Herman v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
Cal. App.4th, 1999 D.A.R.
3897 (April 29, 1999)
* court: state court of appeal
* public agency: L.A. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
* plaintiff's job class: MTA police lieutenant
* plaintiff's attorney: Richard Chiurazzi
* trial court's decision: in favor of MTA
* appellate court's decision: in favor of the employee
* issue area: CCP section 1094.6 petitions for writ of administrative
mandate
Herman Facts
* Herman was a lieutenant with the police department of the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).
* MTA terminated Herman.
* Herman appealed and succeeded in his appeal at an advisory hearing.
* MTA rejected the recommendation of the hearing officer and
terminated Herman.
* MTA mailed notice of its decision and notice concerning Herman's
ninety-day time limit within which to seek judicial review to Herman's
attorney, not to Herman.
* Herman filed his petition for administrative mandate after the end
of the ninety-day time limit.
* MTA demurred to Herman's petition on grounds of untimeliness; the
superior court agreed and denied Herman's petition.
Analysis of the Herman Appellate Court Decision
* Herman argued that, since MTA sent the notice concerning the
ninety-day notice to his attorney, rather than to him, the ninety-day
filing period had not yet begun to run.
* The appellate court accepted this argument.
* C.C.P. section 1094.6 requires that a copy of the administrative
decision be sent to "the party seeking the writ".
* The court holds that service on Herman's attorney does not satisfy
C.C.P. section 1094.6's requirement of service upon Herman.
