Ruling on Submitted Matter

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.December 28, 2016

123 23561 378401583 562400020067960 113454 21905 89 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MINUTE ORDER TIME: 04:33:00 PM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Rocky Baio COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA DATE: 10/31/2017 DEPT: 20 CLERK: Art Alvara REPORTER/ERM: CASE NO: 56-2016-00490551-CU-WM-VTA CASE TITLE: Hessiani vs. Unemployment Insurance CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Writ of Mandate EVENT TYPE: Ruling on Submitted Matter STOLO APPEARANCES STOLO Stolo The Court, having previously taken the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus under submission, now rules as follows: Petitioner, Ashley Hessiani ("Ms. Hessiani"), filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus seeking an order from the superior court directing respondent, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ("CUIAB"), to reverse its ruling of June 28, 2016, which affirmed the decision of the EDD, and Administrative Law Judge K.C. Ling, denying her claim for disability benefits. After a review of the record and the relevant legal authorities, Ms. Hessiani's petition for a writ of mandate is denied. In January 2016, Ms. Hessiani applied for disability benefits through the EDD. In March 2016, the application was denied because of the inability of the EDD examiner to verify Ms. Hessiani's earnings in the 4th quarter of 2014. Ms. Hessiani filed a timely appeal and participated in a lengthy hearing before Administrative Law Judge K.C. Ling. By order, dated May 2, 2016, Judge Ling affirmed the decision of the EDD examiner. Ms. Hessiani then exercised her right to a further appeal before the CUIAB, which by order dated on June 28, 2016, affirmed the ruling of Judge Ling. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivisions (b) and (c), provides: "(b) The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. ¶ (c) Where it is claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. In all other cases, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record." The standard of review that this Court is to apply in an administrative writ proceedings is as follows: "'Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 provides a trial court reviewing the decision of an administrative VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 10/31/2017 Page 1 DEPT: 20 CASE TITLE: Hessiani vs. Unemployment Insurance CASE NO: 56-2016-00490551-CU-WM-VTA agency exercises its independent judgment in reviewing the evidence and that an "abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c).) Under the independent review standard, the trial court may weigh the credibility of witnesses. (San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence (Lampedusa) (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1461 [124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 320].) "Though the trial court is required to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, it is to give a "strong presumption of correctness" to the Commission's findings. (Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 817 [85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 696, 977 P.2d 693] (Fukuda); see City of Pleasanton v. Board of Administration (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 522, 536 [149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 729] (City of Pleasanton); Breslin v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1064, 1077-1078 [55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 14].) In a proceeding on a writ of administrative mandate, "the party challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence." (Fukuda, at p. 817; see Breslin, at p. 1077 ["In the trial court, the [petitioners] had the burden of proof to show that the [agency's] decision was not supported by the weight of the evidence-that is, that the decision was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence."].) Independent judgment review "'does not mean that the preliminary work performed by the administrative board in sifting the evidence and in making its findings is wasted effort. ... [I]n weighing the evidence the courts can and should be assisted by the findings of the board.'" (Fukuda, at p. 812; see Mason v. Office of Admin. Hearings (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1130 [108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 102].) "In Fukuda, the California Supreme Court explained: "'The findings of a board where formal hearings are held should and do come before the courts with a strong presumption in their favor based primarily on the [rebuttable] presumption contained in section 1963, subsection 15, of the Code of Civil Procedure [currently Evidence Code section 664] "[t]hat official duty has been regularly performed." Obviously, considerable weight should be given to the findings of experienced administrative bodies made after a full and formal hearing ... .'" (Fukuda, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 812; see Mason v. Office of Admin. Hearings, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1130.) Such a procedure "'gives the reviewing court the power and duty of exercising an independent judgment as to both facts and law, but contemplates that ... the burden shall rest upon the petitioner to support his challenge affirmatively, competently, and convincingly. In other words, rarely, if ever, will a board determination be disturbed unless the petitioner is able to show a jurisdictional excess, a serious error of law, or an abuse of discretion on the facts.'" (Fukuda, at p. 814; see Mason, at p. 1131.) "The strong presumption of correctness, however, is not the same as a substantial evidence review and does not relieve the trial court of its obligation to make its own findings. "[T]he presumption provides the trial court with a starting point for review-but it is only a presumption, and may be overcome. Because the trial court ultimately must exercise its own independent judgment, that court is free to substitute its own findings after first giving due respect to the agency's findings. ... [T]here is no inconsistency in a rule requiring that a trial court begin its review with a presumption of the correctness of administrative findings, and then, after affording the respect due to these findings, exercise independent judgment in making its own findings." (Fukuda, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 818-819.)'" (San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence (Jesperson), 214 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1140.) In her petition for writ of mandate, Ms. Hessiani argues first that the CUIAB erred in finding that she had not met her burden of proof in respect to her earnings for the 4th quarter of 2014; and second, that even if it is true that she didn't met her burden of proof, her inability to provide the necessary proof was because she was not given sufficient time to provide proper proof and, therefore, she was denied a fair trial. This Court disagrees with both premises. In respect to the issue of proof of earnings, the record, as outlined in the rulings by Judge Ling and the CUIAB, is overwhelming that Ms. Hessiani failed to provide the necessary proof to establish her earnings. None of the EDD personnel could find any records in respect to Ms. Hessiani's earnings for the 4th quarter of 2014. Ms. Hessiani herself was unable to provide a single properly authenticated VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 10/31/2017 Page 2 DEPT: 20 CASE TITLE: Hessiani vs. Unemployment Insurance CASE NO: 56-2016-00490551-CU-WM-VTA document in support of her claim that she had earnings for the 4th quarter of 2014. No canceled checks, no payroll records, no verification that the tax documents she brought to the hearing were ever filed with the taxing authorities. In response to certain pertinent questions, Ms. Hessiani was at times equivocal or refused to answer. Based upon this Court's independent review of the administrative record, this Court finds that Ms. Hessiani failed to meet her burden of proof on the issue of earnings and the decision of the CUIAB is affirmed. Similarly, Ms. Hessiani's claim that she was not afforded procedural due process and a fair hearing is without merit. Applying the standard of review outlined above, this Court finds that, as a matter of law, Ms. Hessiani was afforded procedural due process and a fair hearing. Ms. Hessiani's claim was denied because of her failure to produce any authenticated credible evidence of her earnings for the 4th quarter of 2014. The record reflects that the first bullet point on the notice of hearing, dated April 12, 2016, advised Ms. Hessiani to bring "any additional documents" in support of her claim to the April 26, 2016, hearing scheduled before Judge Ling. At the conclusion of the hearing, it was explained to Ms. Hessiani by Judge Ling that her documentation appeared to be insufficient and that he would "keep open" the record to give her additional time to provide supporting documentation. Although additional documentation was provided, there was still a failure to provide properly authenticated credible evidence in respect to the 4th quarter of 2014. Even then, the CUIAP, in its "Acknowledgment Letter," dated May 20, 2016, invited Ms. Hessiani to provide additional documentation. Again, Ms. Hessiani provided additional documentation, but just as with the documentation provided to Judge Ling no credible evidence was presented to the CUIAP to prove any earnings for the 4th quarter of 2014. Based upon the foregoing, the petition for writ of administrative mandamus is denied. Counsel for respondent shall submit a judgment consistent with this ruling. Clerk to provide notice. STOLO VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 10/31/2017 Page 3 DEPT: 20