Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist. v. Diego Plus Educ. Corp.

316 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721

GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.DIEGO PLUS EDUCATION CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents;

Western Educational Corporation et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents;

San Diego Unified School District, Intervener and Appellant.

D080295

Court of Appeal,

Fourth District, Division 1.

Filed December 29, 2023

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2015-00033720-CU-WM-CTL)

Orbach Huff & Henderson, Sarah Sutherland, San Diego, and Whitney N. Antrim for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Blank Rome, Gregory M. Bordo and Christopher J. Petersen, Los Angeles, for Defendants, Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Higgs Fletcher & Mack, John Morris, Steven M. Brunolli; San Diego Unified School District, Andra Greene, San Diego, for Intervener and Appellant.

IRION, J.

This case, which involves a dispute regarding public charter schools operating within the geographic boundaries of Grossmont Union High School District (Grossmont Union) and San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) is before us for a second time. Specifically, this appeal concerns the trial court’s order requiring that Grossmont Union and SDUSD pay attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5¹ to the charter school corporate entities who prevailed in the appeal that we decided in 2021. (Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp., 2021 WL 650883 (Feb. 19, 2021, D076221) [nonpub. opn.] (Grossmont 2021).) Those charter school corporate entities are Diego Plus Education Corporation (Diego Plus), Western Educational Corporation (Western Educational), Lifelong Learning Administration Corporation (Lifelong Learning) and Educational Advancement Corporation (EAC) (collectively, "the Charter School Corporate Entities"). In Grossmont 2021, we reversed the trial court’s orders (1) enjoining the Charter School Corporate Entities from operating any charter school within the geographic boundaries of Grossmont Union and SDUSD, and (2) ordering the issuance of writs of mandate requiring that Julian Union Elementary School District (Julian Union) revoke the charter of Diego Valley East Public Charter School (Diego Valley East) and that Dehesa Elementary School District (Dehesa) revoke the charter of Diego Hills Central Public Charter School (Diego Hills Central).

Grossmont Union and SDUSD contend that the trial court erred in ordering them to pay the attorney fees incurred by the Charter School Corporate Entities while successfully litigating the issues we addressed in Grossmont 2021 because the prerequisites for an award under section 1021.5 are not present. Grossmont Union and SDUSD further contend that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of attorney fees to be paid.

We conclude that the tidal court abused its discretion by failing to evaluate one issue relevant to the Charter School Corporate Entities’ entitlement to an award of attorney fees, namely, whether "the … financial burden of private enforcement … [is] such as to make the award appropriate." (§ 1021.5, subd. (b).) Accordingly, a remand is required so that the trial court may properly exercise its discretion on that issue, applying the appropriate legal standard. We further determine that, assuming the Charter School Corporate Entities are entitled to a fee award, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the award.

Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the order requiring Grossmont Union and SDUSD to pay attorney fees pursuant to section 1021.5, with specific directions that the trial court apply the proper legal standard in examining whether the "financial burden of private enforcement … [is] such as to make the award appropriate." (§ 1021.5, subd. (b).) We express no view on how the trial court should rule on that issue. Our reversal of the order awarding attorney fees shall remain in place unless the trial court determines, on remand, that an attorney fee award is warranted. In such a case, the trial court shall reinstate the order awarding attorney fees in the original amount of $582,927 to the Charter School Corporate Entities, along with any additional attorney fees reasonably incurred in this appeal or on remand. (See Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1226, fn. 5, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 342, 241 P.3d 840 (Whitley) ["[I]t is well established that the attorney fees for work necessary to recover those fees, such as reasonable effort expended on the present appeal, are to be included in the fee award."].)

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[1] Much of the relevant factual and procedural background is set forth in Grossmont 2021.² (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) In presenting the background pertinent to this appeal, we will summarize or quote from selected portions of Grossmont 2021. As we did in Grossmont 2021, we begin with an overview of the applicable law governing charter schools in California.

A. The Charter Schools Act

The operation of charter schools in California is governed by the Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.) (Charter Schools Act). In 2002, the Charter Schools Act was amended to add stringent geographic restrictions for the operation of charter schools. (See Ed. Code, §§ 47605, subd. (a)(1), 47605.1; Stats. 2002, ch. 1058, §§ 6, 7; see also California School Bds. Assn. v. State Bd. of Education (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1298, 113 Cal. Rptr.3d 550 (California School Bds. Assn.) [summarizing the statutory framework applicable to public charter schools].)

As we explained in Grossmont 2021, during the period when this case was litigated, the Charter Schools Act set forth several exceptions to the general rule that a charter school must locate within the geographic boundaries of the school district that approves its charter. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Specifically, Grossmont 2021 identified two relevant exceptions. The first exception applied, in general, when a charter school was unable to locate within the geographic boundaries of the chartering school district. (Former § 47605.1, subd. (d); Stats. 2016, ch. 186, § 46.) In Grossmont 2021, we referred to that provision as "the Unable-to-Locate exception." (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Second, the Charter Schools Act’s geographic limitations "do not apply to a charter school that provides instruction exclusively in partnership with" the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq.) or certain other federal and state programs that are not relevant here. (Former § 47605.1, subd. (g), now codified as § 47605.1, subd. (f).) In Grossmont 2021, we referred to that provision as "the WIOA exception." (Grossmont 2021, supra., D076221.)

B. The Initial Phase of the Underlying Litigation, in Which the Trial Court Enters Judgment in Favor of Grossmont Union and SDUSD but Stays the Issuance of Writs of Mandate

In 2015, Grossmont Union filed a lawsuit against several entities, alleging that Diego Plus violated the Charter Schools Act by operating Diego Valley Public Charter and Diego Hills Public Charter School within Grossmont Union’s geographic boundaries. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) The charter of Diego Valley Public Charter was approved by Julian Union, and the charter of Diego Hills Public Charter School was approved by Dehesa. Grossmont Union sought a writ of mandate and declaratory and injunctive relief against Diego Plus and the school districts that approved the schools’ charters. (Ibid.)

SDUSD filed a complaint in intervention in the litigation initiated by Grossmont Union. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) SDUSD sought a writ of mandate and declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that Diego Plus also operated Diego Hills Public Charter School within the geographic boundaries of SDUSD in violation of the Charter Schools Act. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.)

While the litigation was pending, Anderson Union High School Dish v. Shasta Secondary Home School (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 564 (Anderson) was issued, resolving a dispute concerning the Charter Schools Act’s geographic restrictions. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Anderson held that even if a charter school operates through resource centers rather than through classroom-based instruction (as was the case with respect to the Diego Plus’s charter schools at issue in this litigation), the school’s operations must be restricted to the boundaries of the chartering school district unless the school falls into one of the statutory exemptions that allow a charter school to operate outside the geographic boundaries of the chartering school district, such as the Unable-to-Locate exception (former § 47605.1, subd. (d)) and the WIOA exception (§ 47605.1, subd. (f)). (Anderson, at pp. 275-277, 283, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 564.)

Following the Anderson opinion, the trial court granted the petition for writ of mandate filed by Grossmont Union, concluding that the charter of Diego Valley Public Charter must be revoked for failure to comply with the geographic restrictions in the Charter Schools Act. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Before judgment was entered, the State Board of Education granted a temporary waiver that allowed Diego Valley Public Charter to operate until June 30, 2018. (Ibid.) In light of that waiver, on August 2, 2017, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Grossmont Union, but stayed the issuance of the writ of mandate. (Ibid.) The judgment stated that the writ of mandate compelling Julian Union to revoke the charter of Diego Valley Public Charter would be stayed during the period of the waiver granted by the State Board of Education, and that "the writ will be issued and become effective only if Diego...