Ochoa v. Anaheim City School District
11 Cal. App. 5th 209
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Jan 2015 parents at Palm Lane Elementary submitted a Parent Empowerment Act ("Parent Trigger") petition seeking the "restart model" (conversion to a charter operator) after years of failing AYP.
- The petition was assembled in a binder, included signature pages collected door-to-door (English and Spanish packets), and listed five lead petitioners with contact info on a separate sheet placed inside the binder.
- Anaheim City School District rejected the petition (Feb 19, 2015), citing: (1) Palm Lane was not a subject school because no 2014 AYP existed; (2) the lead petitioners document was not submitted; (3) the restart-model language was missing from the petition; and (4) the petition fell short of the 50% parent-signature requirement after the District’s verification.
- Petitioners sued for a writ of mandate. After a six-day bench trial the superior court found the District’s rejection invalid, ordered the District to accept the petition, and petitioners appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it held Palm Lane remained a subject school despite the 2014 AYP waiver; substantial evidence supported that the petition met the lead-petitioner, restart-language, and signature-threshold requirements; the District’s signature-verification process was flawed; insufficient evidence showed an undisclosed external funder/organizer required disclosure; and petitioners were not required to resubmit prior to seeking mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Palm Lane was a "subject school" under the Act despite absence of a 2014 AYP determination | The Act still applied because the District had frozen PI/AYP status during the waiver year and Palm Lane had a long history of failing AYP | The 2014 AYP reporting waiver meant no AYP determination, so the school could not qualify as a subject school | Held: Act remained enforceable; Palm Lane was a subject school based on prior AYP history and regulatory intent to survive federal testing changes |
| 2) Whether petitioners submitted the separate lead-petitioner document required by regs | Petitioners: a lead-petitioner sheet with contact info was placed as first page in the binder and handed to District | District: no such sheet was received; petition invalid without separate document at submission | Held: Trial court credibly found the sheet was submitted; substantial evidence supported that finding |
| 3) Whether the petition contained the required restart-model language (or substantially complied) | Petitioners: the required regulatory language was provided in the packet given to each signer and thus the petition substantially complied | District: signature pages lacked the mandatory language; failure to include language invalidated petitions | Held: Substantial compliance established (packets contained and signature gatherers presented the required language) |
| 4) Whether petition had signatures of at least one-half of enrolled students (verification dispute) | Petitioners: District’s verification was unreasonable and improperly excluded valid signatures; independent proofs and declarations showed threshold met | District: its verification showed petition was 12 signatures short; offered resubmission option | Held: Trial court found District’s verification process arbitrary and court found sufficient valid signatures to exceed 50% |
| 5) Whether petition had to disclose Ed Reform Now on petition face as supporting organization | District: testimony that Ed Reform Now paid a campaign consultant required disclosure on petition front page per regs | Petitioners: only California Center for Parent Empowerment was identified; no evidence Ed Reform Now provided reportable financial or in-kind support | Held: Insufficient evidence that Ed Reform Now provided direct financial or in-kind support that would require front-page disclosure |
| 6) Whether petitioners had to resubmit petition before seeking judicial relief (exhaustion) | Petitioners: District formally rejected the petition; resubmission not required before mandamus | District: petitioners should have resubmitted and exhausted administrative remedy instead of litigating | Held: Rejection was final and reviewable; resubmission was not required before seeking writ (and resubmission is limited under regs) |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside, 7 Cal.4th 525 (discussion of standards for writ of mandate and required showing for relief)
- Tarbet v. East Bay Municipal Utility Dist., 236 Cal.App.4th 348 (statutory construction and legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Norton v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist., 158 Cal.App.4th 749 (availability of writ relief to compel public agency to perform legal duty)
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (administrative exhaustion principles)
- Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.4th 1074 (limits on judicial notice and relevance of materials proffered by amici)