Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCP03434, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03434    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 82

Petitioner Wanda Solomon petitions for a writ of mandate requesting review of an administrative decision that affirmed the amount of benefits she received under the CalFresh program. Petitioner has also filed a separate motion in which she seeks to vacate the case and have a new judge assigned.

I.       Factual Background

A.           CalFresh Program

“The CalFresh program was established by the California Legislature to enable low-income California households to receive benefits under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.) (SNAP), formerly known as the food stamp program.” (Ortega v. Johnson (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 552, 557, Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 18900, 18900.2.) CalFresh is administered by the Department of Social Services (“Department”). (Welf. & Inst. Code § 10553(b); Manual of Policies and Procedures (“MPP”) § 63-104.1.) Subject to regulations and rules promulgated by the Department, the responsibility to administer the CalFresh program within a county lies with the county’s welfare department (“CWD”). (Welf. & Inst. Code § 10800; MPP § 63-104.21.) The CWD determines eligibility or ineligibility for assistance. (MPP § 20-005.1.)

            The Department must comply with federal standards of eligibility in administering the CalFresh program. (7 C.F.R. § 276.1(a)(4); 7 U.S.C., § 2014(b); Welf. & Inst. Code § 18901(a).) The Department adopts regulations and orders to assist CWDs in complying with federal and state requirements. (Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 10554, 10600.)

B.           Calculation of Benefits for One-Person Households

Eligibility for SNAP or CalFresh benefits is determined by household size and income. (7 U.S.C. § 2014.) A household’s benefit allotment is calculated by reducing the maximum allotment for the household’s size by 30% of the household’s net monthly income. (7 C.F.R. § 273.10, subd. (e)(2)(ii)(A).) A household’s net monthly income is calculated according to federal regulation. (7 C.F.R. § 273.10(e)(1).)

            From October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022, the maximum monthly

allotment for a one-person household was $250.00. (AR 12-13, citing All County Information Notice No. I-78-21, September 24, 2021.) Effective April 2021, all CalFresh households became eligible to receive a minimum emergency allotment of $95.00 per month. (AR 13, citing All County Welfare Directors Letter, April 16, 2021.)

C.           Benefit Calculations

Petitioner Wanda Solomon resides in a one-person CalFresh household. (AR 4.) On or about February 12, 2022, Los Angeles County (“County”) notified petitioner that effective March 1, 2022, it would reduce her monthly CalFresh benefits from $250.00 to $230.00 per month because her income had changed. (AR 3, 68-70.) On or about April 21, 2022, the County further notified petitioner that she was recertified for CalFresh benefits for the time period from May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2025, in the amount of $230.00 per month. (AR 3, 71-73.) On April 26, 2022, petitioner requested a state hearing to dispute the County’s actions. (AR 3, 19-32.)

The hearing was held on July 5, 2022. (AR 4, 101-148.) At the hearing, petitioner disputed not just the County’s March 2022 benefit determination, but also its benefit determinations for the past 46 years. Petitioner’s benefit calculations in reverse chronological order are as follows.

1.            CalFresh Benefits Effective March 2022

Petitioner disputed the County’s determination of her CalFresh benefits effective March 2022. (AR 3.) The County submitted evidence showing that on February 2, 2022, it received an update to petitioner’s supplemental security income/state supplementary payment (“SSI/SSP”) benefit income, due to a cost-of-living adjustment effective March 1, 2022. (AR 4.) Accordingly, on February 12, 2022, the County updated its benefit system and determined that petitioner was eligible to receive monthly CalFresh benefits of $230.00 effective March 1, 2022. (Ibid.)

The County submitted a Statement of Position explaining its benefit calculation, as well as a screenshot from the Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System verifying petitioner’s reported monthly income. (AR 4, 61-62, 92.) The County submitted additional evidence showing that on April 21, 2022, the County completed petitioner’s CalFresh recertification. (AR 5, 71-78.) The County’s evidence showed that, based on petitioner’s reported monthly shelter costs of $742.00 and monthly SSI/SSP benefit payments of $1,041.21, the County had determined that petitioner was eligible for CalFresh benefits of $230.00 effective May 1, 2022. (AR 5, 62.) The County also provided evidence that it paid petitioner supplemental CalFresh benefits of $95.00 as an emergency allotment for March 2022 through May 2022. (AR 5, 62.)

Petitioner alleged that the $230.00 monthly CalFresh benefits she was receiving was less than she should be receiving and was insufficient to meet her needs. (AR 5.) However, petitioner could not confirm the amount of monthly SSI/SSP benefits she was receiving. (Ibid.) Nor did she dispute the amount of her monthly shelter costs as reported by the County. (Ibid.)

2.            CalFresh Benefits for January 2022 through February 2022

Petitioner also disputed the County’s determination of her CalFresh benefits for January 2022 and February 2022. (AR 3.) In its Statement of Position, the County stated that it had determined that petitioner was eligible for the maximum monthly allotment for a one-person household of $250.00 for January 2022 through February 2022. (AR 5, 62.) This determination was based on the County’s consideration of petitioner’s monthly SSI/SSP benefits of $954.72 and reported monthly shelter costs of $742.00 plus utilities. (AR 5, 62.) The County submitted a

screenshot of Claimant’s benefit issuance history, showing that petitioner was issued monthly CalFresh benefits of $250.00 and supplemental benefits of $95.00 for January 2022 and February 2022. (AR 5-6, 93-98.)

3.            CalFresh Benefits for July 2021 through December 2021

Petitioner also disputed the County’s determination of her CalFresh benefits for the months July 2021 through December 2021. (AR 6.) In addition to its Statement of Position, the County submitted a screenshot of petitioner’s benefit issuance history, showing that petitioner had been issued monthly CalFresh benefits of $233.00 for July through September 2021, $250.00 for October 2021 through December 2021, and monthly supplemental CalFresh benefits of $95.00 for July 2021 through December 2021. (AR 6, 93-98.) The County also submitted the administrative decision in State Hearing No. 104742290, in which a different ALJ determined that the County had correctly calculated petitioner’s CalFresh benefits effective June 2021 to be $233.00 per month. (AR 90.) Petitioner did not submit any documents showing that her income or expenses had changed from July 2021 through September 2021. (Ibid.)

4.            CalFresh Benefits for September 2019 through June 2021

Petitioner also disputed the amount of CalFresh benefits she was issued for the time period September 2019 through June 2021. (AR 6.) The County contended that the ALJ had no jurisdiction to rule on this portion of petitioner’s claim because the identical issue was the subject of a previous state hearing, State Hearing Number 104742290, in which a decision was adopted on July 25, 2021. (AR 6, 62.) Petitioner claimed there was no decision on the merits regarding this issue. (AR 125.) The County submitted a copy of the administrative decision. (AR 79-91.)

5.            Benefits for 1976 through 2008

Petitioner disputed the amount of cash aid and childcare benefits she had received for the years 1976 through 2008. (AR 7.) The County contended that the ALJ did not have jurisdiction to rule on this claim because petitioner’s state hearing request, dated April 26, 2022, was well beyond the 90-day period and 180-day good cause period to appeal the County’s determinations for these years. (AR 7, 63.) In its Statement of Position, the County stated that the County’s records showed that petitioner’s cash aid benefits were discontinued effective June 2005. (AR 7, 63.) The County further contended that it was only required to retain its historical case records for three years from the date on which public social services were last provided, and therefore no longer had documentation for petitioner’s benefit determinations from 1976 to 2008. (AR 7, 63.)

            Petitioner failed to articulate a specific reason for why she did not request a hearing sooner to dispute her benefits issued dating back to 1976. (AR 7, 117.) She argued that she had evidence of misappropriation of public benefits, and that she intended to show that the County engaged in a pattern of conduct that resulted in her being cheated out of the correct amount of benefits. (AR 7, 115, 129.) The ALJ left the record open for four weeks after the hearing so that petitioner could submit this evidence, but petitioner failed to submit any additional documents. (AR 8, 99.)

D.           Administrative Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Antonio Hicks, issued a decision denying in part and dismissing in part petitioner’s claims.

CalFresh Benefits Effective March 2022. Based on the evidence presented, the ALJ found that petitioner’s reasonably anticipated income as of March 2022 was $1,041.21. (AR 15.) The ALJ reviewed the County’s computation of petitioner’s monthly allotment and found that it was correctly calculated to be $230.00. (Ibid.) Because petitioner presented no evidence that her income or expenses had changed since April 2022, the ALJ further determined that the County had correctly calculated petitioner’s monthly allotment to be $230.00 effective May 1, 2022.

(Ibid.) For these reasons, the ALJ denied this portion of petitioner’s claim. (Ibid.)

CalFresh Benefits for January 2022 and February 2022. The ALJ determined that petitioner was issued the maximum allotment for a one-person household, including the temporary emergency allotment, for January 2022 and February 2022. (AR 16.) Therefore, petitioner was not under-issued benefits for these months. (Ibid.) For these reasons, the ALJ denied this portion of petitioner’s claim. (Ibid.)

CalFresh Benefits for July 2021 through December 2021. The ALJ determined that the County had not under-issued petitioner’s benefits for this time period. (AR 16-17.) Based on the evidence presented, the ALJ found that petitioner was eligible for monthly CalFresh benefits of $233.00 effective June 2021. (AR 17.) Furthermore, from October 2021 to December 2021, the ALJ found that the County had issued petitioner $250.00 in monthly CalFresh benefits, which was the maximum allotment at that time for one-person households. (AR 17.) In addition, the ALJ found that the County had correctly issued petitioner monthly supplemental benefits from July

2021 to December 2021. (AR 17.) Therefore, the ALJ determined that the County had not under-issued benefits to petitioner, and denied this portion of petitioner’s claim. (AR 17.)

CalFresh Benefits for September 2019 through June 2021. The ALJ found that this identical issue had already been decided on the merits in a previous state hearing. (AR 16.) On that basis, the ALJ dismissed this portion of petitioner’s claim. (Ibid.)

Benefits for the Years 1976 through 2008. Based on the evidence presented and petitioner’s testimony at the hearing, the ALJ determined that petitioner unreasonably delayed requesting a hearing on this issue, resulting in prejudice to the County. (AR 18.) Therefore, the doctrine of laches precluded a hearing on the merits of petitioner’s claim. (AR 18.) Specifically, the ALJ concluded that petitioner had unreasonably waited approximately 14 to 46 years to request a hearing on this issue. (Ibid.) The ALJ found that this delay prejudiced the County, which no longer possessed petitioner’s historical case records for the years in question, and therefore could not defend its actions during this time period. (Ibid.) For these reasons, the ALJ denied this portion of petitioner’s claim. (Ibid.)

II.      Procedural History

            On September 20, 2022, petitioner Wanda Solomon filed a petition for writ of mandate. On March 15, 2023, respondent California Department of Social Services filed a General Denial.

            On January 10, 2023, the Court (Hon. Mary H. Strobel) scheduled the hearing on the writ petition for September 26, 2023. Judge Strobel stayed all claims except for the writ of mandate claim.

On August 31, 2023, the Court denied petitioner’s motion to augment the record. During the hearing on the motion to augment, petitioner orally requested to continue the hearing on the writ petition. Pursuant to petitioner’s request, the hearing on the writ petition was continued to January 23, 2024.

            On November 27, 2023, petitioner filed an opening brief. On December 20, 2023, respondent filed an opposition. Petitioner did not file a reply. Instead, on December 27, 2023, petitioner filed a “Motion to Vacate,” wherein petitioner requested the vacating of the instant case, the setting of another hearing date, and the assignment of a new judge and courtroom.  

            The Court has received the administrative record lodged by respondent.

III.     Standard of Review

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 1094.5 governs judicial review of a final decision issued by an administrative agency. (Christensen v. Lightbourne (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1239, 1251.) Under CCP § 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b).)

A decision denying public assistance benefits affects a fundamental vested right. (Christensen, 15 Cal.App.5th at 1251.) Accordingly, the Court exercises its independent judgment on the record. (Ibid.) Under the independent judgment test, “the trial court not only examines the administrative record for errors of law, but also exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo.” (Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143.) The court must draw its own reasonable inferences from the evidence and make its own credibility determinations. (Morrison v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Board of Commissioners (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 860, 868.) 

IV.     Analysis

A.           Petitioner Fails to Meet Initial Burden

            In the petition and opening brief filed by petitioner, petitioner appears to dispute the amount of benefits that she received under the CalFresh program. (Pet. at 21; Opening Brief (“OB”) at 3-4.)

            As stated above, CCP § 1094.5 governs judicial review of a final decision issued by an administrative agency. (Christensen, 15 Cal.App.5th 1239, 1251.) Under CCP § 1094.5, “the party challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 817; see also Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 139.) An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties. (Evid. Code § 664.) “In exercising its independent judgment, a trial court must afford a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings….” (Fukuda, 20 Cal.4th at 817.)

A memorandum of points and authorities is required for a noticed motion, including for mandamus. (See California Rule of Court (“CRC”) 3.1113(a); Local Rule 3.231(b) [describing noticed motion procedure for prerogative writs].) The absence of a memorandum is an admission that the motion is not meritorious and may be denied. (CRC 3.1113(a).) “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (CRC 3.1113(b); see also Local Rule 3.231(i)(2) [opening brief must cite to administrative record].)

Rule of Court 3.1113 “rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party's theories”. (Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934.) A reviewing court “will not act as counsel for either party to an appeal and will not assume the task of initiating and prosecuting a search of the record for any purpose of discovering errors not pointed out in the briefs.” (Fox v. Erickson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 740, 742.) The Court cannot evaluate arguments that are not made in the briefs and cannot make the parties’ arguments for them. (Nelson v. Avondale HOA (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862-63 [argument waived if not raised]; Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1282 [same].)

            Petitioner’s petition and opening brief contains no argument as to why the ALJ’s decision affirming the amount of CalFresh benefits she received was erroneous. Instead, petitioner makes vague allegations of falsification of records and discrepancies. (OB at 2.) Petitioner does not cite any supporting law or statute supporting an increase in benefits, as required by CRC 3.1113(b). Petitioner’s papers do not contain any citation to the administrative record, as required by Local Rule 3.231(i)(2).

Petitioner asserts that her annual salary was below the poverty line for 46 years. (OB at 4.) Petitioner also asserts that in her experience, records beyond three years of the provision of public social services are maintained and accessible. (Pet. at 21.) Even if true, petitioner does not provide any reasoned argument explaining why she was entitled to CalFresh benefits in amounts exceeding federally mandated standards, as enforced by the Department and the County in All County Information Notice No. I-78-21 dated September 24, 2021 and All County Welfare Directors Letter, April 16, 2021. (AR 12-13.)

            Due to petitioner’s failure to address the ALJ’s reasons for affirming the amount of CalFresh benefits she received, petitioner does not demonstrate why the “strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings” should not apply. (See Fukuda, 20 Cal.4th at 817.) Petitioner has not demonstrated any entitlement to mandamus relief.

B.           Request to Continue Hearing

In the opening brief, petitioner requests a continuance of the hearing. (OB at 4.) In the Motion to Vacate, petitioner requests that the case be vacated and another judge be assigned to the matter. (Mtn. to Vacate at 4, 8.)

Petitioner does not present good cause for either request. With respect to the request for a continuance, in the first and last paragraphs of her opening brief, petitioner requests reasonable accommodations. (OB at 2, 4.) Petitioner did not provide a “description of the accommodation sought, along with a statement of the medical condition that necessitates the accommodation,” as required by Rule of Court 1.100(c)(2).

Petitioner also asserts that “more evidence needs to be reviewed.” (OB at 4.) In general, “a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of the proceedings before the administrative agency.” (Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881.) On August 31, 2023, the Court denied petitioner’s motion to augment the record on the ground that petitioner did not sufficiently explain why, during the administrative hearing, she did not produce documents with which petitioner sought to augment the record. The Court also found that petitioner did not explain how the documents were relevant to her claim that she has not received the proper amount of benefits from the CalFresh

Program. Here, petitioner also does not explain how more evidence would support the assertion that she was entitled to additional CalFresh benefits.

          With respect to the request to vacate the case and to assign a new judge, petitioner does not cite any authority allowing for such relief. Contentions unsupported by citation of authority are disregarded. (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368; Valov v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1132.)

C.           Additional Causes of Action

As noted above, on January 10, 2023, Judge Strobel stayed all claims except for the writ of mandate claim.  Judge Strobel, however, did not state what, if any, claims existed that were not encompassed within the claim for writ of mandamus.  (See 1/10/23 Minute Order.)  Rather, Judge Strobel merely explained that ‘[i]f claims remain when the court rules on the writ of mandate claim, the case will be transferred to Department One for reassignment to an individual calendar court.” (1/20/23 Minute Order at 1.)

The petition contains six causes of action, but each labeled cause of action is merely argument and allegations as to why petitioner was entitled to additional public assistance benefits. Upon review of the petition, this Court finds that each so-called cause of action is simply a restatement of why petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus.  Having addressed that claim above, the Court finds the instant ruling disposes of the petition in its entirety.

V.      Conclusion

The petition for writ of mandate is DENIED. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.231(n), respondent California Department of Social Services shall prepare, serve, and ultimately file a proposed judgment.

The “Motion to Vacate” is DENIED.