I've briefly reviewed the 25 page complaint. As one might expect, I take issue with a number of the "facts" they allege, but of course that's why we're going to trial in the first place.
The fast summary of the brief is as follows:
- They recount the history of the relationship, albiet with substantial embelishment
- They add complaints about the MPR/ City Gym
- They complain about the furnishings at Blach (without acknowledging their failure to respond to requests from LASD)
- They then ask the judge to grant them a contiguous site, though they don't specify which site.
- They also ask for attorney's fees in this case.
They have filed a Notice of Related Case (actually, two notices?), so that means we should end up back with Judge Lucas again. I believe that is a good thing, as she has already invested quite a bit of time learning the nuances of what's going on.
None of this is a surprise. Most of it is copy/ paste from prior suits and their various last-minute additions to their earlier motion. As I said, I look forward to a complete and full airing of the facts. I think that the Judge will determine that we've followed the law, and acted within our reasonable discretion as elected trustees.
I obviously haven't met with my fellow trustees since this suit was served, but recall that we have previously authorized council to file a counter-suit, formalizing our request for the judge to examine BCS's status as a semi-private school. As much as I look forward to a full discussion of the 2012-13 offer, I also look forward to judicial review of the BCS status.
Here are the filings:
Verified Pet. for Writ of Mandate & Complaint
Letter to Judge Lucas
Civil Case Cover Sheet
Notice of Related Case
Notice of Related Case (109CV144569)