Francis Head v. Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles

Case Number

25CV03848

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 11/05/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Hearing on Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate

Tentative Ruling

For Petitioner Francis Head: Self-Represented

For Respondent Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles: Rob Bonta, Katharine A. Tremblay, Jennifer M. Yang, Attorney General of California

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein:

Petitioner Francis Head shall order, pay for, file, and serve the complete administrative record. Petitioner shall order the administrative record no later than November 14, 2025, and file and serve it immediately upon receipt.

A Case Management Conference is scheduled for January 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in this department, to discuss the status of the filing of the administrative record and to set a further briefing schedule and hearing date.

Background and Analysis

This action commenced on June 23, 2025, by the filing of the original Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate by Petitioner Francis Head against Respondent Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV” or “Respondent”). On June 25, 2025, Petitioner filed the operative Amended Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate (the “amended petition”).

According to the amended petition, Petitioner’s driver’s license was ordered suspended or revoked on April 17, 2020. Although the petition notes that a copy of the DMV’s order is attached to the petition, it is not.

By way of the amended petition, Petitioner seeks: “An alternative writ of mandate issue under the seal of the Court commanding Respondent Director of the DMV to set aside and revoke the DMV’s order suspending or revoking Petitioner’s license or to show cause before the Court at a time and place hereafter to be specified by the Court why it has not done so, and why a peremptory writ should not issue.”

On September 3, 2025, which was the original date scheduled for the hearing on the writ of mandate, the Court ordered that the administrative record be filed by October 8, 2025, and continued the hearing on the writ of mandate to November 5, 2025.

On October 22, 2025, Petitioner filed a “status brief” claiming that: “On September 3, 2025, the Court ordered that the DMV file and serve the administrative record not later than October 8, 2025. To date, there has been no production nor receipt of the record.”

Petitioner is mistaken about the October 8, 2025 order. The Court did not order that the DMV file and serve the administrative record. Obtaining, paying for, filing, and serving the administrative record is the responsibility of Petitioner. It appears that counsel for the DMV also advised Petitioner that it was Petitioner’s responsibility to file the administrative record and provided him with the telephone number for the DMV’s Legal Affairs Division to make the request. (Yang Decl, ¶ 3.)

As set forth in the September 3, 2025, minute order and ruling:

“Where the writ is issued for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer, the case shall be heard by the Court sitting without a jury. All or part of the record of the proceedings before the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer may be filed with the petition, may be filed with Respondent’s points and authorities, or may be ordered to be filed by the Court. Except when otherwise prescribed by statute, the cost of preparing the record shall be borne by the Petitioner. Where the Petitioner has proceeded pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 68630) of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Government Code and the Rules of Court implementing that section and where the transcript is necessary to a proper review of the administrative proceedings, the cost of preparing the transcript shall be borne by the Respondent. Where the party seeking the writ has proceeded pursuant to Section 1088.5, the administrative record shall be filed as expeditiously as possible, and may be filed with the petition, or by the Respondent after payment of the costs by the Petitioner, where required, or as otherwise directed by the Court. If the expense of preparing all or any part of the record has been borne by the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (a), italics added.)

“The burden is cast upon the Plaintiff . . . in a Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 proceeding, to produce the administrative record. [Citations.] And it is noted that Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (a), expressly provides that “ ‘the cost of preparing the [administrative] record shall be borne by the Petitioner,’ ” . . ..” (Hothem v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 702, 704–705.)

“In an administrative mandamus case, the administrative record contains the evidence introduced at the administrative hearing. [Citation.] The superior Court uses its independent judgment to review DMV hearing decisions which suspend driver’s licenses. [Citation.] Under this standard of review, the Court must independently weigh the evidence and may make its own findings.” (Ocheltree v. Gourley (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1017.)

“[W]here the Court has no administrative record, it cannot weigh the evidence. Nor may it decide the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the administrative decision. [Citation.]” (Ocheltree v. Gourley, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 1017.)

While, on October 28, 2025, the DMV lodged with the Court the DMV’s notification of findings and decision, as well as Petitioner’s driving record, those records are not certified, and the Court has no way of knowing whether those documents constitute the entirety of the administrative record. It is insufficient for purposes of deciding a writ of mandate.

Petitioner will again be ordered to file the administrative record.