Acosta

Acosta v. Brown

Good Law
152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 340·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 68·213 Cal. App. 4th 234·2013 WL 341471
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 2013No. A132426California11,838 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kline, J.

Appellants, unemployed California residents previously employed as farmworkers or in other low wage or minimum wage jobs, experienced significant delays in receiving benefits due them under the California unemployment compensation program (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 100 et seq.), suffering significant hardships as a result. In 2008, they sought a writ of mandate from the San Francisco Superior Court directing the Governor *238 and other state officials 1 to ensure in specified ways that appellants and others eligible for such benefits receive them within the time periods specified in federal regulations. Declining to do so under a state doctrine of judicial abstention, the trial court granted respondents’ motion for judgment on the writ. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.) Appellants timely appealed that ruling. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The California Unemployment Insurance Program

The California unemployment insurance program is part of a national program established under the Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 501 et seq.), the Federal Unemployment Tax Act ( 26 U.S.C. § 3301 et seq.) (FUTA), and the Unemployment Insurance Code (Unemp. Ins. Code, §§ 100-101). FUTA imposes a federal tax…

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.