fair administrative hearing in California

2024“To prevail, a petitioner seeking a writ of administrative mandate must show the agency (in this case, [the University]) (1) acted without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction; (2) deprived the petitioner of a fair administrative hearing; or (3) committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (§ 1094.5, subd. (b); Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 239 [ 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 851 ] (Southern California I) [§ 1094.5’s ‘fair trial’ requirement means there must be a fair administrative hearing].) [Fn. omitted.] ‘ “Abuse of discretion is established if the [agency] has not p

2024“To prevail, a petitioner seeking a writ of administrative mandate must show the agency (in this case, [the University]) (1) acted without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction; (2) deprived the petitioner of a fair administrative hearing; or (3) committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (§ 1094.5, subd. (b); Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 239 [ 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 851 ] (Southern California I) [§ 1094.5’s ‘fair trial’ requirement means there must be a fair administrative hearing].) [Fn. omitted.] ‘ “Abuse of discretion is established if the [agency] has not p

2022Legal Principles “A trial court may issue a writ of administrative mandate where an agency has (1) acted in excess of its jurisdiction, (2) deprived the petitioner of 29 a fair hearing, or (3) committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion.” (Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1169 (Clark), citing § 1094.5, subd. (b).) At issue here is Sullivan’s claim that the City failed to provide a fair administrative hearing before revoking its building permits.

2022Proc., ]§ 1094.5, subd. (b); Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 239 (USC [(1)]) [§ 1094.5’s ‘fair trial’ requirement means there must be a fair administrative hearing].) ‘“Abuse of discretion is established if the [agency] has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.”’ (Ibid.; see Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1169 .)” (UCSB (1), supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 532, fn. omitted.) When the administrative decision does not conce

2026Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) “ ‘The statute’s requirement of a “ ‘fair’ ” trial means that there must have been “a fair administrative hearing.” ’ [Citation.] Where student discipline is at issue, the university must comply with its own policies and procedures.” (Regents I, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1073 , citing Berman, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 1271 .) “ ‘ “A challenge to the procedural fairness of the administrative hearing is reviewed de novo on appeal because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law.” ’ ” (Boermeester v. Carry (2023) 15 Cal.5th 72

2024Doe Was Not Denied a Fair Hearing Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 subdivision (b) requires that there must have been “ ‘ “a fair administrative hearing.” ’ ” (Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 239 , citing Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 96 .) In disciplining college students, the fundamental principles of fairness require, at a minimum, “ ‘giving the accused students notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in their own defense.’ ” (Doe v. Regents of University of California (2018) 28 Cal.

2026(Bylaw 353.D.7.) 37 The UCSF Grievance Process Satisfies Section 1094.5 Section 1094.5’s requirement of a “fair trial” does not mean that Dr. Chorba was entitled to a “formal hearing under the due process clause.” (Pomona College, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1730 .) Rather, the words “fair trial” mean “that there must have been ‘a fair administrative hearing.’ ” (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 96 .) “[I]n assessing what process is due, a reviewing court must give substantial deference to the good faith judgment of the agency that its procedur

2024Doe Was Not Denied a Fair Hearing Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 subdivision (b) requires that there must have been “ ‘ “a fair administrative hearing.” ’ ” (Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 239 , citing Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 96 .) In disciplining college students, the fundamental principles of fairness require, at a minimum, “ ‘giving the accused students notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in their own defense.’ ” (Doe v. Regents of University of California (2018) 28 Cal.

2026(Bylaw 353.D.7.) 37 The UCSF Grievance Process Satisfies Section 1094.5 Section 1094.5’s requirement of a “fair trial” does not mean that Dr. Chorba was entitled to a “formal hearing under the due process clause.” (Pomona College, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1730 .) Rather, the words “fair trial” mean “that there must have been ‘a fair administrative hearing.’ ” (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 96 .) “[I]n assessing what process is due, a reviewing court must give substantial deference to the good faith judgment of the agency that its procedur

2020Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) “Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Ibid.) “The statute’s requirement of a ‘ “fair trial” ’ means that there must have been ‘a fair administrative hearing.’ ” (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Department of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 96 .) “A challenge to the procedural fairness of the administrative hearing is reviewed de novo on appeal because the ultimate determination of pro

2026Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) “ ‘The statute’s requirement of a “ ‘fair’ ” trial means that there must have been “a fair administrative hearing.” ’ [Citation.] Where student discipline is at issue, the university must comply with its own policies and procedures.” (Regents I, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1073 , citing Berman, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 1271 .) “ ‘ “A challenge to the procedural fairness of the administrative hearing is reviewed de novo on appeal because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law.” ’ ” (Boermeester v. Carry (2023) 15 Cal.5th 72

2026Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) “ ‘The statute’s requirement of a “ ‘fair’ ” trial means that there must have been “a fair administrative hearing.” ’ [Citation.] Where student discipline is at issue, the university must comply with its own policies and procedures.” (Regents I, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1073 , citing Berman, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 1271 .) “ ‘ “A challenge to the procedural fairness of the administrative hearing is reviewed de novo on appeal because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law.” ’ ” (Boermeester v. Carry (2023) 15 Cal.5th 72

2022Nijjar and Miller Received a Fair Hearing For purposes of section 1094.5, “‘[t]he “fair trial” requirement is equivalent to a prescription that there be a fair administrative hearing.’” (Mountainlands Conservancy, LLC v. California Coastal Com. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 214 , 235; accord, Sweeney v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 1093 , 1143; Lateef v. City of Madera (2020) 11 45 Cal.App.5th 245 , 252.) “Because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness presents a question of law, we ‘review the fairness of the administrative proceeding de novo.’” (Swee

2021(Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1438 .)” (Sinaiko v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1140 (Sinaiko).) 45 C.

2021(Pinheiro v. Civil Service Com. for County of Fresno (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1464 ; see Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1169–1170.) 10 John contends he was denied a “fair process.” The fair administrative hearing protected under section 1094.5 is sometimes referred to as “fair process” (e.g., Doe v. Occidental College (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1014 ; USC II, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1228 or “fair procedure” (e.g., USC I, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 ; Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1445 .) 11 John does not claim his suspension

2021(Pinheiro v. Civil Service Com. for County of Fresno (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1464 ; see Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1169–1170.) 10 John contends he was denied a “fair process.” The fair administrative hearing protected under section 1094.5 is sometimes referred to as “fair process” (e.g., Doe v. Occidental College (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1014 ; USC II, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1228 or “fair procedure” (e.g., USC I, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 ; Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1445 .) 11 John does not claim his suspension

2024Fair Hearing Code of Civil Procedure, [s]ection 1094.5’s reference to a “fair trial” is the “equivalent to a prescription that there by a fair administrative hearing.” (Pomona, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1730 .) However, “[t]he ‘ “fair trial” ’ requirement . . . is not synonymous with constitutional due process and does not mandate ‘a formal hearing under the due process clause.’ ” (Pinheiro v. Civil Service Com. for County of Fresno 10 (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1463 (Pinheiro).) Instead, “[f]air procedure . . . is a more flexible judicially created concept applicable to private organizati

2021(Pinheiro v. Civil Service Com. for County of Fresno (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1464 ; see Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1169–1170.) 10 John contends he was denied a “fair process.” The fair administrative hearing protected under section 1094.5 is sometimes referred to as “fair process” (e.g., Doe v. Occidental College (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1014 ; USC II, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1228 or “fair procedure” (e.g., USC I, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 ; Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1445 .) 11 John does not claim his suspension

2024Doe Was Not Denied a Fair Hearing Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 subdivision (b) requires that there must have been “ ‘ “a fair administrative hearing.” ’ ” (Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 239 , citing Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 96 .) In disciplining college students, the fundamental principles of fairness require, at a minimum, “ ‘giving the accused students notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in their own defense.’ ” (Doe v. Regents of University of California (2018) 28 Cal.

2019USC(1) .) ) As relevant here, the question presented by a petition for writ of administrative mandate is whether there was a fair trial. ( § 1094.5, subd. (b) ; Doe v. Regents of University of California (Santa Barbara) (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 44 , 55, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 843 ( UCSB ).) "We review the fairness of the administrative proceeding de novo[,] ... 'because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law.' [Citation.] ... '[A] " 'fair trial' " means ... "a fair administrative hearing." ' [Citations.]" ( Doe v. USC(1) , supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 239 , 200 Ca

2022(See Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. 19 Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 107 [“evidence of [a hospital’s] motive in initiating [a physician’s] suspension” was “not relevant to the issue of whether [the physician] had a fair administrative hearing”]; Cole v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 785, 792 [community college’s purported “improper motivation” in commencing a proceeding to discharge an employee was irrelevant because “[i]t is the bias of the tribunal deciding a case, not the bias of the person instituting the proceeding that is important”].) The

2021(Marek v. Board of Podiatric Medicine (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1089 , 1095–1096.)” (Griffiths v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 757 , 767–768.) “‘Where, as here, the issue is whether a fair administrative hearing was conducted, the petitioner is entitled to an independent judicial determination of the issue.’ (Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 101 .) We must therefore independently review the fairness of the administrative proceedings as a question of law.

2014Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) The last may be found where the agency “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” {Ibid.) The statute’s requirement of a “ ‘fair trial’ ” means that there must have been “a fair administrative hearing.” (Pomona College v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1716, 1730 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 662 ], citing Guilbert v. Regents of University of California (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 233, 241 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 583 ].) “A challenge to the procedural fairness of the admini

2014Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) The last may be found where the agency “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” {Ibid.) The statute’s requirement of a “ ‘fair trial’ ” means that there must have been “a fair administrative hearing.” (Pomona College v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1716, 1730 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 662 ], citing Guilbert v. Regents of University of California (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 233, 241 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 583 ].) “A challenge to the procedural fairness of the admini

2021(Pinheiro v. Civil Service Com. for County of Fresno (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1464 ; see Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1169–1170.) 10 John contends he was denied a “fair process.” The fair administrative hearing protected under section 1094.5 is sometimes referred to as “fair process” (e.g., Doe v. Occidental College (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1014 ; USC II, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1228 or “fair procedure” (e.g., USC I, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 ; Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1445 .) 11 John does not claim his suspension

2021(Pinheiro v. Civil Service Com. for County of Fresno (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1464 ; see Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1169–1170.) 10 John contends he was denied a “fair process.” The fair administrative hearing protected under section 1094.5 is sometimes referred to as “fair process” (e.g., Doe v. Occidental College (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1014 ; USC II, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1228 or “fair procedure” (e.g., USC I, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 ; Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1445 .) 11 John does not claim his suspension

2014Services, Inc. v. Kelso (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 197, 205 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 357 ]; Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1169-1170 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 223 ]; Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1443-1444 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 819 ]; Duncan v. Department of Personnel Admin. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1174 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 257 ]; Lewin v. St.

2013Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) The last may be found where the agency “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Ibid.) The statute’s requirement of a “ ‘fair trial’ ” means that there must have been “a fair administrative hearing.” (Pomona College v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1716, 1730 , citing Guilbert v. Regents of University of California (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 233, 241 .) “A challenge to the procedural fairness of the administrative hearing is reviewed de novo on app

2003(City of Fairfield v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 776 ; Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 708 ].) While it is error, in the absence of a proper preliminary foundation showing that one of the exceptions noted in section 1094.5, subdivision (e) applies, for a trial court to permit the administrative record to be augmented with extrinsic evidence (Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 881 ), on the other hand, if one of the exceptions clearly applies, then it may be an abuse of discret

2003(City of Fairfield v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 776 ; Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 708 ].) While it is error, in the absence of a proper preliminary foundation showing that one of the exceptions noted in section 1094.5, subdivision (e) applies, for a trial court to permit the administrative record to be augmented with extrinsic evidence (Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 881 ), on the other hand, if one of the exceptions clearly applies, then it may be an abuse of discret

1997(City of Fairfield v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 768, 776 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 537 P.2d 375 ].) This independent review is not a “trial de novo.” (Ibid.; Hadley v. City of Ontario (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 121, 127 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 513 ]; Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 708 ].) Instead, the court renders its independent judgment on the basis of the administrative record plus such additional evidence as may be admitted under section 1094.5, subdivision (e).

1997(City of Fairfield v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 768, 776 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 537 P.2d 375 ].) This independent review is not a “trial de novo.” (Ibid.; Hadley v. City of Ontario (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 121, 127 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 513 ]; Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 708 ].) Instead, the court renders its independent judgment on the basis of the administrative record plus such additional evidence as may be admitted under section 1094.5, subdivision (e).

1977(See Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Schutzbank (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 218, 226 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 293 ]; Cal. Administrative Mandamus (Cont.

1977(See Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Schutzbank (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 218, 226 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 293 ]; Cal. Administrative Mandamus (Cont.

2026(Bylaw 353.D.7.) 37 The UCSF Grievance Process Satisfies Section 1094.5 Section 1094.5’s requirement of a “fair trial” does not mean that Dr. Chorba was entitled to a “formal hearing under the due process clause.” (Pomona College, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1730 .) Rather, the words “fair trial” mean “that there must have been ‘a fair administrative hearing.’ ” (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 96 .) “[I]n assessing what process is due, a reviewing court must give substantial deference to the good faith judgment of the agency that its procedur

2024Fair Hearing Code of Civil Procedure, [s]ection 1094.5’s reference to a “fair trial” is the “equivalent to a prescription that there by a fair administrative hearing.” (Pomona, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1730 .) However, “[t]he ‘ “fair trial” ’ requirement . . . is not synonymous with constitutional due process and does not mandate ‘a formal hearing under the due process clause.’ ” (Pinheiro v. Civil Service Com. for County of Fresno 10 (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1463 (Pinheiro).) Instead, “[f]air procedure . . . is a more flexible judicially created concept applicable to private organizati

2003Where, as here, the issue is whether a fair administrative hearing was conducted, the independent judgment test does apply (City of Fairfield v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 776 ), and the court is empowered to render its independent judgment on the basis of the administrative record plus such additional evidence as may be admitted under section 1094.5, subdivision (e).

1975In the recent case of City of Fairfield v. Superior Court (Anderson) (1975) 14 Cal.3d 768 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 537 P.2d 375 ], wherein Commercial sought to take the deposition of members of a city council claiming the denial of a fair hearing when the council denied a use permit, the Supreme Court said: “Commercial is entitled to an independent judicial determination of the issue of whether it received a fair administrative hearing. . . .

2024Doe Was Not Denied a Fair Hearing Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 subdivision (b) requires that there must have been “ ‘ “a fair administrative hearing.” ’ ” (Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 239 , citing Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 96 .) In disciplining college students, the fundamental principles of fairness require, at a minimum, “ ‘giving the accused students notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in their own defense.’ ” (Doe v. Regents of University of California (2018) 28 Cal.

2018Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) "Abuse of discretion is *56 established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence." ( Ibid. ) We review UCSB's findings for "substantial evidence in the light of the whole record." ( Id. , subd. (c).) We review the fairness of the administrative proceeding de novo. ( Doe v. Regents of University of California (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055 , 1073, 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 479 .) " 'The statute's requirement of a " 'fair trial' " means that there must

2022(See Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. 19 Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 107 [“evidence of [a hospital’s] motive in initiating [a physician’s] suspension” was “not relevant to the issue of whether [the physician] had a fair administrative hearing”]; Cole v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 785, 792 [community college’s purported “improper motivation” in commencing a proceeding to discharge an employee was irrelevant because “[i]t is the bias of the tribunal deciding a case, not the bias of the person instituting the proceeding that is important”].) The

1997Although Knudsen suspended Bressman and was a member of the committee which recommended that Bressman’s reappointment application be denied, Knudsen was not a hearing officer, a member of the JRC or a member of the appeal board of Pomona Valley’s board of directors. 6 Consequently, evidence of Knudsen’s motive in initiating Bressman’s suspension, and his subsequent actions with respect to the denial of Bressman’s reappointment application is not relevant to the issue of whether Bressman had a fair administrative hearing. ( Cole, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 791-792; see also Citizens Capital Co

2021(Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at 1059 .) As the parties agree, we review de novo the fairness of the administrative hearing.

2021(See id. at 1061-1062, 1067 .) On the record then before us, however, we held that a USC student accused of sexual assault and given no opportunity for cross-examination had been denied a fair administrative hearing, reasoning that (1) the student had been entitled to an opportunity for cross-examination, given the severity of the discipline he faced and the fact that the case turned on the credibility of the only two witnesses to the alleged assault, viz., the student and his alleged victim; and (2) the Title IX investigator had exercised her investigative discretion in “questionable” ways, a

1997Although Knudsen suspended Bressman and was a member of the committee which recommended that Bressman’s reappointment application be denied, Knudsen was not a hearing officer, a member of the JRC or a member of the appeal board of Pomona Valley’s board of directors. 6 Consequently, evidence of Knudsen’s motive in initiating Bressman’s suspension, and his subsequent actions with respect to the denial of Bressman’s reappointment application is not relevant to the issue of whether Bressman had a fair administrative hearing. ( Cole, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 791-792; see also Citizens Capital Co

1997Although Knudsen suspended Bressman and was a member of the committee which recommended that Bressman’s reappointment application be denied, Knudsen was not a hearing officer, a member of the JRC or a member of the appeal board of Pomona Valley’s board of directors. 6 Consequently, evidence of Knudsen’s motive in initiating Bressman’s suspension, and his subsequent actions with respect to the denial of Bressman’s reappointment application is not relevant to the issue of whether Bressman had a fair administrative hearing. ( Cole, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 791-792; see also Citizens Capital Co

2019USC(1) .) ) As relevant here, the question presented by a petition for writ of administrative mandate is whether there was a fair trial. ( § 1094.5, subd. (b) ; Doe v. Regents of University of California (Santa Barbara) (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 44 , 55, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 843 ( UCSB ).) "We review the fairness of the administrative proceeding de novo[,] ... 'because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law.' [Citation.] ... '[A] " 'fair trial' " means ... "a fair administrative hearing." ' [Citations.]" ( Doe v. USC(1) , supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 239 , 200 Ca

2019USC(1) .) ) As relevant here, the question presented by a petition for writ of administrative mandate is whether there was a fair trial. ( § 1094.5, subd. (b) ; Doe v. Regents of University of California (Santa Barbara) (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 44 , 55, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 843 ( UCSB ).) "We review the fairness of the administrative proceeding de novo[,] ... 'because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law.' [Citation.] ... '[A] " 'fair trial' " means ... "a fair administrative hearing." ' [Citations.]" ( Doe v. USC(1) , supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 239 , 200 Ca

2014Services, Inc. v. Kelso (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 197, 205 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 357 ]; Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1169-1170 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 223 ]; Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1443-1444 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 819 ]; Duncan v. Department of Personnel Admin. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1174 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 257 ]; Lewin v. St.

2013Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) The last may be found where the agency “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Ibid.) The statute’s requirement of a “ ‘fair trial’ ” means that there must have been “a fair administrative hearing.” (Pomona College v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1716, 1730 , citing Guilbert v. Regents of University of California (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 233, 241 .) “A challenge to the procedural fairness of the administrative hearing is reviewed de novo on app

1975But this independent review is not a ‘trial de novo’ as Commercial uses that term; instead the court renders its independent *323 judgment on the basis of the administrative record plus such additional evidence admitted under section 1094.5, subdivision (d).” As was said in Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees’ Retirement Association, 11 Cal.3d 28 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 520 P.2d 29 ], the decision of an administrative body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity is entitled “to all the deference and respect due a judicial decision.” In State of California v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.App.3d 87, 94 [

1975But this independent review is not a ‘trial de novo’ as Commercial uses that term; instead the court renders its independent *323 judgment on the basis of the administrative record plus such additional evidence admitted under section 1094.5, subdivision (d).” As was said in Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees’ Retirement Association, 11 Cal.3d 28 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 520 P.2d 29 ], the decision of an administrative body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity is entitled “to all the deference and respect due a judicial decision.” In State of California v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.App.3d 87, 94 [