Dent v. City of Alameda Housing Authority CA1/5

── Dent v. City of Alameda Housing Authority CA1/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 Dent v. City of Alameda Housing Authority CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE AMARRAH DENT, Plaintiff and Appellant, A173084 v. CITY OF ALAMEDA HOUSING (Alameda County AUTHORITY, Super. Ct. No. 23CV032887) Defendant and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Amarrah Dent appeals a judgment denying her petition for a writ of mandate and a postjudgment order denying her motion to strike prejudgment costs. We dismiss the appeal of the judgment because it is untimely. Further, we affirm the costs order because Dent’s briefs do not mention it at all, waiving any appeal. BACKGROUND 1. Administrative Proceedings In 2020 the City of Alameda Housing Authority notified Amarrah Dent it intended to terminate her housing assistance based partly on alleged fraud. 1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 19. 1 That notice began an administrative process that lasted two and a half years. During that process, a hearing officer found Dent did engage in fraud and Dent agreed to repay $30,945 per a written monthly installment agreement. After Dent failed to make multiple payments, the housing authority notified her on December 1, 2022, it intended to terminate her assistance based on her breach of the agreement. In 2023 the parties appeared at a hearing “to determine whether the [housing authority] complied with applicable law . . . pertaining to its decision dated December 1, 2022 to terminate [Dent’s assistance].” In a thorough written decision, the hearing officer found Dent knowingly signed the agreement, not under duress, and understood her agreed obligations despite an asserted disability; Dent “actively avoided” her obligations under the agreement, which she knowingly breached; the housing authority exhausted adequate measures to avoid terminating Dent’s assistance; and Dent was unlikely to comply with future repayment obligations. Based on those findings, the hearing officer upheld the housing authority’s decision of December 1, 2022. 2. Trial Court Proceedings a. Dent’s Writ Petition and the Judgment Representing herself, Dent petitioned the Alameda Superior Court for a writ of mandate to set aside the housing authority’s decision, alleging disability discrimination and “a range of due process violations.” After a contested hearing, the court entered judgment on October 4, 2024, denying the petition and awarding the housing authority “costs of suit as determined by a Memorandum of Costs.” Dent then moved for reconsideration, which the court denied partly as untimely. The housing authority served notice of entry of judgment on Dent by mail on November 1, 2024. 2  b. The Housing Authority’s Costs Memorandum On October 18, 2024, the housing authority filed and served its costs memorandum on Dent by mail. Thirty-eight days later, on November 25, Dent filed a motion to strike costs, which the housing authority opposed as untimely. The court agreed and denied the motion in a written order on April 1, 2025 (costs order), adding: “Even if the court