During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Administrative Law

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

CFPB v. Seila Law, LLC (9th Cir. 2020)

Despite the unconstitutional nature of the CFPB's original structure, the agency's civil investigative demand was enforceable since the current removable director of the agency had ratified the issuance of the CID.  The constitutional infirmity related solely to the CFPB's director, not to the agency itself or its staff which had issued the CID.  Seila law could not resist the CID… Read More

N.G. v. County of San Diego (2020)

A plaintiff who brings a suit against a government entity must first file a government claim with the defendant entity.  If the plaintiff misses the 6-month deadline for presentation of a claim, she may, within a year of accrual of her claim, file a petition for leave to file a late claim.  If the entity denies the petition, the plaintiff… Read More

Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. (2020)

Plaintiff was injured while working on a rescue boat owned by defendant.  Plaintiff did not file a timely government claim within 6 months of his injury, but did file a timely application for permission to present a late claim, within one year of the injury.  Defendant's response to the application stated that it had denied plaintiff's claim, not his application,… Read More

Land v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2020)

Even in a case in which the court applies the de novo standard of review to a petition for administrative mandamus, the court reviews for abuse of discretion the administrative agency's refusal to consider new evidence presented after the ALJ's decision.  Here, the court reverses, finding an abuse of discretion in the Appeals Board's refusal to consider a belated declaration… Read More

Alford v. County of Los Angeles (2020)

Under CCP 1094.6, a petition for administrative mandate must be filed within 90 days after the administrative decision becomes final.  But that statutory period does not begin to run until the administrative agency mails its decision to the petitioner with a notice that warns of the 90-day limit on petitioning for mandate and states the date on which the administrative… Read More

Hill RHF Housing Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2020)

Plaintiffs' suit is dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The suit challenged the city's establishment of two business improvement districts.  Under the applicable constitutional section authorizing those districts there is a detailed procedure for challenges to the proposed district, hearings and appeals.  The plaintiffs had not pursued those procedures.  They did not properly exhaust administrative procedures just by casting… Read More

Rasooly v. City of Oakley

by Jan T. Chilton |

Because the notice of abatement of nuisance was properly served by city and because plaintiff did not timely file an administrative appeal thereafter, plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative remedy and was barred from suing in court to challenge the abatement order. Read More

Doe v. University of Southern California

by Jan T. Chilton |

Substantial evidence supported finding by the university that a student had cheated on a biology exam, and since this determination was moreover made by a fair procedure, the trial court incorrectly granted the student’s administrative mandamus petition. Read More

1 2 3