Mann v. Dept of Motor Vehicles
| Decision Date | 20 October 1999 |
| Citation | 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 277,76 Cal.App.4th 312 |
| Parties | (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 1999) BABU SINGH MANN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent. H018718 Filed |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Trial Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court Trial Judge: he Honorable William F. Martin
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV770555)
Attorneys for Appellant: James McManis Michael Reedy McManis, Faulkner & Morgan
Attorneys for Respondent: Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Attorney General Martin H. Milas Senior Assistant Attorney General Damon M. Connolly Supervising Deputy Attorney General Terry Senne Deputy Attorney General
Plaintiff Babu Singh Mann appeals from a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate in which he challenged the revocation of his vehicle salesperson's license by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Because we conclude that the trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the judgment.
On December 13, 1996, the DMV filed an accusation against Mann, then a licensed vehicle salesperson. The DMV sought to revoke Mann's license on essentially three grounds: (1) Mann had given incorrect or false and misleading information in his application for a vehicle salesperson's license; (2) Mann had been convicted on a plea of no contest to approximately 23 felonies involving moral turpitude which were substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the licensed activity;1 and (3) Mann had previously had a vehicle dealer's license revoked. The DMV alleged that these grounds were cause to suspend Mann's license under section 11806, subdivision (d) of the Vehicle Code, which incorporated Vehicle Code section 11509, subdivision (a)(2), and section 11703, subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e).
A hearing on the accusation was held on March 19, 1997, before an administrative law judge. In addition to Mann, seven witnesses testified at this hearing, including Mann's relatives, his former criminal attorney, a family friend and representatives of Mann's current employer. Mann also submitted additional declarations from other co-workers.
On May 15, 1997, a proposed decision was entered by the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge entered a 10-page decision, adopting certain factual findings and determining the issues in the case. The administrative law judge found that Mann had made false or misleading statements in applications, and had been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, which constituted cause for revocation of his license, but that there were also certain matters in mitigation. In a section of the decision entitled "Determination of Issues," paragraph VIII, the administrative law judge outlined a number of mitigating factors, and found that it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow Mann a probationary license, conditioned upon continued employment by Stevens Creek Toyota.2 The administrative law judge therefore recommended a three-year probationary license for Mann, allowing him to continue working at Stevens Creek Toyota under specified terms and conditions.
The DMV issued a notice of the proposed decision, along with a statement that the director of the DMV had not adopted the proposed decision, and notified the parties that they could present oral argument before the DMV director or the director's representative.
On November 4, 1997, oral argument was presented by counsel to the DMV director. No additional testimony was presented before the DMV director. The following day, on November 5, 1997, the DMV filed its decision. The DMV adopted most portions of the proposed decision of the administrative law judge, but did not adopt paragraph VIII of the "Determination of Issues" and the proposed order allowing a three-year probationary license for Mann. The DMV substituted a different paragraph VIII and a different order. The order entered by the DMV revoked Mann's vehicle salesperson's license effective December 5, 1997.
Mann filed a petition for reconsideration with the DMV on November 24, 1997. In that petition for reconsideration, Mann argued that the DMV had improperly shifted the burden of proof to Mann, and that the DMV could not demonstrate that it would be detrimental to the public interest for Mann to retain a probationary license. Mann also argued that the evidentiary findings did not support the conclusion that his license should be revoked, that the findings were not supported by the evidence, and that the penalty imposed was overly harsh and punitive. Mann's probation officer sent a letter to the DMV director in support of reconsideration, stating that he did not consider Mann a threat to the public. The DMV denied Mann's petition for reconsideration.
On December 4, 1997, Mann filed a verified petition for writ of administrative mandamus with the superior court, requesting that the superior court direct the DMV to set aside its decision. Mann also filed an ex parte application for a stay of the DMV's decision to revoke the license. In support of his request for the stay of the DMV's decision, Mann filed his own declaration and declarations from his co-workers and his probation officer. The probation officer stated that allowing Mann to continue working at Stevens Creek Toyota would not endanger the public, and that he wanted Mann to continue paying restitution to the state, of which Mann had paid more than $125,000 in less than three years.
On December 8, 1997, the trial court granted an initial request for a stay. On February 3, 1998, the trial court held a more detailed hearing, continued the order staying the DMV's decision, and scheduled a hearing on Mann's petition for writ of administrative mandamus. Later, in April of 1998, the stay of the DMV's decision was revised so that Mann could accept an offer of employment from Oak Tree Mazda. The court ordered that Mann and his employer abide by the condition that Mann would have no involvement with licensing, sales tax or DMV fees, and would not handle money, prepare contracts or arrange financing.
A hearing on Mann's petition for writ of administrative mandamus took place in the superior court on April 23, 1998. Counsel argued at this hearing, but no additional evidence was presented. After examining the administrative record and considering the arguments and authorities submitted by the parties, the court denied Mann's petition in a minute order filed the following day. No statement of decision was requested or prepared.
On June 19, 1998, Mann filed an appeal from the trial court's decision denying his petition for writ of mandate. Judgment was entered in favor of the DMV on July 1, 1998.3 This court denied Mann's request for a stay of his license revocation during the pendency of this appeal.
On appeal, Mann argues that the DMV improperly shifted the burden of proof to Mann, that certain evidentiary findings adopted by the DMV do not support the DMV's decision to revoke his salesperson's license, and that certain other findings made by the DMV are not supported by the evidence.
At the outset, it is helpful to consider the standards that should be utilized in this case by the administrative agency, the trial court, and this court.
Evidence Code section 115 provides in part that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, the burden of proof requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence." Vehicle Code section 11806 provides that a salesperson's license may be suspended when the DMV makes any of a number of specified "findings and determinations." The statutes which govern granting, suspending and revoking these licenses give no suggestion that the determination must be made by an elevated standard of proof.
Mann asserts that the DMV had the burden of producing "clear and convincing [proof] to a reasonable certainty" that license revocation was necessary to protect the public interest. Mann presumes that the standard of proof for revocation of professional licenses, set forth in Ettinger v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 853, 856, applies to all occupational licenses. This is incorrect.
In fact, courts have drawn a clear distinction between professional licenses, such as veterinarians or psychologists, and non-professional occupational licenses. In San Benito Foods v. Veneman (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1889, 1894 (hereafter San Benito Foods), this court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard should be used in administrative proceedings to suspend or revoke a food processor's license. The court noted that a food processor's license could be obtained without meeting any educational or skill requirements. The only specific requirements for obtaining such a license were that the applicant show "'character, responsibility, and good faith'" and a sound financial status. (50 Cal.App.4th at p. 1894.) In contrast, in order to obtain a professional license, an applicant must ordinarily satisfy extensive educational and training requirements and pass a rigorous state-administered examination. (Ibid.) The court noted that this sharp distinction between professional licenses and non-professional licenses supported a distinction in the standards of proof applicable to proceedings to revoke these two different types of licenses. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial