Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP01636, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP01636    Hearing Date: July 12, 2024    Dept: 82

Ida P. Fung v. Steve Gordon, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles

Case No. 24STCP01636

Ex Parte Application for Stay of Driving Revocation

            Petitioner Ida P. Fung (“Petitioner”) filed this petition for writ of mandate against Steve Gordon, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles (the “DMV”), in his official capacity (“Respondent”).  On or about October 11, 2021, Petitioner’s neighbor reported to police that “she is in fear of her safety” because Petitioner “attempted to back into someone.”  (See AT 174.)  Petitioner’s neighbor reported that she “has complained about [Petitioner] almost hitting people [with] her vehicle.”  (See ibid.)  Accordingly, the DMV suspended Petitioner’s driver’s license, effective October 18, 2021.

            Petitioner was charged with a misdemeanor under Vehicle Code section 20002, but the case was dismissed in the interests of justice under California Penal Code section 1385.  Nevertheless, the DMV refused to reinstate Petitioner’s driver’s license because “[she] was unsuccessful on the drive knowledge exam and did not meet the department’s vision standards.”  (AT 005.)  Specifically:

“[Petitioner] failed to demonstrate her ability to drive safely and skillfully on 3/9/2023 due to multiple critical driving errors observed by the examiner.  [Petitioner’s] critical driving error included dangerous maneuvers, lane violation, and striking the curb.  [Petitioner] merged without looking over shoulder to clear blind spot or check mirrors for traffic.  [Petitioner] merged into a two-way left turn lane without looking over shoulder or mirrors.  [Petitioner] allowed car to drift into a two-way left turn lane without looking over shoulder or mirrors entering the freeway.  [Petitioner] hit the curb making a right turn too short.  [Petitioner] blocked the intersection for a longer time necessary to complete left turn.  [Petitioner] drove too fast through the evaluation, made wide or short turns slow.”

(Ibid.)   The driver safety officer concluded: “[Petitioner’s] ability to operate a motor vehicle safely is affected because of a lack of skill . . . .”  (Ibid.)  The driving safety officer found: “Should [Petitioner] be allowed to continue to operate a motor vehicle with a lack of skill, she may cause or contribute to a traffic collision.”  (Ibid.)  The driving safety officer also found: “[Petitioner] would be putting herself and the motoring public at risk,” concluding “the suspension on record is warranted at this time.”  (Ibid.) 

            Petitioner filed the instant petition on May 21, 2024, and now seeks to stay the revocation of her driver’s license.  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the court “may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision pending the judgment of the court….”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(g).)  “However, no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest.”  (Ibid.)  The administrative stay provision of Section 1094.5(g) “requires the superior court to weigh the public interest in each individual case.” (Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 176, 187.) 

            In this case, Petitioner’s driver’s license has been suspended for almost three years.  Accordingly, Petitioner is not seeking a “stay” of any DMV decision; the decision was made long ago.  Rather, Petitioner effectively seeks reinstatement of her license in advance of trial, which the court has no authority to order under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(g).  Even if the court construed this ex parte application as a motion for a preliminary mandatory injunction, Petitioner does not qualify for relief.  “A preliminary mandatory injunction is rarely granted . . . [and] is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established.”  (Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 618, 625, citations and quotations omitted.)  Petitioner has not demonstrated the requisite likelihood of success on the merits.

            Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner’s ex parte application is denied.  The court’s clerk shall provide notice.