This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2019 at 00:51:59 (UTC).

JAY ALFORD VS DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Case Summary

On 02/17/2016 JAY ALFORD filed an Other - Writ Of Mandamus lawsuit against DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Not Classified By Court.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8361

  • Filing Date:

    02/17/2016

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • Case Type:

    Other - Writ Of Mandamus

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioners, Appellants and Not Classified By Court

ALFORD JAY

CONCEPCION WESLEY

PETERSON BRADFORD & BURKWITZ LLP

Respondents

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Respondent Attorney

MARINHO CRAIG GILBERT

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/31/2016: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Unknown

9/9/2016: Unknown

Unknown

9/21/2016: Unknown

Request for Judicial Notice

2/24/2017: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

3/16/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

3/23/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

3/24/2017: Unknown

Unknown

4/27/2017: Unknown

Unknown

5/19/2017: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

7/20/2017: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

10/27/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

12/4/2017: Unknown

Unknown

5/17/2018: Unknown

Unknown

6/6/2018: Unknown

Unknown

6/6/2018: Unknown

Unknown

6/22/2018: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

7/5/2018: Notice of Ruling

Unknown

8/3/2018: Unknown

110 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/15/2019
  • Separate Statement of undisputed material facts in support of the M.S.J.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Notice of Ruling (Jay Alford Stay of proceedings); Filed by JAY ALFORD (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by JAY ALFORD (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript (NOA 10/12/18;); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Notice of Stay of Proceedings (Appeal); Filed by JAY ALFORD (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • Opposition (Respondent County of Los Angeles's Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Tax Costs); Filed by COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • Declaration (of Leslie Horwitz, Esq In Support of Respondent's Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Tax Costs); Filed by COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • Notice of Default; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
141 More Docket Entries
  • 08/11/2016
  • Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2016
  • Proof of Service by Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2016
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2016
  • Minute order entered: 2016-08-03 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by JAY ALFORD (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2016
  • at 1:30 PM in Department F; Non-Appearance Case Review - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2016
  • Minute order entered: 2016-06-01 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2016
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by JAY ALFORD (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2016
  • Petition; Filed by Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VS028361    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: C

ALFORD v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

CASE NO.: VS028361

HEARING: 03/25/21

#4

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff JAY ALFORD’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give Notice.

Plaintiff JAY ALFORD (“Alford”) moves to augment the administrative record with 40 additional exhibits. Alford argues that the additional exhibits fall into one of the following categories: (1) Alford’s proposed evidence which was excluded from the administrative record; (2) communications between Alford and the County pertaining to his request for a Grievance Hearing; (3) communications between Maria Jimenez (Grievance Review Officer) and Alford; (4) communications concerning Alford’s “request for the record”; (5) Investigative Reports from outside of Los Angeles County (Riverside County and Santa Fe Springs); (6) and the audio recording and transcript of the Grievance Hearing at issue. Alford argues that these documents include information and communications which was, or should have been, in the County’s possession when it made its decision in this case.

In Opposition, the County argues that: (1) it properly prepared the administrative record, including all of the evidence offered at the hearing; and (2) Plaintiff fails to identify any evidence presented at the hearing, that was rejected, and/or fails to show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence, Plaintiff could not have produced or introduced relevant evidence at the hearing.

In general, the administrative record consists of documents considered by the agency in making its decision. (Evans v. City of San Jose (2006) 128 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1144.) A Court may augment the administrative record if evidence is relevant and it was improperly excluded during the administrative process or it could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been presented before the administrative decision was made. (Id.) “[A]bsen[t]… a proper preliminary foundation showing that one of the[se] [statutory] exceptions…applies, it is error for the court to permit the record to be augmented.” (Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 101.).

Plaintiff’s request to augment the administrative record in order to admit extra-record evidence is DENIED. Plaintiff has failed to show that the evidence could not have been produced in the exercise of reasonable diligence, or that it was improperly excluded at the administrative hearing. 

Case Number: VS028361    Hearing Date: January 14, 2021    Dept: C

ALFORD v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

CASE NO.:  VS028361

HEARING: 1/14/21

#7

TENTATIVE ORDER

Respondent COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED. Costs are allowable in the reduced amount of $115.00.

Moving Party to give Notice.

Allowable costs under CCP §1033.5 must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and must be reasonable in amount. An item not specifically allowable § 1033.5(a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b), may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court under subdivision (c) if it meets the above requirements (i.e., reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount). If the items appearing in a cost tax costs costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant [citations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].” (Id., at 699.) The court's first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face. If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show it to be unnecessary or unreasonable. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.)

Petitioner seeks to recover $7,500.00 for “other charges,” which apparently include “Reasonable Fees – Fixed- Resulting from Administrative Proceedings”. (see Memo of Costs RECEIVED 09/29/20.) Respondent’s Motion is GRANTED. Petitioner fails to substantiate the $7,500.00 in “other charges” sought. Importantly, the Court notes that Petitioner, acting in propria persona, cannot be awarded attorney’s fees. (See Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292.) Costs are allowable in the reduced amount of $115.00.

Case Number: VS028361    Hearing Date: December 23, 2020    Dept: C

ALFORD v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

CASE NO.:  VS028361

HEARING: 12/23/2020

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

The Court sets a hearing on the Writ Petition for Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-C. Petitioner’s Opening Brief is due by April 23, 2021. Opposition due by May 21, 2021. Reply due by June 14, 2021.

The Mandatory Settlement Conference set for April 15, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-F is VACATED.

The Trial set for June 3, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-F is VACATED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PETERSON BRADFROD & BURKWITZ LLP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MARINHO CRAIG GILBERT