JACK O'CONNELL v. THE SUPERIOR COURT Part I 08:14:2006
JACK O'CONNELL v. THE SUPERIOR COURT
Filed 8/11/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
JACK O'CONNELL, as Superintendent of Public Instruction etc., et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY,
Respondent;
LILIANA VALENZUELA et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
A113933
(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. JCCP 4468)
I. Introduction
By order of the California Supreme Court, we are charged with reviewing defendants'[1] petition for writ of certiorari, mandate, and other appropriate relief, challenging a preliminary injunction issued by the Alameda County Superior Court, but later stayed by the California Supreme Court. That injunction restrained defendants from denying diplomas to members of the 2006 graduating class at California public high schools who were otherwise eligible to graduate, but who had not passed both portions of the California high school exit exam, otherwise known as the CAHSEE.
We conclude, inter alia, that: (1) the trial court's determination that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their primary equal protection claim was supported by substantial evidence and legally proper, although the court's determination as to their secondary claim was not; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in the manner in which it balanced the factors it was legally required to consider in deciding a motion for preliminary injunction, and in concluding that the injunction was necessary in order to maintain the status quo while the underlying litigation proceeded; and (3) the remedy exceeded what the court had the legal authority to impose, and was otherwise overbroad in its scope. Accordingly, we grant defendants' writ petition, and vacate the preliminary injunction.
II. Factual Background and Procedural History
The historical background facts relevant to this litigation are largely a matter of public record, and are not in dispute. In March 1999, the California Legislature found that â€
Description
Where trial court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting schools from withholding diplomas from students who failed to pass the high school exit exam but met all other graduation requirements. The trial court's determination that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their primary equal protection claim--that it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to apply the exit exam diploma requirement to students who have passed all the course requirements for graduation but who have not been provided with the educational resources necessary to enable them to pass the exam--was supported by substantial evidence and legally proper. Although the court's determination as to their secondary claim--that the manner in which supplemental funding for remedial instruction for the class of 2006 had been distributed also violated equal protection--was not. The trial court abused its discretion in the manner in which it balanced the factors it was legally required to consider in deciding a motion for preliminary injunction--and in concluding that the injunction was necessary to maintain the status quo while the underlying litigation proceeded--where trial court gave virtually no weight to schools' proof that at least in some cases, students' failure to pass exam would only result in a delay in their receipt of their high school diplomas rather than a permanent denial of them. In addition, students have nine options available to them by which they can continue their education and obtain either a high school diploma or a similar certificate. Court failed to consider evidence establishing that granting the relief students sought would cause substantial harm to others and--more significantly--to the public interest and failed to balance that harm against that which the students would suffer without the relief and where it was based on the false premise that the harm to plaintiffs was not the loss of educational opportunity but the denial of a diploma, and failed to take into account the public interest in enforcing the exam requirement as an integral part of the statutory scheme adopted by the legislature in an effort to raise academic standards in California public schools. The remedy exceeded what the court had the legal authority to impose and was otherwise overbroad in its scope where it prohibited every school district in the state, regardless of educational materials available to its students, from denying diplomas to those students who failed to pass the exam, and where so-called interim relief, an order that students be given diplomas, in fact does not maintain the status quo of the litigation but ends it.
