Mendones v. Bd. of Registered Nursing CA1/3
Filed 2/10/22 Mendones v. Bd. of Registered Nursing CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
MARIDOL C. MENDONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. A162692
BOARD OF REGISTERED (Alameda County NURSING, Super. Ct. No. HG19044092) Defendant and Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant Maridol C. Mendones (Mendones) filed a petition for judicial review of the revocation of her registered nurse license (license) by respondent Board of Registered Nursing (the Board). The superior court denied the petition based on Mendones’ failure to file an opening brief in support of her petition. We affirm.
1 We resolve this case by abbreviated form of opinion as permitted by California Rules of Court, Standard 8.1, which provides that a memorandum opinion is appropriate when the appeal “raise[s] no substantial issues of law or fact.”
1
BACKGROUND The Board revoked Mendones’ license, effective November 27, 2019, after adopting an administrative law judge’s recommended findings that discipline was supported by Mendones’ unprofessional conduct, including the making of “false or grossly incorrect” records regarding dangerous drugs, personal misuse of controlled substances, and mismanagement of personal health information. Ten days before the revocation was to take effect, Mendones filed a petition challenging the revocation of her license. The Board then lodged the administrative record in early March 2020. The superior court set a merits hearing for August 14, 2020, later continued to January 22, 2021. Before the hearing, the Board filed a “Non-Receipt of Anticipated Pleading” asserting Mendones had not filed an “opening brief” with the requisite citations to the administrative record lodged with the court. The Board further asserted that her petition, standing alone, was insufficient as it only cited to exhibits that were not shown to be part of the administrative record. Therefore, Mendones could not show that the Board’s findings and/or decision were not supported by the record. Mendones then filed an opening brief, but in that brief did not cite to any portions of the administrative record. On January 22, 20212, the court found that Mendones’ opening brief was untimely and lacked citations to the administrative record. It continued the merits hearing to March 18 and set a briefing schedule,
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)