Little v. Comm'n on Teacher Credentialing

84 Cal.App.5th 322

300 Cal.Rptr.3d 296

Kathy LITTLE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING et al., Defendants and Appellants.

C092001

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed October 19, 2022

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Carl W. Sonne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Andrew M. Steinheimer and Kevin W. Bell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants.

Rothschild Wishek & Sands, Michael Rothschild, Sacramento, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

RENNER, J.

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Commission) and the Committee of Credentials of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Committee) appeal from a judgment and peremptory writ of prohibition directing them to discontinue certain investigative proceedings against present and former public school administrators Kathy Little, Simone Kovats, and Debra Sather (together, the administrators). The Commission and Committee argue the trial court erred in ruling the administrators were excused from exhausting administrative remedies and misinterpreted Education Code section 44242.5, which defines the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction.¹ Finding no error, we will affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties and Relevant Nonparties

The Commission establishes the professional standards for obtaining teaching credentials in California. ( § 44225.) The Commission is also authorized to take adverse action against credential holders. ( § 44421.) The Commission may privately admonish or publicly reprove a credential holder, or revoke or suspend a credential holder for immoral or unprofessional conduct or persistent defiance of the laws regulating the duties of persons serving in the public school system, or for any cause that would have warranted the denial of an application for a credential or the renewal thereof. (Ibid. )

The Commission appoints the Committee, an investigatory arm comprised of seven members (two full-time classroom teachers from public schools, one administrative employee from a public school, one member of the governing board of a school district, and three members of the public). ( § 44240.) The Committee is charged with investigating allegations of misconduct by credential holders. ( § 44242.5, subd. (e).)

The administrators are credential holders currently or formerly employed by the Palm Springs Unified School District (District) in administrative or supervisory capacities. The Committee commenced an initial review of the administrators’ fitness to continue as credential holders in 2019. We are concerned here with the Committee's jurisdiction to undertake that initial review.

Nonparty John Villani was a special education teacher employed by the District between 2011 and 2014. Villani sued the District in Riverside County Superior Court in 2016. Villani's lawsuit alleged the District unlawfully retaliated against him after he reported that a teacher-aide, David Yoder, was "grooming" and paying inappropriate attention to some of the minor students in his care. Yoder was subsequently charged and convicted of several felony sex offenses against minors, including an offense against one of the aforementioned students. As relevant here, Villani's lawsuit also alleged the administrators ignored his concerns about Yoder. These allegations would soon catch the attention of the Commission.

B. The Investigation

The Commission learned about Villani's lawsuit from a news article. An investigator contacted Villani to request an interview. The investigator also asked that Villani provide copies of his complaint and other court filings, and declarations describing the administrators’ alleged failure to investigate Yoder. Villani met with the investigator and provided the requested materials.

The Commission informed the administrators that their credentials were under investigation by letters dated September 6, 2019. The Commission explained that the investigation was focused on the administrators’ alleged failure to act on Villani's concerns about Yoder. The Commission invited the administrators to submit written materials for the Committee's consideration at meetings scheduled for November 13 through November 15, 2019.

The administrators responded by letter from their counsel herein. The administrators objected to the manner in which the Commission had obtained documents and information from Villani and argued the Committee had not established jurisdiction to review their credentials. The administrators demanded the Commission cease the investigation and the Committee drop the scheduled meetings. The Commission and Committee declined to do so.

C. The Trial Court Proceedings

The administrators filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition and order to show cause regarding contempt on October 25, 2019. The petition alleged the Commission and Committee exceeded their jurisdiction by commencing an internal review based on the news article concerning Villani's lawsuit. The petition also alleged the Commission violated a declaratory judgment and order issued in Hewitt v. Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Superior Court Sacramento, 1999, No. 98CS01418 (Hewitt ).² The petition saught an alternative writ of prohibition and peremptory writ restraining the Commission and Committee from investigating the administrators, and an order to show cause why the Commission should not be found in contempt due to the alleged violation of the Hewitt order. The administrators also filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to stop the investigation.

The trial court held a hearing on the application for a temporary restraining order on November 5, 2019. During the hearing, the trial court indicated that the Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction by requesting records from Villani, but could still properly establish jurisdiction by requesting some of the same records from the Riverside County Superior Court. The trial court explained: "It seems kind of like a futile or an idle act but I think, technically, it all comes down to you need to cross all the T's and dot all the I's." The trial court entered a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction suspending the investigation.³

The trial court subsequently entered a peremptory writ barring the Commission and Committee from proceeding with any investigation or review based on records obtained directly from Villani. The trial court denied the request for an order to show cause regarding contempt.

The Commission and Committee filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

A.-B.^**

C. Jurisdiction

We come now to the central issue in this case: the scope of the Commission and Committee's power to investigate prior to an initial review. The trial court determined that the Commission and Committee exceeded their jurisdiction by requesting documents and information directly from Villani. The Commission and Committee argue the trial court misinterpreted section 44242.5. They raise a number of arguments to support their broader interpretation of the statute, which would authorize the Commission to "pick up the phone" and contact private citizens prior to commencing an initial review. As we shall explain, these arguments lack merit.

1. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Before we begin our analysis, we will briefly review the procedures for investigating complaints against credential holders. Those procedures can be divided into three phases, each with their own requirements and limitations: the preliminary review ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 80308 ), the initial review ( § 44242.5, subds. (b) - (c) ), and the formal review ( §§ 44242.5, subd. (d) & 44244 ). We will describe each phase in turn.

California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 80308 authorizes the Committee to conduct a preliminary review of information received about a credential holder, subject to limitations discussed post . ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 80308, subd.(a); see also California Teachers Assn. v. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 ( California Teachers Assn. ).) Following the preliminary review, the Committee "may either determine to end the review or instruct staff to set the matter for initial review at a later meeting." ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 80308, subd.(a).)

Section 44242.5, subdivision (b) vests the Committee with jurisdiction to commence an initial review "upon receipt" of certain materials. An initial review commences when a credential holder is notified that his or her fitness to hold a credential is under review. ( California Teachers Assn., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 369, citing § 44242.5, subd. (c) and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 80307.1.) The credential holder must be given a reasonable opportunity to provide written information to the Committee prior to the meeting, and the Committee's staff prepares a confidential investigative report for the Committee's consideration. ( California Teachers Assn., supra, at p. 1006, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 369, citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 80309.1, subds. (c)-(d).)

A formal review may be held no more than six months after the commencement of the initial review. ( § 44244, subd. (b)(1).) The credential holder may appear and respond under oath to questions from the Committee, and the Committee may call material witnesses to provide testimony, subject to examination for rebuttal evidence. ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §§ 80311, 80313, subds. (a)-(c) ; California Teachers Assn., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 1007, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 369.) The Committee then makes a probable cause determination. ( California Teachers Assn., supra, at p. 1007, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 369.) "If there is no probable cause, the investigation is terminated. If there is probable cause, the credential holder may request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. (§ 44242.5, subd. (c).)" ( Ibid. )

The Committee...