Writs of Administrative Mandamus 101: The Nuts and Bolts (CA) [Two-Part Webinar] (Watch Live or via OnDemand Streaming)

Agenda

Tentative Agenda – details will change and more sub-topics will be added. Please check back soon.

Part 1: Tuesday, January 28, 2025
1:00 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.
 

1:00 p.m. – 2:05 p.m.
When is administrative mandate the correct remedy? 

• Difference between administrative and tradition mandate
• Does the APA apply? – How do you determine?
• When is a CEQA challenge brought as a petition for administrative mandate and how does that affect the proceedings
• Types of administrative and quasi-adjudicative decisions subject to administrative mandate, specific examples
• Finality and administrative exhaustion
• Statutes prescribing administrative mandate
• Common mistakes regarding actions not subject to administrative mandate?

2:05 p.m. – 2:15 p.m.
BREAK

2:15 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
Initiating Proceedings 

• Reviewing local rules
• Preparing the petition
• Filing and service procedures and deadlines
• Alternative writ in emergencies
• Stay Requests
  • 1094.5
  • 1085
  • Proceeding in mixed cases seeking administrative mandate and other remedies
• Statutes of Limitations

3:15 p.m. – 3:20 p.m.
BREAK

3:20 p.m. – 4:20 p.m
Administrative Records 

• The function and importance of the record
• When extra-record evidence is permitted
• Discovery in Writ Cases
  • 094.5 generally no
  • 1085
  • When discovery is permitted and public-record requests an alternative
• Topanga and the requirements for a written decision
• Record preparation procedures
  • Agency preparation
  • Peculiarities of different agencies, state versus local
  • Petitioner preparation
• Costs of preparation and recovery of those costs
• Lodging the Reocrd with the Court (Local Rules)
• Augmenting the record (1094.5(e))
• What is a record in a 1085 case?
• Timing considerations

4:20 p.m.- 4:45 p.m.
Break-out rooms for questions related to today’s topic with faculty on specific practice areas (45 min)

• Medical
• Real Estate/Construction
• Education
• Local Tax
• Additional areas TBA 

Part 2: Thursday, January 30, 2025
1:00 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.

1:00 p.m. – 3:10 p.m.
Briefing and Brief Writing 

• Setting a schedule and other procedural limitations
• Drafting the Petition for Writ of Mandate and the Brief on the Merits, including:
  • Brief Writing advice;
  • Strategy for when petitions are combined (CCP § 1094.5 and § 1085]
  • Strategy for attorneys’ fees, Govt. Code § 800 and §1021.5
    • Examples
    • Code sections for different actions (teachers, etc.)
  • Drafting the Opposition Brief on the Merits
• Persuasive brief writing tips
• Additional topics TBA

3:10 p.m. – 3:40 p.m.
Trial/Hearing 

• Presentation of argument and discussion of the record
• Jury trials by court order regarding specified factual disputes?
• Additional topics TBA

3:40 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.
BREAK

3:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
The Ruling, Compliance and the Return

• Written ruling or statement of decision
• The writ
• Service of notice

4:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m
Challenging the Decision on Appeal

• Standard process
• Avoiding waiver in mixed cases of mandate and other remedies with bifurcated trial

Date/Time/Location

Two- Part Webinar

Dates:
Part 1: Tuesday, January 28, 2025
Part 2: Thursday, January 30, 2025

Times for both sessions:
1:00 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. Pacific Time

We will send your Zoom login details and handout materials about a week before your program.

Testimonials

“The program was very insightful… this is a great course to become familiar with concepts.” – Shan Potts, Esq.

“Lots to cover, and very well done.” – Paul A Lax, Esq.

“It was very good – covered many details. Speakers were excellent.” – Gerald Hicks, Esq.

“Very informative and thorough.” – Ilissa Gold, Esq.

“I liked the content.” – Timothy W. Ohara, Esq.

“I thought it was very good.” – Robert Wainess, Esq.

“Excellent program, especially Asimow’s portion. I’m handling a writ for the first time and received an incredible amount of helpful information.” – Michael A. Miller, Esq.

“Pincus programs are always great sources of valuable information and this one is no exception. Also, I always appreciate how willing they are to make the programs and materials accessible.” –  Brian C. Unitt, Esq.

“Excellent. The specificity of the Sacramento examples was very practical and helpful — taking it out of the academic and referring to real nuts-and-bolts helpful pdfs/courts to look to, etc.” – Maha H. Ibrahim, Esq.

“Very informative. Good layout.” – Alaina Dickens, Esq.

“The training was very informative, and I appreciated having 3 speakers go over different aspects of the writs of Administrative Mandamus.  I was satisfied in that I was able to learn about a process I had little knowledge of before. I appreciated the first presenter’s discussion on the basics of writs of administrative mandamus.”

“Very informative. I thought Majam-Simpson did a good job explaining the basics and breaking it down for individuals who may not know a ton about writs. I really liked the PowerPoints and the chart breaking down the APA. I enjoyed when Asimow talked about the applicability of the cases into practice. It was very helpful.” – Amanda Pertusati, Esq.

“Very thorough presentation and useful handouts.” – Brian C. Unitt, Esq.

“I loved the webinar format — you could see the speaker and the slides at the same time, and the tabs to toggle between questions and materials and to download materials from the webinar rather than having to go back and search through emails. I think this is the best CLE webinar format I have encountered so far (between pre and now COVID world, I have taken PLI, CELA, NELA, and various education law professional association CLE offerings online). Content was excellent; very informative.” – Maha H. Ibrahim, Esq.

“Very thorough coverage on an obscure area that I’m working on for first time.” – Michael A. Miller, Esq.

“Very informative. Great overview of issues re: Admin Writs.”  – Alaina Dickens, Esq.

“Very satisfied.” – Adrienne Hahn, Esq.

“This was a really great webinar. I felt it was a good balance of overview with detailed information. I have a much better understanding now of the standards of review, how the APA applies/doesn’t apply, and the basics of writ practice.”

“Good program – well put together.” – Christopher Johns, Esq.

“I thought the program was great, and I appreciate that it was broken up into two days.  I thought the speakers were complimentary of each other, and each presented interesting but different information.” – Maha H. Ibrahim, Esq.

“The program offered both a thousand-foot overview, as well as specific and thought-provoking anecdotes by practicing professionals. Very enlightening.” – Jenna Eyrich, Esq.

“Great course! Covered the basics very clearly and provided helpful practice tips. I represent a lot of clients in writs of administrative mandamus, and I wanted to learn new and helpful insights.” – Mark Allen, Esq.

”Excellent program!” – Harrison D. Taylor, Esq.

“Very well done. Presenters were highly qualified and effective. Loved the practical experience shared with group as well as the law.” – Richard Hansberger, Esq.

“It was a good, thorough program.” – Jeff Wilcox, Esq.

“Speakers were very knowledgeable and articulate.” – Larry Schapiro, Esq.

“This seminar was spot-on.” – Carlo Coppo, Esq.

“Outstanding program – sorely needed!”

“Came to see the Oracle again! Professor Asimow is always relevant to my State work!” – Tim Morgan, Esq.

“My sincere thanks to Pincus Professional Education for the generosity to inner city law center. This training will help us serve our vulnerable clients.” – David Aigboboh, Esq.

“Very helpful.” – Robert Jystad, Esq.

”Excellent presentations!” – Edward J. Johnson, Esq.

“Thank you for offering scholarships for public interest attorneys. We greatly value access to these trainings to improve and grow the practice of our staff attorneys.”

”I attended this seminar to better prepare for responding to Writ of Mandamus petitions by a County agency. This course was extremely informative as to the petitioner’s and respondent’s responsibility.” Kari Martin-Higgins, Litigation Paralegal.

“I appreciated the information on what to do in an Administrative Hearing. It will be useful at the time of writ proceedings.” – Kimberly Smith, Esq.

”Great seminar. Every speaker was fantastic and covered all aspects of this topic in a logical, digestible manner. Very informative.”

“Super informative. Thank you. Lots of concrete tools, suggestions, things I didn’t know I wasn’t aware of. I found it to be incredibly informative.”

“Speakers and content are very good.”

“Very helpful for those of us new to this area of law.”

“Excellent. The speakers were knowledgeable regarding the content, and they effectively and efficiently communicated the information. Great webinar.”

“I find writs of mandate to be confusing and these presentations helped break down some of the issues for me.”

“Overall, the information presented was great.”

“Good; thorough.”

“Educational.”

“I thought it was informative and the presenters were good.”

“Rich in information, knowledgeable speakers.”

“Very knowledgeable, expert speakers.”

“Very Informative program.”

“I thought it was a good and informative session!”

“Excellent.”

“Today was awesome.”

“Broad Coverage of the topics was appreciated.”

“The webinar was great. The material was informative and the speakers were wonderful.”

“Very good. Very useful and lots of good information. Writ practice can be very opaque because the statutes are unclear.”

“Excellent content.”

“Great information.”

“Very informative, I learned a lot.”

“Excellent as always.”

“The program was very helpful. The explanation of the legal issues, combined to practical scenarios, provided a great working understanding of this area of practice.”

“Always excellent.”

“I like that it was spread over two sessions! Great job.  This was a strong overview of civil writ practice in the superior court. Thanks!”

“Pamela Graham and Bryce Gee did a great job.”

“The speakers were good. The information was helpful overview of administrative mandamus.”

“Good background on law and standards of review.”

“Asimow is an excellent presenter – clear, step by step logical progression, good examples, answered questions.”

“All the speakers were great.”

“I learned helpful details for writ review at the trial court and appellate court level.”

“Overall, very useful/informative. Lots of concrete examples and nuances to consider.”

“The explanations and handouts were straightforward and made the writ of administrative mandamus process easier to digest.”

“Presenters were informative.”

“Very informative. Answers to the questions were good.”

“All three were very good in their presentations.  Thorough coverage.”

“Very informative and great tips.”

“The program was very helpful. The instructors were great.”

“Part 2 was helpful regarding the procedures for filing and the hurdles for getting to the hearing.”

“Very thorough.”

“It was very excellent and helpful. I thought the first two presenters were outstanding.”

“The speaker clearly knows what he’s talking about and gave helpful tips.”

“I appreciated how comprehensive the program is. I was satisfied with how extensive and detailed the program was.”

“Great stuff on mandamus challenges to adjudicatory decisions.”

“This program was awesome!  Part II speakers were excellent.  All 3 of them.  In Part I, the third speaker was by far the best, though the second was also helpful.”

“Very worthwhile for our practice.”

“Great speakers!”

“Excellent as usual. Met my expectations.”

“This program was very helpful. The practical types, combined with the supporting authorities, was great.”

“Very good.”

“Excellent panel all around.”

“All speakers were excellent. Completely satisfied.”

“[Speaker did a] really great job moderating & presenting during her session – good use of examples & involving the panel. Very engaging… great at leading the group.”

“Asimow is clearly a wonderful educator & Professor. Knowledgeable, clear, practical, and had an excellent pace.”

“More than satisfied!”

“Great command of materials and presentation of challenging ideas.”

“Good basic course.”

“The speakers provided good practical examples… and were very knowledgeable and competent in their fields.”

“The content was relevant, useful and practical.”

“As a new attorney, this program has me looking forward to future CLE opportunities.”

“Excellent!”

“Good moderator! [Speaker was] great at adding humor to the topic.”

“Good speaker… engaging tone and informative slides.”

“Well organized.”

“Excellent and informative.”

“Great, clear, practical. Really excellent group.”

“Great organization & content.”

Faculty

Gary B. Bell, Esq.
Shareholder
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC

Gary is a Shareholder of the firm and resident in our Sacramento office. He currently serves as City Attorney for the City of Novato, Town Attorney for the Town of Yountville, City Attorney for the City of Auburn, and Assistant City Attorney for the City of Weed, as well as General Counsel for the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Napa County, the Upper Valley Waste Management Agency, the Garden Valley Fire Protection District, the Pine Grove Community Services District, the River Pines Public Utility District, and the First 5 Yuba Commission.

His practice covers all aspects of municipal law and public law, including elections, land use, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), public works contracting, contracts, franchise agreements and franchise fees, joint powers agreements and agencies, solid waste and recycling, cannabis regulation and enforcement, municipal finance law, labor and employment law, constitutional law, code enforcement, conflicts of interest, open meetings and records laws, post-redevelopment issues, and matters involving Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs).

Gary’s current projects for clients include a comprehensive update to a municipal code and policies and procedures manual; negotiating and drafting solid waste franchise agreements; and advice regarding a major development at a municipal airport and several benefit assessments.

Before joining CH&W, Gary served as City Attorney for the City of Firebaugh and advised municipal clients throughout California on a wide range of issues, including counties, cities, school districts, and special districts.

Gary graduated with highest honors from UC Santa Cruz in 2008 with a B.A. in psychology. He received his J.D. in 2012 from the UC Davis School of Law, where he was staff editor of the UC Davis Business Law Journal and a research assistant in constitutional law. While at Davis, Gary worked as a law clerk in the Governor’s Office of Legal Affairs and as a legal extern at the Placer County Superior Court.

Before law school, Gary served as a Senate Fellow for the California State Senate in Sacramento, where he staffed the Senate Local Government Committee and worked on legislation of interest to California’s local governments.

Pamela K. Graham, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC

Pamela Graham is Senior Counsel and a member of Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley’s litigation practice group.  Pamela’s practice covers a wide range of litigation matters, including land use, employment law, municipal finance and public revenues, medical marijuana, and water issues. Her current engagements include defending Goleta Water District and the City of Santa Barbara against challenges under Proposition 218 to their water rates; litigating civil code enforcement actions for the City of Pasadena against illegal medical marijuana dispensaries; defending the City of South Pasadena in a writ of mandate action challenging aspects of the City Council’s approval of a conditional use permit for a hydrogen fueling station; and defending the City of Sierra Madre in a dispute arising from a code enforcement action against an unpermitted home improvement project.

Pamela has broad litigation experience in both state and federal courts, handling all phases of litigation from the pleading stage through appeal. She has successfully defended a number of jury and bench trials.

Prior to joining Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Pamela was an attorney in the commercial litigation workgroups at Irell & Manella LLP for seven years and at Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP for five years. There, Pamela represented a diverse range of clients in the entertainment, retail, and other prominent Southern California industries in a variety of commercial litigation matters, including cases involving business torts, employment disputes, securities fraud, and trademark and copyright litigation.

Pamela earned her law degree magna cum laude from Loyola Law School in 2001. While at Loyola, Pamela served as the Chief Production Editor of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. She was also the recipient of the Dean’s Academic Scholarship from 1999 through 2001, as well as the First Honors Award in legal research and writing, torts, and federal courts. Pamela earned her Bachelor of Arts in journalism and mass communication and political science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1996.

Immediately following law school, Pamela served as a law clerk to the Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew of the United States District Court, Central District of California.

During her legal career, Pamela has advocated pro bono for the rights of children in the foster care system. Partnering with the Alliance for Children’s Rights, Pamela has assisted over 25 families with the finalization of adoptions and advocated for lawful individualized education plans and services. Pamela has also worked with the March of Dimes for the past 10 years, bringing awareness to and fundraising for the fight against premature birth.

Pamela has served as adjunct faculty at Southwestern Law School, where she taught legal analysis, writing and skills, and at California State University, Northridge, where she taught advanced business law.

Adam W. Hofmann, Esq.
Deputy Judicial Appointments Secretary
Office of California Governor Gavin Newsom

Adam serves in the Office of California Governor Gavin Newsom as the Deputy Judicial Appointments Secretary, supporting the work of Judicial Appointments Secretary Luis Céspedes.Adam is an Appellate Specialist, certified by the California Board of Legal Specialization.

Previously, Adam served as the Co-Chair of Hanson Bridgett’s appellate practice group. He represented both public and private clients in civil writs, appeals, and mandate proceedings. He has briefed and argued cases in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and every District Court of Appeal in California and has filed merits briefs in two U.S. Supreme Court cases.

His practice focused on representing cities, counties, and special districts in writs and appeals relating especially relating to public finance and revenue measures, as well as land use, civil rights, employee benefits, labor standards, and election law. He has represented water districts and cities in a range of disputes regarding rates, fees, and charges, including work on some of the leading cases interpreting related provisions of the California Constitution, including the California Supreme Court’s decisions in Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara and City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District.

Outside of the office, Adam has coached regionally and nationally competitive moot-court teams at UC Davis School of Law. He also speaks and writes on questions of local government authority and policy under the California Constitution and is an adjunct professor who taught courses in local government and land use law at the University of San Francisco School of Law. Prior to joining Hanson Bridgett, Adam was also an extern in the chambers of the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins.

Charles Kagay, Esq.
Partner
Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP

Charles Kagay has decades of appellate experience in both California and federal courts. He frequently handles appeals involving complex or novel legal questions, and his cases have addressed first-impression questions of civil procedure and statutory interpretation, including issues related to antitrust law, administrative law, physician credentialing, and anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motions.  He also handles trial court actions of an appellate nature, such as petitions for writs of administrative mandamus and bankruptcy appeals.

He has been certified as California appellate specialist by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California for well over a decade.

He has been selected ten times as a “Northern California SuperLawyer” in appellate law, and he has both a peer rating and client rating of 5 out of 5 from Martindale-Hubbell.

Previously, Charles served as Chief Appellate Counsel in two Independent Counsel probes of cabinet-level officials in Washington, D.C. He also acted as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of California. Charles is a past member of the State Bar of California’s Committee on Appellate Courts, Committee on the Administration of Justice, and Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section’s Executive Committee.

He holds three degrees from Harvard University. He earned his law degree, his graduate degree in public policy, and his undergraduate degrees there.

Gabriel McWhirter, Esq.
Partner
Jarvis Fay LLP

Gabriel represents cities and other public agencies in litigation related to local taxes, fees, assessments, and utility rates, including lawsuits brought under Propositions 13, 26, 62, and 218.  He regularly assists cities in the prosecution of tax enforcement actions; has successfully defended public agencies in a variety of lawsuits raising tax and fee claims; and has significant experience with class action refund cases, an area of growing exposure for public agencies.  His practice also extends to other aspects of local government law, including land use, Public Records Act, Brown Act, constitutional, and administrative law disputes.

Gabriel received his J.D. from UC Law San Francisco (formerly Hastings College of the Law).  Prior to joining Jarvis Fay, he worked as a law clerk in the Complex Litigation Department of the San Francisco Superior Court for two years.  He was recognized by “Super Lawyers” as a Rising Star in Northern California in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 and included in the Northern California “Super Lawyers” list for 2022.  He has drafted several amicus briefs on behalf of the League of California Cities, serves as a member of Cal Cities’ Municipal Finance Committee, and is a contributor to the Finance and Economic Development chapter of the Municipal Law Handbook and Cal Cities’ Proposition 26 and 218 Implementation Guide. 

Kevin D. Siegel, Esq.
Partner
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP

Kevin represents cities and other local agencies regarding a wide range of public law matters, including land use and planning, CEQA and environmental law, inverse condemnation and eminent domain, open meeting and public records, taxes and assessments, elections and initiatives, contracts and torts, and due process and other issues of constitutional law. Kevin provides litigation as well as advisory services. 

Kevin joined Burke, Williams & Sorensen in August 2012. Prior to joining Burke, Kevin was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of Oakland, where he specialized in writs and appeals. Previously, Kevin was a shareholder at McDonough Holland & Allen, where he litigated cases for public agencies across the State, and a Legal Research Attorney for the San Francisco Superior Court, where he advised judges regarding complex litigation. 

Kevin endeavors to reach positive outcomes for his clients, without litigation. But when litigation is necessary, Kevin zealously pursues successful outcomes in court. 

Steven L. Simas, Esq.
Founding Member
Simas & Associates, Ltd.

Mr. Simas is the founding member of the firm and graduated from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration and King Hall, University of California, Davis School of Law with his Juris Doctorate. He served as a Deputy Attorney General (DAG) in the employment law section of the Office of the Attorney General in Sacramento and as the Chief Consultant to the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment in the California Legislature.

In 1997, he received a gubernatorial appointment as counsel to the Public Employment Relations Board where he served for two years. Mr. Simas has also served as a Temporary Judge for the Sacramento Superior Court, Small Claims and Traffic Divisions since 1998, and was the Chair of the Sacramento County Bar Association, Administrative Law Section in 2005 and 2006. He is also a member of the San Luis Obispo County Bar Association, Vice President for the Sacramento Region of the California Academy of Attorneys for Health Care Professionals, and a member of the Claims and Litigation Management Alliance, and the American Veterinary Medical Legal Association.

Mr. Simas is admitted to practice before the United States District Court, Eastern and Central Districts of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. He has three published appellate opinions in the California Supreme Court and courts of appeal. 

Matthew C. Slentz, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC

Matthew is an associate with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley’s litigation practice group and resident in our Pasadena office. Matthew litigates a range of disputes for our public agency clients in both trial and appellate courts, including suits involving inverse condemnation, utility user taxes, Public Records Act disputes, post-redevelopment disputes, rates and fees, government contracts, land use and cannabis regulation.

Before joining CHW, Matthew served as Chief Deputy Public Defender for Stanislaus County.  In this role, Matthew managed a team of attorneys defending misdemeanor cases, including violations of local ordinances, coordinated with city and county officials on nuisance abatement strategies, and helped formulate his agency’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

As a deputy public defender, Matthew conducted 25 jury trials to verdict in felony and misdemeanor cases. He has filed writs and appeals in local and appellate courts and has extensive motion-practice, including Pitchess motions and Cervantes hearings.

While in law school, Matthew worked as a legal assistant for the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Inspector General.  He also served as the Executive Senior Editor for the Georgetown Journal of International Law and on the board of the Equal Justice Foundation.

Matthew graduated magna cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center. At graduation, he received the Alan Goldstein Award for excellence in criminal defense and was inducted into the Order of the Coif. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of California, Irvine, where he was a Regents’ Scholar and graduated with Scholastic Merit.

Fees

Pre-order the Recorded Package of this program when you register for only $99 (download or OnDemand) (attendee special only).

Registration fees are per person.

Individual: $454

Group: $429 per person for 2 or more from the same company pre-registering at the same time.

Government employee/Legal Aid* Rate: $404

Law Student*/Paralegal Rate: $265 (current JD students only)

Your log-in link and a link to download the course handout will be sent out about a week before the program.

Program materials:

Registration includes an electronic copy (.pdf) of your seminar handbook.  The link to download this handout will be emailed to you a few days before the program.  Be sure to check your spam folder if you don’t see it by then.  Please put info@pincusproed.com in your address book to make sure you receive your pdf of the program handbook.

* Law Student Rate is for current law students only. Please provide your law school name and ID # when you register.

** Legal Aid attorneys are those attorneys employed by Legal Aid/non-profit firms.  It does not include attorneys who have their own practice, or are employed by law firms, that volunteer their time for non-profit causes or take on pro-bono cases. It also does not include attorneys who serve on non-profit boards.

Full and partial scholarships may be available to a limited number of Legal Aid attorneys, based upon registration. Please call (877) 858-3848 to discuss or email your request to info@pincusproed.com.

CLE Credits

CA General: This program is approved for 7.0 units of General CLE credit in California.

New York: This program is eligible for credit in New York under New York’s CLE Approved Jurisdiction policy, for 7.0 CLE units. Pincus Professional Education is a CA Accredited Provider, which is a NY approved jurisdiction. See Section 6 of the New York State CLE Board Regulations and Guidelines for further information.