Shaw v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist.

95 Cal.App.5th 740

313 Cal.Rptr.3d 617

Keshara SHAW et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B315814

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

Filed September 19, 2023

Kirkland & Ellis, Mark C. Holscher, Sierra Elizabeth, Edward S. Hillenbrand, Robert Carnes, Los Angeles, Laura E. Uhlenhuth and Kathryn Panish for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Dannis Woliver Kelley, Sue Ann Salmon Evans, Long Beach, Ellen C. Wu, Keith A. Yeomans, Los Angeles, Luke L. Punnakanta and William Guy Ash for Defendant and Respondent Los Angeles Unified School District.

Bush Gottlieb, Ira L. Gottlieb, Glendale, Lisa C. Demidovich, Pasadena, Michael E. Plank and Dexter F. Rappleye, Glendale, for Relief Defendant and Respondent United Teachers Los Angeles.

CURREY, P. J.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs and appellants allege that during the COVID-19 pandemic, defendants and respondents Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD or the District) and its then Superintendent, Austin Beutner, adopted distance-learning policies that discriminated against poor students and students of color—and deprived all students of basic statewide educational equality—in violation of the California Constitution.¹ Plaintiffs rest their challenge on various side letter contract agreements between LAUSD and the teachers union, defendant and respondent United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), which plaintiffs contend implemented the distance-learning framework established by the Legislature in a discriminatory fashion.² Since the suit was filed, however, the District has returned to in-person instruction, and both the side letter agreements and the statutory framework that authorized them have expired. Nevertheless, plaintiffs continue to seek injunctive relief to remedy what they contend are ongoing harms caused by the allegedly unconstitutional policies.

The trial court sustained, with leave to amend, LAUSD's demurrer on mootness grounds and granted, with leave to amend, its motion to strike the prayer for relief, reasoning that the requested remedies would not be manageable on a class-wide basis. The trial court also sustained, with leave to amend, UTLA's demurrer. Rather than amend, plaintiffs suffered dismissal and now appeal. We conclude the court prematurely struck the prayer for relief at the pleading stage, notwithstanding the end of distance learning. Because the plaintiffs propose a seemingly viable remedy for the past and continuing harms they allege, their constitutional claims are not moot. We therefore reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand with instructions.³

BACKGROUND

1. Summary of Distance Learning Framework

On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in California due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ( County of Los Angeles Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 478, 484, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 752.) Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti declared a local state of emergency the same day.

On March 13, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-26-20 relating to school district operations during the crisis. Every LAUSD campus physically closed starting on March 16, 2020. The following day, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 117, which, among other things, waived attendance and statewide testing requirements for the 2019–2020 school year for school districts that complied with the Executive Order. (Sen. Bill No. 117 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) Stats. 2020, ch. 3.)

LAUSD and UTLA negotiated the impacts and effects of the emergency closures and the shift to distance learning. The resulting agreement, executed on April 8, 2020, was contained in an April 2020 side letter to their collective bargaining agreement. That side letter expired on June 30, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 98, which, among other things, established requirements for distance learning during the 2020–2021 school year. (Sen. Bill No. 98 (SB 98) (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) Stats. 2020, ch. 24, § 34, enacting, e.g., Ed. Code,⁴ former §§ 43501 [minimum instructional minutes], 43503 [distance learning requirements], 43504 [documenting attendance and progress], and 43509 [procedures for establishing distance learning policies].)

Section 43501 reduced the minimum required instructional time for a school day. The reduced times varied by grade: 180 minutes for kindergarteners ( § 43501, subd. (a) ), 230 minutes for first through third graders (id. , subd. (b)), and 240 minutes for fourth through 12th graders (id. , subd. (c)). Section 43503 established the requirements for distance learning, including "[c]ontent aligned to grade level standards that is provided at a level of quality and intellectual challenge substantially equivalent to in-person instruction." ( § 43503, subd. (b)(2).)⁵ Section 43504 required school districts to document daily student participation and engagement.

( § 43504, subd. (d)(1) ; see id. , subd. (e) ["Each local educational agency shall ensure that a weekly engagement record is completed for each pupil documenting synchronous or asynchronous instruction for each whole or partial day of distance learning, verifying daily participation, and tracking assignments."].) It also laid out requirements for tracking and mitigating absenteeism. (Id. , subd. (f).) The distance learning provisions went into effect on June 29, 2020. (Stats. 2020, ch. 24, § 124.)

LAUSD and UTLA negotiated the impacts and effects of this new regimen. Their agreement governing the fall 2020 semester was contained in an August 2020 side letter, which expired on December 31, 2020. LAUSD and UTLA then negotiated a December 2020 side letter to govern the spring 2021 semester.

On May 25, 2021, the LAUSD board terminated the superintendent's emergency authority to take actions necessary to respond to the pandemic. Governor Newsom terminated his own executive orders on June 15, 2021. Finally, on June 30, 2021, the state laws authorizing and delineating the contours of distance learning, including section 43503, expired. (Stats. 2020, ch. 24, § 34, enacting former § 43511, subd. (b) ["This part shall become inoperative on June 30, 2021, and, as of January 1, 2022, is repealed."].) The December 2020 side letter expired the same day.

2. Proceedings Below

2.1. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs filed their original class action complaint on September 24, 2020. On October 7, 2020, they filed a first amended complaint, which added UTLA as a relief defendant.⁶

On April 9, 2021, the trial court overruled LAUSD's demurrer to the first amended complaint but granted LAUSD's motion to strike language concerning the failure to provide students with special education instruction and services. The court held that the case was not moot because school closures were ongoing and could recur, thereby perpetuating the alleged side-letter problems, and section 43503 had not yet expired. It also observed that the complaint had requested only prospective relief; the court thus invited plaintiffs to revise it to include a prayer for remedial (or "retrospective") relief. The court warned, however, that "retrospective relief on a class-wide basis may create commonality and typicality problems because each student's educational shortfalls may be highly individualized."

2.2. Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs filed the operative second amended class action complaint on May 12, 2021. It asserted eight causes of action: wealth discrimination, in violation of the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution (first cause of action); racial discrimination, in violation of the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution (second cause of action); violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the California Constitution (third cause of action); violation of article IX, sections 1 and 5 of the California Constitution (fourth cause of action); violation of Government Code section 11135 (fifth cause of action); violation of section 43503 (sixth cause of action); declaratory relief (seventh cause of action); and failure to provide basic educational equality, in violation of the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution (eighth cause of action).⁷ The first, second, and eighth causes of action asserted that the constitutional violations stemmed from the April, August, and December 2020 side letter agreements between LAUSD and UTLA, which implemented statutory distance learning policies in the District.

Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint also sought remedial injunctive relief. The prayer for relief requested, in part: "Retrospective relief to address the ongoing, cumulative, and irreparable harms already suffered by LAUSD students, including but not limited to non-individualized forms of relief such as (1) additional live instructional minutes delivered by certified teachers, (2) mandatory assessments to evaluate student learning loss, (3) the provision of small group and one-on-one tutoring services to subclasses of students disproportionately impacted by the LAUSD's distance learning policies, (4) mandatory training for teachers specific to remediating learning loss that students suffered as a result of the LAUSD's distance learning policies, and (5) affirmative outreach measures to counter the student truancy trends that developed as a result of the LAUSD's distance learning policies."

2.3. Demurrers and Motions to Strike

LAUSD demurred to all of the causes of action on mootness grounds. The District asserted that each cause of action failed to state a claim because: the challenged side letters, SB 98, and section 43503 had all expired (see former § 43511, subd. (b) ); intervening events rendered the present controversy unlikely to recur; and plaintiffs’ constitutional and discrimination claims and the statewide standard on which they rested were dependent upon an expired law.⁸

Separately, LAUSD also moved to strike the language concerning retrospective injunctive relief,...