CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PSES v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF E...
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PSES v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Part II
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PSES v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Part II 07:17:2006
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PSES v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Filed 7/13/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PSES et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
B181843
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC272983)
Story continue from Part I ……
The United States Supreme Court has spoken directly, in the Fourteenth Amendment due process context, to a government entity's right to take adverse regulatory action and only provide notice and the option of a hearing after the suspension or revocation of a protectable interest. In Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, 424 U.S. at pages 332-349, the Supreme Court applied the foregoing three-step due process analysis and upheld an administrative procedure for terminating social security disability payments. That administrative procedure permitted a state agency to utilize a ‘â€
Description
Education Code Sec. 56366.6(a) and (b) and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Sec. 3068, which allow government to deny, revoke, or suspend a nonpublic, nonsectarian school's certification without a predetermination hearing. This Code does not, on their face, violate such schools' Fourteenth Amendment due process rights where financial stability of a nonpublic, nonsectarian school providing educational services to disabled children is a serious matter; there is little risk of erroneous decisionmaking because statute affords schools opportunity for postdecision hearing; and government has compelling interest in insuring that schools charged with protecting disabled children are operated in safe and lawful fashion. Statutes governing certification suspension and revocation procedures for nonpublic, nonsectarian schools are not subject to requirements for emergency administrative action specified in Government Code Sec. 11460.10 et seq. Where second amended complaint filed by particular nonpublic, nonsectarian school did not specifically allege how government applied or is applying Education Code Sec. 56366.6(a) and (b) and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Sec. 3068 discriminatorily to it, school did not have valid claim that law was unconstitutional as applied and trial court properly dismissed suit.
