Riaz v. Dental Board of California CA5

Filed 9/25/25 Riaz v. Dental Board of California CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SAMREEN FARID RIAZ, F088523 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. VCU303441) v.

DENTAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Bret D. Hillman, Judge. Samreen Farid Riaz, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Carl W. Sonne, Assistant Attorney General, Joshua A. Room, Andrew M. Steinheimer and Brent O. Jex, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Samreen Farid Riaz filed this appeal after the superior court denied her petition under Civil Code of Procedure section 1094.5.1 Riaz had sought to challenge an order imposed by the California Dental Board2 revoking her license to practice dentistry.

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated. 2 We refer to the California Dental Board as the Board.

The superior denied Riaz’s petition for two reasons. One, it found the petition untimely. Two, it found she failed to carry her burden to prove the Board’s revocation order was erroneous. The Board, represented by the Attorney General, urges us to affirm because it believes Riaz’s petition was untimely and its revocation order was otherwise supported by evidence. We do not find Riaz’s petition untimely. As discussed below, Riaz timely filed the same petition at issue in this court, but that petition was “denied without prejudice.” We also find, however, Riaz fails on the merits. Accordingly, we will affirm the order denying the petition. BACKGROUND To make a long story short, Riaz was a licensed dentist until the Board revoked her license to practice after she refused to comply with an order to submit to a mental health examination. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 820; Riaz v. State of California (F087504, Dec. 2, 2024) [nonpub. opn.].) The Board issued a final decision revoking Riaz’s license to practice dentistry on August 2, 2023.3 The notice mailed to Riaz stated the decision was effective September 1. The notice informed Riaz she may seek “reconsideration” via Government Code section 11521. Riaz indeed sought reconsideration, which was swiftly rebuffed. Then, on September 7, Riaz filed a petition for writ of mandate in this court (case No. F086809.) On October 26, the petition was “denied without prejudice,” stating Riaz “failed to exhaust her judicial remedies” because she did not seek a writ in the superior court. The instant petition was then filed in the superior court on November 13. The Board argued Riaz’s petition was “time-barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Government Code section 11523[.]” It explained the Government Code statutes operated