Branden v. State of Ca. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA2/4

Filed 2/24/14 Branden v. State of Ca. Unemployment Ins. 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 CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JEFFREY BRANDEEN, B243677

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS131360) v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ann I. Jones, Judge. Affirmed. Jeffrey Brandeen, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie P. McElroy, Phillip J. Matsumoto and Carmen D. Snuggs, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Jeffrey Brandeen appeals from the judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend to his petition for writ of mandate

challenging a decision of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board), which declared him ineligible for unemployment benefits and ordered repayment. We affirm.

BACKGROUND From July 6, 2008 through November 21, 2009, appellant received unemployment insurance benefits for separate periods of 20 weeks, 12 weeks, 13 weeks, and 2 weeks.1 After the California Employment Development Department issued notice that appellant was ineligible for those benefits and sought repayment, appellant appealed the notice to the Board. An administrative law judge heard the case, and ruled that appellant was overpaid benefits and was liable for repayment because, inter alia, he made willfully false statements and withheld material facts when claiming benefits, i.e., that he had accepted employment with the University of Phoenix as an online teacher beginning August 30, 2008. Appellant appealed the administrative law judge’s decision. On September 21, 2010, the Board’s appellate panel issued a final decision affirming (with certain modifications and a limited remand) the administrative law judge’s findings. Included with the decision was a notice of “FURTHER APPEAL AND PARTIAL REMAND INFORMATION” which stated in part: “If you wish to appeal the enclosed decision, you may seek review in Superior Court by filing a Petition for Writ of Mandate pursuant to section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. You must file such petition directly with the Superior Court not later than six (6)