Alley & Company v. Office of Administrative Hearings CA3

Filed 7/23/13 Alley & Company v. Office of Administrative Hearings CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

ALLEY & COMPANY, INC., C066477

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 34201080000429CUWMGDS) v.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS,

Respondent;

CONTRACTORS’ STATE LICENSE BOARD,

Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Real party in interest Contractors’ State Licensing Board (Board) entered into a settlement agreement and disciplinary order (disciplinary order) with plaintiff Alley & Company, Inc., whereby plaintiff admitted certain allegations in citations issued by the Board and the Board placed plaintiff on probation for a period of two years. Plaintiff later filed an application to set aside the disciplinary order, claiming it had been unaware at the time it agreed to the order that notice of the discipline would remain on the Board’s

1

website for more than two years. Respondent Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) denied plaintiff’s application to set aside the disciplinary order. Plaintiff initiated this mandamus proceeding seeking an order compelling OAH to grant plaintiff’s application. The trial court granted the requested relief, and the Board appeals. We conclude plaintiff is not entitled to writ relief because its petition below was untimely. We therefore reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS On March 14, 2007, the Board filed an accusation against plaintiff regarding a 2004 construction project. In October 2008, the Board expanded the accusation to include additional projects. In August 2009, plaintiff and counsel for the Board agreed to settle the matter by way of the disciplinary order. The order provided that plaintiff’s contractor’s license would be revoked, but such revocation would be stayed and plaintiff would be placed on probation for a period of two years. The order further provided that it would not become effective until signed by the Registrar of the Board (Registrar). On September 3, 2009, the Registrar issued an order adopting the disciplinary order and specifying that such order would go into effect on October 14, 2009. In the meantime, plaintiff learned that Business and Professions Code section 7124.6 requires that notice of any disciplinary action be maintained on the Board’s website for five to seven years. Plaintiff sought assurances from the Board that information on the website would be removed at the end of the two-year probationary period. After the Board failed to provide such assurances, plaintiff requested that the disciplinary order be rescinded. The Board declined to permit rescission. On October 2, 2009, 12 days before the disciplinary order was to go into effect, plaintiff filed an application to set aside the order due to mistake. On November 12,