Williams v. Cal. Unemployment Appeals Bd. CA2/4

Filed 9/4/25 Williams v. Cal. Unemployment Appeals Bd. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

LIONEL C. WILLIAMS, B340460

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCP04162) Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS BOARD,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Judge. Affirmed. Lionel Williams, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer M. Kim, Gregory D. Brown, and Michael E. Byerts, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.

Appellant Lionel Williams filed a petition for writ of mandate against respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB). Appellant did not attend the hearing on the writ and the court denied the petition. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to set aside default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b)),1 asserting that he had experienced a medical emergency that prevented him from attending the hearing. The trial court found that appellant had not demonstrated good cause under section 473(b) but nevertheless allowed him to argue the merits of his writ petition. After finding that none of appellant’s substantive arguments would have resulted in granting the writ, the court denied appellant’s motion for relief from default judgment. On appeal, appellant challenges the denial of his motion for relief from default. We find no error and affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. Writ Petition We provide the following summary based on the limited information in the record. Appellant, in propria persona, filed a petition for writ of mandate in November 2022. He sought to set aside the CUIAB decision affirming a decision of the Employment Development Department that he received an overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits. Both parties filed briefs and the court scheduled a hearing on the petition for April 17, 2024. The record on appeal does not contain the writ petition or any of the briefs. Appellant did not appear for the April 17, 2024 hearing. According to the minute order from the hearing, the court called the case twice, admitted the administrative record into evidence, and adopted its tentative ruling denying the writ. The minute order also stated that the court had read and considered all moving, opposing, and reply papers. The appellate record does not contain the court’s written ruling denying the writ petition and no court reporter was present at the hearing.