~vr · 2005-03-02 · david l. herron (sb #158881) peter l. choate (sb #204443) o'melveny...
TRANSCRIPT
ZZi80 'd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~vr- u
JOHN F . DAUM (SB #52313)FRAMROZE M . VIRJEE (SB #120401)DAVID L . HERRON (SB #158881)PETER L . CHOATE (SB #204443)O'MELVENY & MYERS LLPEmbarcadero Center West275 Battery StreetSan Francisco, CaliforniaTelephone : 415 .984 .8700
Attorneys for Defendant State of California
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ELIEZER WILLIAMS, et al .,
)
Plaintiffs, )
Vs .
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DELAINE )EASTIN, State Superintendent )Of Public Instruction, STATE )DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STATE)BOARD OF EDUCATION,
)
Defendants . )
)AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION .
))
9£j8 0£b £iZ
94111-3305
Case No . 312 236
ENDORSEDF I L E DSan Francisco County Superior Court
MAR 1 4 2001
GORDC-'- -! PAP' ;-1 . .l. CIerjBY:
Hearing Date : April 1.1, 2001
Time :
8 :30 a .m .
Department : 16
Judge :
Hon. Peter J . Busch
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF
DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO THE FIRST, SECOND,
THIRD, FOURTH, AND/OR SEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION BROUGHT BY THECLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AVTHORITIYS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THEALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMRRY AwmICATIOu AS TO CLAIMS 6ROUGHT aY THE CLovERDALY PLdIZftTIFPS
Sof1S 1df10J 4W0
90:0 Tow-VT-2kW
1
2
3
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II . THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS' FIRSTCAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1, SECTION7(A) AND ARTICLE IV, SECTION 16(A) OF THE CALIFORNIACONSTITUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ZZi60'd
9£18 0£b £iZ
A .
The Textbook Allegations Have No Merit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B .
The Allegations Regarding a Lack of Air-Conditioning Have No Merit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III . THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS' SECONDCAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IX, SECTIONS 1AND 5 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IV . THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS' THIRDCAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1, SECTIONS7(A) AND 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
V .
THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS' FOURTHCAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVILRIGHTS ACT OF 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
VI . THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS' SEVENTHCAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14EMORANDIIM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUWARY JUDGMENT OR . IN THE
ALTERNATIVE . FOR SUNMARY ADJUOTCATION AS TO CLAIMS HROUOKT BY THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS
5of1S 1Hn08 WWO
90:E1
1002-bt-bW
ZZ/OTId
9£T8 0£t, £TZ
MSMORANDVM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUtMRY JVOGMWT OR, IN THE
ALTERuATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDIGITIOW AS TO CLAIMS BROUGHT By THS CLOVE"ALS PLAINTIFY8
S3f1S id-103 WWO
90:£T TOOZ-VT-2W
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
3
4 Cases
5 Butt v . State of California,4 Cal . 4 668 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4, 5, 8
6C lausing v . San Francisco Unified Sch . Dist . ,
7 221 Cal . App . 3d 1224 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8 Daviton v . Columbia/HCA Healthcare Co2000 WL 33191565 (9 Cir . Mar . 1, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9Fobbs v . Holy Cross Health Sys . Corp . ,
10 29 F .3d 1439 (9 Cir . 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11 Hartzell y . Connell ,35 Cal . 3d 899 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12Le er v . Stockton Unified Sch . Dist .,
13 202 Cal . App . 3d 1448 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
14 uintana v . Municipal Court,192 Cal . App . 3d 361 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
15Serrano v . Priest , . .
16 18 Cal . 3d 728 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
17
18
19 Constitution and Statutes
20 34 C .F .R . § 100 .3(b)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 12
21 .42 U .S .C . § 2000d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 12
22 Cal . Code . Civ . P . § 437c (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
23 Cal . Code . Civ . P . § 437c (f)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
24 Cal . Const . art . I, § 7(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2, 3, 10
25 Cal . Const . art . I, § 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 10
26 Cal . Const . art . I, § 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
27 Cal . Const . art . IV, § 16(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3
28 -ii-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEIAORANDUH OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROUGHT BY TKE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS
zz/ti'd
9FT8 007 Eiz
sons lHnm wwo
90 :2T i00Z-VT-mow
1 TABLE OF AIITHORITIES(continued)
2
3 Cal . Const . art . IX, § 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-- . . . . . 2, 9, 10
4 Cal . Const . art . IX, § 5 . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . "" .--- .-- .-- "" 2, 9, 10
5 Cal . Educ . Code § 60000(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-- . . . . .-- . . . . . " . " 5
6 Cal . Educ . Code § 60000(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OFMOTION OF DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR,IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO THE FIRST,
SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, AND/OR SEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION BROUGHT BYTHE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS
I . INTRODUCTION .
Plaintiffs Drew Smith, Gino Buchignani, and Jason
xehrli (the "Cloverdale Plaintiffs") attend Cloverdale High
School in the Cloverdale Unified School District .' In their
First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the Cloverdale Plaintiffs allege
that defendant State of California is currently depriving them of
"basic educational opportunities" by subjecting them to
"deplorable conditions" that "shock the conscience ." FAC 19 l,
3-4 .
The Cloverdale Plaintiffs complain about only two
specific conditions . First, they allege that there are either an
insufficient - number of textbooks or no textbooks at all in some
classes, including science and geography . FAC 1 141 . Second,
they allege that some of the classrooms at Cloverdale High lack
air-conditioning and that the absence of air-conditioning .
undermines students' performance on hot days .
PAC 1 140 . The
Cloverdale Plaintiffs contend that these conditions have resulted
in a host of constitutional and statutory violations entitling
them to broad declaratory and injunctive relief . 2
1 A fourth named plaintiff, Jonathan Cambra, also attendsCloverdale High School . On or about February 5, 2001, however,Plaintiff Jonathan Cambra filed a Request for Dismissal withprejudice as to all causes of action and all defendants .
The Cloverdale plaintiffs assert the following five causesof action :
(1) a violation of Article I, Section 7(a) and
MEMORANDUM of POINTS AND AUfftO1tITIE5 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TOR SLf41ARY JUDGMENT OR, ZK THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR SLMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROuCRT BY THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS
ZZ/ZT'd
9£18 0£b £TZ
S9f1S izn09 WWO
90:£T T00Z-dT-b"4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
gl
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Cloverdale Plaintiffs theorize that the State lacks
an effective system for monitoring and correcting the conditions
of which they complain . Regardless of whether their theory has
any merit, the factual record before the Court indicates that the
conditions alleged by the Cloverdale Plaintiffs either do not
exist or else have been mischaracterized . Moreover, to the
extent that the conditions do exist, they do not violate the
Cloverdale Plaintiffs' educational rights . Accordingly, the
Cloverdale Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief against the
State . Summary judgment on their claims is therefore
appropriate .
II . THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST CAUSEOF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 7(a) ANDARTICLE IV, SECTION 16(a) OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION .
A motion for summary judgment must be granted when the
evidence demonstrates that there is no triable issue of material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law . Cal . Civ . Proc . Code § 437c(c) . Similarly, a motion for
summary adjudication as to a cause of action must be granted if
the cause of action has no merit . Cal . Civ . Proc . Code § 437c
(f) (1) .
.
Article IV, Section 16(a) of the California Constitution ; (2) aviolation of Article IX, Sections 1 and 5 of the CaliforniaConstitution ; (3) a violation of Article I, Sections 7(a) and 15of the California Constitution ; (4) a violation of Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U .S .C . S 2000d and 34 C .F .R .100 .3(b)(2)j and (5) a cause of action for declaratory reliefbased on the foregoing alleged violations .
_2_MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION !OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR. IN THE
ALTERNATIVE . FOR SUramARY AD7UDICATION AS TO CLAIMS SROUOHT BY THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS
ZZi£1'd
92,18 020 £1Z
Sof1S 1?n00 WWO
90 "£1 TOW-PT-61W
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Cloverdale Plaintiffs first and principal cause of
action alleges a violation of the equal protection clauses of the
California Constitution . 3 The Cloverdale Plaintiffs, however,
are not entitled to any relief unless they prove that the State
has denied them "basic educational equality ." Butt v . State of
Cali fornia , 4 Cal . 4 th 668, 685 (1992) . And they cannot meet that
standard unless they prove that the "actual quality" of their
school district's educational program, "viewed as a whole, falls
fundamentally below prevailing statewide standards ."
Id . at 686-
687 (emphasis added) . in assessing whether a plaintiff has met
this test, courts must recognize the "inevitable variances in
local programs, philosophies, and conditions" and give
"considerable deference" to a local school district's efforts to
"gain maximum educational benefit from limited resources ." Id .
at 686 .
Filed herewith is the declaration of Gene Lile, the
principal of Cloverdale High School . Mr . Lile has been at
Cloverdale High School for a total of 21 years, serving
successively as teacher, vice-principal, and principal . His
declaration makes clear that the Cloverdale Plaintiffs cannot
prove that they have been denied basic educational equality .
First, their claim has no factual basis . Second, even assuming,
arguendo , that their claim had some factual basis, the
Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitutionprovides in part that "[a] person may not be . . . denied equalprotection of the laws ." Cal . Const . art . I, § 7(a) . ArticleIV, Section 16 of the California Constitution provides in partthat "(a]11 laws of a general nature have uniform operation ."Cal . Const . art . IV, § 16(a) .
Kp4DRANDm or POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUACHEITT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROUGHT BY THE CIAnRDALE PIAWTIFFS
ZZibT'd
92T8 0£b £TZ
SO()S lam WWO
L0 :2T T00Z-VT-dW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
educational program of Cloverdale Unified, when viewed as a
whole, does not fall fundamentally below prevailing educational
standards and therefore is not constitutionally deficient . Butt ,
4 Cal . 4th . 686-687 .
A .
The Textbook Allegations Have No Merit .
The Cloverdale Plaintiffs allege that in some classes,
including science and geography, either there is an insufficient
number of textbooks or there are no textbooks at all :
Students cannot take books home for homework in someclasses, including science and geography classes, becausethe school does not have enough books for all students inthe school . In addition, students in some classes,including geography, do not have any books to use at all .
FAC 1 141 . This allegation is untrue .
In every class at Cloverdale High that utilizes a
textbook, each student has a textbook to use in class and to take
home . Lile Decl . J1 5, 7, 8, 11 . The sole exception is Physics .
Lile Decl . 1 5 . While each Physics student had a textbook to use
in class and to take home at the beginning of the current school
year, some students have since lost or damaged their textbooks .
Lile Decl . 1 9 . Because Cloverdale Unified is purchasing a new
edition of the Physics textbook for all students for the upcoming
2001-2002 school year, it has decided not to replace those
textbooks that have been -recently lost or damaged . Lile Decl . q
9 . Despite this, students who currently lack a Physics textbook
are provided with photocopies of necessary textbook information .
Lile Decl . q 9 . Accordingly, the Cloverdale Plaintiffs'
-4-mEMORANoUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTZOM FOR SU AARY JUDGMENT OR. IN THE
ALTERNATIVE. FOR SUPQQARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROUGHT BY THE CLOVEROALE PLAINTIFFS
ZZ/ST'd
9£T8 0£b £TZ
So(1S idnm WWO
L0:£1 TOW-VT-bM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ZZi9i'd
92T8 0£d ZTZ
allegation that some classes, including science classes, have an
insufficient number of textbooks is simply wrong .'
Technically true but fundamentally misleading is the
Cloverdale Plaintiffs' allegation that some classes lack any
textbooks at all . The fact is that some classes use
instructional materials other than textbooks, but only in cases
where a teacher makes a professional judgment that such materials
may provide a superior method of instruction s Lile Decl . q 5 .
For example, Cloverdale High teaches geography not by using
traditional textbooks, but by exposing students directly to maps,
atlases, and "on-line" computer resources . Lile Decl . q 6 . In
fact, each geography student has access to atlases and maps and
is provided with photocopies of these resources as needed for
assignments . Lile Decl . 5 6 . Notebooks containing instructional
information are also used during class and are distributed to
students at the beginning of the semester . Lile Decl . 1 6 .
4 During the 1999-2000 school year the Integrated Scienceclass had only one set of textbooks, which was for use in class .Lile Decl . 1 11 .
Cloverdale High, however, only began offeringintegrated Science as a pilot class beginning that year . LileDecl . 1 10 . Accordingly, a decision was made to purchase onlyone initial set of textbooks . bile Decl . Q 11 . When theIntegrated science class proved to be a success and CloverdaleHigh decided to continue offering it, Cloverdale Unifiedpurchased additional textbooks for each student taking the class .Lile Decl . 1 11 .
5 This is clearly the type of pedagogical choice that alocal district is entitled to make . Not only does Buttspecifically require "considerable deference" to such choices, 4Cal . 4th at 686, but the Legislature has specifically recognizedthat "because of economic, geographic, physical, political,educational, and social diversity, specific choices aboutinstructional materials need to be made at the local level ."Cal . Educ . Code § 60000(b) . School districts "must have theability to choose instructional materials that are appropriate totheir courses of study ." Cal . Educ . Code § 60000(c) .
1BMRANDut1 of POINTS Wo AUTeoAZT18S IN SUPPORT of NOTION FOR GUMKILRY JUDCBtENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR 3UMNARY ADJUDICATION AS ToCLAIM
BROUGHT BY THE CLOVERDALE PIJIINTIPFS
SOf1S 1WOJ WWO
L0:£i t00Z-V1-bdW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Geography students thus lack textbooks only because Cloverdale
High has chosen not to use textbooks to teach geography . But all
students have the instructional materials that are appropriate
for their respective classes .
Finally, students at Cloverdale High receive more than
just the textbooks and other instructional materials they need .
The school also has two computer labs . Lile Decl . 1 4 . And
every classroom has additional computers with internet access .
Lile Decl . 1 4 .
B .
The Allegat ions Regarding a Lack of Air-ConditioningHave No Merit .
The Cloverdale Plaintiffs also allege that some
classrooms at Cloverdale High lack air-conditioning and that the
absence of air-conditioning undermines students' ability to
concentrate on hot days :
very few of the classrooms at Cloverdale High have air
conditioning, even though temperatures inside the classrooms
reach as high as 110 degrees and are consistently extremely
hot during the months of August, September, October, May,
and June . Students in the classrooms without airconditioning have difficulty concentrating and learning in
the extreme heat . The Cloverdale High school calendar
begins at the end of August and ends in June, and the
,
absence of air conditioning severely undermines students'
ability to concentrate during hot days .
FAC 1 140 . Again, the facts do not support this allegation .
The School has two main wings of classrooms, six
portable classrooms, two computer labs, an auto/metal .shop
classroom, a woodshop classroom, and a library . Lile Decl . 9q 4,
12 .
Of these facilities, only the two classroom wings and the
two shop classrooms currently lack air-conditioning . Lile Decl .
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN T"
ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMKP&Y ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROUGHT BY THE CLOVERnA2- PLAINTIlFS
Z?/LT'd
9£t8 0£b £tz
soos idflm wwo
L0:£i t00Z-VT-6dw
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
R 12 . But every classroom at Cloverdale High is equipped with
two ceiling fans . Lile Decl . 1 12 . If it is hot, the teachers
do what millions of other Californians do : they ventilate the
classrooms with cool air in the morning and use the ceiling fans
to maintain the airflow throughout the day . Lile Decl . 1 12 . 6
The principal of Cloverdale High has never received a formal
complaint from a student or a student's parent regarding
excessive heat in classrooms . Lile Decl . 1 14 . In addition,
voters in Cloverdale Unified passed a $4 million facilities
modernization bond in 1999 that will provide air-conditioning to
the two classroom wings at Cloverdale High ; the improvements are
expected to be completed within the next two years . Lile Decl .
13 .
Contrary to the Cloverdale Plaintiffs' allegation,
objective criteria demonstrate that students' performance has not
suffered because some classrooms lack air-conditioning . In 1999,
Cloverdale High met or exceeded the average of all California
high schools in 4 of 5 categories tested on the SAT-9 (a
statewide aptitude test), including reading, language arts,
science, and social science . Lile Decl . 1 3 . And in 2000,
Cloverdale High met or exceeded the average of all California
high schools in 3 of 5 categories tested on the SAT-9, including
math, science, and social science . Lile Decl . 1 3 . Cloverdale
The Cloverdale Plaintiffs allege that classroomtemperatures reach as high as 110 degrees and are consistentlyhot from late Spring to early Fall . FAC . 1 140 . in actuality,however, temperatures at Cloverdale High may occasionally reach90 degrees in late August or early June ; but these are notaverage temperatures even at those times of the year . Lile Decl .q 14 .
MemoRmDUM or POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OP NOTION FOR SUMMARY JOOGMEeTT OR, IN TN8
ALTZMATIVE. FOR SUMMARY ADJWICATION AS TO CLAIMS ax.000HT BY TNS C2.OVSRDALE PLAINTIFFS
ZZi8T'd
9£T8 0£b £TZ
S9(1S 1 109 Wd0
L0 :£T T00Z-OT-"
1
High also met . its year 2000 improvement goal for the Academic
2
Performance Index, a tool used by the State Department of
3
Education to measure student achievement . Lile Decl . 1 3 .
4
Finally, Cloverdale High has been accredited for a period of six
5
years--the maximum period allowed--by the Western Association of
6
Schools and Colleges, the relevant accrediting agency . Lile
7 Decl . 1 3 .
g
Simply put, the Cloverdale Plaintiffs' first cause of
9
action has no factual basis . Nothing about the educational
10
experience at Cloverdale High translates into a constitutional
11 violation that meets the requirements of Butt . Using ceiling
12
fans on the occasional hot day and teaching geography students
13
with maps, atlases, and on-line computer resources cannot
14
reasonably be considered to render the educational program of
15
Cloverdale Unified, when viewed as a whole, constitutionally
16 deficient .
17
When the California Supreme Court decided Butt , it
18
acknowledged that constitutional relief against the State is
19
warranted only in "extreme circumstances ." id . at 688 . There
20
are no extreme circumstances here . To conclude otherwise would
21
render meaningless the Legislature's constitutional authority to
22
create a system of local school districts . The facts do not
23 support that outcome .
24
Accordingly, the Cloverdale Plaintiffs' first cause of
25
action has no merit and the State is entitled to summary
26 judgment .
27
28-8_
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR,
THE
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROWHT BY THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFSALTERNATIvB .
ZZ/GT'd
9228 0217 £ZZ
SX1S 1W09 wwo
80 :£j i00Z-bt-2 41
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III . THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS' SECOND CAUSEOF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IX, SECTIONS 1 AND 5 OFTHE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION .
In their second cause of action, the Cloverdale
plaintiffs allege that the State has violated their right to a
"basic education" under Article IX, Sections 1 and 5 of the
California Constitution by depriving them of the "bare essentials
of an education ." FAC 1 302 . The facts do not support this
cause of action either .
Article IX, Section 1 of the California Constitution
recognizes the importance of a "general diffusion of knowledge
and intelligence" and exhorts the Legislature . to "encourage by
all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific,
moral, and agricultural improvement ." Cal . Const . art . IX, § 1 .
It is the State's position that Article Ix, Section 1 does not
create an enforceable right in anyone because it is not self-
executing ; instead, it is one of those constitutional provisions
that "merely indicates principles, without laying down rules by
means of which those principles may be given the force of law .'
Le er v . Stockton Unified Sch . Dist ., 202 Cal . App . 3d 1448, 1455
(1988) . But even if Article IX, Section 1 is construed to create
a right that may be judicially enforced, it is quite apparent
that there is nothing offensive to this constitutional provision
in the fact that teachers at Cloverdale High use ceiling fans
when it is hot and instruct geography students with maps and
atlases instead of textbooks .
Plaintiffs also rely on Article IX, Section 5 of the
California Constitution, known as the "free school guarantee,"
-9-rEIiORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN suppoRT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE . FOR SUMbgARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROUGHT SY THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS
ZZ/OZ'd
92T8 02b £TZ
SO(1S lWW WWO
80:£T T00Z-VT-8bM
which directs the Legislature to establish "a system of common
schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in
each district ." Cal . Const . art . IX, § 5 . But the Cloverdale
Plaintiffs do not allege any facts--and there are none--
suggesting that they have been charged any fees for participation
Hartzell v . Connell , 35 Cal . 3d 899,
Accordingly, the Cloverdale Plaintiffs , second cause of
no merit and the State is entitled to summary
THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS' THIRD CAUSE
OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE Z, SECTIONS 7(a) AND 15OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION .
In their third cause of action, the Cloverdale
Plaintiffs allege that the State has violated their
-10-
(1) depriving them of
(FAC 11 309-310) ; (2) requiring
them to attend a "dangerous" school that jeopardizes their health
and safety (FAC J 306) ; and (3) "ill-preparing" them for -a high
It is not clear that the Cloverdale Plaintiffs even allege
a violation of their right to attend a "free school ." Compare
FAC 1 302 ("Defendants have violated . . . Plaintiffs , right,
pursuant to article IX,
Sections 1 and 5
.
.
.
.) with FAC 1 303
(Cloverdale Plaintiffs not included among those plaintiffs who
allege a violation of Section 5) .
a Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitutionprovides in part that "(a] person may not be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law ." Cal . Const .
art . I, § (7)(a) . Article I, Section 15 also provides in part
that "(plersons may not . . be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law ." Cal . Const . art . I, § 15 .
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OE NOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE . FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROUGHT' BY THE CLOVERDALB PLAINTIFFS
Z2/TZ'd
~92T8 0£b £TZ
Sons 1W100 WWO
80:2T T00Z-VT-bHW
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
school exit examination, the passage of which is necessary to
obtain a high school diploma (FAC qq 307-310) .
Education is a fundamental right in California .
Serrano y . Priest , 18 Cal . 3d 728, 766 (1976) . But the
Cloverdale Plaintiffs cannot establish a due process violation
unless they prove that the State has significantly interfered
with that right . Quintana_v . Municipal Court, 192 Cal . App . 3d
361, 368 (1987) . The facts do not indicate that any such
interference has occurred .
First, every student at Cloverdale High has textbooks
or other instructional materials to use in class and to take
home . Students also have access to computers in every classroom
and in two additional computer labs . And there has been no
showing that the absence of air-conditioning in some classrooms
has interfered with the Cloverdale Plaintiffs' education at all,
let alone deprived them of "basic educational opportunities ."
Accordingly, the State has not interfered at all, let alone
significantly, with the Cloverdale Plaintiffs' right to an
education, and there is no due process violation .
moreover, there are no facts indicating that Cloverdale
High is a "dangerous" school or that the Cloverdale Plaintiffs'
"health and safety" has been j6opardized in any way . 9 Finally,
9 In any event, the State does not have a constitutionalobligation to guarantee safe schools . g:lausing v San Franciscounified Sch . Dist . , 221 Cal . App . 3d 1224, 1237-38 (1990)(holding that article I, Section 28 of the CaliforniaConstitution, which provides that all students have the right toattend -safe" schools, does not "impose an express affirmativeduty on any government agency to guarantee the safety ofschools") .
MMRANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGKWT OR. IA THE'
ALTERNATIVE, I'OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROUGHT BY THE CLOVERD" PLAINTIFFS
ZZ/ZZ'd
9£I8 0217 £iE
SO()S 12M3 WWO
80 :£i S00Z-VT-8VW
1'rn-l ti-Gr1C11
1 `+' v r
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
above,
judgment .
UI N I -
N\ 1
JV__
the facts do not indicate that the State has "ill-prepared" the
Cloverdale Plaintiffs to graduate from high school . As explained
objective criteria indicate that Cloverdale High is a good
school that prepares its students to succeed .
THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH CAUSE
OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1964 .
Cir . Mar . 1, 2001) .
Accordingly, the Cloverdale Plaintiffs' third cause of
action has no merit and the State is entitled to summary
in their fourth cause of action, the Cloverdale
Plaintiffs allege that the State has violated their right under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U .S .C . § 2000d and
34 C .F .R . § 100 .3(b)(2), to be free from discrimination on the
basis of race, color, or national origin . The theory of the
First Amended Complaint is that the State's conduct has a
disparate impact on "students of color ." FAC 1 314 . The
Cloverdale Plaintiffs may not bring this discrimination claim,
however, since they are non-Hispanic white students . Lile Decl .
q 15 . That is, they are among the class of students who, by
plaintiffs' own allegations, are favored by the State's alleged
conduct . FAC 1 314 ; Fobbs v Holy Cross Health Sys . Corp . , 29
F .3d 1439, 1447 (9 th Cir . 1994) (no claim under Title VI in
absence of racial discrimination), overruled on other grounds -)?Y
Daviton v . Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp . , 2000 WL 33191565 (9th
-12-14EL40RANDW OF POINTS AND AlTTHORITIEM IN SUPPORT OF HOTXOti FOR SUWARY JUDCMEIpT On. IN THE
ALTERNATIVE . FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROUGHT pY THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS
I'IFiR-1'1-LCJul
l.)' acl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
17.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VI . THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS' SEVENTHCAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF .
As explained above, the Cloverdale Plaintiffs' first,
second, third, and fourth causes of action have no merit .
Accordingly, their seventh cause of action for declaratory relief
has no merit either and the State is entitled to summary
j Udgmerl t .
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the motion of defendant State
of California for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for
summary adjudication as to the Cloverdale Plaintiffs' first,
second, third, fourth, and/or seventh causes of action should be
granted . I°
Dated : March 14, 2001 .
-13-
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLPJOHN F . DAUMFRAMROZE M . VIRJEEDAVID L . HERRONPET&B.-1. CHOATE
By
Peter L . ChoateAttorneys for DefendantState of California
to If the Court grants the State's motion for summaryjudgment, the State's Cross-Complaint as against the CloverdaleUnified School District will be moot . In that event, the Statecontemplates that it will request the dismissal of its sixthcause of action against the Cloverdale Unified School District .
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THEALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CLAIMS BROUGHT BY THE CLOVERDALE PLAINTIFFS