In Alford v. County of Los Angeles, published July 1, 2020, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 8 reversed a trial court's grant of summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. An agency of the respondent county served a notice of an administrative decision that both stated that the decision was final, and that the decision would become final 90 days after it was placed in the mail. It further stated that Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6--the statute of limitations for filing a petition for writ of administrative mandamus--required the plaintiff to file any petition seeking review no later than the 90th day on which the decision is deemed final. The plaintiff filed his administrative mandamus writ petition four months after the notice was served. The trial court concluded that the petition was time-barred.
The appellate court ruled that the agency did not serve notice of its decision in compliance with the statute, and for that reason the statute of limitations did not bar the petition. Section 1094.6 provides that where an agency decision is in writing, any petition challenging the agency decision must be filed within 90 days of the decision becoming final. Under the statute, the decision becomes final on the date the decision is served by first-class mail with a copy of the affidavit of mailing. The notice here did not clearly tell the plaintiff when the decision became final. It gave the plaintiff two inconsistent dates on which the decision became final. The petition could reasonably be deemed to mean that the decision would become final 90 days after mailing, and that the petitioner had 90 days from that date to file the petition. Because the notice did not comply with the statute, the statute of limitations did not bar the petition.
Comments