McDonald

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in sustaining the Assembly‟s demurrer because “California law makes clear” that he was not required to exhaust the administrative remedy set forth in section 98.7 before pursuing his causes of action in court. In support of his contention, plaintiff relies on Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 320, 323 (Lloyd), in which a division of the Second Appellate District held that “[t]here is no requirement that a plaintiff pursue the Labor Code administrative procedure prior to pursuing a statutory cause of action.” As we shall explain, in reaching that holding, Lloyd failed to distinguish Campbell, supra, 35 Cal.4th at page 321, which reaffirmed that “ „the rule is that where an administrative remedy is

3 provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act.‟ ” Because we find Campbell controlling, we decline to follow Lloyd, and conclude that the trial court properly sustained the Assembly‟s demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend. Because plaintiff was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before pursuing his…