Full Opinion

Filed 10/23/26 Blackman v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ANDREA BLACKMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, G066409 v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2024-01399543) CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT OPINION INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard J. Oberholzer (retired judge of the Kern Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) and Julianne S. Bancroft, Judges. Affirmed. Appellant’s motion to submit new evidence denied. Andrea Blackman, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Maureen C. Onyeagbako and Summer Bosse, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. * * * Andrea Blackman appeals the trial court’s judgment denying her petition of writ of mandate regarding overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits between March and August 2020. The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (UIAB) determined Blackman was ineligible for benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code1 sections 1252 and 1279. It also found she was properly assessed penalties because she made willfully false statements in connection with her benefit claims. Blackman contends the trial court erred because there was insufficient evidence to show she was ineligible for benefits during a five- week period beginning in March 2020. Further, she argues the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider additional wage documentation. We find no error and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The bulk of the facts herein are derived from the documents contained in the administrative record lodged with the trial court. In late 2022, the state Employment Development Department (EDD) sent Blackman three separate notices. On November 30, 2022, it sent her two notices of determination related to her claims for unemployment benefits. The first stated she was ineligible to receive benefits under sections 1252 and 1279 between March 15, 2020 and August 8, 2020, because she had worked for 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Unemployment Insurance Code. 2 Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group (Hanna’s) during that timeframe. The second notice stated she was ineligible to receive benefits under sections 1252 and 1279 between June 21, 2020 and August 8, 2020, because she was working for Western Express Lending during that timeframe. On December 1, 2022, the EDD mailed Blackman a notice of overpayment showing that beginning on March 15, 2020, she received an overpayment of $7,134 in unemployment benefits. Additionally, the EDD stated it was assessing a penalty of $2,140.20 because Blackman had either made willfully false statements or withheld relevant information in connection with her benefit claims. The EDD stated Blackman owed a total of $9,274.20 (overpayment plus penalties) and instructed her to repay it. Blackman filed an appeal form with the UIAB after receiving these notices. The UIAB set the matter for a hearing, which ultimately took place on January 24, 2024. At the hearing, only Blackman appeared and testified. She stated she applied for unemployment on March 17, 2020, after losing two positions due to COVID-19 shutdowns. However, one of her two employers, Hanna’s, received a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan and she agreed on May 8, 2020 to receive payment through that program. Blackman testified she then sent an e-mail to the EDD advising she could no longer receive her benefits since she would be compensated through the PPP monies. She also disputed some of the wages the EDD claimed she had been paid. She testified that she did not work between March and May of 2020, but that she returned to work at Hanna’s when it reopened in June; she testified she returned to work at Western Express Lending in July. Blackman testified money continued to be erroneously disbursed to her benefits card. 3 On February 2, 2024, the UIAB issued the administrative law judge’s decision affirming the EDD’s notices and finding Blackman liable for an overpayment of $7,134 plus $2,140.20 in penalties. The decision noted Blackman had repaid $4,623, partially satisfying the overpayment. However, the judge found she still owed $2,511 as well as the penalty assessment of $2,140.20. On or about March 5, 2024, Blackman filed an appeal of the administrative law judge’s decision. On April 15, 2024, the UIAB issued a final decision in Blackman’s case. The UIAB amended the findings of fact and the reasons for decision, and it then adopted the issue statement, the amended findings of fact, and the amended reasons for decision as its own decision. It noted that Blackman had disputed some of the wages she was alleged by the EDD to have earned, “but provided no evidence of her earnings with the two employers.” The decision also stated Blackman had “admitted to ‘unethically’ taking ‘that money’” even though she was working after June or July 2020. The UIAB noted that Blackman claimed to have repaid certain amounts but needed to contact the EDD to obtain an accounting reconciliation. Blackman filed a petition for writ of mandate contesting the UIAB’s decision. The court advanced the trial date from March 23, 2026 to November 3, 2025, and established a schedule for the parties’ trial briefs. Blackman filed her trial brief on October 21, almost one month after the September 26 deadline set by the court. She attached several exhibits, including records regarding her compensation from Hanna’s. The UIAB filed a timely brief opposing Blackman’s petition, arguing the UIAB’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that Blackman could not introduce evidence outside the administrative record. 4 After a hearing, the trial court denied Blackman’s petition. She filed a timely appeal. DISCUSSION Blackman makes three arguments. First, she argues the UIAB’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the administrative record did not contain a documented employer wage report to show that Blackman earned wages for the weeks that benefits were received. Next, she argues the trial court erred because it would not consider evidence Blackman offered to show when she was paid by Hanna’s. Finally, she argues the penalty was improper because there was no documentary evidence that she had engaged in willful misrepresentation. We first note serious deficiencies in Blackman’s briefs. She did not cite any legal authority for the arguments she made, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B). “We are not required to examine undeveloped claims.” (County of Sacramento v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858, 869.) And we may treat as forfeited legal claims lacking citation to authority. (Id. at p. 870.) Blackman also failed to include any record citations to support the factual assertions she made. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) “‘“The appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error.” [Citation.] Thus, “[i]f a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, . . . the argument [will be] deemed to have been waived.”’” (Le Mere v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 237, 248.) In addition, Blackman has chosen to proceed without a record of the oral proceedings below. “As a result, and because no factual error is apparent on the face of the record,” she cannot challenge the sufficiency of the 5 evidence. (See Robinson v. Gutierrez (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 278, 283.) Thus, Blackman’s appeal fails on procedural grounds alone. Even if we were to consider the appeal on substance, the “‘[j]udicial review of benefit decisions of the . . . Board is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.’ [Citation.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (b) limits the trial court’s inquiry into the propriety of an administrative decision to three grounds: ‘[(1)] whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; [(2)] whether there was a fair trial; and [(3)] whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.’ ‘Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.’” (Goldstein v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1006, 1013.) No impropriety appears here. Blackman claims the UIAB decision was not supported by employer wage records. But she did not introduce any records at the UIAB hearing to refute what her employers had reported. She only tried to introduce such evidence after the UIAB had made its decision. “Generally, on a [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1094.5 review after an administrative hearing, the court is limited to the evidence presented in the administrative proceedings unless the evidence was unavailable at the time of the hearing or improperly excluded from the record.” (Manderson-Saleh v. Regents of University of California (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 674, 694.) Blackman did not show or argue that she could not have introduced her wage records at the administrative hearing or that the 6 administrative law judge improperly excluded the records. As such, the trial court did not err by declining to consider them.2 Finally, Blackman’s contention that the penalty was inappropriate also fails. She argues the administrative record contained no documentary evidence to demonstrate she committed any intentional wrongdoing. But she cites no authority requiring documentary evidence of wrongdoing. Under section 1257, an individual is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation if they withhold a material fact to obtain unemployment compensation. (§ 1257, subd. (a).) Blackman admitted at the hearing that she continued to receive unemployment compensation after she began working again and that she knew it was unethical. 2 Blackman has also filed a motion to submit new evidence to this court pertaining to the same topic. We deny the motion. A reviewing court may exercise its discretion in exceptional circumstances to consider evidence not before the trial court—or, in this case, not before the administrative agency. (See Glassman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1281, 1309.) This authority may be exercised if the evidence arose after judgment or was unavailable prior to the judgment and the evidence supports affirmance. (Ibid.) The wage evidence Blackman seeks to submit does not meet these criteria. 7 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. SERVINO, J. WE CONCUR: MOORE, ACTING P. J. GOODING, J. 8