Lang v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA2/6

Filed 7/15/14 Lang v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

DONG LANG, 2d Civil No. B247840 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2012-415239- Plaintiff and Appellant, CU-WM-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,

Defendant and Respondent.

Dong Lang, acting as her own attorney, appeals from the order denying her petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5; Unemp. Ins. Code, § 410) seeking to compel the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (Board) to grant her claims for benefits under the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub.L. No. 110- 252) (Federal Act)1 and extended duration benefits (FED-ED benefits) under the Federal–State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended. For nearly three years, appellant received a combination of regular unemployment benefits, emergency benefits, and FED-ED benefits. Here she seeks additional emergency and FED-ED benefits under her 2009 regular claim. Appellant contends the trial court

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Federal Act (Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub.L. No. 110-252) 26 U.S.C. § 3304 note). The Federal Act is not codified in the United States Code, but its text is printed as a note following section 3304 of title 26 of that code.

misinterpreted the relevant federal statutes and regulations and erred in concluding she was not eligible for such benefits under that claim. We respectfully disagree and conclude the trial court correctly ruled that appellant was not eligible for additional benefits under her 2009 claim. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant collected unemployment benefits of $450 per week for two years, beginning in April 2008, when she filed a claim for regular unemployment benefits (2008 regular claim) with the Employment Development Department (EDD). Because she filed in April 2008, her base period for that claim was the one-year period that ended on December 31, 2007. (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 1275.)2 The EDD calculated her weekly benefits of $450 based on her 2007 earnings. It paid appellant benefits through February 28, 2009, under her 2008 regular claim. The EDD then paid appellant emergency benefits weekly through April 11, 2009. In April 2009, appellant filed a claim for regular unemployment benefits (2009 regular claim). The base period for her 2009 regular claim was the one-year period that ended on December 31, 2008. The EDD paid her regular benefits of $450 weekly through November 7, 2009. The EDD then reinstated the remaining unpaid benefits of her prior claim for emergency benefits through February 13, 2010. Effective February 14, 2010, appellant received weekly benefits through April 10, 2010. In April 2010, appellant filed a claim for regular unemployment benefits (2010 regular claim). The base period for the 2010 claim was the one-year period that ended on December 31, 2009. She received a weekly benefit of $97, based on her highest quarter of earnings ($2,513). Appellant had no other earnings in 2009. The EDD paid appellant regular benefits of $97 weekly through July 10, 2010, under her 2010 regular claim. It subsequently paid her the remaining benefits payable under her previous emergency claims, at the rate of $97 per week, through January 11, 2011.