Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00054239-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00054239-CU-WM-CTL HANNA VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PETITIONER RIMON HANNA'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE is DENIED.

Petitioner Rimon Hanna ('Petitioner') appears to challenge the decision of an 'Appeal Board... by honorable Michael Allen and Honorable Robert,' which affirmed Honorable Nancy Beardsley's ruling and correction to Petitioner's benefits. Petitioner did not submit a memorandum of points and authorities as to this Petition, as is required under California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1113 and 3.1114. 'The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion ... is not meritorious and cause for its denial ....' (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1113(a).) Moreover, Specially Appearing Respondents Employment Development Department ('EDD') and California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ('Board') point out some flaws with Petitioner's Petition. First, Petitioner did not properly name the Board in the Petition and Petitioner did not properly serve the EDD and Board as is required.

While Petitioner does not cite legal authority to support the motion, Petitioner attaches a notice to the Petition that references Petitioner's right to challenge the decision under CCP section 1094.5. Under CCP section 1094.5, a writ is proper as to 'the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer' in whom discretion is vested to make the determination challenged by the Petitioner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(a).) It is fatal to an action under CCP section 1094.5 to name the state or agency employees rather than the entity with the discretion to make the decision challenged. (See State of California v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 255-256; Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) Exhibit D to Petitioner's Petition reveals the Board rendered the decision at issue. Petitioner did not properly name the Board nor did Petitioner properly serve the Board and EDD with the Petition. (ROA #10; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 415.30, 416.50.) For the reasons discussed above, the Petition is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3109367  69