Esther Blaich v. West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Department
195 Cal. App. 4th 1171
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Sol, a tenant, sought rent adjustment against Blaiches under West Hollywood rent stabilization on June 17, 2008.
- Department issued a decision Sept. 24, 2008 adjusting rent and finding overcharge of $12,211.88.
- Blaiches’ appeal to the Rent Stabilization Commission was denied on Nov. 13, 2008.
- Blaiches timely requested preparation of the administrative record under CCP 1094.6; record sent by overnight courier on June 12, 2009 to Blaiches’ counsel.
- Record delivered to Blaiches’ counsel on June 15, 2009; Blaiches filed petition for writ of mandate July 14, 2009.
- Department demurred contending the petition was untimely because service occurred when record was deposited (June 12) rather than upon delivery (June 15). The trial court sustained the demurrer; petition dismissed May 26, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether overnight courier service satisfies 'mailed' under §1094.6(d). | Blaiches contend delivery date (June 15) controls; service by overnight courier is not mailing. | Department contends service was complete when deposited (June 12) under §1013 and §1013c. | Overnight courier is not 'mailed' under §1094.6(d); timeliness reversed; petition timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (statutory interpretation of governing principles inCalifornia appellate review)
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co., 24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000) (de novo review of statutory interpretation; the Legislature’s intent governs)
- Donnellan v. City of Novato, 86 Cal.App.4th 1097 (Cal. App. 2001) (section 1094.6 timing and notice considerations; strict construction)
- Tielsch v. City of Anaheim, 160 Cal.App.3d 576 (Cal. App. 1984) (extra days for mail service not extending 90-day mandate period)
- Herman v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 71 Cal.App.4th 819 (Cal. App. 1999) (statutory timing rules and public policy against forfeiture)
- Holden v. Los Angeles City Ethics Comm., 137 Cal.App.4th 1274 (Cal. App. 2006) (agency decision final date and notice requirements)
- Day v. City of Fontana, 25 Cal.4th 268 (Cal. 2001) (plain language governs when no ambiguity in statute)