On April 15, 2024 a
Complaint,Petition
was filed
involving a dispute between
Suarez, Vanessa,
and
Johnson, Kim,
for Writ of Mandate Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: 26A74CCE—FE34—425A—81 E0—704DC91 13853
James Diskint (SBN 3291 14)
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
IHSS LaW Office Of James DiSkil’lt, PC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
1702 S. Robertson Blvd. #231 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
LOS Angelesa CA 90035 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Telephone: (213) 534-6890 4/15/2024 5:54 PM
Facsimile: (213) 797-7488
By: Priscilla Saldana, DEPUTY
james@ihsslaw.com
Attorney for Petitioner
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CIVSBZ409325
10 VANESSA SUAREZ, ) Case N0.:
)
11 Petitioner, ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF
) ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
12 vs. ) PURSUANT TO CAL. CODE CIV. PROC.
) § 1094.5
13 KIM JOHNSON, Director, California )
Department 0f Social Services, in her ) N0 FILING FEE per CAL. WELF. & INST.
14 official capacity, ) CODE § 10962.
)
15 Respondent. )
)
16
)
)
17
18 1. This petition is for a writ of administrative mandamus under Cal. CiV. Proc. Code §
19 1094.5 and Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 10962, t0 review the final decision 0f the respondent Director
20 of the California Department 0f Social Services (“CDSS”) denying protective supervision services
21 under the In-Home Supportive Services (“IHSS”) program. (Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 12300 et seq.,
22 14132.95, 14132.951.)
23 2. Petitioner Vanessa Suarez (“Petitioner”), the claimant in the attached administrative
24 decision, is the mother of a child With autism, and seeks IHSS protective supervision 0n her child’s
25 behalf.
26 3. Respondent Kim Johnson (“Respondent”), Director of the CDSS, is required by Cal.
27 Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 10959-10961 to conduct a hearing and make a final decision 0n an appeal
28 from an action of a county, which acts as the agent of the Director in administering the IHSS
1
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT 0F ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS PURSUANT To CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 1094.5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 26A74CCE—FE34—425A—81 E0—704DC91 13853
program.
4. On 0r about May 3, 2023, Respondent issued a hearing decision, Which affirmed San
Bernardino County’s denial 0f protective supervision under the IHSS program to Petitioner. See
Exhibit A.
5. On information and belief, Respondent did not proceed in a manner required by law
in rendering the decision, including because the decision misinterpreted applicable IHSS statutes
and regulations, applied improper standards for authorizing IHSS services, and employed improper
fair hearing procedures by failing to develop the record 0n the issues.
6. Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies and has no other plain, speedy,
10 and adequate remedy at law.
11 7. The independent judgment test applies t0 the denial 0f services authorized by the
12 IHSS program.
13
14 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this court:
15
16 A. Issue a peremptory writ 0f mandate commanding Respondent to:
17 1. set aside the Respondent’s administrative decision denying protective supervision t0
18 Petitioner; and,
19 2. remand the case t0 the Respondent t0 conduct a new hearing under de novo review
20 and issue a new decision in the matter required by law and determine Whether
21 Petitioner was entitled t0 protective supervision benefits at the time 0f her initial
22 application; and
23 3. in the alternative, if, upon reviewing the administrative decision, Petitioner alleges in
24 the opening brief that the decision is not supported by the weight of the evidence,
25 grant Petitioner protective supervision for the entire retroactive period With pre and
26 post—judgment interest.
27 B. Grant Petitioner’s counsel statutory attorney fees and costs, including under Welfare and
28 Institutions Code section 10962.
2
PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT 0F ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS PURSUANT To CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 1094.5
Document Filed Date
April 15, 2024
Case Filing Date
April 15, 2024
Category
Writ of Mandate Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: 26A74CCE—FE34—425A—81 E0—704DC91 13853 James Diskint (SBN 3291 14) ELECTRONICALLY FILED IHSS LaW Office Of James DiSkil’lt, PC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 1702 S. Robertson Blvd. #231 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO LOS Angelesa CA 90035 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Telephone: (213) 534-6890 4/15/2024 5:54 PM Facsimile: (213) 797-7488 By: Priscilla Saldana, DEPUTY james@ihsslaw.com Attorney for Petitioner SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CIVSBZ409325 10 VANESSA SUAREZ, ) Case N0.: ) 11 Petitioner, ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF ) ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS 12 vs. ) PURSUANT TO CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. ) § 1094.5 13 KIM JOHNSON, Director, California ) Department 0f Social Services, in her ) N0 FILING FEE per CAL. WELF. & INST. 14 official capacity, ) CODE § 10962. ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 18 1. This petition is for a writ of administrative mandamus under Cal. CiV. Proc. Code § 19 1094.5 and Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 10962, t0 review the final decision 0f the respondent Director 20 of the California Department 0f Social Services (“CDSS”) denying protective supervision services 21 under the In-Home Supportive Services (“IHSS”) program. (Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 12300 et seq., 22 14132.95, 14132.951.) 23 2. Petitioner Vanessa Suarez (“Petitioner”), the claimant in the attached administrative 24 decision, is the mother of a child With autism, and seeks IHSS protective supervision 0n her child’s 25 behalf. 26 3. Respondent Kim Johnson (“Respondent”), Director of the CDSS, is required by Cal. 27 Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 10959-10961 to conduct a hearing and make a final decision 0n an appeal 28 from an action of a county, which acts as the agent of the Director in administering the IHSS 1 PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT 0F ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS PURSUANT To CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 1094.5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 26A74CCE—FE34—425A—81 E0—704DC91 13853 program. 4. On 0r about May 3, 2023, Respondent issued a hearing decision, Which affirmed San Bernardino County’s denial 0f protective supervision under the IHSS program to Petitioner. See Exhibit A. 5. On information and belief, Respondent did not proceed in a manner required by law in rendering the decision, including because the decision misinterpreted applicable IHSS statutes and regulations, applied improper standards for authorizing IHSS services, and employed improper fair hearing procedures by failing to develop the record 0n the issues. 6. Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies and has no other plain, speedy, 10 and adequate remedy at law. 11 7. The independent judgment test applies t0 the denial 0f services authorized by the 12 IHSS program. 13 14 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this court: 15 16 A. Issue a peremptory writ 0f mandate commanding Respondent to: 17 1. set aside the Respondent’s administrative decision denying protective supervision t0 18 Petitioner; and, 19 2. remand the case t0 the Respondent t0 conduct a new hearing under de novo review 20 and issue a new decision in the matter required by law and determine Whether 21 Petitioner was entitled t0 protective supervision benefits at the time 0f her initial 22 application; and 23 3. in the alternative, if, upon reviewing the administrative decision, Petitioner alleges in 24 the opening brief that the decision is not supported by the weight of the evidence, 25 grant Petitioner protective supervision for the entire retroactive period With pre and 26 post—judgment interest. 27 B. Grant Petitioner’s counsel statutory attorney fees and costs, including under Welfare and 28 Institutions Code section 10962. 2 PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT 0F ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS PURSUANT To CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 1094.5