Hsu v. Cal. Dept. of Personnel Administration
Filed 9/11/07 Hsu v. Cal. Dept. of Personnel Administration CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
JOHN HSU, Petitioner and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. ___________________________________ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. | A114598 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG06252897) |
Petitioner John Hsu was dissatisfied with the performance appraisal prepared by his employer, real party in interest California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Hsu sought review of that appraisal by the appeals unit of respondent California Department of Personnel Administration (DPA). Before the DPA appeal process was complete, Hsu filed a petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or other appropriate relief seeking, inter alia, a stay of the DPA proceedings, disqualification of the hearing officer, and a new administrative hearing. The petition was denied, and Hsu filed this appeal.
In the meantime, the administrative hearing continued as scheduled, resulting in a 30-page proposed decision. The proposed decision was adopted by the DPA and served on the parties. Hsu then submitted a 58-page request for reconsideration.[1] The DPA denied this request. Hsu then filed a new petition for writ of mandate, administrative mandamus, prohibition, and other appropriate relief naming the director of the DPA as respondent and the DTSC as real party in interest. The action was filed, Hsu states, to secure review of DPAs final decision.
The record as supplemented by the parties demonstrates indisputably that this appeal has been rendered moot. In the petition which is the subject of this appeal, Hsu asked for the following relief: (1) a stay of the administrative proceedings then ongoing; (2) a declaration that DPA rule 599.598 is void; (3) a declaration that Hsus individual development plan must be reviewed as part and parcel of his performance appraisal; (4) a peremptory writ restraining the administrative proceedings, and directing the DPA to make and apply specific procedural and substantive rulings; (5) an order disqualifying the hearing officer; (6) an order granting commencement of a new administrative hearing; and (7) an order directing the DPA to adhere to specific statutes, precedents, and canons of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The relief requested can no longer be granted because the administrative proceedings have been completed. Accordingly, no orders can be issued to halt the proceedings, to remove the hearing officer, or to apply the requested procedural or substantive rules to those proceedings. Indeed, Hsu has already filed a new petition seeking review of the DPAs final decision.[2]
A case is moot when any ruling by this court can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief. (WoodwardPark Homeowners Assn. v. Garreks, Inc. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 880, 888.) A controversy which has been rendered moot by subsequent events should be dismissed (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10), unless the issues presented are important and of continuing public interest (Burch v. George (1994) 7 Cal.4th 246, 253, fn. 4). We discern in this appeal no important issues of continuing public interest; and in any event, all of the issues will be the subject of judicial review in Hsus subsequent petition.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
________________________
RIVERA, J.
We concur:
___________________________
RUVOLO, P.J.
___________________________
REARDON, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1] We grant Hsus request for judicial notice filed January 5, 2007, referencing the documents contained in appellants reply appendix, filed January 8, 2007.
[2] On our own motion we take judicial notice of the petition for writ of mandate, administrative mandamus, prohibition, and other appropriate relief filed November 29, 2006, in Hsu v. Cal. Dept. of Personnel Admin. (Super. Ct. Alameda County, No. RG06299902).
