224 Cal. App. 4th 1393
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Nathan G. was involuntarily transferred from Clovis High School to Gateway High School (a continuation school) on November 30, 2011 under Education Code section 48432.5.
- Nathan admitted marijuana use at school in November 2011 and alcohol-related misconduct in October 2011, leading to the proposed transfer and suspension considerations.
- Cruz, the Superintendent’s Designee, issued a written decision on November 30, 2011 transferring Nathan for the remainder of the year, after finding violations and that other means failed to improve conduct.
- Nathan petitioned for a writ of administrative mandamus under CCP section 1094.5 and sought to set aside the transfer, expunge records, and reinstate him at Clovis; he also sought an alternative writ of administrative mandamus.
- The superior court denied writ relief, evaluating the transfer under CCP section 1094.5 and finding substantial evidence supported the findings.
- On appeal, Nathan argues the transfer and process were improper under Education Code section 48432.5 and requests judicial review; the district contends the action is subject to ordinary mandamus under CCP section 1085 because no hearing is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 48432.5 require a hearing and subject to 1094.5 review? | Nathan argues a hearing is required and §1094.5 applies. | CUSD argues the transfer is reviewable under §1085 because no hearing is mandated. | A hearing is required and review is under §1094.5. |
| Does 48432.5 require exhaustion of all other means before transfer? | Nathan asserts exhaustion of all other means is required before involuntary transfer. | CUSD argues no such exhaustion requirement governs this transfer. | Exhaustion of all other means is not required. |
| What standard governs review of the agency decision under 48432.5? | Nathan contends independent judgment is needed due to fundamental rights. | CUSD contends substantial evidence is the proper standard because the right at stake is not fundamental. | Substantial evidence test is proper; involuntary transfer does not substantially affect a fundamental right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. , 21 Cal.4th 352 (1999) (standing and beneficial interest for mandamus)
- Bostean v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 63 Cal.App.4th 95 (1998) (standard of review for statutory questions)
- Pomona Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Pomona, 58 Cal.App.4th 578 (1997) (review under §1094.5 and hearing notions)
- Keeler v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 199 (1956) (investigative/due process context for hearings)
- 300 DeHaro Street Investors v. Department of Housing & Community Development, 161 Cal.App.4th 1240 (2008) (agency decision based on submissions and need for hearing)
- Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka, 147 Cal.App.4th 357 (2007) (allowing extra-record evidence under §1094.5 in certain circumstances)
- In re Randy G., 26 Cal.4th 556 (2001) (school disciplinary authority and due process)
- Goldberg v. Regents of the University of California, 248 Cal.App.2d 867 (1967) (due process and hearing considerations)
- Green v. Layton, 4 Cal.3d 920 (1975) (public education as a fundamental interest)