Preview
1 GEORGE A. WARNER (State Bar No. 320241)
LEGAL AID AT WORK ELECTRONICALLY
2 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 FILED
3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Telephone: (415) 864-8848
4 Facsimile: (415) 593-0096 03/27/2024
Clerk of the Court
gwarner@legalaidatwork.org BY: DAEJA ROGERS
5 Deputy Clerk
6 Attorney for Petitioner
Daniel DeBeikes
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
CPF-24-518505
11
12 DANIEL DEBEIKES, Case No.:
13 Petitioner, PETITION FOR WRIT OF
14 ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
v. (Unemp. Ins. Code § 410, Code Civ. Proc.
15 § 1094.5)
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
16 INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,
17 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
18
Respondent.
19
20
21 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
22 1. Petitioner Daniel DeBeikes challenges a decision by Respondent California
23 related to his eligibility for unemployment
24 insurance benefits, obligation to repay benefits, including the decision that the EDD has sent Mr.
25 he did not have good cause for filing a
26 late appeal. These decisions were an abuse of discretion and contrary to law.
27 PARTIES
28 2. Petitioner Daniel DeBeikes lives in Texas.
1 Case No.:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
4872-0928-8624, v. 2
1 3. Defendant-Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
2
3 Constitution and laws of the state of California.
4 4. Defendant-
5 agency of the state of California duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of
6 the state of California.
7 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8 5. Petitioner applied for benefits with a claim effective date of March 8, 2020 after
9 he was furloughed from his job at the beginning of the pandemic.
10 6. Claimant listed his mailing address as a post office box in Westlake Village,
11 California. His post office box was number 260.
12 7. EDD sent two Notice of Determination on December 23, 2021 addressed to Mr.
13 DeBeikes. These were sent to box number 26, not box number 260. EDD sent two Notice of
14 Overpayment on March 7, 2022. Each was in the amount of $15,210.00. These were sent to box
15 number 26, not box number 260.
16 8. Because these notices were sent to the wrong address, Mr. DeBeikes never
17 received them.
18 9. Mr. DeBeikes appealed these notices in January 2023, after learning that he had
19 the right to appeal these overpayments.
20 10.
21 Notice of Determination that Mr. DeBeikes voluntarily quit without good cause in May 2020,
22 and committed a willful false statement in March 2020 by not reporting that he had voluntarily
23 quit, even though the EDD decided that he had voluntarily quit without good cause over two
24 months after Mr. DeBeikes made the purportedly false statement. Mr. DeBeikes did not
25 voluntarily quit, because he had in fact been furloughed indefinitely at the beginning of the
26 pandemic. Regardless, if he had quit in May, he undoubtedly had good cause, as he was moving
27 with his ex-wife and children.
28 11. The EDD also determined that Mr. DeBeikes had committed fraud by not
2 Case No.:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
4872-0928-8624, v. 2
1 reporting earned wages on certifications between March 11, 2020 and May 28, 2020. And, it
2 determined he was ineligible because of the wages he purportedly earned during this time period.
3 These determinations are also egregiously wrong. Mr. DeBeikes worked at a restaurant that was
4 shut down as of March 11, 2020, and did not reopen until late May 2020. Mr. DeBeikes reported
5 earning income for the week ending March 11 in his initial application. And, more importantly,
6 the EDD was automatically certifying for claimants between March 11 and May 9, 2020.
7 12. Based on these determinations, the EDD assessed Mr. DeBeikes overpayments
8
9 13. Because Mr. DeBeikes was never sent these Notices, the EDD has levied his bank
10 accounts on multiple occasions, taking over $15,000 out of those accounts.
11 14. On appeal, the Administrative Law Judge did not identify that the EDD did not
12
13
14 15. On the second level administrative appeal, the Board of Appeals did not identify
15
16 the determination that Mr. DeBeikes did not have good cause for the late appeal.
17
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus,
Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; Unemp. Ins. Code § 410)
19
20 16. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation made
21 herein at paragraphs 1 through 15 as though fully set forth herein.
22 17. The decision that Petitioner did not have good cause for an appeal was wrong
23
24 even though the letters were not addressed to his box.
25 18. Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies that he is required to pursue.
26 19. Petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
27 of law other than the relief sought in this petition since this writ of administrative mandamus is
28 nt to Code of Civil
3 Case No.:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
4872-0928-8624, v. 2
1 Procedure Section 1094.5.
2 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
3 WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests the following relief:
4 20. A Writ of Administrative Mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section
5 10147259, and directing
6 Respondent to issue a new decision holding that Petitioner had no excessive earnings, did not
7 voluntarily quit, did not make any willful false statements, is not liable for any overpayment to
8 the EDD.
9 21. In the alternative, a Writ of Administrative Mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil
10 Procedure Sections 1094.5 remanding the case to CUIAB to conduct a new hearing regarding
11 whether Mr. DeBeikes is eligible for the weeks in question and was overpaid;
12 22. Costs of the suit;
13 23.
14 24. Any other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
15
16 Dated: March 2 , 2024 Respectfully submitted,
17 LEGAL AID AT WORK
18
By:
19
George A. Warner
20
Attorney for Petitioner
21 Daniel DeBeikes
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 Case No.:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
4872-0928-8624, v. 2
1 VERIFICATION
2 I have foregoing Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus is and know the contents
3 thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein
4 stated on information and belief, and so to those matters that I believe it to be true.
5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the same
6 is true of my knowledge.
7 Executed in ____________________________ on ________________________,
8
9
10
Daniel DeBeikes
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 Case No.:
VERIFICATION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
4872-0928-8624, v. 2
Preview
1 GEORGE A. WARNER (State Bar No. 320241) LEGAL AID AT WORK ELECTRONICALLY 2 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 FILED 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Telephone: (415) 864-8848 4 Facsimile: (415) 593-0096 03/27/2024 Clerk of the Court gwarner@legalaidatwork.org BY: DAEJA ROGERS 5 Deputy Clerk 6 Attorney for Petitioner Daniel DeBeikes 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 CPF-24-518505 11 12 DANIEL DEBEIKES, Case No.: 13 Petitioner, PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS v. (Unemp. Ins. Code § 410, Code Civ. Proc. 15 § 1094.5) CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 16 INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, 17 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 18 Respondent. 19 20 21 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 22 1. Petitioner Daniel DeBeikes challenges a decision by Respondent California 23 related to his eligibility for unemployment 24 insurance benefits, obligation to repay benefits, including the decision that the EDD has sent Mr. 25 he did not have good cause for filing a 26 late appeal. These decisions were an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. 27 PARTIES 28 2. Petitioner Daniel DeBeikes lives in Texas. 1 Case No.: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS 4872-0928-8624, v. 2 1 3. Defendant-Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 2 3 Constitution and laws of the state of California. 4 4. Defendant- 5 agency of the state of California duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of 6 the state of California. 7 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8 5. Petitioner applied for benefits with a claim effective date of March 8, 2020 after 9 he was furloughed from his job at the beginning of the pandemic. 10 6. Claimant listed his mailing address as a post office box in Westlake Village, 11 California. His post office box was number 260. 12 7. EDD sent two Notice of Determination on December 23, 2021 addressed to Mr. 13 DeBeikes. These were sent to box number 26, not box number 260. EDD sent two Notice of 14 Overpayment on March 7, 2022. Each was in the amount of $15,210.00. These were sent to box 15 number 26, not box number 260. 16 8. Because these notices were sent to the wrong address, Mr. DeBeikes never 17 received them. 18 9. Mr. DeBeikes appealed these notices in January 2023, after learning that he had 19 the right to appeal these overpayments. 20 10. 21 Notice of Determination that Mr. DeBeikes voluntarily quit without good cause in May 2020, 22 and committed a willful false statement in March 2020 by not reporting that he had voluntarily 23 quit, even though the EDD decided that he had voluntarily quit without good cause over two 24 months after Mr. DeBeikes made the purportedly false statement. Mr. DeBeikes did not 25 voluntarily quit, because he had in fact been furloughed indefinitely at the beginning of the 26 pandemic. Regardless, if he had quit in May, he undoubtedly had good cause, as he was moving 27 with his ex-wife and children. 28 11. The EDD also determined that Mr. DeBeikes had committed fraud by not 2 Case No.: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS 4872-0928-8624, v. 2 1 reporting earned wages on certifications between March 11, 2020 and May 28, 2020. And, it 2 determined he was ineligible because of the wages he purportedly earned during this time period. 3 These determinations are also egregiously wrong. Mr. DeBeikes worked at a restaurant that was 4 shut down as of March 11, 2020, and did not reopen until late May 2020. Mr. DeBeikes reported 5 earning income for the week ending March 11 in his initial application. And, more importantly, 6 the EDD was automatically certifying for claimants between March 11 and May 9, 2020. 7 12. Based on these determinations, the EDD assessed Mr. DeBeikes overpayments 8 9 13. Because Mr. DeBeikes was never sent these Notices, the EDD has levied his bank 10 accounts on multiple occasions, taking over $15,000 out of those accounts. 11 14. On appeal, the Administrative Law Judge did not identify that the EDD did not 12 13 14 15. On the second level administrative appeal, the Board of Appeals did not identify 15 16 the determination that Mr. DeBeikes did not have good cause for the late appeal. 17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 18 (Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus, Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; Unemp. Ins. Code § 410) 19 20 16. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation made 21 herein at paragraphs 1 through 15 as though fully set forth herein. 22 17. The decision that Petitioner did not have good cause for an appeal was wrong 23 24 even though the letters were not addressed to his box. 25 18. Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies that he is required to pursue. 26 19. Petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course 27 of law other than the relief sought in this petition since this writ of administrative mandamus is 28 nt to Code of Civil 3 Case No.: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS 4872-0928-8624, v. 2 1 Procedure Section 1094.5. 2 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 3 WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests the following relief: 4 20. A Writ of Administrative Mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 5 10147259, and directing 6 Respondent to issue a new decision holding that Petitioner had no excessive earnings, did not 7 voluntarily quit, did not make any willful false statements, is not liable for any overpayment to 8 the EDD. 9 21. In the alternative, a Writ of Administrative Mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil 10 Procedure Sections 1094.5 remanding the case to CUIAB to conduct a new hearing regarding 11 whether Mr. DeBeikes is eligible for the weeks in question and was overpaid; 12 22. Costs of the suit; 13 23. 14 24. Any other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. 15 16 Dated: March 2 , 2024 Respectfully submitted, 17 LEGAL AID AT WORK 18 By: 19 George A. Warner 20 Attorney for Petitioner 21 Daniel DeBeikes 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Case No.: PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS 4872-0928-8624, v. 2 1 VERIFICATION 2 I have foregoing Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus is and know the contents 3 thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein 4 stated on information and belief, and so to those matters that I believe it to be true. 5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the same 6 is true of my knowledge. 7 Executed in ____________________________ on ________________________, 8 9 10 Daniel DeBeikes 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Case No.: VERIFICATION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS 4872-0928-8624, v. 2