Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 23STCP03744, Date: 2024-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Beatris Valenzuela v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

23STCP03744

Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: denied

Petitioner Beatris Valenzuela (“Valenzuela”) seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“CUIAB”) to set aside its decision of March 14, 2014.

The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.

Petitoner Valenzuela commenced this proceeding on October 11, 2023. As the Petition is not entirely clear, the court will set forth the pertinent facts from CUIAB”s opposition.

This case involves two periods when Valenzuela received unemployment benefits: the first period was 26 weeks in 2021 and the second period was 15 weeks in 2022. An administrative hearing was held on May 2, 2023, and the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) released a series of decisions that were mailed on May 5, 2023.

Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits effective June 20, 2021, with a weekly benefit amount of $385. For 26 weeks in 2021, Valenzuela received unemployment benefits while working and not reporting her wages. When the Employment Development Department (“EDD”) issued Notices of Determination about the overpayment of benefits, Valenzuela appealed.

At the administrative hearing, Valenzuela did not dispute that she worked or the amount of her earnings during those 26 weeks but claimed that she misunderstood the claim forms and believed the income information pertained to income in addition to her current work. The ALJ found that Valenzuela was ineligible for full benefits for 14 of those 26 weeks and was ineligible for any benefits for 12 of those weeks. The ALJ affirmed EDD’s determinations. The ALJ found Valenzuela was liable for the overpayment of $7,367 as a result of her failure to report.

Valenzuela filed another claim for unemployment insurance benefits effective June 19, 2022, with a weekly benefit amount of $365. For 15 weeks in 2022, Valenzuela received unemployment benefits while working and not reporting her wages. Valenzuela did not dispute that she worked or the amount of her earnings. When EDD issued Notices of Determination about the overpayment of benefits, Valenzuela appealed.

The ALJ affirmed EDD’s determination and found Valenzuela ineligible for benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1252. The ALJ found Valenzuela was liable for the overpayment of $4,380 as a result of her failure to report.

Valenzuela appealed the ALJ’s decisions relating to ineligibility and overpayment. The CUIAB affirmed the ALJ’s decisions, finding no material errors in the findings of fact or application of law.

At an April 9, 2024 trial setting conference, the court explained the administrative mandamus trial process to Valenzuela, set trial for August 15, 2024, and a briefing schedule as follows: Valenzuela was ordered to file and serve her opening brief by May 16, 2024, CUIAB was ordered to file and serve its opposition by June 20, 2024, and Valenzuela was ordered to file and serve her reply by July 30, 2025.

Petitioner Valenzuela has the burden of proof. An opening brief is required in every mandamus case. CRC 3.1113(d); LASC 3.231(i). When a petitioner challenges an administrative decision as unsupported by substantial evidence in light of the record as a whole, it is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the administrative record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the agency’s decision. State Water Resources Control Board Cases, (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 749. She is obligated to lay out the evidence favorable to the other side and show why it is lacking. The "[f]ailure to do so is fatal" to any substantial evidence challenge and "is deemed a concession that the evidence supports the findings." Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine, (2004) 11928 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1266.

The petition for writ of mandate is denied. The court will sign a dismissal with prejudice as a judgment under CCP 581(d).