Diaz v. Quitoriano
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | PIERCE |
| Citation | 268 Cal.App.2d 807,74 Cal.Rptr. 358 |
| Parties | Jesus DIAZ, Soledad Diaz et al., all on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Mary QUITORIANO, Director of the Sutter County Welfare Department, and Sutter County Welfare Department, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 11723. |
| Decision Date | 15 January 1969 |
Page 358
v.
Mary QUITORIANO, Director of the Sutter County Welfare Department, and Sutter County Welfare Department, Defendants and Respondents.
Page 360
[268 Cal.App.2d 808] Myron Moskovitz, Marysville, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Renzo A. Del Pero, Special Asst. Sutter County Counsel, Yuba City, for defendants and respondents.
PIERCE, Presiding Justice.
Petitioners sought a writ of mandate from the superior court directed to respondents Sutter County Welfare Department and its director. The court denied and dismissed the petition on the ground it lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ because petitioners had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. 1 Petitioners appeal. We hold that no administrative remedy existed.
The superior court never issued an alternative writ. It reached its decision after a special hearing ordered by it on the jurisdictional issue. Since respondents were not required to answer an alternative writ (Code Civ.Proc. §§ 1087, 1089), the absence of an answer may not be deemed an admission of the allegations of the verified petition (id. §§ 462, 1109). For purposes of reviewing the jurisdictional question, we must assume the facts alleged in the petition are true. (See Roberts v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County (1916) 30 Cal.App. 714, 720, 159 P. 465; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Pleading, § 484, p. 1471.) The petition avers: Petitioners Jesus Diaz and Soledad Diaz are 'general guardians' (inferentially the parents) of minor petitioners Juana and Guadalupe Diaz. Respondents are the county agency and its director statutorily required to administer in Sutter County certain public social service (i.e., welfare) programs administered statewide by the Department of Social Welfare (hereinafter 'Department'). (Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 10054, 10058, 10600, 10800--10802.) On April 10, 1967, petitioner Jesus Diaz went to respondents and requested aid on behalf of his family. He was orally told by respondents that he was not eligible for any 'categorical' 2 aid program [268 Cal.App.2d 809] administered by the Department, including the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (hereinafter 'AFDC') (Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 11200-11488). 3 Respondents did not advise him 'of his right to submit a written application for such aid, nor was he advised of his right to an administrative appeal' from the county agency to the Department.
Page 361
Petitioners contend that '(b)ecause of said acts and failures to act' they have been unable to secure welfare aid to which they are They claim they were then, and are now, eligible for AFDC benefits. 4The mandate proceeding was commenced on petitioners' behalf by an attorney from a branch office of California Rural Legal Assistance, a service which furnishes free legal aid to indigents. Their pleading was framed as a class action. 5 Petitioners brought the action on their own behalf and as alleged 'representatives * * * of all other persons residing in Sutter County who may be eligible for welfare benefits, but who have been, and will be, treated by respondents in the same manner as petitioners' unless the writ issues. This and other allegations that respondents did and will treat in a similar manner members of the class which petitioners claim to represent were supported by affidavits from four other welfare applicants which (liberally construed) allege that respondents advised none of them of their rights 'to submit an application' and 'to a fair hearing.' The petition stated that the class members were numerous and that it was impracticable to bring them all before the court.
The petition Did not ask that respondents be ordered to pay welfare benefits either to petitioners or to the alleged class members. It prayed for a writ 'commanding Respondents To advise all persons requesting any form of aid from Respondents of their rights to make written application for benefits under the categorical aid programs administered by the State Department of Social Welfare, and To advise said persons that if they are dissatisfied with any action of Respondents, such [268 Cal.App.2d 810] persons have a right to request an administrative hearing before the State Department of Social Welfare.' (Italics ours.) The Welfare and Institutions Code, (§§ 10500, 11050) and implementing regulations of the Department clearly place upon respondents a ministerial duty to give such advice, regardless of the particular applicant's eligibility for aid. 6
Section 10950 of the Welfare and Institutions Code affords an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Residents of Beverly Glen, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
...that he is interested as a citizen in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced . . .' See also Diaz v. Quitoriano, 268 Cal.App.2d 807, 811, 71 Cal.Rptr. 358; Kappadahl v. Alcan Pacific Co., 222 Cal.App.2d 626, 643, 35 Cal.Rptr. We paraphrase from Swaffield v. Universal Ecs......
-
Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School Dist.
...22 (attack on rules and regulations of Adult Authority by corporations interested in prisoner welfare); Diaz v. Quitoriano (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 807, 811, 74 Cal.Rptr. 358 (class action to force Department of Social Welfare to advise petitioner and others of their rights); and Fuller v. San......
-
Glendale City Employees' Assn., Inc. v. City of Glendale
...(Ogo Associates Page 523 [540 P.2d 619] v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 830, 834, 112 Cal.Rptr. 761; Diaz v. Quitoriano (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 807, 812, 74 Cal.Rptr. 358; Comment, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies in California (1968) 56 Cal.L.Rev. 1061, 1079--1080.) The city's ......
-
Karlin v. Zalta
...109.) Reliance on Ramos Page 399 v. County of Madera (1971) 4 Cal.3d 685, 94 Cal.Rptr. 421, 484 P.2d 93 and Diaz v. Quitoriano (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 807, 74 Cal.Rptr. 358, where class actions were brought without exhausting administrative remedies, is not helpful. In those cases, sections o......
-
Residents of Beverly Glen, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
...that he is interested as a citizen in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced . . .' See also Diaz v. Quitoriano, 268 Cal.App.2d 807, 811, 71 Cal.Rptr. 358; Kappadahl v. Alcan Pacific Co., 222 Cal.App.2d 626, 643, 35 Cal.Rptr. We paraphrase from Swaffield v. Universal Ecs......
-
Glendale City Employees' Assn., Inc. v. City of Glendale
...(Ogo Associates Page 523 [540 P.2d 619] v. City of Torrance (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 830, 834, 112 Cal.Rptr. 761; Diaz v. Quitoriano (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 807, 812, 74 Cal.Rptr. 358; Comment, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies in California (1968) 56 Cal.L.Rev. 1061, 1079--1080.) The city's ......
-
Karlin v. Zalta
...109.) Reliance on Ramos Page 399 v. County of Madera (1971) 4 Cal.3d 685, 94 Cal.Rptr. 421, 484 P.2d 93 and Diaz v. Quitoriano (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 807, 74 Cal.Rptr. 358, where class actions were brought without exhausting administrative remedies, is not helpful. In those cases, sections o......
-
Ross v. Superior Court, S.F. 23549
...director it is clear that the proceeding was not barred by the exhaustion of remedies doctrine. The case of Diaz v. Quitoriaro (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 807, 74 Cal.Rptr. 358 is directly on point. In Diaz, welfare recipients brought an action against Sutter County, claiming that the county had ......