Yu v. University of La Verne
196 Cal. App. 4th 779
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Yu, a private law student, was charged with plagiarism and academic dishonesty and found guilty by a Judicial Board.
- Yu appealed to the Dean, who affirmed the Board and increased her sanctions with suspension and a formal censure.
- Yu claimed the Dean’s increase violated Education Code section 94367, which bars discipline solely for speech protected off campus.
- The MAPP allows the Dean to reverse or modify the Board’s decision, including increasing sanctions, under specified conditions.
- Yu sought a preliminary injunction; the trial court denied it, and Yu appealed, arguing she would likely prevail on merits.
- The court analyzed whether 94367 protects on-campus petition/speech and whether the Dean’s decision was based solely on Yu’s speech.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does section 94367 protect petitioning government bodies? | Yu asserts 94367 protects off-campus petitioning activity as speech. | University argues 94367 protects only speech, not petition rights. | 94367 protects speech, not the petitioning right. |
| Is Yu's Dean appeal speech protected by 94367? | Yu's Dean appeal is protected speech under 94367. | Dean appeal is campus internal procedure, not off-campus speech. | Dean appeal qualifies as speech protected by 94367. |
| Was the Dean's increase in sanctions based solely on Yu's speech? | Increase was punitive for exercising free-speech/appeal rights. | Dean relied on multiple factors beyond speech, such as extent of copying and lack of remorse. | Substantial evidence shows factors beyond speech supported the increase. |
| What standard governs preliminary injunction in this statutory context? | Trial error in denying injunction should be reviewed de novo due to First Amendment concerns. | Review is for abuse of discretion on statutory claim, not de novo First Amendment review. | Standard is abuse of discretion; deference maintained as a statutory claim, not constitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal.4th 1090 (Cal. 1997) (two-factor test for preliminary injunction: likelihood of merits and interim harm)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (presumption of correctness; error must be affirmatively shown)
- Vo v. City of Garden Grove, 115 Cal.App.4th 425 (Cal. App. 2004) (questions of law reviewed de novo; evidence standard in матери)
- Antebi v. Occidental College, 141 Cal.App.4th 1542 (Cal. App. 2006) (private universities and First Amendment; state action context)
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (U.S. 1982) (private action and state action limitation on constitutional rights)
- Gable v. Lewis, 201 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2000) (petition clause analytically distinct from free speech)
- Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1972) (free speech rights require state action)