Gleizer-Cerbu v. Cal. Dept. of Social Services CA4/1

Filed 8/10/21 Gleizer-Cerbu v. Cal. Dept. of Social Services CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN GLEIZER-CERBU, D077290

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2014- CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 00027970-CU-WM-CTL) SOCIAL SERVICES,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gregory W. Pollack, Judge. Reversed. Adrian Gleizer-Cerbu, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Richard T. Waldow, Gregory D. Brown and Julie T. Trinh, Deputy Attorneys General for Defendant and Respondent.

Adrian Gleizer-Cerbu appeals after the trial court entered judgment dismissing his administrative mandate writ petition for failing to bring the

case to trial within five years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.)1 Although defendant California Department of Social Services (Department) brought the dismissal motion, it now agrees the dismissal was improper because the five-year period was tolled while the matter was remanded for administrative proceedings. (See § 583.340.) We agree and reverse the judgment. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURE In January 2013, Gleizer-Cerbu applied for benefits under the In-Home Supportive Services program and the Personal Care Services Program. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 14132.95.) After the County of San Diego (County) denied the application, Gleizer-Cerbu filed a challenge with the Department. On July 3, 2013, the Department held an administrative hearing on Gleizer- Cerbu’s challenge. Six weeks later, on August 15, the Department upheld the County’s denial, finding Gleizer-Cerbu could perform routine activities of daily living without the need for the requested benefits. One year later, on August 18, 2014, Gleizer-Cerbu petitioned the superior court for a writ of administrative mandate seeking to overturn the Department’s determination. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10962.) In connection with this petition, the Department agreed to produce a record of the administrative proceedings. (See § 1094.6.) However, in September 2015, the Department requested that the court remand the matter for a new administrative hearing because the record of the 2013 administrative proceedings could not be found. Shortly after, on September 18, 2015, the court ordered the Department to set aside its August 2013 decision and remanded the matter