Ansari v. Haris CA1/3

Filed 6/28/13 Ansari v. Haris CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MUSTAFA ANSARI, Plaintiff and Appellant, A136932 v. PAMELA HARRIS, as Director, etc., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG11599408) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Mustafa Ansari appeals from an order denying his petition for writ of mandate in which he sought to compel the Employment Development Department (department) to restore unemployment insurance benefits he claims were wrongfully withheld. Ansari also challenges an order denying his motion for reconsideration and an order denying a motion to sanction the department‟s attorneys. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ansari began receiving unemployment insurance benefits in 2008. In 2010, the department determined that Ansari was disqualified from receiving benefits for 15 weeks as a result of his willful failure to report earnings he had received in 2009. The department issued a notice of overpayment that required Ansari to pay statutory penalties as well as to pay back benefits totaling $4,286. Ansari filed administrative appeals of the department‟s disqualification and overpayment decisions with the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. The focus of these appeals was on whether Ansari had willfully made a false statement or

1

withheld a material fact in order to obtain benefits. On the basis of Ansari‟s sworn testimony, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Ansari had knowingly failed to report earnings received while he was accepting benefits. The ALJ modified the department‟s notice to provide that Ansari was disqualified from receiving benefits for 10 weeks. The ALJ also concluded that Ansari had received more benefits than he was due as a result of his willful misrepresentation and willful nondisclosure, thus requiring Ansari to repay benefits and pay a 30 percent statutory penalty. The ALJ set aside the department‟s notice of overpayment and remanded the matter for a redetermination of the repayment obligation and penalty assessment in light of information found in companion cases concerning Ansari‟s earnings during the period in question. Following the remand by the ALJ, the department issued a redetermination of Ansari‟s earnings during the relevant period in 2009. Ansari filed an administrative appeal of that redetermination. Among other things, Ansari claimed his testimony established that he earned less than the department had calculated. On his notice of appeal, he wrote, “2nd Appeal—Same Issue.” Ansari corresponded with the department via email over the succeeding months. In his correspondence, he disagreed with the department‟s redetermination and expressed his view that an additional period of disqualification had been imposed against him for which benefits should be reinstated. At one point, Ansari stated he was informed his appeal had been “miscoded as a False Claim appeal,” presumably reflecting that he was appealing a determination that he had willfully made a false statement or omission of material fact in order to obtain benefits. He clarified that he was appealing the department‟s redetermination of his wages and benefits. While Ansari‟s administrative appeal was pending, he filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the trial court. According to Ansari, this first writ petition sought to prohibit the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board from retrying matters previously decided. He asserted that the department fraudulently changed his administrative appeal from a challenge to the department‟s wage determination to another