exhaustion doctrine in California

2025(Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280 , 292–293.) The exhaustion requirement applies to internal administrative remedies that are provided in county civil service rules.

2023Respondent asserts that appellant cannot challenge Dr. Torres’s authority now after failing to do so in administrative proceedings. “ ‘[A] party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts.’ ” (Williams & Fickett v. County of Fresno (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1258, 1267 .) The exhaustion doctrine is a fundamental rule of procedure and “not a matter of judicial discretion.” (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 293 .) “[A]bsent an exhaustion rule, a litigant might have an incentive to ‘sandbag.’ ” (Hill RHF Housing Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2021

2024By contrast, in those cases appropriate for judicial resolution, as where the facts support a claim for compensatory or punitive damages, the exhaustion requirement may nevertheless lead to settlement and serve to eliminate the unlawful practice or mitigate damages and, in any event, is not an impediment to civil suit, in that the [DFEH’s] practice evidently is to issue a right-to- sue letter [citation] at the employee’s request as a matter of course [citations].” ( Rojo, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 83-84, fn. omitted.) To effectuate these purposes, the administrative exhaustion requirement is sat

2024Code, § 12960, subd. (c); see also Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 83 (Rojo) [“exhaustion of the FEHA administrative remedy is a precondition to bringing a civil suit on a statutory cause of action” (italics omitted)].) In Rojo, our Supreme Court explained the purpose of the FEHA exhaustion doctrine: “In cases appropriate for administrative resolution, the exhaustion requirement serves the important policy interests embodied in the act of resolving disputes and eliminating unlawful employment practices by conciliation [citation], as well as the salutory goals of easing the burden on the co

2021Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 391 ; Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 86 (Rojo); Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 465, 476 (Westlake Community Hosp.).) Additionally, absent an exhaustion rule, a litigant might have an incentive to “sandbag” — in other words, to “avoid securing an agency decision that might later be afforded deference” by sidestepping an available administrative remedy.

2021Campbell, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 323, 333 [requiring exhaustion notwithstanding the unavailability of money damages through an administrative remedy]; Westlake Community Hosp., supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 476 .) When the relevant extrajudicial procedures are so clearly wanting, the exhaustion rule does not come into play because it has been determined there is no genuine remedy to exhaust.

2025Citing Coachella, supra, 35 Cal.4th 1072 , Plaintiffs argue they fall within an exception to the exhaustion requirement because Cal/OSHA did not have jurisdiction to issue the citations. “[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies may be excused when a party claims that ‘the agency lacks authority, statutory or otherwise, to resolve the underlying dispute between the parties.’” (Id. at pp. 1081–1082.) “In deciding whether to entertain a claim that an agency lacks jurisdiction before the agency proceedings have run their course, a court considers three factors: the injury or burden that exhaustion

2025“In general, a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts.” (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080 .) The exhaustion doctrine “ ‘is principally grounded on concerns favoring administrative autonomy (i.e., courts should not interfere with an agency determination until the agency has reached a final decision) and judicial efficiency (i.e., overworked courts should decline to intervene in an administrative dispute unless absolutely necessary).’ ” (Ibid.) The doctrine “ ‘ “is not a

2023(City of Grass Valley v. Cohen (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 567, 577 .) Our Supreme Court “ha[s] described exhaustion of administrative remedies as ‘a jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the courts.’ ” (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080 .) “ ‘The exhaustion doctrine is principally grounded on concerns favoring administrative autonomy (i.e., courts should not interfere with an agency determination 13 until the agency has reached a final decision) and judicial efficiency (i.e., overworked courts should declin

2022(See Campbell, at p. 322; Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation 19 Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 489, 501 ; San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 748 .) “ ‘Even when the administrative remedy may not resolve all issues or provide the precise relief requested by a plaintiff, the exhaustion doctrine is still viewed with favor “because it facilitates the development of a complete record that draws on administrative expertise and promotes judicial efficiency.” ’ ” (Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com., at p. 501.)

2017Ct. (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 977 , 982, 88 Cal.Rptr. 533 .) "There are several reasons for the exhaustion of remedies doctrine. 'The basic purpose for the exhaustion doctrine is to lighten the burden of overworked courts in cases where administrative remedies are available and are as likely as the judicial remedy to provide the wanted relief.' [Citation.] Even where the administrative remedy may not resolve all issues or provide the precise relief requested by a plaintiff, the exhaustion doctrine is still viewed with favor 'because it facilitates the development of a complete record that draws on a

2017Ct. (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 977 , 982, 88 Cal.Rptr. 533 .) "There are several reasons for the exhaustion of remedies doctrine. 'The basic purpose for the exhaustion doctrine is to lighten the burden of overworked courts in cases where administrative remedies are available and are as likely as the judicial remedy to provide the wanted relief.' [Citation.] Even where the administrative remedy may not resolve all issues or provide the precise relief requested by a plaintiff, the exhaustion doctrine is still viewed with favor 'because it facilitates the development of a complete record that draws on a

2021Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 391 ; see also Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 83 [explaining that the exhaustion doctrine advances policy interests such as ‘easing the burden on the court system, maximizing the use of administrative agency expertise and capability to order and monitor corrective measures, and providing a more economical and less formal means of resolving [a] dispute’]; Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1232, 1240 [observing that the exhaustion doctrine ‘ “facilitates the development of a complete record that draws on administrativ

2021Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 391 ; see also Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 83 [explaining that the exhaustion doctrine advances policy interests such as ‘easing the burden on the court system, maximizing the use of administrative agency expertise and capability to order and monitor corrective measures, and providing a more economical and less formal means of resolving [a] dispute’]; Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1232, 1240 [observing that the exhaustion doctrine ‘ “facilitates the development of a complete record that draws on administrativ

2025Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The exhaustion of administrative remedies “is a term of art that refers to the requirement that administrative remedies be pursued as a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking judicial relief from an administrative action.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1148 .) “When seeking relief under traditional mandamus, the exhaustion requirement speaks to whether there exists an adequate legal remedy.” (Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 620 ; see Code Civ.

2025Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The exhaustion of administrative remedies “is a term of art that refers to the requirement that administrative remedies be pursued as a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking judicial relief from an administrative action.” (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1148 .) “When seeking relief under traditional mandamus, the exhaustion requirement speaks to whether there exists an adequate legal remedy.” (Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 620 ; see Code Civ.

1991Those exceptions are “ ‘when the subject matter of the controversy lies outside the administrative agency’s jurisdiction, when pursuit of an administrative remedy would result in irreparable harm, when the administrative agency cannot grant an adequate remedy, and when the aggrieved party can positively state what the administrative agency’s decision in his particular case would be.’ ” (County of Contra Costa v. State of California (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 62, 73 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 750 ], quoting Ogo Associates v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 830, 834 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 761 ].) The mere bringi

1991Those exceptions are “ ‘when the subject matter of the controversy lies outside the administrative agency’s jurisdiction, when pursuit of an administrative remedy would result in irreparable harm, when the administrative agency cannot grant an adequate remedy, and when the aggrieved party can positively state what the administrative agency’s decision in his particular case would be.’ ” (County of Contra Costa v. State of California (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 62, 73 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 750 ], quoting Ogo Associates v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 830, 834 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 761 ].) The mere bringi

2021Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 391 ; see also Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 83 [explaining that the exhaustion doctrine advances policy interests such as ‘easing the burden on the court system, maximizing the use of administrative agency expertise and capability to order and monitor corrective measures, and providing a more economical and less formal means of resolving [a] dispute’]; Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1232, 1240 [observing that the exhaustion doctrine ‘ “facilitates the development of a complete record that draws on administrativ

2021Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 391 ; see also Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 83 [explaining that the exhaustion doctrine advances policy interests such as ‘easing the burden on the court system, maximizing the use of administrative agency expertise and capability to order and monitor corrective measures, and providing a more economical and less formal means of resolving [a] dispute’]; Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1232, 1240 [observing that the exhaustion doctrine ‘ “facilitates the development of a complete record that draws on administrativ

2019(Coalition for 21 Student Action v. City of Fullerton (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1197 .) The exhaustion requirement is not a matter of judicial discretion; it is a jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the courts.

2017Ed. Bar 2017), § 23.98 (Kostka & Zischke); Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385 , 1394, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 79 ( Mani Bros. ).) *116 "Even where the administrative remedy may not resolve all issues or provide the precise relief requested by a plaintiff, the exhaustion doctrine is still viewed with favor 'because it facilitates the development of a complete record that draws on administrative expertise and promotes judicial efficiency.' [Citation.] It can serve as a preliminary administrative sifting process [citation], unearthing the relevant evidence a

2022CTA/NEA v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 446, 464, fn. 11 [“An appellate court does not ‘inform the litigants what the opinion of the court is upon a question that has not been raised in the action, or what its decision would be if the question should be presented’ ”]; see also Crown Oil Corp. v. Superior Court (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 604, 613 [appellate review of demurrer limited to issue(s) raised on demurrer].) Whether plaintiffs’ substantive claims have merit is not before us, and we express no opinion on such matters.13 12 We also reject plaintiffs’ assertion that rat

2022CTA/NEA v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 446, 464, fn. 11 [“An appellate court does not ‘inform the litigants what the opinion of the court is upon a question that has not been raised in the action, or what its decision would be if the question should be presented’ ”]; see also Crown Oil Corp. v. Superior Court (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 604, 613 [appellate review of demurrer limited to issue(s) raised on demurrer].) Whether plaintiffs’ substantive claims have merit is not before us, and we express no opinion on such matters. 13 12 We also reject plaintiffs’ assertion that ra

2024(E.g., California Water Impact Network v. Newhall County Water Dist. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1485 [citing multiple authorities that so hold].) “ ‘The exhaustion doctrine is principally grounded on concerns favoring administrative autonomy (i.e., courts should not interfere with an agency determination until the agency has reached a final decision) and judicial efficiency (i.e., overworked courts should decline to intervene in an administrative dispute unless absolutely necessary).’ [Citation.] ‘ “Even where the administrative remedy may not resolve all issues or provide the precise relief

2022Similar to the public agency in Porterville, the Board here, for the reasons stated above, did not have “the opportunity to receive and respond to articulated factual issues and legal theories before its actions [were] subjected to judicial review.” ( Porterville, supra, 157 Cal.App.4h at p. 910.) And Browning, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at p. 860 is distinguishable because it did not address the exhaustion doctrine in the context of an appeals process made available by an agency. 15 administrative remedies.5 One exception to the exhaustion doctrine exists “where it appears the administrative board

2023Although the exhaustion doctrine has been described as “jurisdictional,” (Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. County of Placer (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 577, 589 [“the requirement of exhaustion is a jurisdictional prerequisite, not a matter of judicial discretion”]), in this context, it simply means that the alleged insufficiency must have been “presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period.” (§ 21177, subd. (a).) Here, Respondents contend the “laundry list of concerns” that Appellants presented during the public comment period did not include a s

2021Tahoe Vista guides this analysis, as the court therein addressed what was then an issue of first impression—“whether a party who raises an issue in the first hearing provided on a project but fails to raise that same issue in an administrative appeal remains free to raise that issue in a subsequent court challenge under section 21177.”4 (Tahoe Vista, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 589 .) Following an extensive discussion of both section 21177 and the exhaustion doctrine, the court concluded “section 21177 and the exhaustion requirement, objections a party seeks to raise in a CEQA action must have

2023Before seeking judicial review a party must show that he has made a full presentation to the administrative agency upon all issues of the case and at all prescribed stages of the administrative proceedings.” (Bleeck v. State Board of Optometry (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 415, 432 ; see Tejon Real Estate, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 149, 156 [controversy not ripe for adjudication “ ‘ “until the administrative process is completed and the agency makes a final decision that results in a direct and immediate impact on the parties” ’ ”].) The exhaustion requirement applies even when

2018A party generally must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking relief in court. ( Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072 , 1080, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 234 , 112 P.3d 623 ( Coachella ); Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280 , 292, 109 P.2d 942 ( Abelleira ).) "[T]he rule is *779 that where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act." ( Abelleira , at p. 292, 109 P.2d 942 .) The exhaustion

2023When “‘an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act.’” (Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, 321 .) “Exhaustion of administrative remedies is ‘a jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the courts.’” (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70 , italics omitted.) The rule applies “to actions seeking injunctive relief [citations].” (People v. Coit Ranch, Inc. 17 (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 52, 58 .) We independently review whether the exhaustion doc

2022Where a petitioner seeks a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, “ ‘ “[i]f an administrative remedy is available and has 2 Section 22-21.5, subdivision (b) provides that encroachment permit decisions “may be appealed to the City Council by submitting a letter to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the decision.” 6 not yet been exhausted, an adequate remedy exists and the petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief.” ’ ” (Pich v. Lightbourne (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 480, 491 .) “ ‘The exhaustion doctrine “is . . . a fundamental rule of procedure” [citation] under w

2021(See, e.g., Green v. City of Oceanside (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 212, 222 [our Supreme Court “ma[de] it abundantly clear that the exhaustion doctrine does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction”; “It is ‘jurisdictional’ only in the sense that a court’s failure to apply the rule in a situation where the issue has been properly raised can be corrected by the issuance of a writ of prohibition”]; Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1347 [“‘[T]he administrative exhaustion requirement does not implicate the court’s subject matter jurisdiction’”]; Planning & Conservation L

2021(See, e.g., Green v. City of Oceanside (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 212, 222 [our Supreme Court “ma[de] it abundantly clear that the exhaustion doctrine does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction”; “It is ‘jurisdictional’ only in the sense that a court’s failure to apply the rule in a situation where the issue has been properly raised can be corrected by the issuance of a writ of prohibition”]; Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1347 [“‘[T]he administrative exhaustion requirement does not implicate the court’s subject matter jurisdiction’”]; Planning & Conservation L

2026(City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2010) 49 Cal.4th 597, 609 [“The exhaustion doctrine has certain exceptions”].) But appellant provides only conclusory arguments for the application of these exceptions to her case.

2023If he is required to pursue his administrative remedies, the courts may never have to intervene”].) “The exhaustion doctrine has certain exceptions. [Citation.] The doctrine does not apply when the administrative remedy is inadequate. [Citation.] For example, it does not apply 8 when the administrative procedure is too slow to be effective [citation], or when irreparable harm would result by requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief [citations], or when it is clear that seeking administrative remedies would be futile [citation].” (City of San Jose v. Operat

2022“We therefore apply the de novo standard of review and give no deference to the trial court’s ruling.” (Wallich’s Ranch Co. v. Kern County Citrus Pest Control Dist. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 878, 883 ; see also Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 865, 873 [“We apply a de novo standard of review to the legal question of whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies in a given case.”].) Howard asserts he is excused from compliance with the exhaustion doctrine under the public interest exception set forth in Environmental Law Fund, Inc. v. Town

2018The requirement of exhaustion of available administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite and not a matter of judicial discretion. ( Environmental Law Fund, Inc. v. Town of Corte Madera (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 105 , 111, 122 Cal.Rptr. 282 .) " 'The exhaustion doctrine ... operates as a defense to litigation commenced by persons who have been aggrieved by action taken in an administrative proceeding which has in fact occurred but who have failed to "exhaust" the remedy available to them in the course of the proceeding itself.' " ( Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. County of Placer (2000)

2026(Williams & Fickett v. County of Fresno (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1258, 1267 .) An administrative remedy “‘is exhausted only upon “termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.”’” (Ibid.) “The exhaustion rule ‘“is not a matter of judicial discretion, but is a fundamental rule of procedure . . . binding upon all courts.”’” (Id. at p. 1268; see Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70 , [the exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking relief through the courts].) Even where the administrative remedy does not resolve all issues or provi

2026(Williams & Fickett v. County of Fresno (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1258, 1267 .) An administrative remedy “‘is exhausted only upon “termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.”’” (Ibid.) “The exhaustion rule ‘“is not a matter of judicial discretion, but is a fundamental rule of procedure . . . binding upon all courts.”’” (Id. at p. 1268; see Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70 , [the exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking relief through the courts].) Even where the administrative remedy does not resolve all issues or provi

2023(Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 536 .) “In general, a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts.” (Coachella Valley, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1080 .) “ ‘The exhaustion doctrine is principally grounded on concerns favoring administrative autonomy (i.e., courts should not interfere with an agency determination until the agency has reached a final decision) and judicial efficiency (i.e., overworked courts should decline to intervene in an administrative dispute unless absolutely necessary).’ ” (Ibid.) The doctrine requiring exhaustion of a

2021(California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 629 [“To satisfy the exhaustion 7 accord, South of Market, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 347 ; Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 535 [“To advance the exhaustion doctrine’s purpose ‘[t]he “exact issue” must have been presented to the administrative agency. . . .’ ”].) In the instant case, because the County, by ordinance (Napa County Code, ch. 288), provides for an appeal of actions by the Planning Commission to the County Board of Supervisors, the exhaustion analysis entails a dual inqu

2026(Williams & Fickett v. County of Fresno (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1258, 1267 .) An administrative remedy “‘is exhausted only upon “termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.”’” (Ibid.) “The exhaustion rule ‘“is not a matter of judicial discretion, but is a fundamental rule of procedure . . . binding upon all courts.”’” (Id. at p. 1268; see Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70 , [the exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking relief through the courts].) Even where the administrative remedy does not resolve all issues or provi

2026(Williams & Fickett v. County of Fresno (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1258, 1267 .) An administrative remedy “‘is exhausted only upon “termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.”’” (Ibid.) “The exhaustion rule ‘“is not a matter of judicial discretion, but is a fundamental rule of procedure . . . binding upon all courts.”’” (Id. at p. 1268; see Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70 , [the exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to seeking relief through the courts].) Even where the administrative remedy does not resolve all issues or provi

2023Resources Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see also Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1092 , 1104 [“ ‘ “to attack a decision that is subject to CEQA, the alleged grounds for noncompliance must have been presented to the public agency” ’ ” with “ ‘ “sufficient[] specific[ity] so that the agency has the opportunity to evaluate and respond” ’ ”].) This requirement is known as the exhaustion doctrine and serves “ ‘ “ ‘to lighten the burden of overworked courts in cases where administrative remedies are available and are as likely as the judicial remedy to provide the wanted r

2023(Tomlinson, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 291 ; accord, McCann v. City of San Diego, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 82.) The purpose of CEQA’s exhaustion doctrine is to afford the public agency the opportunity to hear and respond to articulated factual issues and legal theories before its actions are subject to judicial review.

2019That court observed that the exhaustion requirement applied when there was an opportunity for "public comment" or there is a public hearing; however, a party could not be required to exhaust when the agency had not yet issued the ruling and the statute of limitations might expire if the party did not file suit even though the ruling had not yet been made. ( *510 Azusa Land, supra , 52 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1209-1211, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 .) In this case, there were extensive opportunities for comment of which Barclay took full advantage.

2019That court observed that the exhaustion requirement applied when there was an opportunity for "public comment" or there is a public hearing; however, a party could not be required to exhaust when the agency had not yet issued the ruling and the statute of limitations might expire if the party did not file suit even though the ruling had not yet been made. ( *510 Azusa Land, supra , 52 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1209-1211, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 .) In this case, there were extensive opportunities for comment of which Barclay took full advantage.

2023“Futility is a narrow exception” to the exhaustion doctrine (Doyle v. City of Chino (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 673, 683 ), and only applies if “ ‘ “the petitioner can positively state that the [administrative agency] has declared what its ruling will be in a particular case” ’ ” (Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Inc. v. Planning Com. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 412, 418 ; accord Bollengier, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1126 ).

2023Next, Swenson argues that a vested rights determination would be futile because the County argued in the context of his federal civil rights claim that the use permit did not authorize surface mining.8 Although a party will be excused from the exhaustion requirement if pursuit of the remedy would be futile (Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1115, 1126 ), that exception is narrow (Doyle v. City of Chino (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 673, 683 ) and applies only if “ ‘ “the petitioner can positively state that the [administrative agency] has declared what its ruling will be in a