Litigation Update

It's the summertime, and we'd all like to forget about some of the drama- but I still get questions, so I thought it would be good to share a quick update on the litigation. 

2013-14 Lawsuit
This suit, filed by BCS shortly after the final offer was delivered, raised two challenges to the District's Final Offer of Facilities.  The first part of the challenge asserted that the District could not split BCS across two campuses.  (blog post)  Judge Pierce issued a ruling in favor of the District on the first part just a few days after the hearing.  (ruling for LASD). 

The other part of that lawsuit challenged the District's underlying CEQA study that authorizes the split and provides facilities for BCS at each site.  All CEQA suits are heard by CEQA judges (not the normal Superior Court judges) so we will be in front of yet another judge.  The hearing date for that final part of the 13-14 lawsuit has not yet been set.  We are currently working with BCS on the gathering of documents for the evidence in this effort.   I don't have a court date for this, but the schedules are proscribed by statue, and they're pretty aggressive.  I believe we'll be in court late this summer or early this fall.

"Raynor" Challenge
When the District began exploring the purchase of Raynor in Sunnyvale, we filed a request to the courts for declaratory relief- basically, asking the courts to rule in advance that it is legal for the District to acquire a site outside the District boundaries.  BCS filed a separate lawsuit asking that the District's bid for Raynor be voided by the courts.  Although LASD was not selected by Sunnyvale as the preferred bidder, our request for delcaratory relief is still before the courts because it asks the general question of whether this is legal (vs. the specific question of whether Raynor is legal).  We will have a court date to hear arguments on this issue some time the week of July 22, 2013.  It is my understanding that the Charter School Association has filed an amicus brief in this issue.  (brief)  I'm not surprised by their position -- nor their involvement.  However, it should come as no surprise that I don't agree with what they've said.  We'll see what the courts have to say next week.

2012-13 Lawsuit
When BCS filed their challenge to the 2012-13 facilities allocation, they peeled off key issues to litigate first.  Those issues were all won by LASD back in October 2012.  (court docs, blog post)   There remain a few questions on the BCS case, but I'm not clear on how would those proceed given the fact that the 2012-13 school year is complete.  As a positive step, the 2013-14 case seems to have been moving at a much faster pace, so we shouldn't find ourselves in that position again.

2012-13 Cross Complaint
When the District was approached by community members with concerns about BCS behavior, we filed a cross-complaint asking the court to determine how such actions might impact our duties under prop 39.  For most of last year, BCS tied up that cross-complaint using the anti-SLAPP statute.  (blog post)  With the Appeals court clearing the anti-SLAPP suit, the District is able to move forward with discovery in that lawsuit.

2009-10 Appeal and Attorney's Fees
From the 2009-10 lawsuit, we are still working on the attorney's fee demand from BCS.  The courts sanctioned BCS in November 2013 for refusal to conduct discovery in this case.  (blog post)  BCS appealed these sanctions, but the appeal was denied.  At this point, we've received discovery from the BPEF (Their version of the LAEF), but have not yet completed discovery with BCS itself.  Once that discovery is complete, we will move toward a hearing on the actual fee demand from BCS.  There is not a date set for that yet.



So, the litigation machine moves forward.  I am reminded of some very sage advice I received last year.  "The best way to win a court case is to do the right thing in the first place."  I continue to be encouraged by the consistent rulings from the court for LASD.  I believe it shows that we have been doing the "right thing" throughout this process.  I say that not with any sense of gloating or malice- I simply hope that folks begin to understand that the District is, in fact, acting in accordance with the law.  If we all want a different outcome, we're going to need to find a way to negotiate our way to that outcome.

Raynor Site

Tonight I attended the Sunnyvale City Council meeting where they discussed and acted on the sale of the Raynor site.  Readers may recall that LASD put in a bid on this site as a possible home for the Bullis Charter School.  Unfortunately, the council has provided direction to Sunnyvale city staff to begin negotiations with the Stratford School.

Readers may also recall that the District has an open request for Declaratory Relief.  We've asked the courts to determine that we are legally permitted to locate BCS outside of the District boundaries.  We felt that BCS would eventually sue LASD over this question, so it makes sense to ask the courts for clarity.  I am disappointed to say that BCS did show up and speak in opposition to the District's bid.  According to her own statement, this was done at the direction of the BCS Board.  I will leave it to individuals to interpret her statements.  I've attached the recording here.

It would be reasonable to inquire whether this means the Declaratory Relief is no longer required.  We've actually asked the Court the broader question- whether it is permissible to locate BCS anywhere outside the District boundaries.  The Raynor site was certainly one example, but it is obviously not the only location outside of our boundaries.  Thus, it makes sense to have the courts clarify this issue now.  Hence, I don't anticipate any changes to the request.

I'm obviously disappointed that we didn't get the nod tonight, but I certainly wish the Stratford School and Sunnyvale well in their negotiations.  Meanwhile, we'll press on considering other options.

Hearing Dates (tentative)

Today our attorneys informed us that we have some tentative dates for hearings in the various litigation threads going on.  I like to think that these dates are "committed", but in the past these have moved at the last minute.  Still, I'll share what we know.

2013-14 BCS Prop 39 Case
We have tentatively agreed to a hearing date on June 20th, 2013.  This will focus only on the first of the two issues, the legality of providing non-contiguous facilities to BCS.  (See my earlier blog posts that detail this thread).  This would be for oral arguments in that case.

Raynor Case (LASD motion, + separate BCS complaint)
In the District's efforts to acquire a site for BCS, we also have a thread of litigation.  Today, our attorneys successfully argued to the judge that the BCS case needs to be consolidated and heard at the same time as our request for declaratory relief.  (BCS opposed the consolidation, but the judge agreed that these cases deal with the same facts, and can be consolidated.)  That case will take a bit more work to prepare, so that hearing is currently set for July 22, 2013.  Again older blog posts contain the details as well as the court filings so far.

I look forward to having these cases heard.  Hopefully we can focus on the core issues, and avoid some of the iterations that have plagued the 2012-13 cases.

Deja vu. And "Hey, haven't I seen this before?"

BCS has filed two new legal actions this week.

On Monday, they filed a lawsuit that looks nearly identical to the District's request for Declaratory Relief.  This relates to the District's interest in acquiring the Raynor facility as a long-term location for BCS.  I'm not sure what the benefit is in creating a duplicate legal action.  Someone with a legal background is welcome to explain that to me.  It feels wasteful.  However, I remain interested to hear from the courts on how they view this issue, so we'll just wait for the hearing date.

BCS Lawsuit #1
Supporting Docs
Cover Sheet


They also filed a second action, in which they allege that the two-site solution is unlawful.  I'm puzzled by this, since they spent over $300,000 this spring publicizing their willingness to "Compromise" and operate at Blach and Egan.  I'm also dumbfounded that they suggest this solution isn't reasonably equivalent, since this solution is virtually identical to how LASD operates our own schools, right down to sharing time with BCS in the specialized teaching space at Blach.  In addition to challenging the 2-site solution, it also challenges the CEQA study the district conducted this past year.  This spring, they said they'd "heard the community", and they weren't asking to close an LASD school.  That seems to be out the window now.  When BCS challenges the site split and the CEQA, it leaves little doubt what they are requesting.

BCS Lawsuit #2


I am again deeply disappointed in the actions of the BCS Board.  They fail to demonstrate a serious willingness to work together.  Some folks have asked if, now that the final offer is complete, will we have time for joint meetings with the BCS board.  I'd point those people to our agenda for this Monday's closed session, which lists 5 open lawsuits to discuss.  BCS seems to be doing all of their talking through their lawyers, and it doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon.