Alejo v. Torlakson
212 Cal. App. 4th 768
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs seek to reinstate onsite CPM reviews and require a monitoring plan/regulations for categorical programs benefiting LEP, migrant, homeless, and delinquent students.
- California’s CDE historically conducted CPM onsite reviews every three years under the BBEA; that duty is examined against later statutory changes and sunset provisions.
- Executive actions in 2008-2009 suspended nonmandatory CPM onsite reviews for budgetary/fiscal reasons, while authorizing other monitoring activities to continue and redesign of the monitoring system.
- The trial court denied the writ of mandate and granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appeal on ministerial/discretionary duties and federal-state compliance grounds.
- Key statutory framework includes the BBEA, sunset provisions (62000.2), and how 64001 and 52177 interact post-sunset, along with federal EEOA and NCLB obligations that plaintiffs invoke.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did 52177(d) survive the bilingual education sunset? | Plaintiffs contend 52177(d) remained operative. | Defendants argue 52177(d) was sunset by 62000.2. | 52177(d) is sunset and inoperative. |
| Whether the suspension of onsite CPM reviews violated ministerial duties or constituted abuse of discretion | Pls claim suspension breached mandatory duties and undermined monitoring. | Defendants urge discretion in timing and redesign; suspension was not an abuse. | No ministerial breach; no abuse of discretion. |
| Did the SBE fail to issue regulations under 54005 guiding monitoring standards? | Plaintiffs claim regulatory standards were not separately set. | Regulations in Title 5 adequately supply standards and criteria. | Regulations satisfy 54005. |
| Did federal law (EEOA, NCLB) require continuing onsite monitoring despite suspension? | Federal law mandates ongoing monitoring. | Other monitoring activities sufficed; no pure ministerial duty to onsite reviews. | No independent federal-duty violation found; ongoing monitoring viable. |
| Did the 2010 criteria for selecting districts for onsite visits unlawfully discard noncompliance/ compliance-history data? | Elimination of certain criteria violated 64001. | Criterion broadening and PI data still indicated noncompliant districts for review. | 2010 criteria upheld as within statutory discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Harper, 94 Cal.App.4th 52 (Cal.App.4th 2001) (mandamus limited to ministerial duties; cannot compel discretionary action)
- Carrancho v. California Air Resources Board, 111 Cal.App.4th 1255 (Cal.App.4th 2003) (de novo review on statutory interpretation questions)
- McLaughlin v. State Bd. of Education, 75 Cal.App.4th 196 (Cal.App.4th 1999) (BBEA sunset analysis; monitoring of LEP programs context)
- Estate of Cottle, 148 Cal.App.3d 1023 (Cal.App.3d 1983) (sunset-related question; legislative intent after sunset)
- Chenze, 97 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal.App.4th 2002) (statutory reenactment after sunset; no implied repeal of sunset)