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.

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 385.00
Print CP32890

3d edition, 2 looseleaf volumes, updated 5/18

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 385.00
Add Forms CD to Print CP22891
$ 59.00
Add OnLAW to print CP94890(40)
$ 129.00

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

  • 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 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 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 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 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 and Permits 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. Unions and Trade 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. 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. Four-Year Catch-All Statute (CCP §343) 9.11
        • c. 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: Transcript Estimate Request (OAH-5) 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
    • D. The Administrative Record 16.31
    • E. Transmittal of Exhibits 16.31A
    • F. Filing Fees 16.32
    • G. 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)

May 2017

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

May 2017 Update

The current update includes changes that reflect recent developments in case law, legislation, court rules, and jury instructions. Summarized below are some of the more important developments included in this update since publication of the 2016 update.

Exception to the applicability of CCP §1094.5. The Los Angeles Employee Relations Board is not governed by Govt C §3509.5, which governs the Public Employee Relations Board. See City of Los Angeles v City of Los Angeles Employee Relations Bd. (2016) 7 CA5th 150, in §§1.10, 13.5.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies. For a recent case discussing how a plaintiff committed invited error by arguing earlier that the trial court, not the administrative agency, should have decided the wage order issue, see Bains v Department of Indus. Relations (2016) 244 CA4th 1120, in §§3.11, 3.47.

When agency lacks jurisdiction. In Pacific Shores Prop. Owners Ass'n v Department of Fish & Wildlife (2016) 244 CA4th 12, the court found that the Coastal Commission was not acting beyond its jurisdiction by indefinitely maintaining land use authority over a subdivision. See §3.34.

Bias. The proper remedy after a DMV hearing was found tainted by the bias of a hearing officer having accepted bribes was to remand the matter for a new administrative hearing before a different, qualified hearing officer. See Hall v Superior Court (2016) 3 CA5th 792, in §§3.60B, 6.26, 6.42, 6.86, 6.87, 16.11.

Failure of agency to comply with time limits. In Seibert v City of San Jose (2016) 247 CA4th 1027, the court found that a firefighter was estopped from raising a jurisdictional objection, even though the disciplinary notice was not timely filed with the commission, because the firefighter had received notice within the time limit and the filing requirement was not mandatory. See §§6.9, 6.72, 6.153, 6.160.

Right to counsel and examine witnesses. For a recent case discussing the right to counsel and the right to cross-examine a witness in a student sexual misconduct matter, see Doe v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2016) 5 CA5th 1055, in §§6.55, 6.61.

Evidence received by agency outside hearing. Fair trial issues may arise when the hearing officer or agency receives evidence or communications outside of the hearing. See Pinheiro v Civil Serv. Comm'n for County of Fresno (2016) 245 CA4th 1458, in §§6.35, 6.47, 6.78.

Pleadings did not give fair notice. In Doe v University of S. Cal. (2016) 246 CA4th 221, the court found that a student disciplinary notice failed to include information about the basis of the accusation; the student was initially investigated for sexual assault but later found to have endangered another student. See §§6.26, 6.81, 8.13.

Combination of functions in agency. In Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v California Coastal Comm'n (2016) 4 CA5th 1165, the court found that commission staff members' participation in litigation after an administrative proceeding did not violate due process. See §6.90.

Public interest standing. In Weiss v City of Los Angeles (2016) 2 CA5th 194, the court found that a motorist had public interest standing to challenge a city's initial review procedure for parking citations. See §§7.3, 7.18.

Dismissal for loss of jurisdiction. In determining whether an employee's resignation or retirement divests a civil service commission of jurisdiction, the court must search the rules applicable to the employee's employment. See Weisner v Santa Cruz County Civil Serv. Comm'n (2016) 248 CA4th 340, in §13.19A.

Appealability issues. Certain statutes, e.g., Govt C §65589.5, require the filing of a writ petition to review the trial court order. See Kalnel Gardens, LLC v City of Los Angeles (2016) 3 CA5th 927, in §16.7.

Adequacy of appeal as remedy. In City of Carlsbad v Scholtz (2016) 1 CA5th 294, the court dismissed an appeal from a denial of a writ petition that challenged an evidentiary ruling of a hearing officer because the city had an adequate remedy by way of an administrative appeal followed by a writ of administrative mandamus. See §16.60.

Cost of record. The interested real party may still recover costs for preparing the record under CCP §1032, if the record was prepared in one of the approved ways of Pub Res C §21167.6. See Citizens for Ceres v City of Ceres (2016) 3 CA5th 237, in §17.7.

Actions involving the Medical Board of California. For a recent case discussing how a physician's misdemeanor conviction for insurance fraud did not support revocation of his licence, see Pirouzian v Superior Court (2016) 1 CA5th 438, in §§6.73, 17.22.

About the Authors

Mitchell E. Abbott is a partner with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Abbott is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law (State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization) and serves as Chair of Richards, Watson & Gershon's Appellate Law Practice Group. Mr. Abbott is a past chair of the State Bar of California's Standing Committee on Appellate Courts. He specializes in the representation of municipalities and other public entities at both the trial and appellate level and in both state and federal courts. He has also handled a number of cases involving constitutional issues (First and Fourteenth Amendments), land use and CEQA, and litigation and appeals in public financing, including the formation of redevelopment agencies and other districts, taxpayers' actions, and other challenges to local enactments. Mr. Abbott is 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 is a co-author of chapters 3, 12, and 14.

Elizabeth E. Bader is a sole practitioner with an office in San Francisco, California. 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, including the update to California Administrative Mandamus (2d ed Cal CEB), 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, California. 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, California. 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, California. 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, California. Ms. Giovinco specializes in litigation and municipal law. She received her B.A. from the 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, California. 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, California. 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, California. 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, California. 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, California. 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. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1983 (Cum Laude). 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, California. 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. from the University of San Diego School of Law in 1984 (Magna Cum Laude). Ms. Ruff is the author of chapter 6.

David M. Snow is an associate with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles, California. 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, California. 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. from the University of Wisconsin School of Law in 1980 (Cum Laude; Order of the Coif). 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, California. 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 2017 Update Authors

Ginetta L. Giovinco is an associate with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles, California. 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.

Steven H. Kaufmann is a partner with Nossaman LLP in Los Angeles, California. 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.

Stephen D. Lee is an associate with the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Lee specializes in litigation and municipal law. He received his B.A. from Georgetown University in 2006 and his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School in 2009. Mr. Lee provided assistance for chapters 4, 13, and 17.

T. Peter Pierce is a shareholder in the Litigation Department at Richards, Watson & Gershon. 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, California. 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. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1983 (Cum Laude). Mr. Robinson is the author of chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

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