APA exception in California

2025(Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 .) Rather, a court 24. reviews such actions to “determine whether the agency acted within the scope of its delegated authority, whether it employed fair procedures, and whether its action is arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in evidentiary support.” (Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. Air Resources Board (1984) 37 Cal.3d 502, 509 .) Here, accounting for the APA exception in section 10736, subdivision (d)(1), the legally required procedures are set out in section 10736, subdivision (b), along with sections 10735.2 and 10735.8.

2025(Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 .) Rather, a court 24. reviews such actions to “determine whether the agency acted within the scope of its delegated authority, whether it employed fair procedures, and whether its action is arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in evidentiary support.” (Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. Air Resources Board (1984) 37 Cal.3d 502, 509 .) Here, accounting for the APA exception in section 10736, subdivision (d)(1), the legally required procedures are set out in section 10736, subdivision (b), along with sections 10735.2 and 10735.8.

2025(Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 .) Rather, a court 24. reviews such actions to “determine whether the agency acted within the scope of its delegated authority, whether it employed fair procedures, and whether its action is arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in evidentiary support.” (Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. Air Resources Board (1984) 37 Cal.3d 502, 509 .) Here, accounting for the APA exception in section 10736, subdivision (d)(1), the legally required procedures are set out in section 10736, subdivision (b), along with sections 10735.2 and 10735.8.

2025(Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 .) Rather, a court 24. reviews such actions to “determine whether the agency acted within the scope of its delegated authority, whether it employed fair procedures, and whether its action is arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in evidentiary support.” (Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. Air Resources Board (1984) 37 Cal.3d 502, 509 .) Here, accounting for the APA exception in section 10736, subdivision (d)(1), the legally required procedures are set out in section 10736, subdivision (b), along with sections 10735.2 and 10735.8.

2025Given these circumstances, even assuming a violation of Government Code section 11347.3, we would not 37 declare the Regulation invalid.11 (See POET, LLC, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 ; cf. Sims, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1067-1070, 1074-75 [combined effect of multiple violations of APA notice and comment provisions constituted substantial failure to comply where effect of violations was to mislead the public about information relied on by agency in developing regulations for carrying out death penalty by lethal injection].) C.

2018(POET I, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 748 .) In its briefing, the Board argues “[t]he standard of review for a purely procedural APA claim is not precisely clear” and, relying primarily on Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1 (Yamaha), argues its conduct fell within its regulatory and rulemaking authority and thus is subject to a deferential review where we accord the Board’s decisions great weight and respect.

2018The breach of distinct duties, however, may cause the same damages (see Cleveland v. Johnson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1315 , 1344-1345, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 772 ), and Barry cites no authority holding that a claim is foreclosed merely because the damages on the claim are identical to the damages on another claim.

2018The breach of distinct duties, however, may cause the same damages (see Cleveland v. Johnson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1315 , 1344-1345, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 772 ), and Barry cites no authority holding that a claim is foreclosed merely because the damages on the claim are identical to the damages on another claim.

2018Even if the correct interpretation can be ascertained in this manner, it "hardly represents the sort of rote or ministerial application of a statute that we believe the Legislature had in mind when enacting an APA exception for the sole 'legally tenable' interpretation of the law." ( Morning Star, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 338-339, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 47 , 132 P.3d 249 [describing the complicated tasks of tracing each of the statutory cross-references].) The letter from Chief Lindley concludes that a prospective purchaser does not qualify for the licensed collector exemption if his or her license do

2018Even if the correct interpretation can be ascertained in this manner, it "hardly represents the sort of rote or ministerial application of a statute that we believe the Legislature had in mind when enacting an APA exception for the sole 'legally tenable' interpretation of the law." ( Morning Star, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 338-339, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 47 , 132 P.3d 249 [describing the complicated tasks of tracing each of the statutory cross-references].) The letter from Chief Lindley concludes that a prospective purchaser does not qualify for the licensed collector exemption if his or her license do

2025Given these circumstances, even assuming a violation of Government Code section 11347.3, we would not 37 declare the Regulation invalid.11 (See POET, LLC, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 ; cf. Sims, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1067-1070, 1074-75 [combined effect of multiple violations of APA notice and comment provisions constituted substantial failure to comply where effect of violations was to mislead the public about information relied on by agency in developing regulations for carrying out death penalty by lethal injection].) C.

2025Given these circumstances, even assuming a violation of Government Code section 11347.3, we would not 37 declare the Regulation invalid.11 (See POET, LLC, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 ; cf. Sims, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1067-1070, 1074-75 [combined effect of multiple violations of APA notice and comment provisions constituted substantial failure to comply where effect of violations was to mislead the public about information relied on by agency in developing regulations for carrying out death penalty by lethal injection].) C.

2021(See Christensen v. Lightbourne, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 771 .) Additionally, we note “the question of ‘reasonable necessity’ generally implicates the agency’s expertise; therefore it receives a much more deferential standard of review.” (Delta Stewardship Council Cases, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 1048.) For all these reasons, we reject plaintiffs’ argument that the breadth of the topics covered in the regulations means they were outside the bounds of the APA exception set forth in section 30900, subdivision (b)(5). 2.

2013The court concluded that despite the large number of comments the CDCR properly addressed, its failure to respond to or summarize approximately 24 comments could not be treated as merely a “technical defect.” “By not summarizing and responding to these comments,” the court stated, “the Department did not give substance to the central APA requirement that all interested persons be afforded a meaningful chance to have their objections heard and to inform the rule-maker’s decision.” The court added that some of the responses to comments the CDCR did make “are incomplete, incorrect, or inadequate,

2013The court concluded that despite the large number of comments the CDCR properly addressed, its failure to respond to or summarize approximately 24 comments could not be treated as merely a “technical defect.” “By not summarizing and responding to these comments,” the court stated, “the Department did not give substance to the central APA requirement that all interested persons be afforded a meaningful chance to have their objections heard and to inform the rule-maker’s decision.” The court added that some of the responses to comments the CDCR did make “are incomplete, incorrect, or inadequate,

2007Indeed, this was described in Quintanar as “standard Department procedure.” (Quintanar, supra, 40 Cal.4th 1, 5 .) Although Chevron did not expressly assert it failed to receive a copy of the report (for which it sought augmentation from the Department’s file) or opportunity to respond, the Department’s supplemental brief to this court (discussing the Supreme Court’s Quintanar opinion) states, “it is true that [Chevron] was not offered the opportunity to submit a posthearing brief to the ultimate decisionmaker . . . .” 7 Thus, Chevron sufficiently made out a prima facie case of an APA violation

2007Indeed, this was described in Quintanar as “standard Department procedure.” (Quintanar, supra, 40 Cal.4th 1, 5 .) Although Chevron did not expressly assert it failed to receive a copy of the report (for which it sought augmentation from the Department’s file) or opportunity to respond, the Department’s supplemental brief to this court (discussing the Supreme Court’s Quintanar opinion) states, “it is true that [Chevron] was not offered the opportunity to submit a posthearing brief to the ultimate decisionmaker . . . .” 7 Thus, Chevron sufficiently made out a prima facie case of an APA violation

2006Citing to our decision in Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 186 , 927 P.2d 296 ] (Tidewater), the Court of Appeal stated that if an invalid “regulation has been correctly applied in an adjudicative proceeding, the application remains valid notwithstanding that the regulation was not promulgated as required by the APA. [Citation.] Accordingly, Morning Star is not entitled to a refund of the fees it paid no matter what the outcome of the APA claim.” The Court of Appeal also rejected Morning Star’s constitutional challenges, concluding that the haza

2006Citing to our decision in Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 186 , 927 P.2d 296 ] (Tidewater), the Court of Appeal stated that if an invalid “regulation has been correctly applied in an adjudicative proceeding, the application remains valid notwithstanding that the regulation was not promulgated as required by the APA. [Citation.] Accordingly, Morning Star is not entitled to a refund of the fees it paid no matter what the outcome of the APA claim.” The Court of Appeal also rejected Morning Star’s constitutional challenges, concluding that the haza

1993We merely hold that on remand, the Department cannot invoke the failure by individual providers to pursue or exhaust their administrative remedies to deny their claims for reimbursement of monies paid pursuant to improper audits.” (UAPD, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d 490, 503-504 .) However, UAPD was a suit by an organization of individuals pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. ( 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 495 .) The court noted that the issues presented did not involve disputed audit findings after a hearing, but rather the Department’s authority to utilize its underground regulations in auditi

1993We merely hold that on remand, the Department cannot invoke the failure by individual providers to pursue or exhaust their administrative remedies to deny their claims for reimbursement of monies paid pursuant to improper audits.” (UAPD, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d 490, 503-504 .) However, UAPD was a suit by an organization of individuals pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. ( 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 495 .) The court noted that the issues presented did not involve disputed audit findings after a hearing, but rather the Department’s authority to utilize its underground regulations in auditi

1990(Grier v. Kizer, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 430 .) We rejected the Department’s contention, recognizing that “[f]utility is an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine.

1990(Grier v. Kizer, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 430 .) We rejected the Department’s contention, recognizing that “[f]utility is an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine.

1987(Pitts v. Perluss, [1962], 58 Cal.2d at p. 834 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 19 , 377 P.2d 83 ].)” (Id., at p. 841.) The Appeals Board contends that the Department did conduct a hearing, although not an APA hearing (referring to the procedure provided by the Administrative Procedure Act, Gov.

1987(Pitts v. Perluss, [1962], 58 Cal.2d at p. 834 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 19 , 377 P.2d 83 ].)” (Id., at p. 841.) The Appeals Board contends that the Department did conduct a hearing, although not an APA hearing (referring to the procedure provided by the Administrative Procedure Act, Gov.