Robles

Robles v. Employment Development Department

Good Law
236 Cal. App. 4th 530
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 5, 2015A139774California9,156 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reardon, J.

This controversy — which involves the wrongful denial of unemployment compensation benefits — began in January 2010 because of a pair of shoes. More than five years later, appellant Employment Development Department (EDD or the Department) continues to refuse to award Jose Robles (Robles) the benefits to which he would have been entitled absent the Department’s error, this despite being ordered to do so twice by the trial court and once by this court. (See Robles v. Employment Development Dept. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1029 [ 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 ] (Robles /).) Most recently, in response to Robles’s motion to enforce writ of administrative mandate, the trial court in August 2013 ordered EDD “to pay withheld federal extension benefits, costs and interest in the amount of $45,560.39, within 30 days.” Instead, the Department appeals, arguing that Robles is not entitled to benefits for weeks in which he did not certify that he was able, available, and actively looking for work in accordance with EDD’s current regulatory scheme. Thus, EDD asserts, the trial court’s order is at odds with both federal and state law. The Department, unfortunately, has shown itself repeatedly unable…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.