Setliff Bros. Serv. v. Bureau of Auto. Repair

California Court of Appeal Feb 27, 1997 No. C023390Published

Before: Puglia

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a district attorney's civil action under the Unfair Practices Act does not preclude a subsequent administrative action by a licensing agency based on the same facts, as the remedies are cumulative and serve distinct purposes.

Issues

Whether a civil action under the Unfair Practices Act precludes a subsequent administrative licensing action based on the same facts.
Whether an administrative action following a civil settlement violates constitutional due process or fundamental fairness.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The administrative action was entirely remedial in nature, designed to determine plaintiffs’ fitness to hold smog control and automotive repair licenses.”

“It is thus evident the administrative action and the civil action are two separate legal proceedings involving separate agencies seeking separate but necessary relief.”

Opinion

PUGLIA, P. J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment denying their petition for writ of mandate.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) We affirm.

SBS is an automotive repair and smog check facility located in Riverbank, California. Beginning in May 1991, the Bureau of Automotive Repair (Bureau), on five separate occasions, induced defects in state undercover vehicles which would prevent these vehicles from passing bona fide smog check inspections. These vehicles were then presented to SBS, which, inter alia, issued smog certificates despite the fact the vehicles were not in compliance with the law.

The vehicles were subsequently reinspected by the Bureau and the originally induced defects were still found to be present.

As a result of the Bureau’s investigation, the District Attorney for Stanislaus County brought an action (hereafter the civil action) against plaintiffs in the Stanislaus Superior Court pursuant to the Unfair Practices Act. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17000 et seq.) The civil action was based on plaintiffs’ alleged violations of the Automotive Repair Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 9880 et seq.) and the motor vehicle inspection program (Health & Saf. Code, § 44000 et seq.).

The civil action was settled by way of a stipulated consent decree and final judgment entered in November 1992. SBS agreed to pay the County of Stanislaus $7,500 in civil penalties and the Bureau $2,500 as reimbursement for investigative costs. Additionally, SBS agreed to provide additional smog inspection training to its employees. Finally, SBS was permanently enjoined from violating the statutes and regulations relating to smog inspections and automotive repairs.

In February 1993, approximately four months after the judgment in the civil action, the Chief of the Bureau filed an accusation against plaintiffs with the Department of Consumer Affairs. The Bureau’s administrative

[1494]

action was based on the same facts which gave rise to the civil action. In the administrative action, the Bureau sought to revoke or suspend SBS’s auto repair dealer registration and smog check license, as well as the qualified mechanic certificates held by plaintiffs Robinson, Bubnes and Cantwell.

Setliff Bros. Serv. v. Bureau of Auto. Repair

AI Brief

PUGLIA, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief