Badon Kazi v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 836) September 8, 2026 DEPARTMENT 836 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

BADON KAZI, | Petitioner, | Case No. |

| vs. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, TFC PARTNERS, INC. dba NFC AMENITY MANAGEMENT | Respondent. Real Party in Interest | [TENTATIVE] RULING ON (1) PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PEREMPTORY WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE (1) RESPONDENTS' DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Dept. 86 (Hon. Curtis A. Kin) | | | | | Petitioner Badon Kazi moves for judgment on his First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate based on Respondent's purported failure to timely respond. Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board demurs to the second through ninth causes of action in Petitioner's First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate.

I.

Background

Petitioner Badon Kazi ("Petitioner") filed this action on October 10, 2025 and filed his operative First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus ("FAP") on May 4, 2026. Petitioner contends that respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ("Respondent") wrongfully rejected Petitioner's unemployment claim after ignoring evidence that Petitioner was constructively discharged by his employer for various unlawful reasons.

On June 8, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for Judgment on Peremptory Writ of Administrative Mandamus, arguing he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Respondent failed to timely respond to the FAP. On June 11, 2026, Respondent demurred to the second through ninth causes of action in Petitioner's FAP. On August 28, 2026, Respondent filed an opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Judgment. Petitioner has filed no opposition to Respondent's demurrer.

II. Petitioner's Motion for Judgment

Petitioner's Motion for Judgment on Peremptory Writ of Administrative Mandamus is DENIED. Respondent contends it timely responded to the FAP by having filed and served its demurrer on June 3, 2026. The Court's record reflects a filing date of June 11, 2026 for Respondent's demurrer. Whichever date is accurate, the Court finds good cause to accept Respondent's Demurrer to the FAP and consider it on the merits, as there is no apparent prejudice to Petitioner by the filing of a Demurrer that was purportedly untimely by a matter of days. (McAllister v.

County of Montere (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 281-82 ["Even assuming for argument's sake that the demurrer was filed late, the trial court nevertheless had discretion to entertain it. 'There is no absolute right to have a pleading stricken for lack of timeliness in filing where no question of jurisdiction is involved, and where, as here, the late filing was a mere irregularity [citation]; the granting or denial of the motion is a matter which lies within the discretion of the court.'"].)

III. Respondent's Demurrer

Respondent's demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. All of Respondent's claims in the second through ninth causes of action describe and assert claims and arguments as to why administrative mandamus ought to issue; they are not separate theories of relief against Respondent. Accordingly, they are subject to demurrer as duplicative of the first cause of action for a writ of mandamus pursuant to CCP 1094.5. (See Rodrigues v. Campbell Industries (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 494, 501.)

To the extent Petitioner seeks to assert separate causes of action against Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board under the theories that the Board is liable for constructively discharging petitioner, committing fraud with respect to inducing his employment, and breaching an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to petitioner's employment agreement, Petitioner fails to state a valid claim against the Respondent Board. As alleged by Petitioner, those adverse employment actions were made by Petitioner's employer against him, not the Respondent Board.

IV.

Conclusion

Petitioner's Motion for Judgment is DENIED. Respondent's Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Within five days, Respondent shall file and serve its Answer to the remaining claim in the FAP, namely, the first cause of action for administrative mandate under CCP 1094.5.

Case Number: 26STCP01194 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Dept: 836 PETITION FOR ORDER FROM RELIEF FROM LATE CLAIM LAW (GOV. CODE 946.6) Date: 9/8/26 (1:30 PM) Case: Latasha Stewart, et al. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (26STCP01194) TENTATIVE RULING:

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner Latasha Stewart, as guardian ad litem for her daughter Sasha Mulan Stewart ("Sasha"), filed this petition for relief from a government-claim deadline on March 24, 2026 against respondent Los Angeles Unified School District ("LAUSD"). Petitioner's underlying claim arises from injuries Sasha, who is Petitioner's six-year-old child, allegedly suffered on November 15, 2024, while under Respondent's care.

Petitioner retained counsel ("Counsel") for Sasha on December 6, 2024, and Counsel erroneously submitted a claim to the County of Los Angeles ("County") on January 16, 2025. The County rejected Petitioner's claim on May 8, 2025, as it was not the proper subject public entity.

Counsel contends he interviewed Petitioner a second time on June 8, 2025, and only then discovered at that interview that LAUSD may be liable because Petitioner's child was injured during an after school care program. (Odiase Decl. P. 9.) This contention, however, appears to be false, as it is directly contradicted by the contents of the January 16, 2025 claim submitted by Counsel to the County, wherein Counsel stated: "The incident happened on LAUSD premises during school hours and occurred because LAUSD [was negligent in various respects]." (Lesser Decl. Exh. A, Attach. 1.)

Counsel submitted petitioner's claim to LAUSD on June 8, 2025. On June 28, 2025, LAUSD requested that Petitioner submit further documents in support of her claim. Counsel contends he provided further documents and received no response. On September 4, 2025, Counsel filed with LAUSD an Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim. On September 26, 2025, LAUSD denied the application.

On March 24, 2026, two days before the six-month deadline to file, Counsel filed the instant petition for relief from the claims deadline. On August 7, 2026, LAUSD filed a "limited opposition" that "opposes the petition to the extent relief is sought on the ground of