Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 22STCP00526, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP00526    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 86

LEE v. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Case No. 22STCP00526

Hearing Date: April 5, 2023

[Tentative]       ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Petitioner, Wing Hong Lee, filed his petition for writ of mandate on February 14, 2022.

On November 30, 2022, the court set this matter for trial. The court ordered Petitioner to lodge the administrative record with the court 15 calendar days prior to trial.

Petitioner filed his opening brief on February 7, 2023. Respondent, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB), filed its opposition brief on March 6, 2023.

Petitioner did not lodge the administrative record with the court as ordered on November 30, 2022.

On March 29, 2022, the court instructed the clerk to contact Petitioner to advise the court did not have the administrative record and could not proceed without it. The clerk reported to the court that Petitioner advised her he would not be proceeding on his petition and therefore would not lodge the administrative record with the court.

Petitioner has not filed a reply brief. Petitioner has not lodged the administrative record. Petitioner has not dismissed his petition.

It is the Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate error by the CUIAB. Without a certified administrative record, Petitioner cannot meet his burden. The court may not grant a petition for a writ of mandate where a petitioner fails to produce an adequate administrative record. (See Elizabeth D. v. Zolin (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 347, 350 and Hothem v. City and County of San Francisco I1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 702, 705.) Where no administrative record has been provided, “ ‘the presumption of regularity will prevail, since the burden falls on the petitioner attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate to the trial court where the administrative proceedings were unfair, were in excess of jurisdiction, or showed prejudicial abuse of discretion.’ ” (Elizabeth D. v. Zolin, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at 354 [cleaned up].)

Based on the foregoing, the petition is denied. The court finds Petitioner failed to demonstrate agency error.

March 17, 2023                                                                      ________________________________

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Hon. Mitchell Beckloff

                                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court