Bullis Charter v. Los Altos School Dist. 11/21/11 CA6

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: H035195M

Case Date: 11/21/2011

Plaintiff: Bullis Charter

Defendant: Los Altos School Dist. 11/21/11 CA6

Preview:Filed 11/21/11

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

BULLIS CHARTER SCHOOL, Plaintiff, Petitioner, and Appellant, v. LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.

H035195 (Santa Clara County Super.Ct.No. CV144569)

ORDER MODIFYING OPIONION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

BY THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 27, 2011, be modified in the following particulars: On page 11, after partial paragraph ending "supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 195.)", add the following three paragraphs: The District argues, belatedly,1 that the de novo standard of review enunciated in Sequoia is inapplicable here. Rather, it contends that--because the matter was decided After the filing of the opinion, the District filed a petition for rehearing raising arguments and citing authorities it failed to present before the case was argued and decided. (Indeed, the District cited 39 cases in the petition that it had not cited in the respondents brief.) To the extent that the petition raises new arguments and cites new authorities, it is an improper. (See Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075, 1092, abrogated on other grounds in Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 66 ["arguments . . . cannot be raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing"]; Midland Pacific Bldg. Corp. v. King (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 264, 276 [same].) We nonetheless have chosen to address the standard of review question raised in the Districts petition.
1

below on disputed facts--this court must review whether the trial courts findings and judgment " ,,are supported by substantial, credible and competent evidence. [Citation.]" (Environmental Charter High School, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 145.) We disagree with the District that such a review standard applies here. It is true that where a courts ruling on a traditional writ of mandate is founded on a resolution of conflicting evidence, the appellate courts inquiry [is] whether the findings and judgment of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence." (Saathoff v. City of San Diego (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 697, 700.) " ,,However, the appellate court may make its own determination when the case involves resolution of questions of law where the facts are undisputed. [Citation.]" (Agosto v. Board of Trustees of GrossmontCuyamaca Community College (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 330, 336; see Cal. Civil Writ Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed. 2011)

Download H035195M.PDF