Valencia v. Board of Registered Nursing CA1/4

Filed 10/30/23 Valencia v. Board of Registered Nursing CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

JANET ANNE BAENA VALENCIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, A164976 v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. BOARD OF REGISTERED No. N18358) NURSING, Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant Janet Anne Baena Valencia obtained mandamus relief from the trial court requiring the Board of Registered Nursing (BRN) to vacate certain discipline imposed by BRN against her nursing license, and now appeals the denial of her post-judgment application for an award of attorney’s fees. We see no abuse of discretion and shall affirm. This is the second appeal arising out of Valencia’s dispute with BRN over the discipline imposed against her license. In the first appeal, resolved

1 We conclude this matter is proper for disposition by memorandum

opinion in accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules, rule 19, Abbreviated opinions.) We therefore recite the facts only as necessary to resolve the issues on appeal.

1

by unpublished opinion in May 2021 (Valencia v. Board of Registered Nursing (May 28, 2021, A159249) [2021 WL 2177046] (Valencia I)), Valencia challenged the grounds on which the trial court ruled in her favor when it issued the writ, arguing that the court did not go far enough. She asked us to uphold the grant of writ relief, but on broader grounds than the trial court adopted. In this second appeal, rather than repeat the full factual and procedural background, we will assume familiarity with the background as recited in Valencia I. Stated in summary, Valencia argued in Valencia I “that, by making its [discipline] decision immediately effective, the BRN cut off her right to seek reconsideration and impaired her right to seek judicial review, thus violating due process rights and abusing its discretion. Valencia also argued that, because the alleged medication error was neither an error she personally made nor did it occur in the course of her duties as a registered nurse, the discipline imposed went beyond the BRN’s statutory authority.” (Valencia I, supra, A159249 [2021 WL 2177046 at p.