have required the agency to violate its own rule. (Id. at p. 795.) That is not the case here. administrative remedy is not inadequate simply because it is not the result “[A]n desired.” (AIDS (2015) 241 Healthcare Foundation v. State Dept. of Health Care Services Cal.App.4th 1327, 1351.) V. A Peremptory Writ in the First Instance Is Appropriate. procedure should be adopted only when Palma] “Generally, [the accelerated to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served petitioner’s entitlement by plenary consideration of the issue—for example, . . . when there has been clear error under well-settled principles of law and undisputed (1992) v. Superior Court facts.” (Ng 4 Cal.4th 29, 35.) Here, the relevant facts are undisputed, and under well-settled principles of California law, BDE was required to exhaust its administrative remedy before seeking relief in court. BDE has not exhausted that remedy, is not excused from doing so, and cannot amend its complaint to cure this defect. (See Campbell, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 333.) Thus, on the record before us, respondent abused its discretion in overruling the demurrer. Board’s We informed the parties that we might proceed by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance, and we solicited and received preliminary opposition from BDE. with the procedural prerequisites, we are authorized to issue a “ ‘Having complied peremptory writ in the first (Johnny (2017) W. v. Superior Court instance.’ ” 9 Cal.App.5th 559, 568.) Disposition Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court in (Super. Ct. Contra Black Diamond Electric, Inc. v. Contractors State License Board Costa County, No. C1702451), to vacate its order of June 7, 2018, overruling petitioner’s demurrer, and to enter a new and different order sustaining that demurrer. This decision shall be final as to this court 10 court days after its filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) The previously issued stay shall dissolve upon finality of this opinion.
have required the agency to violate its own rule. (Id. at p. 795.) That is not the case here. “[A]n administrative remedy is not inadequate simply because it is not the result desired.” (AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. State Dept. of Health Care Services (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1351.) V. A Peremptory Writ in the First Instance Is Appropriate. “Generally, [the accelerated Palma] procedure should be adopted only when petitioner’s entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue—for example, . . . when there has been clear error under well-settled principles of law and undisputed facts.” (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35.) Here, the relevant facts are undisputed, and under well-settled principles of California law, BDE was required to exhaust its administrative remedy before seeking relief in court. BDE has not exhausted that remedy, is not excused from doing so, and cannot amend its complaint to cure this defect. (See Campbell, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 333.) Thus, on the record before us, respondent abused its discretion in overruling the Board’s demurrer. We informed the parties that we might proceed by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance, and we solicited and received preliminary opposition from BDE. “ ‘Having complied with the procedural prerequisites, we are authorized to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance.’ ” (Johnny W. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 559, 568.) Disposition Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court in Black Diamond Electric, Inc. v. Contractors State License Board (Super. Ct. Contra Costa County, No. C1702451), to vacate its order of June 7, 2018, overruling petitioner’s demurrer, and to enter a new and different order sustaining that demurrer. This decision shall be final as to this court 10 court days after its filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) The previously issued stay shall dissolve upon finality of this opinion.
A154476.DOCX