SCHMIDT, JON vs TRINUT FARM MANAGEMENT INC

Summary of Reasons: The administrative decision challenged in the First Amended Petition was issued pursuant to Modesto Municipal Code section 5 4.204, which sets forth multiple, independent grounds for designating a dog as "vicious" and abating the resulting public nuisance.

The Hearing Officer made express factual findings corresponding to those statutory criteria, including findings that the dog was involved in multiple bite incidents, that at least one incident resulted in documented injuries to a person acting peacefully and lawfully, that defensive intervention was required, and that the dog posed an ongoing threat of bodily harm. Those findings were adopted by the City Manager in the final administrative order.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the Court's role is limited to determining whether the administrative findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the proceedings were conducted in a manner consistent with due process. The Court does not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony. The administrative record, as summarized in the Hearing Officer's findings and the City Manager's order, contains evidence of reasonable, credible, and solid value supporting the determination that the dog is "vicious" within the meaning of Modesto Municipal Code section 5 4.204.

The record further reflects that Petitioner received notice of the hearing, appeared and testified, submitted written materials, and was afforded an opportunity to respond to the evidence presented by the City. The Hearing Officer expressly found that the requirements of administrative due process - notice and an opportunity to be heard - were satisfied. On this record, Petitioner has not established a prejudicial abuse of discretion or a denial of a fair hearing. Accordingly, because substantial evidence supports the administrative decision and no due process violation has been shown, the First Amended Petition for writ relief is denied.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-21-000749 - SCHMIDT, JON vs TRINUT FARM MANAGEMENT INC - Defendant Sarbjit Athwal's Demurrer to Plaintiff Jon Schmidt's First Amended Complaint (FAC) - OVERRULED. Defendant's statute of limitations argument is not established on the face of the pleading. The FAC does not allege a specific date of breach, and Plaintiff asserts tolling and other accrual theories. Resolution of accrual and tolling issues is fact dependent and not appropriate on demurrer. The applicability of the relation back doctrine likewise presents factual issues.

The Court previously required briefing on notice, mistake, and prejudice. Plaintiff alleges Defendant's role was not understood until discovery and that Defendant not only had notice of the action but participated in its defense. Resolution of these factual issues is not appropriate at the pleading stage. Defendant's standing argument depends on interpretation of the assignment, which is not conclusively established by the FAC. Additionally, without conceding lack of standing, Plaintiff notes that Summit Gold intended to convey all of its rights and obligations then accrued to Plaintiff, and if the assignment did not effectuate the transfer, the assignment can be amended.