Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00040270-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Hearing on Petition 37-2022-00040270-CU-WM-CTL GRANT VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Petitioner William Grant's Petition for Writ of Mandate is GRANTED. (ROA 1, 22.) Petitioner's driver's license was administratively suspended by Respondent Department of Motor Vehicles ('DMV') after Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on August 7, 2019. (Veh. Code § 23152(a).) Conduct of the administrative per se ('APS') hearing regarding Petitioner's driver's license suspension was apparently convened, continued, and re-convened multiple times between March 2020 and March 2022. On April 15, 2022, an opinion was rendered in California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 517 ('CDLA'). Therein, the appellate court concluded 'combining the roles of advocate and adjudicator in a single person employed by the DMV violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the California constitution Article I, section 7.' (CDLA at p. 532.) '[W]e further conclude Vehicle Code section 14112, subdivision (b) is unconstitutional to the extent it permits the DMV to combine the advocacy and adjudicatory roles in a single APS hearing officer.' (Id. at p. 533.) The appellate court ordered the trial court to issue a modified judgment stating 'the DMV is permanently enjoined and restrained from having its APS hearing officers function as advocates for the position of the DMV in addition to being finders of fact in the same adversarial proceeding.' (Id. at p. 538.) Following the CDLA decision, a reconvened hearing on Petitioner's license suspension was ultimately rescheduled for September 1, 2022 with Trena Leota designated as the 'Finder of Fact' and D. Cotton designated as 'Advocate.' (DMV132.) The Finder of Fact, Hearing Officer Leota, determined 1) there was reasonable cause for the police officer to believe Petitioner was driving while intoxicated, 2) Petitioner was placed under lawful arrest, and 3) Petitioner was driving a motor vehicle with 0.08% BAC or higher. (DMV007.) Accordingly, the suspension of Petitioner's driver's license was reimposed.

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Mandate on October 6, 2022. The court's review of the DMV's decision 'shall be on the record of the hearing and the court shall not consider other evidence.' (Veh.

Code § 13559(a).) 'If the court finds that the department exceeded its constitutional or statutory authority, made an erroneous interpretation of the law, acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or made a determination which is not supported by the evidence in the record, the court may order the department to rescind the order of suspension or revocation and return, or reissue a new license to, the person.' (Ibid.) Petitioner challenges the DMV's decision reimposing the suspension of his driver's license on several Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042478  13 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GRANT VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR  37-2022-00040270-CU-WM-CTL grounds.

Petitioner first asserts changes in the APS hearings (specifically, the use of a separate Finder of Fact and Advocate post-CDLA) required the DMV to present proposed new regulations for review under the Administrative Procedure Act ('APA') before they were adopted. However, Petitioner does not cite or analyze sufficient legal authority to support this position. Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the change in procedure violates the Vehicle Code, the APA, or the U.S. or state constitution. To the contrary, section 14104.2 of the Vehicle Code authorizes 'a hearing officer' to conduct the hearing (here, Finder of Fact Leota) and no legal authority cited by Petitioner prevents the agency from allowing an advocate on behalf of the DMV (here, Advocate Cotton) to participate in the proceedings.

Petitioner next contends the DMV's 'use of the record' was enjoined by CDLA. As the court understands it, Petitioner's argument is the DMV could not rely upon the record of the prior, continued hearings in determining whether Petitioner's license suspension was valid. On this point, the court agrees.

After CDLA, the DMV reconvened hearing on Petitioner's license suspension on September 1, 2022. It is clear from the administrative record that Finder of Fact Leota considered and relied upon the prior proceedings in rendering a determination. This included evidence submitted in the prior hearings, as well as rulings on evidence by a prior hearing officer. (DMV105-DMV107.) At the time those rulings were made, the hearing officer was acting in the dual role of both advocate and fact finder on behalf of the DMV. This dual role is precisely what the appellate court determined was an unconstitutional violation of a driver's due process rights. (CDLA at p. 532.) In opposition, the DMV contends CDLA cannot be applied retroactively. The court is not persuaded.

'Although as a general rule judicial decisions are to be given retroactive effect, there is a recognized exception when a judicial decision changes a settled rule on which the parties below have relied.' (Claxton v. Waters (2004) 34 Cal.4th 367, 378 (citations omitted).) 'Considerations of fairness and public policy may require that decision be given only prospective application.' (Ibid.) Thus, by default, CDLA is to be given retroactive effect. The DMV has not demonstrated how the exception to this general rule would apply here. If anything, considerations of fairness and public policy weigh in favor of applying CDLA retroactively in light of Petitioner's fundamental due process right to a fair hearing. The DThe DMV has not presented any argument or showing that the issue resolved in CDLA had ever been determined before, let alone that there was any settled rule on the matter that CDLA changed. Nor has the DMV demonstrated, even assuming that a harmless error analysis is appropriate under the circumstances, that the result would necessarily have been the same had the evidence considered and ruling made by the conflicted hearing officer been disregarded.

The DMV's September 1, 2022 decision to reimpose the suspension of Petitioner's driver's license is ordered set aside.

The court notes no reply papers were received.

Petitioner is to submit a proposed Judgment within five (5) days.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042478  13