(Super. Ct. No. SC20110006)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , Acting P. J.
Adamski v. Cal. Unempl. Ins. Appeals Bd. CA3
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
John V. Adamski brought this petition for writ of mandate to set aside an administrative decision of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board) that treated a lump sum payment he received in the last quarter of 2008 as though he had received it in equal shares in each quarter of the calendar year 2008, a year which he applied for, and received, unemployment benefits.
The trial court upheld the administrative decision and rendered judgment denying the writ of mandate. Adamski appeals from that judgment.
Because the trial court did not apply the correct standard of review of the administrative proceedings, we shall reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to apply its independent judgment to the evidence.
Adamski is the owner and sole shareholder of a corporation, Adamski Construction, Inc., whose business involves building custom homes.
On or about March 31, 2008, Adamski finished building a custom "spec" house on High Meadows Trail, and engaged a realtor to sell the house. Thereafter, although Adamski actively looked for work for himself and his corporation, he was unsuccessful in securing employment or work for either as the new-home construction industry suffered a serious downturn.
In September 2008, Adamski filed for unemployment insurance benefits with the California Unemployment Insurance Department. His request was approved, and he began collecting unemployment benefits.
In November 2008, the High Meadows Trail house sold. The corporation paid Adamski $20,000, which Adamski characterized as a "delayed payment" for the work he had performed on the Meadows Trail House prior to March 31, 2008.
Immediately following his receipt of the November 2008 payment, Adamski contacted the Employment Development Department (EDD) to "explain the nature" of the payment. Based on Adamski's representation he had been unemployed since March 31, 2008, when construction was completed on the High Mountain Trails house, EDD agreed that Adamski continued to qualify for unemployment benefits.
Adamski filed another claim for unemployment insurance benefits, effective September 6, 2009, based upon his lack of employment ...