Rojas

This is a class action, attacking the validity of a regulation adopted by defendant, the Director of the State Department of Social Services. As far as is here pertinent, that regulation requires that an applicant for relief under the Aid for Dependent Children Act be disqualified for receiving such aid for a period of 30 days where he, although then unemployed and actively seeking work, has left a former employment without good cause. 1 The program herein involved— *289 usually referred to as AFDC-U—involves a cooperative program between the state and the federal government. The contention here made by appellant is that, although a pertinent federal regulation grants to the state the option of imposing such a limitation, 2 the language of the California statute—especially section 11201 of the Welfare and Institutions Code—allows of no such limitation.

I

While this case was pending, and during the briefing stage in this court, the Legislature amended section 11201 to provide expressly for the limitation herein involved. It is contended that that legislation rendered this case moot. However, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction, restraining the defendant from…

I would affirm the judgment. In my opinion the regulation in question is authorized by Welfare and Institutions Code sections 11205 and 11250.

This is a class action, attacking the validity of a regulation adopted by defendant, the Director of the State Department of Social Services. As far as is here pertinent, that regulation requires that an applicant for relief under the Aid for Dependent Children Act be disqualified for receiving such aid for a period of 30 days where he, although then unemployed and actively seeking work, has left a former employment without good cause. [1] The program herein involved — usually referred to as AFDC-U — involves a cooperative program between the state and the federal government. The contention here made by appellant is that, although a pertinent federal regulation grants to the state the option of imposing such a limitation, [2] the language of the California statute — especially section 11201 of the Welfare and Institutions Code — allows of no such limitation.

(1) While this case was pending, and during the briefing stage in this court, the Legislature amended section 11201 to provide expressly for the limitation herein involved. It is contended that that legislation rendered this case moot. However, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction,…