Vanderford v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA4/1

── Vanderford v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 Vanderford v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA KENNETH W.E. VANDERFORD, D084735 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2022- 00050638-CU-WM-CTL) CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Matthew C. Braner, Judge. Affirmed. Kenneth W.E. Vanderford, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Maureen C. Onyeagbako and Darin L. Wessel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents. I INTRODUCTION Appellant Kenneth W.E. Vanderford filed a petition for writ of traditional mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) and writ of administrative mandamus (id., § 1094.5) in the superior court, challenging the denial of his application for federal-state extended duration (Fed-ED) benefits by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board) and Nancy Farias, in her official capacity as Director of the Employment Development Department (EDD) (together with the Board, Respondents). The court denied relief and entered judgment for Respondents on grounds that Vanderford’s writ petition was both untimely and without merit. We agree the writ petition was untimely and affirm the judgment on that basis, without addressing the writ petition on its merits. II BACKGROUND1 A. Legal Framework “California’s unemployment insurance program, as promulgated by the Unemployment Insurance Code, is part of a national system of reserves designed to provide insurance for workers ‘unemployed through no fault of their own, and to reduce involuntary unemployment and the suffering caused thereby to a minimum.’ ” (American Federation of Labor v. Unemployment 1 On appeal, Vanderford filed a motion to augment the appellate record with certain of his legal filings from the appeal, including: (1) the motion to augment the record; (2) a legal brief in support of the motion to augment the record; (3) a second amended notice designating the record on appeal; and (4) a proof of electronic service. While appellate briefing was ongoing, we deferred consideration of the motion. We now deny the motion on the basis that the trial court was never presented with the appellate court filings for which augmentation is sought. (See Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 [“Augmentation does not function to supplement the record with materials not before the trial court.”]; In re K.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 450, 456 [“The augmentation procedure cannot be used to bring up matters occurring during the pendency of the appeal because those matters are outside the superior court record.”].) 2 Ins. Appeals Bd. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1017, 1024 (American Federation).)2 “In order to receive [regular unemployment insurance] benefits, an unemployment insurance claimant applies to the EDD, a branch of the Health [and Human Services] Agency, which i