Defendants, CCTMO LLC & T-Mobile's Demurrer to Complaint
Court is inclined to DENY the petition.
On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Gilton Solid Waste Management Inc. ("Gilton") filed the instant Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate to set aside 14 administrative citations issued by Respondent City of Modesto ("City) for the illegal dumping of over 1,200 mattresses at City's mattress recycling center.
On April 16, 2026, City submitted an Opposition and Request for Judicial Notice.
On May 1, 2026, Petitioner Gilton submitted a Reply.
Writ of Administrative Mandate "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." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1094.5(a).)
"The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1094.5(b).)
"Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence." (Ibid.)
"If the administrative decision involved or substantially affected a 'fundamental vested right,' the superior court exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo in which the court must examine the administrative record for errors of law and exercise its independent judgment upon the evidence. [Citations.]" (JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1057.)
"Where no fundamental vested right is involved, the superior court's review is limited to examining the administrative record to determine whether the adjudicatory decision and its findings are supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record." (Ibid.)
Respondents unopposed Request for Judicial Notice The Court is inclined to GRANT City's unopposed request for judicial notice.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Gilton's Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate Modesto Municipal Code Section 5-5.106(a) makes it unlawful to dump bulky items on public property without consent or approval. (AR 3-13.)
Petitioner Gilton received 14 citations for illegally dumping over 1,200 mattresses at the City's mattress recycling center, often when the site was closed, from April 4, 2025 to May 2, 2025. (AR 3-173-3-176.)
Petitioner argues that it was proper to leave the mattresses at the recycling center site because that is the location City has established to recycle mattresses and there is a sign posted stating that the mattresses can be left at the site when the recycling center is closed. (AR 4-2.)
City contends that the recycling center is for residents only and is not for Petitioner because Petitioner is franchised as a collector for City and is contractually required to take waste to another facility. (AR 3-33; AR 5-8.)
The parties' contract does not appear to specify the location where Petitioner is required to take recyclable materials, which the contract defines as distinct from waste. (AR 3-33-AR 3-35.)
In addition, City's recycling center has a drop off limit of 10 units maximum. (AR 3-167; AR 5-3.)
It is undisputed that Petitioner exceed the 10 unit maximum.
Petitioner also argues that City was required to "[i]ssue 5-day Notice of Violation to offender if it meets the requirements of the City of Modesto Municipal Code sections 5-5.106 and 9-9.301." (AR 4-11.)
But the 5-day notice applies to mattresses dumped on private property only. (AR 5-33-5-35.)
Accordingly, it does not appear that City violated any provision of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
CV-26-001469 - AARZA GROUP INC vs MARTIN, ROBERT - Defendants, CCTMO LLC & T-Mobile's Demurrer to Complaint - OVERRULED as MOOT.
The original complaint was superseded by the First Amended Complaint filed on June 3, 2026.
Consequently, the demurrer to the original complaint is OVERRULED as MOOT
PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATTHEW - Petitioner's Motion to Disqualify Cyril L Lawrence and