55 A.3d 894
D.C.2012Background
- PCSB unanimously revoked Kamit's charter on Aug. 12, 2010 and Kamit sought judicial review, including an emergency stay, which the motions court denied; the Superior Court and then this court affirmed the stay denial in 2010 and Kamit filed a civil complaint challenging the revocation.
- Two consolidated appeals are before the court: (i) review of the revocation on the merits, adopting the motions court’s findings, and (ii) dismissal of Kamit’s civil complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- DC charter system established by the SRA; PCSB oversight transferred from BOE in 2007; PCSB can revoke a charter for statutory violations or failure to meet goals; procedures require notice and an informal hearing with a final written decision.
- Kamit was established in 2000, served ~250 students, and proposed Academic and Non-Academic Goals, including ILPs and governance structures; BOE granted Kamit’s charter petition.
- By 2010 the PCSB had three years of monitoring; it revoked Kamit’s charter after finding persistently poor test scores, underdeveloped curriculum, and governance/attendance problems, concluding Kamit could not remediate; Kamit argued procedural deviations and the PCSB’s framework misuse, which the court addressed.
- The court applied a highly deferential standard of review and upheld the PCSB’s revocation decision, and also upheld dismissal of Kamit’s civil complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCSB's revocation was arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous | Kamit argues PCSB acted beyond statutory authority and acted arbitrarily | PCSB exercised expert judgment within statutory standards | Yes; revocation not arbitrary or clearly erroneous |
| Whether PCSB complied with statutory procedures or erred by not following its own frameworks | CRF/PMF frameworks should have guided revocation | Frameworks unavailable/not required; PCSB retained authority to act under SRA | Yes; procedures followed; no reversible error |
| Whether Kamit’s civil complaint was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) | Claims mirror revocation challenges; may state entitlement to relief | Counts I–VI fail to state a claim for relief | Yes; complaint dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Richard Milburn Pub. Charter Alt High Sch. v. Cafritz, 798 A.2d 531 (D.C.2002) (charter revocation framework and oversight context; educational policy discretion respected)
- F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (U.S. 2009) (agency decisions must be upheld if path reasonably discerned; deference to agency expertise)
- Washington Gas Energy Servs., Inc. v. District of Columbia Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 924 A.2d 296 (D.C.2007) (strong deference to agency action in regulatory context)
- Bradford Nat’l Clearing Corp. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 191 F. App’x 383, 590 F.2d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (agency’s expert judgment and reliance on specialized data)
- Marjorie Webster Jr. Coll., Inc. v. Middle States Ass’n of Colleges & Secondary Schools, Inc., 139 U.S.App.D.C. 217, 432 F.2d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (judicial deference to accreditation/educational standards)
- Hillbroom v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 17 A.3d 566 (D.C.2011) (de novo review of dismissal; standard applied)