Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00012507-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 07, 2023

12/08/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Hearing on Petition 37-2023-00012507-CU-WM-CTL BCD LLC VS CITY OF NATIONAL CITY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Peremptory Writ of Mandate, 08/18/2023

The petition for writ of administrative mandamus is DENIED without prejudice.

'[T]he petitioner in an administrative mandamus proceeding has the burden of proving that the agency's decision was invalid and should be set aside, because it is presumed that the agency regularly performed its official duty.' Desmond v. County of Contra Costa (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 330, 335. As such, '[i]t is the responsibility of the petitioner to make available to the court an adequate record of the administrative proceedings; if he fails to do this the presumption of regularity will prevail.' Gong v. City of Fremont (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 568, 574.

Here, petitioner contends that substantial evidence does not support the City's decision to deny petitioner's application for a commercial cannabis license. However, petitioner has not lodged any portions of the administrative record with the court. The court therefore presumes that substantial evidence supports the City's findings and decision. See id.; see also Caveness v. State Personnel Bd.

(1980) 113 Cal.Ap.3d 617, 630. Thus, petitioner has not met its burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 of showing that there has been a prejudicial abuse of discretion. See Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1497 ('The inquiry for the issuance of a writ of

administrative mandamus is whether the agency in question prejudicially abused its discretion; that is, whether the agency action was arbitrary, capricious, in excess of its jurisdiction, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or without reasonable or rational basis as a matter of law.').

This ruling is without prejudice to petitioner scheduling a new hearing on the petition for writ of mandate after lodging a certified copy of the administrative record with the court.

Judicial notice is taken as requested. Evid. Code § 452(c).

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3037652  33