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.

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.

An employee who had complained about his supervisor, was terminated and then claimed retaliation for his whistleblowing was not required to exhuast his administrative remedies before the employer's human relations commission because the commission's decision would have been subject to review and change by the supervisor in consultation with the mayor.  To have the personally involved supervisor (who had been… Read More

The Agricultural Labor Relations Board's access regulation (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 20900) gives agricultural labor unions a limited right to access to agricultural workers while on their employer's property for an hour before and after work and during the lunch hour for four months out of the year.  This decision holds that the regulation is a per se… Read More

The Federal Housing Finance Agency's structure is unconstitutional in providing that the President can remove the head of that agency only for cause.  However, that fact does not invalidate the acts taken by the FHFA's head or entitle shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to damages unless they can prove that the restriction on the President's power (as opposed… Read More

Plaintiff is a medical doctor specializing in pain management.  CVS, a pharmacy, informed him it would no longer fill his patients' prescriptions, citing conerns he was over-prescribing controlled substances.  Plaintiff sued for an injunction directing CVS to fill his prescriptions.  Held, injunction properly denied.  The State Board of Pharmacy has primary jurisdiction over the issues in this litigation.  It enforces… Read More

Applying Kisor v. Wilkie (2019) 139 S.Ct. 2400 and its analysis of Auer deference, this decision concludes that a decision of the HHS Departmental Review Board which interpreted an ambiguous HHS Medicare regulation was entitled to Auer deference.  The Board's interpretation was "authoritative" because the Board issues HHS' final decision in contested cases, subject to federal court review.  The interpretation… Read More

To secure a Coastal Commission permit to build a beach house, the prior owner agreed to grant the Coastal Conservancy a 5-feet wid public easement along one side of the house to afford public access to the beach.  After a public acceptance of the easement was recorded, the prior owner then ignored it and built an unpermitted deck above the… Read More

A court reviews a agency regulation adopted pursuant to quasi-legislative authority delegated by Congress under an arbitrary and capricious standard, requiring the regulation to be reasonable and reasonably explained.  5 USC 706(2)(A).  However, judicial review is deferential.   A court simply ensures that the agency has acted within a zone of reasonableness and, in particular, has reasonably considered the relevant issues… Read More

The Administrative Procedure Act allows only three remedies for discovery abuse in the course of an administrative proceeding.  First, the requesting party may file a motion before the ALJ conducting the proceeding to compel the discovery.  (Gov. Code, 11507.7(a).)  Second, that party may request monetary sanctions from the supervisor ALJ, managing the regional ALJ office.  (Gov. Code, 11455.30(a).)  Third, the… Read More

USC did not exceed its jurisdiction in suspending Alpha Nu for six years as a result of its misconduct in hazing pledges during the 2016 rush week even though it acted on a complaint filed 14 months later.  USC's internal disciplinary process is not governed by any statute of limitations.  Here, the complaint was just two months later than USC's… Read More

The plaintiff in this employment discrimination case under FEHA adequately exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a charge with DFEH which named her managers, supervisors and coworkers as well as the fictitious business name of her employer.  The fact that the DFEH charge did not correctly identify the true corporate name of the defendant employer was no reason to bar… Read More

1 2 3 5