Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00050638-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 05, 2024

04/05/2024  02:00:00 PM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00050638-CU-WM-CTL VANDERFORD VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD CUIAB [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court will hear from the parties regarding the below comments: First, the court notes that Petitioner's claim is likely untimely pursuant to Unemployment Insurance Code section 410, which requires the right of any party (such as Petitioner) 'to seek judicial review from an appeals board decision shall be exercised not later than six months after the date of the decision of the appeals board or the date on which the decision is designated as a precedent decision, whichever is later.' Here, the first decision Petitioner challenges (relating to dismissal of his administrative appeal based on mootness) is dated February 6, 2021, and the second decision is dated June 16, 2022, but Petitioner did not file the instant petition until December 16, 2022. Moreover, Petitioner's argument that Respondent should be estopped from asserting untimeliness is not supported by evidence, and it is unclear whether equitable estoppel may even be applied, considering that section 410 specifies the timing deadline is enforceable '[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law.' Second, based on the record and the briefing, it appears there are two main issues concerning Respondent's underlying decision: - Even if the $7.13 in wages (stemming from unpaid vacation) reported by Goodwill Industries should not have been reported in calculating the unemployment benefits, how did the decision prejudice Petitioner? - The decision to exclude as non-wages the settlement sum arising from Petitioner's worker's compensation dispute with Goodwill Industries is supported by law. (See, e.g., Unemp. Ins. Code, §§ 931 ['Wages' does not include the amount of any payment . . . made to or on behalf of an employee . . .

under a plan or system established by an employer which makes provision for his or her employees generally, . . . on account of . . . [s]ickness or accident disability . . . .'], 933 ['Wages' does not include any payment on account of sickness or accident disability, or medical or hospitalization expenses in connection with sickness or accident disability made by an employer to, or on behalf of, an employee after the expiration of six calendar months following the last calendar month in which the employee worked for such employer.].) Petitioner did not address either issue in his briefing, and the court is unaware of any authority that would suggest payments stemming from an unemployment insurance dispute should be included in either the weekly benefit calculation or the calculation to qualify for Fed-ED extension benefits.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3107966  57