In the Supreme Court of the State of California

6XSUHPH&RXUWRI&DOLIRUQLD -RUJH(1DYDUUHWH&OHUNDQG([HFXWLYH2IILFHURIWKH&RXUW

(OHFWURQLFDOO\5(&(,9('RQDW30

6XSUHPH&RXUWRI&DOLIRUQLD -RUJH(1DYDUUHWH&OHUNDQG([HFXWLYH2IILFHURIWKH&RXUW (OHFWURQLFDOO\),/('RQE\0$OIDUR'HSXW\&OHUN

In the Supreme Court of the State of California

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; PALM LANE CHARTER SCHOOL; JUAQUIN CRUZ; ANGELA MILLER; and CECILIA OCHOA,

Petitioners, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California, SANDRA SHEWRY, in her official capacity as the State Public Health Officer and Department of Public Health Director,

Respondents.

Case No. S264065

Original Petition for Writ of Mandate

5(6321'(176? PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE

XAVIER BECERRA

*JOSHUA N. SONDHEIMER

Attorney General of California

Deputy Attorney General

CHERYL L. FEINER

State Bar No. 152000

Senior Assistant Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue,

GREGORY D. BROWN

Suite 11000

Supervising Deputy Attorney General San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 510-4420

Fax: (415) 703-5480

Joshua.Sondheimer@doj.

Attorneys for Respondents

Governor Gavin Newsom and

State Public Health Officer and

Director of the Department of

Public Health Sandra Shewry, in

their official capacities

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction................................................................................... 10 Background ................................................................................... 12 Legal Standards Applicable to the Petition ................................ 19 Reasons the Petition Should Be Denied ...................................... 21

I. The Court Should Decline to Exercise Its Original Jurisdiction................................................. 21

II. Petitioners Fail to Identify Any Relevant Ministerial Duty or Basis for Writ Relief ................ 25

III. The Challenged Directive Is A Constitutional ([HUFLVH2I7KH*RYHUQRU?V(PHUJHQF\3RZHU And Public Health Statutes to Respond to a Pandemic ................................................................... 27 A. Standard of Judicial Review of a State Public-Health Emergency............................... 27 B. RespondeQWV?2UGHUV'R1RW9LRODWH 6WXGHQWV?5LJKWVWR(TXDO3URWHFWLRQ ............ 30 1. 5HVSRQGHQWV?2UGHUV7UHDW Students Throughout the State Equally .................................................. 32 2. 5HVSRQGHQWV?2UGHUV'R1RW5HVXOW in Differences Between Districts that Fall Below Any Identified Prevailing Statewide Education Standards .............................................. 34 3. The State Has Already Taken Unprecedented Action in Response to Disparities that May Arise from Distance Learning................................. 38

IV. Petitioners Have Not Established That The 6WDWH?V5HVSRQVHWRWKH3DQGHPLF,V8QODZIXO....... 39

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

A. Petitioners Cannot Establish A Claim for Violation of Federal Disability Statutes ........ 39

B. Petitioners Lack Any Right of Action for Alleged Violations of Title VI Regulations .... 46

V. The Executive Orders and Public Health Directives Are Reasonable and Supported .............. 46

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 48

3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Abeel v. Clark (1890) 84 Cal. 226 ................................................................... 28, 29

Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280 ..................................................................... 30

Adams v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 146 ..................................................................... 22

Albino v. Baca (9th Cir. 2014) 747 F.3d 1162 (en banc)....................................... 41

Alexander v. Sandoval (2001) 532 U.S. 275....................................................................... 46

American Coatings Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 446.................................................................... 21

Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior Court (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 903 .......................................................... 19

Best Supplement Guide, LLC v. Newsom, et al. (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) No. 2:20-cv-00965-JAM-CKD, 2020 WL 2615022 ............................................................................ 28, 37

Blanchard v. Morton School Dist. (9th Cir. 2007) 509 F.3d 934......................................................... 40

Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808...................................................................... 22

Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668 (Butt) ....................................................passim

Cal. Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231.................................................................... 22

4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)

Page

City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare (2007) 41 Cal.4th 859.................................................................... 20

Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020) __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 2:20-cv-00832JAM-CKD, 2020 WL 2121111 ...................................................... 28

Diaz?Barba v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1470 ........................................................ 30

'RHY$UL]RQD'HS?WRI(GXF (9th Cir. 1997) 111 F.3d 678......................................................... 43

Forest Grove v. T.A. (2009) 557 U.S. 230 (2009) ........................................................... 44

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (2017) 137 S. Ct 743...................................................................... 41

Gish v. Newsom (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) No. EDCV20-755-JGB (KKx)), 2020 WL 1979970 ............................................................................ 13, 29

Givens v. Newsom (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2020) No. 2:20-cv-00852-JAM-CKD, 2020 WL 2307224 .................................................................................. 28

Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 1992) 967 F.2d 1298....................................................... 42

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11................................................................... 27, 29

Klajic v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 987 ............................................................ 20

Lake Washington School Dist. No. 414 v. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (9th Cir. 2011) 634 F.3d 1065....................................................... 40

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download