simonhopes
Appellant applicant challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied a writ of administrative mandate under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §1094.5 to compel respondent examination board to issue appellant a license to practice as a psychologist.
The lower court denied a writ of administrative mandate under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §1094.5 to compel respondent examination board to issue appellant applicant a license to practice as a psychologist, and appellant challenged that order on the assertion that his education and experience demonstrated his fitness to practice. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment and held that there was no authority that upon a showing of bias or prejudice of a licensing agency a court could exercise the discretion vested in the agency to order licensure of an applicant who had otherwise not established that he had passed the licensing examination but instead sought licensure upon a general assertion that his education and experience demonstrated his fitness to practice. The San Diego class action lawyer held that it did not have the expertise to make the ultimate determination as to the qualifications of a particular applicant and that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5(f) specified that a court reviewing an administrative decision could not limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in the respondent.
The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment that denied a writ of administrative mandate to compel respondent examination board to issue appellant a license to practice as a psychologist. The court held that the court was prohibited from exercising discretion vested in the agency to order licensure of an applicant who had otherwise not passed the licensing examination, upon an allegation of bias or prejudice of a licensing agency.
Petitioner, director of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (department), appealed a decision by respondent, the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (board), which suspended the retail off-sale general liquor license of the real party in interest, licensee.
The department accused the licensee of violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24755 and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 4, § 99(a) for the publication of liquor sales at less than the prices listed in the minimum retail price schedule. The department rejected the decision of a hearing officer to suspend the license, and instead revoked the license. The board reversed. On appeal, the court reversed the department’s decision and remanded for reconsideration of a penalty consistent with Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24755.1. The court held that the publication of the minimum retail price schedule in a trade journal of general circulation in the licensee’s trade area satisfied the publication requirements of § 24755. The court also held that § 24755 and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 4, § 99 were constitutional. However, the department lacked the authority to revoke the license because § 24755 only allowed a monetary penalty. The court reasoned that Cal. Const. art. XX, § 22 subjected the department’s decisions regarding penalties to legislative oversight. As a result, the monetary penalties of § 24755.1 were constitutional and controlled the department’s determination of a penalty.
The court reversed and remanded the decision of the department for reconsideration of a penalty within statutory limitations.
