Is a writ of mandate an appropriate way to review an administrative decision?

Not only is a writ of mandate an appropriate means of reviewing an administrative decision, such a review is, under certain circumstances, a prerequisite to an action for the recovery of damages allegedly resulting from that decision. For instance, in Logan v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 116, 185 Cal.Rptr. 878, a discharged governmental employee brought an action against the district for, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of

Page 603

The same conclusion was reached under similar facts in City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1484, 234 Cal.Rptr. 136, review denied. There, an employee brought an action for damages for his discharge, without first challenging a personnel board's decision upholding that discharge. The court held that since the plaintiff's action was premised upon an assertion that the board's decision was erroneous or unjustified, his action was premature until he had overturned that decision through the medium of a writ of administrative mandamus. (Id. at pp. 1489-1490, 234 Cal.Rptr. 136.) Accordingly, it issued a writ of mandate, instructing the trial court to grant the city's motion for summary judgment and dismiss the action.