Regan v. Office of Adminsitrative Hearings
Filed 4/25/06 Regan v. Office of Adminsitrative Hearings CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| MICHAEL REGAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents; LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. | B186078 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS093648) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David P. Yaffe, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael Regan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Louis R. Mauro, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine M. Van Aken and Jill Bowers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents.
Kevin S. Reed, General Counsel, and Belinda D. Stitch, Staff Counsel, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and appellant, Michael Regan (Regan), appeals a trial court judgment denying a petition for a writ of mandate. In the trial court, Regan sought an order directing defendants and respondents, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and administrative law judges, David Rosenman and Janis Rover (collectively respondents), to set aside an administrative decision pursuant to which respondents found that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) had cause to dismiss Regan from employment. Regan claimed that the method of composing the three-member administrative panel which ruled on whether cause supported his termination violated his statutory rights under Education Code section 44944, subdivision (b).[1] Alternatively, Regan claimed that section 44944, subdivision (b), was unconstitutional as applied. Regan named the LAUSD as the real party in interest. The trial court denied the petition for a writ of mandate.
We affirm. Regan's designated member of the three-member administrative panel failed to appear at the first day of the hearing. Regan did not designate another member of the administrative panel. This constituted a failure to designate under section 44944, subdivision (b). The OAH was therefore statutorily authorized to request the Los Angeles County Office of Education to make a designation on Regan's behalf. Thus, the method for composing the three-member administrative adjudicatory panel did not violate Regan's statutory rights under section 44944, subdivision (b).
In addition, we conclude that section 44944, subdivision (b), is not unconstitutional as applied in this case. The statute did not impose an unfair burden or any costs upon Regan in exercising his rights to participate in the selection of one member of the three-member administrative panel. Finally, no miscarriage of justice resulted from the trial court order directing Regan to seek writ relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, as opposed to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
Regan contends that respondents violated his statutory rights under section 44944, subdivision (b), by the manner in which the OAH composed the administrative panel. Regan also makes an â€
