Carsten v. Psychology Examining Committee (1980)

(Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 795 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ] (Carsten).) The petition alleges as follows.

(Carsten) (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [administrative mandate requires beneficial interest]; San Luis Rey Racing, Inc. v. California Horse Racing Bd. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 67, 73 (San Luis) [same, traditional mandate].) “Judicial review is limited to ‘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.’ ([Code Civ.

It must be issued upon the verified petition of the party beneficially interested.' The requirement that a petitioner be `beneficially interested' has been generally interpreted to mean that one may obtain the writ only if the person has *1086 some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large." ( Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal. …

Proc., § 1086.)” (Green v. Obledo, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 144 .) Ordinarily, this requires that a petitioner have “some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large. [Citations.]” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) However, our Supreme Court has “recognized an exception to the general rule ‘ “where the …

Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 912 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 670 , 464 P.2d 126 ], and Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 798 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) [] [We end our quotation from the Court of Appeal opinion.] Although this court has exercised its discretion to address an issue of great importance for the guidance of the trial court in future proceedings involving the same parties, both of whom seek resolution by the court (see, e.g.…

Proc., ง 1086; Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal. Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) Our disposition of other issues makes unnecessary the consideration of defendants' argument that the ruling on the standing of friends was error. [7] Although neither Carolina Biological Supply Company nor Gabriel petitioned for review, and plaintiffs did not identify this ruling as an additional issue for review in their answer to the petitions for review by…

Proc., § 1086.) In Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ], we explained that the “requirement that a petitioner be ‘beneficially interested’ has been generally interpreted to mean that one may obtain the writ only if the person has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.” We quoted from Professor Da…

Code, § 1653.5 provisions pertaining thereto]; Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 797 [individual “neither seeking a psychology license, nor in danger of losing any license” not beneficially interested in challenge to change in psychologist licensing requirements].) B.

(See, e.g., Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 798 [individual member of administrative agency lacked standing to challenge agency’s rulings, in part to avoid fostering internal agency struggles “because 19 of the inevitable damage such lawsuits will inflict upon the administrative process”]; Save the Plastic Bag, at p. 169 [stating it would be improper for a petitioner to “attempt to use CEQA to impose regulatory burdens on a business competitor, wit…

(Cf. Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 799 [considering the cost and threat of litigation in determining standing].) Thus, even assuming public interest standing was otherwise appropriate, the threat of continual litigation is a competing factor overcoming such standing. “[T]he public interest standing doctrine is designed to ensure that government misconduct can be challenged, not that alleged government misconduct will be challenged in every case.”…

Proc., § 367 [“[e]very action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute”]; Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ] [a real party in interest is one who is beneficially interested in the controversy, that is, one who has “some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected”]; Iglesia Evangelica Latina, Inc. v. Southern Pa…

Proc., § 1086.) ‘The requirement that a petitioner be “beneficially interested” has been generally interpreted to mean that one may obtain the writ only if the person has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large. [Citations.] As Professor Davis states the rule: “One who is in fact adversely affected by governmental action should have standing to challenge that …

(Peery, at p. 841.) “The requirement that a petitioner be ‘beneficially interested’ has been generally interpreted to mean that one may obtain the writ only if the person has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) The petitioner’s interest must be direct a…

(Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [demurrer]; Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Assn. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1013 [motion for judgment on the pleadings].) Civil Code section 5975, subdivision (a) declares that, “[u]nless the declaration states otherwise,” a common interest development’s “declaration . . . may be enforced by any owner of a separate interest or by the association, or by both.” But “[a] governing document other than the d…

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 169-172 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 655 P.2d 306 ]; Municipal Court v. Superior *466 Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 957, 960-964 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 182 ]; California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16, 22 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Actions, §§ 73-74, pp. 132-135.) To have standing, a party must be beneficially interested in the controversy; t…

Proc., § 1086.) A petitioner is beneficially interested if he or she has “ ‘some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.’ ” (Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 165, quoting Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) Beneficially interested parties “are ‘ “in fact adversely affected by …

Proc., § 1086.) “The requirement that a petitioner be ‘beneficially interested’ has been generally interpreted to mean that one may obtain the writ only if the person has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large. [Citations.] As Professor Davis states the rule: ‘One who is in fact adversely affected by governmental action should have standing to challenge that …

(Rakestraw, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 44 .) A writ petition that reveals a lack of standing to sue “is vulnerable to a general demurrer on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action.” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ]; see Code Civ.

(Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) Stated differently, the writ must be denied if the petitioner will gain no direct benefit from its issuance and suffer no direct detriment if it is denied.” (Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1232 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 740 ].) In this instance, we fail to see how defendants can seriously argue plaintiff Doe does not have a …

(See, e.g., Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ]; Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19 [ 108 P.2d 906 ]; O’Flaherty v. Belgum (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1095 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 286 ].) As discussed, that is not the case here.

(Holbrook v. City of Santa Monica (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1257 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 ]; Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 797-798 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) Although it is true that Galbiso lacked standing as a member of the general public to sue OPUD for Brown Act violations, since she served on its board of directors, we do not believe that she asserted the third cause of action merely as a member of the general public.

Proc., § 1086.) Our Supreme Court has held, "The requirement that a petitioner be `beneficially interested' has been generally interpreted to mean that one may obtain the writ only if the person has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large." ( Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ]; accord, Environmen…

Proc., § 367.) “Generally, ‘the person possessing the right sued upon by reason of the substantive law is the real party in interest.’ [Citations.]” (Del Mar Beach Club Owners Assn. v. Imperial Contracting Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 898, 906 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 886 ].) To have standing, a party must be beneficially interested in the controversy, and have “some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected.” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Co…

Proc., § 430.10; Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ]; Parker v. Bowron (1953) 40 Cal.2d 344, 351 [ 254 P.2d 6 ]; Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19 [ 108 P.2d 906 ]; CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 273, 287 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 441 ]; O’Flaherty v. Belgum (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1095 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 286 ].) Standing is a question of law subject to our independent review.

Proc., § 430.10; Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ]; Parker v. Bowron (1953) 40 Cal.2d 344, 351 [ 254 P.2d 6 ]; Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19 [ 108 P.2d 906 ]; CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 273, 287 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 441 ]; O'Flaherty v. Belgum (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1095 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 286 ].) Standing is a question of law subject to our independent review.…

(Doctor’s Medical Laboratory, Inc. v. Connell (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 891, 896 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 829 ]; California Homeless & Housing Coalition v. Anderson (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 450, 458 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 639 ].) “While section 1983 of 42 United States Code requires violation of a private right, privilege, or immunity to confer standing, section 1085 of the California Code of Civil Procedure creates a broad right to issuance of a writ of mandate ‘to compel performance of an act …

Proc., § 1060.) Courts will decline to resolve lawsuits that do not present a justiciable controversy, and justiciability “involves the intertwined criteria of ripeness and standing.” (California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16, 22 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ].) *814 “As a general principle, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudic…

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 169-172 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 655 P.2d 306 ]; Municipal Court v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 957, 960-964 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 182 ]; California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16, 22 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Actions, §§ 73-74, pp. 132-135.) To have standing, a party must be beneficially interested in the controversy; that i…

(See Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796-797 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) That said, we are mindful this case involves an important issue related to California’s medical marijuana laws.

Guard (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 297, 315 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 154 ], quoting Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) Connerly does not allege any facts showing that he has suffered or will suffer particularized injury as a result of the enforcement or threatened enforcement of Government Code section 8315.

The Court of Appeal observed that “[ujnder the circumstances of this case, whether Pro-NFZ had a ‘direct interest’ sufficient to make it a real party below, and whether it has a ‘beneficial interest’ to permit it to file a petition for writ of mandate with this court, is essentially the same question resolved by a single analysis.” (Sonoma County Nuclear Freeze Zone, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d at p. 174 .) Quoting our definition in Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 C…

Proc., § 1086), i.e., have “some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) This standard, we have stated, “is equivalent to the federal ‘injury in fact’ test, which requires a party to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has suffered ‘an invasion of a…

“The requirement that a petitioner be ‘beneficially interested’ has been generally interpreted to mean that one may obtain the writ only if the person has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large. [Citations.]” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) A beneficial interest is “some special interest t…

Proc., § 367.) Where the complaint shows the plaintiff does not possess the substantive right or standing to prosecute the action, “it is vulnerable to a general demurrer on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action.” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ]; Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1004 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 544 ].) The second amended complaint alleges “[defendant entered int…

(Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ] [a “beneficial interest” means “some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large”].) Petitioner would, in any event, be entitled to oppose the receiver’s motion as an individual.

(Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) The purpose of this section is to protect a defendant from harassment by other claimants on the same demand.

(Cf. Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 799-802 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) Even assuming that the type of conduct alleged in the complaint constitutes a violation of the free speech clause by defendants, we conclude that money damages simply are not an appropriate remedy.

A writ of mandate may be issued to a petitioner who is “beneficially interested”—that is, who “has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1979) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ])—or to any citizen “ ‘ “where the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforc…

(Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796-797 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ], citing Davis, 3 Administrative Law Treatise (1958) Standing, § 22.18, p. 291.) “The purpose of a standing requirement is to ensure that the courts will decide only actual controversies between parties with a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the dispute to press their case with vigor.” *915 (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 439 [ 261 …

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 169-172 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 655 P.2d 306 ]; Municipal Court v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 957, 960-964 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 182 ]; California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16, 22 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Actions, §§ 73-74, pp. 132-135.) To have standing, a party must be beneficially interested in the controversy; that i…

Proc., § 1086; Grant v. Board of Medical Examiners (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 820, 827 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 270 ].) “Beneficially interested” generally means the petitioner “has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) In San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection Dist. v…

(Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) Stated differently, the writ must be denied if the petitioner will gain no direct benefit from its issuance and suffer no direct detriment if it is denied.

Proc., § 1086), i.e., have “some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) This standard, as the Commission points out, is equivalent to the federal “injury in fact” test, which requires a party to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has suffered “an …

(Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 798 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) Disposition The judgment is reversed.

(Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 798, 799 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) Here, competing considerations are embodied in Assembly Bill No. 1297, the Trial Court Realignment and Efficiency Act, which was enacted in 1991.

Proc., § 1086.) Under this principle, relief is unavailable “ ‘where the plaintiff fails to show that it will subserve or protect some right or interest of his. . . [or] “where it is apparent that the relator has no direct interest in the action sought to be coerced, and that no benefit can accrue to him from its performance.” ’ ” (Parker v. Bowron (1953) 40 Cal.2d 344, 351 [ 254 P.2d 6 ]; see Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 451 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 807 P.2d 106…

It must be issued upon the verified petition of the party beneficially interested.” (Italics added.) “The requirement that a petitioner be ‘beneficially interested’ has been generally interpreted to mean that one may obtain the writ only if the *352 person has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793,…

II Discussion A. Commission’s Standing to Sue Code of Civil Procedure section 1086 provides that a writ of mandate “must be issued upon the verified petition of the party beneficially interested.” “The requirement that a petitioner be ‘beneficially interested’ has been generally interpreted to mean that one may obtain the writ only if the person has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in co…

"As a broad proposition, state taxpayers have standing to challenge the legality of the expenditure of public funds by any governmental agency . . . and, unlike federal courts, most states permit such citizen-taxpayer suits even on nonfiscal issues." Carsten v. Psychology Examining Comm. of the Bd. of Medical Quality Assurance, 614 P.2d 276, 279 (Cal. 1980) (citing 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 245, 249 (1958)).

“The requirement that a petitioner be ‘beneficially interested’ has been generally interpreted to mean that one may obtain the writ only if the person has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.” (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ].) A petitioner must be able to plead and prove that it will be, …