AMERICAN INDIAN MODEL SCHOOLS, Plаintiff and Respondent, v. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Appellants.
No. A139652
First Dist., Div. Two.
June 23, 2014
227 Cal. App. 4th 258
Jacqueline P. Minor; Burke, Williams & Sorensen, John R. Yeh and Amy E. Hoyt for Defendants and Appellants.
Liberty Cassidy Whitmore, Laura Schulkind, Megan M. Lewis; California School Boards Association/Education Legal Alliance, Keith Bray and Joshua R. Daniels as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
Weintraub, Tobin, Chediak, Coleman, Grodin Law Corporation, Alex James Kachmar, Jr., Brendan J. Begley; Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, Gregory V. Moser, Alyssa Aiko Yamakawa and Adriana R. Sanchez for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
KLINE, P. J.—The American Indian Model Schools (AIMS) operates three public charter schools in the City of Oakland (Oakland). The Oakland Unified School District (the District) decided to revoke AIMS’s three charters after an independent audit uncovered evidence of conflict of interest violations, fiscal mismanagement, and improper use of public funds at the three charter schools. Funding of the charter schools was to halt while AIMS appealed the revocation decision.
AIMS filed a writ petition in the superior court against the District and others (collectively, defendants),1 challenging the District’s revocation of its charters. AIMS also requested a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the revocation order during the appeal process.
The trial court granted in part AIMS’s request for a preliminary injunction. The court highlighted the outstanding scholastic achievements of the students at AIMS’s three charter schools and the harm these students and schools would suffer if instruction were interrupted and the schools were no longer able to operate. The court concluded that the hardships weighed in favor of granting a preliminary injunction and that AIMS had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing at trial because the record did not contain substantial evidencе that the District complied with the requirements under
We are not persuaded by defendants’ arguments and affirm the order granting the preliminary injunction.
BACKGROUND
California’s Charter School Law
The Legislature is charged with providing a public education system for the citizens of the State of California. (
Charter schools are “public schools funded with public money but run by private individuals or entities rather than traditional public school districts.” (Today’s Fresh Start, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 205.) “The Legislature intended its authorization of charter schoоls to improve public education by promoting innovation, choice, accountability, and competition. [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 205–206.) The legislation “authorized various public bodies to approve charters, supervise charter school operations, and revoke charters in the event particular standards and conditions were not met.” (Id. at p. 205.) “ ‘Where the Legislature delegates the local functioning of the school system to local boards, districts or municipalities, it does so, always, with its constitutional
“[C]harter schools are strictly creatures of statute.” (Wilson, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 1135.) “Charter schools are initiated by submitting a petition to the chartering authority, generally the governing board of a public school district but occasionally a county board or the [SBE]. [Citations.]” (Today’s Fresh Start, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 206.) “Once approved, charter schools are operated independently, but are subject to public oversight. [Citations.]” (Ibid.) “Chartering authorities must monitor schools’ fiscal condition and academic performance and are authorized to investigate whenever grounds for concern arise. [Citations.]” (Ibid.) Section 47607 specifies the grounds and the manner in which a school’s charter may be revoked. (
The Legislature has amended the Charter Schools Act of 1992 various times. In 2006, the Legislature amended section 47607 (amended by Stats. 2006, ch. 757, § 1, p. 6011) to require, among other things, that the decision to revoke be supported by substantial evidence. (See
The comments section of the analysis of Senate Bill No. 1290 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) provides: “According to the author, in October 2010, the [CDE] was informed by the federal Department of Education (DOE) that California’s public charter school petition authorization, renewal and revocation laws were inadequate and therefore out of compliance with the Public Charter School Grant (PCSG) Program. The PCSG Program provides grants of up to $575,000 to plan and implement new charter schools. Its funding is integral to the successful development of successful and high quality public charter schools. Specifically, the DOE informed the CDE that the state is . . . completely out of compliance with Assurance 3B in the PCSG application because increases in pupil academic achievement in all groups of pupils . . . is not the ‘primary consideration’ in the approval, renewal, and revocation of California charter schools.” (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1290 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 20, 2012, p. 2.)
The comments to Senate Bill No. 1290 observed that the changes resulting from this bill were “not sweeping,” but they also were “not unsubstantial.” (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1290 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 20, 2012, p. 2.) The comments provided: “This bill specifies that a charter authorizer must consider increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by the school, as measured by the [Academic Performance Index], ‘as the most important factor’ for renewal and revocation. This does not mean the charter school is automatically not renewed or revoked, but it does mean that the charter authority must consider this information as the most important factor in making its decision. In other words, the charter authority must give extra weight to this factor when it considers all the factors for renewal or revocation.” (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1290 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 20, 2012, pр. 2–3.)
The Revocation of the Charters Granted to AIMS
The District revoked the three charters for the schools in Oakland operated by AIMS in 2013, after the enactment of
Ben Chavis, frequently referred to as “the founder,” was hired as the director of AIPCS in 2000, and became the director of AIPHS and AIPCS II when they opened. Chavis resigned as the director sometime prior to 2011. The charter schools are governed by a board of directors (AIMS’s Board).
The Academic Performance Index (API) score for the students at AIPCS in the school year of 2001-2002 increased to 596 from a score of 436 a year earlier.4 No other school in California that year improved as much as AIPCS. The National Charter School Clearinghouse wrote on its Web site about the 2002 results, “ ‘These accomplishments took place among a student population where 96 [percent] of students qualified for free/reduced lunch, 5-20 [percent] were homeless, and all were minorities.’ ”
In the school year of 2009–2010, AIPCS had a score of 988 on the API, which was the highest in the state. For that same school year, AIPCS II had an API of 974, the sixth highest score in the state, and the AIPHS had an API of 976, the fourth highest score in the state. According to reports by the CDE, all three schools in the 2011-2012 school year scored between 928 and 981 on the API. AIPCS and AIPHS have had an API over 950 for the past five years, and AIPHS serves an 86 percent low-income, and 100 percent minority population. During the 2010-2011 school year, the CDE recognized AIPCS II with the Title I Academic Achievement School Award for closing the achiеvement gap between rich and poor students. In 2012, AIPCS II students and teachers earned the highest API for any public middle school in Alameda County.
On June 12, 2012, the fiscal crisis and management assistance team, at the request of the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools (the Superintendent), conducted an extraordinary audit of AIMS. The audit uncovered evidence of conflict of interest violations, fiscal mismanagement, and improper use of public funds at the three charter schools.
AIMS responded to the NOV on November 26, 2012. After reviewing AIMS’s response, the District’s Board issued a notice of intent to revoke (NIR) on January 24, 2013. The NIR stated that the primary grounds for revoking were the following: “AIMS did not acknowledge that its founder, Chavis, committed conflict of interest violations, nor did AIMS take steps to address those conflicts of interests.” “AIMS failed to institute acceptable institutional reforms to safeguard against future violations.” “AIMS failed to institute acceptable changes in its financial and operational procedures to ensure that future fiscal mismanagement does not occur.” “AIMS failed to engage sufficient institutional expertise, such as a charter management organization, to implement the necessary institutional and organizational overhaul of its operations.” “AIMS failed to address in an acceptable manner any means or process for defining the role of the founder or achieving the necessary separation of him from the organization.” The Superintendent recommended the approval of the issuance of the NIR.
On February 27, 2013, the District’s Board held a public hearing on whether to revoke the charters of the three schools operated by AIMS. AIMS provided a supplemental response to the NOV.
Superintendent Anthony Smith, Ph.D., filed a report dated March 16, 2013 (the Report). This Report stated that a charter may be revoked under
The Report also provided the 2012 API scores of the three charter schools. It observed that the schools had “a track record of high academic performance.” The Report pointed out that “[t]he District must balance the academic performance of AIMS schools against [the] weighty legal obligation” to oversee the use of public funds. Superintendent Smith concluded that revocation was appropriate to respond to the alleged acts of fiscal misconduct.
The District’s Board held a public meeting regarding the NIR on March 20, 2013. Following the meeting, it issued a resolution revoking the charter of AIMS’s three schools (the Resolution). The Resolution delineated the requirements of
The Resolution concluded: “The District has considered ‘increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by the charter school’ under [s]ection 47607[, subdivision] (c)(2). Although the performance of AIMS students is an important factor in its decision, the [s]taff believes that [AIMS’s] failure to remedy the conflict of interest violations, its failure to institute sufficient changes to the management of the AIMS organization, its failure to institute structural or permanent changes to the governing board, its failure to take action to recover thе public funds intended for AIMS students paid to Dr. Chavis, and its lack of complete candor in response to the District’s revocation proceedings, outweigh all other factors in considering whether to revoke the AIMS charters, including the schools’ academic performance.” The District’s Board ordered the revocation of AIMS’s three charters, with an effective date of June 30, 2013.
On March 28, 2013, counsel for the District sent the Director of the AIMS’s three charter schools a letter. In this letter, AIMS was advised,
AIMS appealed the revocation decision to the Alameda County Board of Education (the County Board), and the County Board held a public hearing on the revocation. In June 2013, the County Board voted to uphold the revocation. Subsequently, AIMS filed an appeal to the SBE.
The Preliminary Injunction
On May 23, 2013, prior to its appeal of the District’s revocation decision to the County Board, AIMS filed in the superior court a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief pursuant to
AIMS filed on June 3, 2013, an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to prevent the District from revoking the three charters. On June 6, 2013, the trial court issued its order granting in part the request for a temporary restraining order; the court set a hearing оn the request for a preliminary injunction. The court stated that it was not addressing whether AIMS demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its claims. Rather, the court’s sole finding was that AIMS had demonstrated an imminent danger of irreparable harm to itself and its students if the temporary restraining order were not granted.
AIMS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 14, 2013. It alleged in the petition that the status quo must be maintained or its three charter schools would be forced to close and the students, staff, and schools would suffer irreparable harm. In defendants’ opposition, they argued, among other things, that the District complied with the statute and that the CDE is an indispensable party.
After holding a hearing, the superior court issued its order on July 19, 2013, granting in part AIMS’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court stated that when, as in this case, the underlying claim is a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to
When evaluating the harm that AIMS might suffer, the superior court explained in its order the following: “The core purpose of this action is to stay the District’s decision to revoke the charter of the AIMS schools under [section] 47607 and thereby permit the AIMS schools to continue to operate and provide educational services to their students while AIMS pursues its administrative appeals and judicial remedies. AIMS has demonstrated that it will suffer significant interim harm if the preliminary injunction is denied because its faculty and student body will dissipate to other institutions. In addition, the students served by the AIMS schools will be deprived of the opportunity to obtain an education at schools that have enabled those students to obtain high API and SAT test scores.” The District, the court noted, asserted that it would “suffer harm from the misuse of public funds if it [were] required to fund the AIMS schools for [the] duration of administrative process.” The court pointed out that the District identified financial irregularities in the past management of the AIMS schools but failed to specify any “threat of future financial irregularity.” The court concluded, “On balance, the court finds that AIMS has demonstrated that the interim harm it and AIMS students would suffer if the injunction is denied will substantially exceed the harm that the [District] would suffer if the injunction is granted.”
With regard to the second factor, prevailing on the merits at trial, the superior court cited
The trial court stated that it was making a preliminary finding that the record did not contain substantial evidence to show that the District considered increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils. The court observed that the District cited the API scores, but the record contained no information suggesting that the District considered test scores of any “ ‘numerically significant pupil subgroup’ ” or that the District determined that there were no “ ‘numerically significant pupil subgroups’ ” as defined by
The trial court added: “Although not raised by the parties, the court notes that . . .
The superior court elaborated: “Balancing the factors, the court finds that a preliminary injunction is appropriate. The court’s goal in this preliminary injunction order is to ensure the AIMS schools can remain open while they pursue their administra[tive] and judicial remedies. The court does not intend to interfere with any appeal to the [SBE], with the [District’s] ability to monitor and supervise the AIMS schools in the manner that it would monitor and supervise other schools that have charters, with the [District’s] ability to monitor the use of public funds by or at the AIMS schools to the fullest extent permitted to schools that have charters, or with [the District’s] conduct of any audit that might be a consequence of the [District’s] revocation decision.”
The trial court also addressed the absence of the CDE. It refused to defer the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction to permit joinder of the CDE, explaining that its order was not addressing the CDE’s obligations.
Following the superior court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction, AIMS appealed the revocation of its three charters to the SBE.
On August 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for writ of mandate in this court. We summarily denied this petition on November 22, 2013.
On September 9, 2013, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the order granting in part the preliminary injunction. Subsequently, on November 13, 2013, defendants filed a motion requesting this court to take judicial notice of a letter from counsel for the CDE regarding AIMS’s appeal to the SBE (the CDE letter), AIMS’s brief in support of its appeal, and the minutes of the County Board meeting on June 25, 2013. AIMS filed opposition to our taking judicial notice of the CDE letter. On December 12, 2013, we issued an order stating that this court would rule on the request for judicial notice when deciding the appeal.
On January 14, 2014, AIMS filed a motion requesting that we take judicial notice of the petition for writ of mandate filed by defendants in this court. We granted this unopposed request on February 11, 2014.
The California School Boards Association’s Education Legal Alliance (Education Legal Alliance) applied to file an amicus curiae brief in supрort of defendants. We granted this request on March 11, 2014; the amicus curiae brief was filed on this same date. AIMS filed a response to the amicus curiae brief.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
Generally, the standard of review for grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion. (Sahlolbei v. Providence Healthcare, Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1145.) In exercising that discretion, the court must consider “two interrelated factors: the likelihood the moving party ultimately will prevail on the merits, and the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.” (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 999.) We review each determination for an abuse of discretion. (DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc. v. Bunner (2003) 31 Cal.4th 864, 890.) However, where “the determination on the likelihood of a party’s success rests on an issue of pure law not presenting factual issues to be resolved at trial, we review the determination de novo.” (14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1403.)
II. AIMS’s Motion to Strike
On March 13, 2014, AIMS filed a letter objecting to portions of defendants’ reply brief, and defendants filed opposition. We issued an order on April 4, 2014, stating that we were treating the letter as a motion to strike portions of the reply brief and that we would decide this request with the appeal.
In its motion to strike, AIMS objects to one footnоte and to four pages in defendants’ 31-page reply brief. AIMS protests defendants’ citation to statutes (e.g.,
We will not ordinarily consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. (Kovacevic v. Avalon at Eagles’ Crossing Homeowners Assn. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 677, 680, fn. 2.) An issue is
In their reply brief, defendants cite statutes not discussed in their opening brief. These statutes are cited in support of their argument that the trial court incorrectly interpreted
Accordingly, we deny AIMS’s request to strike portions of the reply brief or to file a supplemental brief.
III. Defendants’ Failure to Comply with Section 47607, Subdivision (c)(2)
A. Construction of the Statute
Defendants maintain that when the trial court found that AIMS was likely to prevail on its claim that the District did not comply with
It is well settled that when interpreting a statute we “determine and give effect to the intent of the enacting legislative body.” (People v. Braxton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 798, 810.) To do this, “ ‘[w]e first examine the words themselves because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. [Citation.] The words of the statute should be given their ordinary and usual meaning and should be construed in their statutory context.’ [Citation.] If the plain, commonsense meaning of a statute’s words is unambiguous, the plain meaning controls.” (Fitch v. Select Products Co. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 812, 818.) “[T]he various parts of a statutory enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole.” (Rodriguez v. Solis (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 495, 505.) If the statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation, we “may consider various extrinsic aids, including the purpose of the statute, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, and the statutory scheme encompassing the statute. [Citation.]” (Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, 1003.) Moreover, “ ‘ “[i]t is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that language of a statute should not be given a literal meaning if doing so would result in absurd consequences which the Legislature did not intend.” [Citations.]’ ” (Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, 276.)
The Legislature enacted
Defendants’ construction of subdivision (c)(2) is incompatible with the language of other subdivisions of
Subdivisions (e) and (f)(2) of
Defendants stress that substantial evidence is included in the language in
Defendants, however, ignore that prior to the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 2030 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) in 2006, subdivision (c) did not require that a revocation be supported with substantial evidence. (Former § 47607, subd. (c).) Subdivisions (e), (f), and (g) were not included in this earlier version of the statute. In 2006, Assembly Bill No. 2030 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.), amended the statute to add the substantial evidence requirements in subdivision (c). The statute was also amended to, among other things, add
Similarly, defendants’ citations to
Education Legal Alliance argues that
Education Legal Alliance insists that the trial court‘s interpretation of subdivision (c)(2) results in an improper repeal of subdivision (c)(1) of
Education Legal Alliance emphasizes that
The construction urged by Education Legal Alliance does not harmonize the statutes; it rewrites them. Subdivision (c)(2) of
Furthermore, the trial court‘s construction of the statute did not nullify
Education Legal Alliance claims that the legislative history supports its interpretation. It maintains that
We disagree that the legislative history supports Education Legal Alliаnce‘s construction of the statute. The fact that the purpose for enacting subdivision (c)(2) of
As already discussed, subdivision (c)(2) of
Finally, policy considerations support the trial court‘s construction of the statute. As our Supreme Court explained in Topanga Assn., supra, 11 Cal.3d 506, requiring an administrative agency to set forth findings to support their decisions “stems primarily from judge-made law [citations], and is ‘remarkably uniform in both federal and state courts.’ As stated by the United States Supreme Court, the ‘accepted ideal . . . is that “the orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained.” [Citations.]’ [[] Among other functions, a findings requirement sеrves to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub-conclusions supportive of its ultimate decision; the intended effect is to facilitate orderly analysis and minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions. [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 515-516.)
Defendants argue that imposing a substantial evidence requirement would prevent the District from ever revoking a charter if the school had high test scores because, according to defendants, “there would not be substantial evidence that the school considered the high test scores as the most important factor.” This argument is not persuasive. The District must give extra weight and consideration to high test scores, but high test scores would not prevent revocation of a charter when the violations or egregious behavior outweigh this factor. As the comments to Senate Bill No. 1290 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) observed: “This bill specifies that a charter authorizer must consider increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by the school, as measured by the API, ‘as the most important factor’ for renewal and revocation. This does not mean the charter school is automatically not renewed or revoked, but it does mean that the charter authority must consider this information as the most important factor in making its decision. In other words, the charter authority must give extra weight to this factor when it considers all the factors for renewal or revocation.” (Sen. Rules Com. Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1290 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 20, 2012, pp. 2-3, italics added.) Similarly, extra weight does not mean that a decision to revoke is automatically rejected when the students at the charter school have high test scores, but the increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils sеrved by the school must be given extra weight when considering whether to revoke the charter.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court correctly interpreted
B. Evidence in the Record Regarding Compliance with the Statute
In their briefs in this court, defendants and AIMS seem to suggest that the trial court ruled that the evidence did not show that the District considered academic achievement as the most important factor. The trial court, however, expressly stated that it was making “no preliminary finding whether there is substantial evidence that the [District] considered academic achievement as ‘the most important factor.’ ” The court noted that the evidence did not clearly demonstrate that the District considered academic achievement as the most important factor, but the court announced that it was not going to “reach whether there is substantial evidence that the [District] considered academic achievement as ‘the most important factor.’ ”11
The trial court‘s grounds for granting the preliminary injunction were that the record was devoid of evidence indicating that the District considered increases in pupil academic achievement for pupil subgroups. The court acknowledged that the District cited the 2012 API scores for all three charter schools, but the record contained “no information” “suggesting that the [District] considered test scores of any ‘numerically significant pupil subgroup’ or that the [District] determined that there were no ‘numerically significant pupil subgroups’ as defined by [section] 52052.”12 The court also noted that subdivision (c) of
Defendants argue that the record contained evidence of increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils because the API score “inherently embedded data regarding pupil performance of all groups of pupils, as well as increases in pupil performance through the use of ‘base’ and ‘growth’ scores, and that the [c]harter [s]chool‘s historical performance, including increases in pupil performance for all subgroups of students, was part of the administrative record for the revocation process.” Defendants then cite to six pages of argument at the hearing and to a request for judicial notice that includes a 38-page exhibit, dated April 4, 2012, which was the District‘s staff report regarding the renewal request of AIPCS II. They argue that the District had to evaluate the academic performance for all subgroups of students during the charter renewal process, the year prior to their decision to revoke the charter, and therefore it “was aware of all public information regarding the charter school‘s track record of academic performance, including increases in pupil performance for all student subgroups, and evaluated that data as part of its decision as to whether or not to renew or revoke the charter.”
Defendants’ citations to the record are woefully inadequate. An appellant has the burden on appeal of demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretiоn. (E.g., Conservatorship of Ben C. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 689, 697 [40 Cal.Rptr.3d 521].) This burden includes supporting factual assertions by providing appropriate references to the record. (
Furthermore, the report prepared to consider whether to renew a charter does not establish that the District properly evaluated this information when
We also agree with the trial court that the Report and the Resolution do not contain evidence showing that the District considered academic achievement for all groups as the most important factor. The Report and Resolution set forth the requirements under the statute and assert that the violations outweigh all other factors, including the schoоls’ academic performance. The Report and Resolution set forth the API scores for 2012, and the Report states these scores have been considered and acknowledges that “the AIMS charter schools have a track record of high academic performance.” The Report also states that the District “has considered ‘increase in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by the charter school’ under”
We agree with the trial court that the Revocation and Report are devoid of any evidence indicating that the District considered test scores for pupil subgroups.14
IV. Deference to the District‘s Decision
Defendants contend that the trial court failed to give sufficient deference to the District‘s decision when it ruled that AIMS was likely to prevail on the merits. AIMS brought its writ under
Writ review, whether through administrative mandate (
Here, subdivision (c)(2) of
We are required to exercise independent judgment regarding an agency‘s statutory interpretation, giving due deference to the agency‘s views, but we evaluate the agency‘s application of its governing statute to particular circumstances for an abuse of discretion. (Southern California Cement Masons, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 1549.) Courts “may not reweigh the evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the agency. They uphold an agency action unless it is arbitrary, capricious, lacking in evidentiary support, or was made without due regard for the petitioner‘s rights.” (Sequoia Union High School Dist. v. Aurora Charter High School (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 185, 195 [5 Cal.Rptr.3d 86].)
In the present case, the trial court did defer to the factual findings of the District. The court did not reweigh evidence, refuse to consider evidence supporting revocation, or make any credibility determination. The court considered all of the evidence and made a preliminary finding that there was no evidence suggesting that the District considered test scores of any subgroups or that it considered the increases in pupil academic achievement as required by the statute. Defendants have not provided this court with any citation to the record to show that it made findings showing that it weighed heavily the foregoing when deciding to revoke the charters. The trial court did not usurp the role of the District.
Defendants cite to the trial court‘s statements at the hearing on the preliminary injunction when arguing that the trial court impermissibly re-weighed the evidence and substituted its judgment for the District‘s judgment. They maintain that the court‘s comments showed that the court reweighed the evidence.15 We disagree. The court‘s comments simply indicated that it understood that the District had to weigh the various factors and that school achievement was the most important factor. The court also correctly observed that it had to balance the hardships suffered by AIMS if the injunction were not granted by the hardships suffered by the District if the injunction were granted. Here, as already stressed, the court did not reweigh the factors; it properly found that the District did not make factual findings that showed it complied with
Defendants also argue that the record contains evidence that it considered academic achievement as the most important factor and that the court ignored this evidence. As already discussed, the court did not ignore this evidence. In fact, the trial court did not grant the preliminary injunction on the ground that the District failed to consider academic achievement as the most important factor. Rather, the court found that the District failed to consider increases in academic achievement and it failed to look at increases in academic achievement for all groups of pupils at AIMS‘s schools as the most important factor when deciding to revoke the charter.
Finally, defendants contend that the trial court impermissibly directed a particular outcome. They again claim that the court was restricted to deciding whether the District considered academic achievement and was not to assess how the District considered this factor. Thеy declare that the court should have remanded the matter back to the District if it concluded that the District failed to consider academic achievement in violation of
The trial court had a limited question before it: Should it issue a preliminary injunction? The court answered this question in the affirmative after it balanced the harm AIMS would suffer if it did not issue an injunction with the hardships the District would suffer if it granted the injunction and after it determined that AIMS had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the merits at trial. The issue before the court was not whether AIMS would actually prevail and it properly resolved the question of whether a preliminary injunction should be issued.
V. Funding the Charter Schools Pending Appeal of the Revocation Decision
Defendants insist that the grant of the preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion because it permits AIMS to continue operating during the pendency of the appeal process.16 Defendants assert that the Education Code bars charter schools from continuing to operate during the appeal process when the charters were revoked for fiscal mismanagement, and they cite
Defendants contend that the language of
Defendants’ reading of
Defendants also cite to
“When a statute is silent on a point, the courts resort to statutory interpretation . . . .” (Waterman Convalescent Hospital, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1439 [125 Cal.Rptr.2d 168].) If the Legislature had intended to bar funding during the pendency of an appeal when the revocation is based on fiscal or legal violations, it could have so specified.
Our review of the legislative history of
In balancing the foregoing concerns, the Legislature crafted a bill that required funding when the charter school committed a material violation of the charter or failed to meet a pupil outcome in the charter. Presumably, in such situations it could be assumed that not disrupting the children‘s instruction trumped any concerns that the school posed any threat to the health or safety of the pupils. The statute does not require funding when revocation is based on fiscal mismanagement or a violation of the law but it does not suggest that funding can never continue in such situations or that it can be automatically presumed that continued funding in such situations poses a severe threat to the school‘s children or the public.
Policy considerations do not weigh in favor of the interpretation urged by defendants. Clearly the Legislature recognized the drastic consequences of disrupting instructional services to the students at charter schools if funding were halted during the appeal of the revocation decision. Children at charter schools would not be protected if courts have no discretion to use their equitable power to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the appeal when revocation is based on fiscal mismanagement or a legal violation. Policy supports an interpretation of the statute that provides the court with discretion to maintain the status quo after it has balanced the hardships and assessed the charter school‘s likelihood of prevailing in overturning the revoсation decision.
If schools were unable to seek a preliminary injunction in cases like the present, the initial administrative decision to revoke would always shut down a school. Thus, whenever fiscal mismanagement was alleged and found by the administrative agency to be supported by the evidence, funding would be discontinued and the charter school would be forced to close. Subsequently, if the SBE or court reversed the revocation decision, the charter schools and, most importantly, their students would have already suffered harm as the instructional services would have halted and the school‘s staff and instructors would have sought alternative employment during the appeal process. Thus, public policy does not support a construction of the statute that would prohibit a court from evaluating the equities of the situation and determining whether the status quo should be maintained while the charter school appeals the decision to revoke the charter based on fiscal mismanagement or a legal violation.
We affirm the trial court‘s finding that it had the authority to issue an injunction that continued the funding to AIMS‘s charter schools while AIMS pursued its administrative and court challenges to the District‘s revocation decision.
VI. Jurisdiction
Defendants argue that the trial court‘s preliminary injunction order prematurely and incorrectly usurped jurisdiction over the revocation decision from the SBE. They maintain that the court did not have jurisdiction over AIMS‘s request for a preliminary injunction because AIMS had not exhausted its administrative remedies.
A charter school has the right to appeal the board‘s decision to revoke to the county board of education (
When remedies before an administrative forum are available, a party must in general exhaust them before seeking judicial relief. (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 234, 112 P.3d 623] (Coachella Valley).) Exhaustion requires “a full presentation to the administrative agency upon all issues of the case and at all prescribed stages of the
Education Legal Alliance argues that the injunction intruded on the discretion provided by the statutes to the SBE and boards of education to oversee the educational system. It maintains that the Legislature must have been aware of the duties provided to the SBE and boards of education and made no express exemption from the exhaustion doctrine. (See Grant v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 606, 609 [145 Cal.Rptr. 699].)
The exhaustion doctrine, however, has certain judicially created exceptions. (Coachella Valley, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1080.) The doctrine does not apply when the administrative remedy is inadequate. (Los Angeles County Employees Assn. v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 683, 686 [214 Cal.Rptr. 350].) For example, it does not apply when irreparable harm would result if judicial intervention were withheld until a final administrative decision is rendered. (Alta Loma School Dist. v. San Bernardino County Com. On School Dist. Reorganization (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 542, 555 [177 Cal.Rptr. 506]; see Greenblatt v. Munro (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 596, 605-606 [326 P.2d 929].)
Here, the trial court found irreparable harm would result unless it issued a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo. The court stressed that AIMS had demonstrated that it would lose its faculty and student body if the injunction were not granted. Additionally, the students at the AIMS schools would be “deprived of the opportunity to obtain an education at schools that have enabled those students to obtain high API and SAT test scores.” The record clearly supports the trial court‘s finding that the irreparable harm exception to the exhaustion doctrine applies.
Defendants argue that the superior court‘s ruling caused the SBE to lose jurisdiction and thus the court‘s order improperly usurped its jurisdiction and prevented it from performing its statutory duty. In support of this argument, defendants requested that we take judicial notice of the CDE letter under
We grant judicial notice of the CDE letter for the limited purpose of showing that the CDE took the position that the SBE did not have jurisdiction to review AIMS‘s appeal. We, however, reject defendants’ request to the extent they claim that this letter “prove[s]” the SBE did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The CDE‘s legal conclusions clearly do not satisfy the requirements of
Defendants contend that even though the trial court expressly stated that its findings were “preliminary” and that it was simply maintaining the status quo, its order caused the SBE to lose jurisdiction. We disagree. Thе granting of a preliminary injunction, whether it be prohibitory or mandatory in nature, does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. (Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528 [67 Cal.Rptr. 761, 439 P.2d 889].) “The general purpose of such an injunction is the preservation of the status quo until a final determination of the merits of the action.” (Ibid.) Here, the preliminary injunction was necessarily of limited scope; it prohibited closure of the three charter schools and ordered continued funding. The court did not reverse the resolution revoking the charter. Rather, it temporarily restrained the enforcement of the resolution. The order had no effect on the SBE. This order did not cause the SBE to lose jurisdiction and it did not prevent the SBE from performing its duty. The SBE chose not to consider AIMS‘s appeal.18
Education Legal Association maintains that this preliminary injunction thwarts the purpose of the exhaustion process and would open the judicial floodgates to those impatient with administrative review. It cites Board of Police Commissioners v. Superior Court (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 420 [214 Cal.Rptr. 493] (Board of Police Commissioners) in support of its argument that the exhaustion doctrine cannot be circumvented by bringing an action for injunctive relief. (Id. at p. 499.)
We agree that courts ordinarily cannot issue a preliminary injunction prior to the completion of the administrative process. When no exception to the exhaustion doctrine applies, permitting an injunction would result in parties bypassing administrative agencies, clogging the courts, and making administrative agencies impotent. (Board of Police Commissioners, supra, 168 Cal.App.3d at p. 432.) However, the court in Board of Police Commissioners expressly stated that none of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied in the case before it. (Id. at p. 432.)
In contrast to the situation in Board of Police Commissioners, here, the irreparable harm exception to the exhaustion doctrine applies. Permitting a preliminary injunction when the exception applies will not overburden the courts since injunctions would be granted only when equity demanded relief to prevent the irreparable harm that would result if an injunction were not issued.
Finally, defendants argue that the trial court incorrectly ruled it could stay the operation of an administrative order or decision pending completion of judicial proceedings pursuant to
Defendants cite to Today‘s Fresh Start, supra, 57 Cal.4th 197, but ignore that the charter school in Today‘s Fresh Start had challenged its charter revocation by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandamus pursuant to
Defendant‘s attack on the trial court‘s citation to
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to issue а preliminary injunction.
VII. The Absence of the CDE
Defendants contend that we should reverse the order granting the preliminary injunction because the CDE was not a party in the preliminary injunction action. They maintain that the CDE was an indispensable party.
“If a person is determined to qualify as a ‘necessary’ party under one of the standards outlined above, courts then determine if the party is also ‘indispensable.’ Under this analysis ‘the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: (1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person‘s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; (2) the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person‘s absence will be adequate; (4) whether the plaintiff or cross-complainant will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.’ (
“None of these factors is determinative or necessarily more important than another. [Citations.] Further, the court‘s consideration of these factors largely depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. [Citation.] ‘Whether a party is necessary and/or indispensable is a matter of trial court discretion in which the court weighs “factors of practical realities and other considerations.” ’ [Citation.] ‘A court has the power to proceed with a case even if indispensable parties are not joined. Courts must be careful to avoid converting a discretionary power or rule of fairness into an arbitrary and burdensome requirement that may thwart rather than further justice.’ [Citation.]” (City of San Diego v. San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 84.)
Defendants maintain that because the CDE is the agency responsible for funding public schools, it had an interest that could not be protected adequately. (See Redevelopment Agency v. Commission on State Mandates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1192, 1197 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 100] (Redevelopment Agency) [the State of California‘s Department of Finance was an indispensable party and a proper real party in interest in proceedings, by a city‘s redevelopment agency against the Commission on State Mandates, challenging the commission‘s ruling that the agency was not entitled to reimbursement for housing costs the agency had incurred].) They claim that the need for the CDE was “demonstrated by the fact that the [o]rder prematurely terminated the revocation appeals process and divested the SBE of jurisdiction over the appeals process.”
We agree with the superior court that its order had no effect on the obligations and options of the CDE and the order did not prejudice the CDE. Rather, the order simply required the charter to remain in effect and the CDE‘s obligations and options remained the same.
The cases cited by defendants are inapplicable. (Serrano v. Priest (1976) 18 Cal.3d 728, 751-753 [135 Cal.Rptr. 345, 557 P.2d 929] [Legislаture and Governor were not indispensable parties in a challenge to the constitutionality of school financing system because state officers with statewide administrative functions under the challenged statute were the proper parties defendant]; Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 673-674 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 480, 842 P.2d 1240] [Supreme Court affirmed preliminary injunction order to the extent it ordered a school district short on funding to remain open for the final six weeks of the school year but reversed the order to the extent it approved the diversion of emergency loan funds from appropriations intended by the Legislature for other purposes]; Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 869, 888-889 [86 Cal.Rptr.3d 890] [court held that the judiciary had no general authority to compel appropriations or second-guess legislative spending decisions in a lawsuit by a high school alleging that the Legislature was not providing enough funding for special education].) The state was a party in all of the foregoing cases and the court did not have to consider whether the state was an indispensable party. Moreover, these cases, including Redevelopment Agency, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th 1188, an additional case cited by defendants, involved a challenge to an appropriation decision. No such challenge is present here. The preliminary injunction in the present case stayed a revocation decision.
Finally, even if the court had determined that the CDE was a necessary party, the court‘s decision to go forward without the CDE was not an abuse of discretion. Nothing in this record shows that in the absence of the CDE the
DISPOSITION
The order granting the preliminary injunction is affirmed. Defendants are to pay the costs of appeal.
Richman, J., and Brick, J.,* concurred.
*Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Notes
Defendants make essentially the same argument that the statute bars funding during the pendency of an appeal when the decision to revoke is based on fiscal mismanagement, but characterize this as a challenge to the trial court’s finding that AIMS showed a probability of success on the merits. We address all arguments related to the Education Code and continued funding during the pendency of an appeal in part V.