LaRue

I dissent. The appeal presents three principal questions: (1) whether petitioners are entitled to retroactive relief in *556 the form of downward adjustment in the price of future food stamp allotments as a means of curing erroneous past deprivations; (2) whether the California courts have jurisdiction to grant this relief through this mandamus action against the state Director of Benefit Payments and (3) whether the federal Department of Agriculture is an indispensable party to the action. I would answer the first two questions in the affirmative, the third in the negative.

As a matter of substantive law, persons who are wrongfully denied food stamps by the administering state agency are entitled to retroactive relief in the form of downward adjustment in the price of future food stamp allotments; that sort of relief, rather than a retroactive award of stamps, is consistent with the statutory purpose of assuring that stamps will be used for nutritional purposes; the cost of the adjustment is to be borne solely by the United States Department of Agriculture and not by the state or its administering agencies. (Carter v. Butz (3d Cir. 1973) 479 F.2d 1084 (cert. den. Dec. 10; 1973);…

*545 Opinion

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel defendants (hereafter “defendant” or “director”) to provide retroactive relief to petitioner whose food stamps over a period of time had been erroneously denied her. 1 The trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer to an amended petition for mandamus without leave to amend on the grounds that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the court had no jurisdiction of the subject cause of action alleged in the petition, and there was a defect or misjoinder of parties. Petitioner appeals from the judgment of dismissal, contending:

Sometime in the early part of 1972, petitioner applied for benefits under the federal program (Food Stamp Act of 1964) which provides food stamps. ( 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 2011-2025 .) The United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) administers this program under which, at the *546 request of the states, low income households are enabled to purchase at a discount from their redeemable value, food stamps which may be used to obtain a nutritionally adequate diet. (Tindall v. Hardin (W.D.Pa. 1972) 337 F.Supp. 563, 564-565 ; affd. sub. nom. Carter v. Butz…

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel defendants (hereafter "defendant" or "director") to provide retroactive relief to petitioner whose food stamps over a period of time had been erroneously denied her. [1] The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer to an amended petition for mandamus without leave to amend on the grounds that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the court had no jurisdiction of the subject cause of action alleged in the petition, and there was a defect or misjoinder of parties. Petitioner appeals from the judgment of dismissal, contending:

1. Petitioner was wrongfully denied food stamp benefits and this wrong should be remedied through retroactive relief.

2. There was neither misjoinder of parties nor lack of jurisdiction in the within action.

a. Section 10962 of the Welfare and Institutions Code provides for the sole method of reviewing a final decision of, and that the sole respondent in such action is, the Director of the Department of Benefit Payments.

b. The Director of the Department of Benefit Payments is estopped from claiming that other parties must be joined as…