipal land use, Coastal Act and CEQA litigation, writs and appellate practice, administrative law, and coastal law. He received the California Attorney General’s Award for Excellence in 1990 and is a former member of the Los Angeles Superior Court Ad Hoc Committee on CEQA Writs of Mandate. Mr. Kaufmann received his B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1971 and his J.D. from Loyola University of Los Angeles School of Law in 1974. Mr. Kaufmann is a co-author of chapters 13 and 17.

Gregory M. Kunert is a partner with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles. Mr. Kunert specializes in representing public agencies in litigation involving CEQA, land use, inverse condemnation, zoning, and housing; civil rights cases involving police officers; and elections law cases. He has represented clients in both state and federal courts. Mr. Kunert received his A.B. from Occidental College in 1977 and his J.D. from the University of Southern California Law Center in 1980. Mr. Kunert is the author of chapter 10.

Geoffrey L. Robinson is a partner with the firm of Perkins Coie in San Francisco. Mr. Robinson specializes in land use, development, and real estate litigation representing clients in civil and administrative proceedings involving planning and zoning laws, CEQA, development fees and exactions, and Mello-Roos Community Facilities financing. He regularly teaches courses on writs of mandamus and planning law for the University of California Extension program. Mr. Robinson is a contributing author to Handling Administrative Mandamus (Cal CEB Action Guide); Meeting Statutory Deadlines: Contractual and Financial Injury Litigation (Cal CEB Action Guide); Meeting Statutory Deadlines: Real Property and Land Use Litigation (Cal CEB Action Guide); and Curtain’s California Land Use and Planning Law. He is also a licensed California real estate broker and a reserve JAG officer. Mr. Robinson received his B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1978 and his J.D. (cum laude) from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1983. Mr. Robinson is the author of chapters 5, 8, and 9.

Susan A. Ruff is a Deputy Attorney General with the California Office of the Attorney General in San Diego. Ms. Ruff specializes in licensing and administrative law. She is a contributing author to California Administrative Hearing Practice (2d ed Cal CEB). Ms. Ruff received her B.A. from San Diego State University in 1979 and her J.D. (magna cum laude) from the University of San Diego School of Law in 1984. Ms. Ruff is the author of chapter 6.

David M. Snow is an associate with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles. Mr. Snow specializes in land use, municipal law, and CEQA. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Before embarking on his legal career, Mr. Snow worked in local government, where he managed various administrative functions related to planning and community development, including land use permit application processing, CEQA compliance, and municipal code enforcement. Mr. Snow received his B.S. from Clarkson University in 1989 and his J.D. from Loyola Law School in 2001. Mr. Snow is a co-author of chapters 3 and 12.

John P. Wagner is a partner with the firm of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliot, LLP, in Sacramento. Mr. Wagner specializes in healthcare, administrative, and appellate law at both the state and federal agency levels. He has written and spoken extensively, especially in the area of healthcare law as well as fraud and abuse. Mr. Wagner is a former Vice President of the California Academy of Attorneys for Health Care Professionals, and is a member of the California Society of Healthcare Attorneys, the American Bar Association, the California State Bar, the Wisconsin State Bar, and the Sacramento County Bar Association. He completed the American Health Lawyer Association’s Alternative Dispute Resolution training program and has served as a mediator in large and small healthcare disputes. Mr. Wagner received his B.A. from Western State College of Colorado in 1968; his M.A. from the University of Chicago in 1971; and his J.D. (cum laude; Order of the Coif) from the University of Wisconsin School of Law in 1980. Mr. Wagner is the author of chapter 15 and a co-author of chapter 16.

Heidi R. Weisbaum is a Deputy Attorney General with the California Office of the Attorney General in San Diego. Ms. Weisbaum specializes in writ cases in the Health Quality Enforcement section of the Attorney General’s office. Ms. Weisbaum received her B.S. and R.N. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1971; her M.P.H. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1974; and her J.D. from Southwestern University School of Law in 1981. Ms. Weisbaum is the author of chapter 11.

About the 2021 Update Authors

David M. Balfour is a partner with Nossaman LLP in Carlsbad. Mr. Balfour represents hospitals, health systems, medical staffs, medical groups, and individual healthcare providers in the healthcare sector on a wide range of issues, including medical staff peer review proceedings, licensing proceedings, writ proceedings, state and federal court civil litigation, and related appellate proceedings. Mr. Balfour received his B.A. from Yale University in 1996 and his J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1999. Mr. Balfour is an update author of chapter 17.

Stephanie N. Clark is an associate with Nossaman LLP in Irvine. Ms. Clark is a member of Nossaman’s Environment & Land Use Practice Group. She advises clients on a variety of land use and environmental matters, specializing in California Environmental Quality Act and associated land use regulations. She regularly comments on news, events, and policies affecting endangered species issues in California and throughout the United States on the firm’s Endangered Species Law & Policy blog. Ms. Clark received her B.A. and M.A. from Boston University in 2010 and her J.D. from the University of Washington School of Law in 2014. Ms. Clark is the update author of chapter 11.

Jeffrey Farano, Jr., is an associate with Rutan & Tucker LLP in Irvine. Mr. Farano’s practice focuses on litigation matters regarding land development and land use. He also provides legal counsel regarding CEQA issues. Mr. Farano received his B.S. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 2005; his M.B.A. from Chapman University, Argyros School of Business, in 2017; and his J.D. from Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, in 2017. Mr. Farano is an update author of chapter 6.

Ginetta L. Giovinco is an associate with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles. Ms. Giovinco specializes in litigation and municipal law. She received her B.A. from American University in 1997 and her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law in 2003. Ms. Giovinco is a co-author of chapters 13 and 17.

Steven H. Kaufmann is a partner with Nossaman LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. Kaufmann specializes in state and municipal land use, Coastal Act and CEQA litigation, writs and appellate practice, administrative law, and coastal law. He received the California Attorney General’s Award for Excellence in 1990 and is a former member of the Los Angeles Superior Court Ad Hoc Committee on CEQA Writs of Mandate. Mr. Kaufmann received his B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1971 and his J.D. from Loyola University of Los Angeles School of Law in 1974. Mr. Kaufmann is a co-author of chapters 13 and 17.

Philip D. Kohn is a partner with Rutan & Tucker LLP in Irvine. Mr. Kohn’s practice concentrates on land use regulation, planning and zoning law, environmental law, eminent domain and inverse condemnation, civil rights and constitutional law, and general municipal affairs. He has served as the City Attorney of the City of Laguna Beach since 1982 and the City of Irvine from 2006 to 2013. Mr. Kohn received his B.A. from California State University, Fullerton, in 1974; his M.Soc.Sci. from the University of Birmingham, England, in 1976; and his J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1979. Mr. Kohn is an update author of chapters 1, 2, and 6.

Stephen D. Lee is an associate with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles. Mr. Lee specializes in public agency and municipal law litigation, CEQA, writs of mandate, and appellate law. Before joining Richards, Watson & Gershon, Mr. Lee served as the law clerk to the Honorable Luis A. Lavin and the Honorable Ann I. Jones in the Writs and Receivers Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Mr. Lee received his B.A. magna cum laude from Georgetown University in 2006 and his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School in 2009. Mr. Lee is a co-author of chapter 4.

Tara E. Paul is an associate with Allen Matkins LLP in Los Angeles. Her practice is focused on water rights and California public agency regulations, and her experience includes representing clients in complex water rights litigation. Ms. Paul received her B.A. from California State University, Fresno, in 2007; her M.P.A. from Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, in 2014; and her J.D. from Indiana University, Maurer School of Law, in 2014. Ms. Paul is the update author of chapter 12.

V. Thai Phan is an associate with Rutan & Tucker LLP in Irvine. Ms. Phan’s practice includes providing advice and counsel to public agencies regarding the Brown Act, conflicts of interest, and constitutional law. Ms. Phan also advises private clients on campaign finance regulations pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974. Her litigation experience includes general civil litigation, land use disputes, and municipal code enforcement. Her transactional work includes drafting service agreements with private contractors on behalf of local municipalities. Ms. Phan received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 2011; her M.P.P. from the University of Southern California, Sol Price School of Public Policy, in 2015; and her J.D. from the University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, in 2015. Ms. Phan is an update author of chapters 1 and 6.

T. Peter Pierce is a shareholder in the Litigation Department at Richards, Watson & Gershon, San Francisco. Mr. Pierce is certified as a specialist in appellate law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. He has represented public agencies and other clients before the United States Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Court of Appeal, and various trial courts at the federal and state levels. Mr. Pierce is a contributing author to California Civil Appellate Practice (3d ed Cal CEB) and California Civil Writ Practice (4th ed Cal CEB). He received his A.B. from Cornell University in 1986, his M.S. from Syracuse University in 1987, and his J.D. from Tulane Law School in 1992. Mr. Pierce is a co-author of chapter 4.

Geoffrey L. Robinson is a partner with the firm of Perkins Coie in San Francisco. Mr. Robinson specializes in land use, development, and real estate litigation, representing clients in civil and administrative proceedings involving planning and zoning laws, CEQA, development fees and exactions, and Mello-Roos Community Facilities financing. He regularly teaches courses on writs of mandamus and planning law for the University of California Extension program. Mr. Robinson is a contributing author to Handling Administrative Mandamus (Cal CEB Action Guide); Meeting Statutory Deadlines: Contractual and Financial Injury Litigation (Cal CEB Action Guide); Meeting Statutory Deadlines: Real Property and Land Use Litigation (Cal CEB Action Guide); and Curtain’s California Land Use and Planning Law. He is also a licensed California real estate broker and a reserve judge advocate general officer. Mr. Robinson received his B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1978 and his J.D. (cum laude) from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1983. Mr. Robinson is the author of chapters 5, 8, and 9 and the update author of chapter 7.

Joshua M. Templet is a Deputy Attorney General with the California Office of the Attorney General in Los Angeles. Mr. Templet prosecutes physicians, psychologists, and other health professionals for misconduct on behalf of the Medical Board, the Board of Psychology, and other state agencies. Previously, he worked as a civil litigator at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and as a criminal prosecutor. Mr. Templet received his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2009. He is the update author of chapter 10.

OnLAW System Requirements:
Desktop: Windows XP, 7 or 8, Mac OS 10.8
Mobile: iOS6, iOS7, Android 4.2
Firefox, Chrome, IE and Safari browsers

Note: OnLAW may work with some devices running older versions of these Operating Systems or Windows RT; however, functionality is not guaranteed.

Please see FAQs for more details.
Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Civil Litigation & Torts
PRACTICE AREA Public Law
PRACTICE AREA Law Practice Skills
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Civil Litigation & Torts
PRACTICE AREA Public Law
PRACTICE AREA Law Practice Skills
PRODUCT GROUP Publication