Opposition ObjectionsCal. Super. - 6th Dist.December 8, 2020CWQQMhWN-n beJb-JUJUJNNNNMMNNNNHHp-Ip-Ip-tt-IHt-np-Au-o #93NHOWOOQQM-pmNi-‘OOOONJONU’I$WNHO Fred Rassaii 195 East San Fernando Street SEP 1- 5 2021 San Jose, CA 951 12 669-242- 1 725 3mg? gr; géogfgtgh?”393258 cm BY DEPUTY Self-Re resentedp RYAN NGUYEN SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CIVIL DIVISION Fred Rassaii | Case Number: 20CV374092 Plaintiff, | Opposition to Consolidat‘e Case # 20CV374092 V. l and Case # 21 CV376482 California State University | Defendant [ Approximately 12 years ago California State University (CSU) set out to launch a new major, Medical Physics (MP) to its roster 0f majors at its San Diego campus, San Diego State University (SDSU). As for any major or any course offered by any California public school, school has the legal obligation to only employ qualified, competent and licensed instructor(s). One whose education and degree, as well as the subject of his/her PhD research is in the field that he/she has been hired t0 teach. And if part of that major or course is consist of practicum, school must have the required and qualified infrastructure t0 teach such practicums. CSU had neither. Not only CSU did not, and still does not, have the qualified instructor to teach the Therapy part ofMP, which covers fifty percent ofMP major, nor does CSU have the required infrastructure to teach the practicums of the entire Medical Physics maj 0r, both Therapy and Imaging part: warm...“ However, such short falls and inadequacies did not stop CSU to commence offering Medical Physics major in and around 2010. For CSU it was more important t0 have Medical Physics major on its roster than for its students receive qualified and competent education. pg. 1 \DWNJONUIuP-WNH wwMMWMNNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHp-ay-Arfi hMNHOOOO-QQUI-bwNHOKOOONJQU‘IAUJNHO Plaintiff, while attending SDSU, observed that majority of the students majoring in MP discover the inefficiencies and inadequacies of their education only at the end 0f their two year program when they go to their residency interviews at various Medical Physics residency programs around the country. It is then, at these interviews, when they discover they had not received the required instructions and education at SDSU, when they find themselves, at best, having difficulty answering the MP questions they have been asked by their interviewers. Plaintiff further observed that a small percentage of the students recognize these short falls in their education throughout the program prior t0 their residency interviews, but they remain silent fearing, as one put it, “They (school) might d0 something to me”, and another, “I need to stay on school’s good side, in case I can’t get outside residency and have to apply to SDSU residency.” Plaintiff tried to discuss such inefficiencies in MP program with the Chair of the department 0f Physics, who also is the director of the MP program as well as teaching the Imaging related courses of this major. In Plaintiff’s first attempt t0 discuss such inefficiencies with the Chair of the department in fall semester 2018, the Chair left the discussion abruptly and without any response. In Plaintiff s second attempt a few weeks thereafter, the Chair was very ‘forceful’ in her defense of the program, completely dismissing Plaintiffs assertions. The following semester, spring 2019, when it became painfully clear to Plaintiff that he, and the rest of the class, were not receiving the required education at SDSU, Plaintiff approached the Chair of the department no less than five 0r six different times throughout the semester, pointing to the chair the areas of deficiencies in this major, asking for change and corrections. In his last meeting with the Chair in this regard in mid-May of 2019, the Chair stated, “Don’t worry Fred. Things will be different next year.” Shortly thereafter Plaintiff was expelled from school for not meeting the maj or’s minimum required GPA in two consecutive semesters. When Plaintiff was readmitted to the program a year later, fall semester 2020, Plaintiff observed that no change of any type was made to the program. The Medical Physics major was still as inadequate as ever and completely unqualified. These inadequacies where amplified even more due t0 the restrictions and complications 0fCOVID pandemic. Plaintiff approached the co-Chair 0f the department of Physics in person, and a few weeks thereafter met again with the Chair and the co-Chair of the department together over Zoom, discussing, yet again, the severe deficiencies of Medical pg- 2 \OWQQU‘I-bUJNH wwwwmwwmmwNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH #th-‘ouoooxlcxmthHoxoooqoxm¢mNHO Physics program at SDSU. In neither of these last two meetings the Chairs had any response t0 offer Plaintiff. The CSU’s actions leading to Plaintiff filing 0f case # 21CV376482 started over a decade ago. CSU, well aware of the improbability of employing a qualified Medical Physics instructor, employed a person for this position knowing that this person’s education and university degree is not in the field of Medical Physics. And further, to shield CSU from a possible future prosecution for employing an unqualified instructor, CSU chose not t0 examine the qualification of this person in teaching Medical Physics at the time of his hiring or any time thereafier despite Plaintiff‘s repeated obj ections to this person’s lack of qualification to teach the subj ects of this major. This, in addition to lack of having qualified infrastructure to teach the practicum part of Medical Physics major. Plaintiff was lefi with no option but to file the Case # 21CV376482 against CSU in February 2021 , for “knowingly delivering to Plaintiff insufficient and incompetent education.” (Exhibit A) In December 0f 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant case, 20CV3 74092. As the court is already aware, this case is a complaint and objection to CSU’s modification 0f its own policies with regard t0 petition process for readmission and reinstatement of an expelled student for not meeting a major’s minimum GPA requirement. These policies and requirements for readmission and reinstatement are very clear and arc unmistakable. They are listed on page 3 0f the petition for reinstatement form (Exhibit B), under the heading of: “STUDENT: Acknowledgment of Academic Probation Extension.” There are no other conditions and/or authorities that govern this process. These petition forms are legal and binding contract between the school and the petitioning student. The tenns of this contract are fixed and cannot be modified by any employee of CSU. It is these terms and policies that CSU ignored and unlawfillly replaced with a set of requirements that far exceed the CSU’s own established policies. As the court is already aware, when Plaintiff obj ected to modification 0f the terms and conditions of this petition process by CSU in summer of 201 9, CSU rescinded its already approved petition by the department of Physics and expelled Plaintiff from CSU for a period no less than one year. When Plaintiff reapplied to CSU at the end of his expulsion period, CSU again ignored their own readmission policies and once more imposed on Plaintiff, as conditions for his readmission, conditions pg. 3 WWNQUI-bwm’d MMMMWNNNNNNNNNNHr-In-In-IH-n-fip-AHp-u th-‘O‘omfi-JONLII$WNHO©WQ¢WQWNHO and terms outside 0f CSU’s own policies and permitted conditions and terms. When case # 21CV376482 is a complaint about CSU knowingly giving Plaintiff, and in fact to all its Medical Physics students since 2010, an incompetent and unqualified education in Medical Physics, the instant case, 20CV374092, as the court is well aware, is a complaint about CSU, who in contrast to its own policies, twice placing conditions and requirements 0n Plaintiff well above and beyond its own policies when Plaintiff, twice, petitioned to be readmitted and reinstated into CSU and the MP program. As the court clearly can see, although these cases both have been committed by one entity, they are however, entirely different in nature and subject matter, and cannot be consolidated into one. If Plaintiff could be permitted t0 bring the court’s attention to Defendant’s Demurrer to this case, 20CV374092, filed on 04/19/2021 , (Exhibit C).In its Demurrer the Defendant claimed that this case, 20CV374092, contains the same complaint and the same subject matter as the case # 19CV353871 filed on 08/29/2019. And since case # 19CV353871 has been adjudicated and ruled upon, therefore, the present case, 20CV374092, should be dismissed (Exhibit C, Page 5, line 16-19). As the court did correctly observed, case # 19CV353871 was a constitutional challenge to CCR 41300(f) and no other issues or questions were raised in that case. Therefore, 19CV353871 was, and is, an entirely a different case in terms of nature, questions it raised, and issues it discussed. As a result, this court in its ruling of 06/14/2021, rejected the notion that case # 20CV374092 and case # I9CV353871 raise the same questions and the same issues, and dismissed that part of Defendant’s Demurrer. Defendant now equates the instant case, 20CV374092, with case # 21CV376482. As it is demonstrated above, these 2 case are not the same and do not share the same issues, the same question, or the same complaints. They arc completely and entirely different in nature, deal with different issues, different questions, and different complaints. Therefore they cannot be consolidated. At the risk of offending the court’s intelligent, Plaintiff would like to remind the court that the actions CSU has been undertaking, forcing Plaintiff t0 bring such actions to the attention of the courts, have not just adversely effected Plaintiff’s life, rather such actions and such bchaviors in the part of CSU have also negatively touched, and continues to touch, the lives ofmany other CSU students who pg- 4 \DWQONMhUJMH WU.)WMWNNNNNNNNNNHHP-‘HI-‘HHHr-‘H #93Nb-‘OOW‘JQMAUJNHOWOO‘QGNM-DWMHO placed their future and their lives in the hands 0f CSU, trusting that CSU would look after them with integrity. When Plaintiff objected to CSU for the deficiencies in their Medical Physics program, and repeatedly pleaded with them to correct such deficiencies, rather than making the necessary corrections and t0 bring the program’s standards to accepted and required level, because that is what anyone with integrity would have done; CSU instead expelled Plaintiff from school so to continue with ‘business as usual.’ When Plaintiff repeatedly asked CSU t0 stop lying to CSU’s students in terms of the manner/form students arc legally entitled t0 receive their financial aid (Exhibit D), rather than to stop such practice, because that is what anyone with integrity would have done; CSU expelled Plaintiff from school so to continue with ‘business as usual’. When Plaintiff obj ected to CSU for placing terms and conditions 0n Plaintiff, as conditions for his readmission to CSU, outside of those permitted by CSU’s own policies, CSU rescinded its already approved petition and denied Plaintiff readmission so t0 continue ‘business as usual.’ When Plaintiff brought his complaints to the courts, CSU employed California Department of Justice (DOD to defend CSU in these lawsuits. DOJ, the agency whose sole mandate is to prosecute anything and/or anyone who brings any harm t0 the public 0f the state 0f California, aligned itself with the fraudulent actions and practices of one 9f California state’s agencies, CSU. Rather than for DOJ to investigate whether 0r not there is a scintilla of truth in Plaintiff“ s allegations; because if there is any truth in Plaintiff’s allegations then so many students ofCSU have been, and are being adversely effected by CSU’s fraudulent actions, this Department of Justice, not only aggressively defends the actions ofCSU through unfounded claims and denial of wrong doings, but also attacks Plaintiff by making accusations such as ‘lacking ability to learn’, or ‘Plaintiff places blame on CSU for his short falls’. This forces Plaintiff to ask the following question, ‘Is the California Department of Justice the prosecuting attorney for the people of state of California, or is the Department a defense attorney for the state agencies 0f the state of California? pg. 5 \OOOQOU‘I-bUJNs-a WWWWWNNNNNNNNNNI-‘HHHn-IHp-au-ap-ab-h #wNHOOOONONUI-DDJNHOKDM‘JQM$WNHO Plaintiff respectfully ask this court to reject Defendant’s request t0 consolidate case # 20CV374092 with case # 21CV376482. This request put forward by the Defendant is merely an effort to minimize CSU’s exposure in these lawsuits and possible filture lawsuits brought forward by other students of CSU. Very Respectfully, Fred Rassaii (plaintiff) September 9, 2021 Self-Represented Exhibit A t \DOO‘QOUW-bwwfl MNNNNH-IHHH-‘u-Ap-tp-or-n #DJNI-‘OKOOOMONU‘IAUJN-‘O Fred Rassaii 195 East San Fernando Street (:mrprtczz‘ E San Jose,CA 95112 MAR 1 7 2021 669-242-1725 S ”Céer of the Court Ll B 0r u oun o Self-Represented BY p o c W [sangEchtiérY 0/32] SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CIVIL DIVISION Fred Rassaii Plaintiff California State University Defendant Case Number: 20CV374092 Notice 0f Motion and Motion t0 Order CSU/SDSU to Set Aside the Requirements They had Placed on Plaintiff as Conditions for Plaintiffs Readmission to SDSU, and Order the CSU/SDSU to Replace these Conditions/Requirements with others that Comply with CSU/SDSU Own Established Rules and Policies. Date: 5//E/Zp 2/ D_epanment:/4 Tlme: {?gifl AM Date Complaint Filed: Trial Date: To California State University and its attomey(s) 0f record: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that 0n J] Z 8 l Zfla f ,MW, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department [3 0f this court, located at 191 North First Street, San Jose, Plaintiff, Fred Rassaii, will, and hereby does move for an order from the court to order the California State University (CSU) t0 retract the conditions that San Diego State University (SDSU), one 0f CSU’s 23 campuses, had placed on plaintiff on February 05, 2020 (Exhibit A), as conditions for Plaintiff’s readmission t0 CSU and SDSU in Fall semester 2020 as a graduate student; and yevise these conditions t0 set 0f conditions that cemply with the CSU and SDSU’s established policies listed 0n t0p 0fthe page three 0fthe “Petition For Readmission After Disqualification, 0r 0n Probation” (Petition), “Immediate Reinstatement After Disqualification” forms, SDSU’s “Graduate Bulletin” and SDSU’S “General Catalog”. pg. 1 ’. \OOO-QQ‘J‘I-DUJMp-n WWNNMNNNNNNNv-IH-IHHr-HHHH HOOOONJONMhWNHODOO‘dQM-QWNv-‘O J N LI.) L) DJ JAL; The motion will be based 0n this notice 0f motion, 0n the declaration(s) 0f Fred Rassaii, and the supporting memorandum served and filed herewith, on the records and file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing 0f the motion. Dated: 03/15/2021 By: g/g FRED RASSAII Plaintiff, In Pro Per \DOONJQU‘I-PUJNH MNNMNNp-HHHHHHHs-Au-I Lh-bUJNHOOOO‘JQL/l-bwwh'o 26 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a graduate student at SDSU, was expelled from SDSU in May 2019, for receiving a GPA 0f lower than SDSU’s required graduate GPA of 2.85 in two consecutive semesters, Fall semester 201 8, and Spring semester 2019. In August 0f 201 9, Plaintiff petitioned for “Immediate Reinstatement After Disqualification” (Exhibit B). This petition was approved by the Department 0f Physics, and forwarded by the Physics Department to SDSU’s ‘Graduate Affairs’ office for further processing (Exhibit C). SDSU’s graduate readmission policies stated in the SDSU’s Graduate Bulletin, as well as 0n ‘reinstatemem petition’ forms, that a disqualified graduate student, as conditions 0f his/her readmission must achieve a “te_rm” (semester) GPA of 2.85 or better in his/her first semester after his/her reinstatement, and a post-baccalaureate cumulative GPA of 2.85 at the end of the second semester after reinstatement. Further, CSU’s and SDSU’s policies place the petitioning student on an “Academic” probation during this period. The terms 0f these conditions must be read and acknowledged by the student by marking all three conditions as ‘read’ and by signing the bottom of these conditions. These ‘term’ and ‘cumulative’ GPAS, as are indicated 0n ‘1'einstatement petition’ forms, as well as in SDSU’s ‘Graduate Bulletin’ and SDSU’S ‘General Policies”, have been designed and enacted into school’s policies so the ‘GPA bar’ would not be set so high that could/would result in student’s failure in achieving it. Furthermore, such policies are adapted so no school employee would 0r could place a requirement 0r condition 0n any student(s) that exceeds the requirements that are expected from other students. All students must adhere to the same requirements, and all students must be treated equally. The Graduate Affairs office, however, ignoring CSU’s and SDSU’S own policies, required that the Plaintiff must receive a “post-baccalaureate cumulative” GPA 0f 2.85 0r better in his first semester after reinstatement (Exhibit D), as opposed t0 “t_gr1_n” (semester) GPA of 2.85 in first semester after readmission as it is required by CSU/SDSU policies (top portion 0fthe page 3 0fthe ‘pctition’ form, exhibit A and exhibit B, as well as SDSU Graduate Bulletin). Accepting the Graduate Affair’s GPA requirement would have forced the Plaintiffto receive grades 0f “A” and “A+” in all his first semester courses after readmission, so he could achieve this “cumulative” GPA ot‘2.85 0r better in his first semester after readmission. This would have place a higher requirements 0n Plaintiffthan was expected from other students majoring in Physics. pg. 3 \OOOQQU‘I-DUJN- N N N N M [\J -- n-a p-a ~- p-n H p-n -- 1-- v-o kl] A Lo.) [\J H O o 00 q 0N L21 4:- UJ [\J ‘-‘ O [\J 0‘» Plaintiff respectfully brought to the attention of the Graduate Affairs office the established regulations and policies of CSU and SDSU in this regard (Exhibit E). It was clear by the language 0f the Graduate Affairs office’s emails that the office did not intend t0 readmit the Plaintiff into SDSU in Fall semester 2019, regardless of Plaintiffs acceptance 0f Graduate Affairs’ conditions or not. However, by law school had t0 offer an avenue, theoretically, through which student could attain his/her degree. The Graduate Affairs office, rather than directly denying the Plaintiff‘s petition by their own action, as it is required under the CSU’S policies, and state their reason for the denial, as they are required t0 do so, returned Plaintiff‘s “Immediate Reinstatement After Disqualification” petition form back to the Physics Department without rejecting it, instructing the Department to rescind the Department’s previously approved petition and deny immediate reinstatement (Exhibit F). The Physics Department complied (Exhibit G). Plaintiff was denied readmission to SDSU in Fall semester 2019. Since there are n0 Spring graduate admissions at CSU, this one semester expulsion translated into one complete year of expulsion, as it was reiterated by the Graduate Affairs office in their emails 0f Exhibit F. In August 08, 2019, Plaintiff requested that the Physics Depanment forward a copy of Plaintiff’s “Immediate Reinstatement After Disqualification” petition form initially signed and approved by the Physics Department, to Plaintiff (Exhibit H). The Department refused by stating “you already have a copy of the petition. Check the email I sent you 0n 7/1 6/1 9” (Exhibit I). No such email was ever sent by SDSU or received by the Plaintiff. The department 0f Physics had never forwarded a signed copy of Plaintiff‘s Petition form t0 Plaintiff by any method. In October 201 9, plaintiff reapplied to CSU for the school year 2020-2021, and shortly thereafter submitted a “Petition for Reinstatement After Disqualification” to the department 0f Physics at SDSU. This new petition was approved by the Physics Department and forwarded t0 the Graduate Affairs office for further processing (Exhibit A). On January 05, 2020, in reviewing and approving process ofplaintift‘s “Petition For Readmission After Disqualification, 0r 0n Probation” (Exhibit A), SDSU’s Graduate Affairs office, once more, disregarding CSU’s own policies, required the plaintiff, this time, to receive a ‘te_rm’ GPA ofifi in the first semester after readmission (Fall semester 2020), and sufficient GPA I0 meet all graduation requirements at the end ofplaintiff’s second semester after readmission (Spring semester 202]), without possibility t0 repeat 0r register for additional courses after Spring semester 202]. pg. 4 ’. \OOOxJONU‘I&bJI\J>-‘ U3 N N N N N N N N N N b-l b-I H H r-I >-- y-n p-a ._A p-A O 0 00 \J O\ LII «‘3 U) N H O \o m N O\ LII -b U) N '-‘ O U) ._. b.) l\) La.) La.) b)h Once again disregarding CSU and SDSU’s own policies requiring a term GPA of2.85 in first semester after reinstatement, and Cumulative GPA 0f 2.85 in second semester after reinstatement. Furthermore, again ignoring CSU and SDSU’s policy 0f limiting graduate studies to 6 years (Exhibit J), the Graduate Affairs office limited Plaintiff’s graduate studies t0 only 2 years, beyond which, according to the new readmission requirements, Plaintiff is baITed from taking any additional courses at CSU system. Placing a limit on how much education the Plaintiff can receive, and how long the Plaintiff can attend school. Furthermore, SDSU, as a condition 0f plaintiff‘s readmission, placed Plaintiff 0n “Administrative” probation rather than “Academic” probation as i1 is stated on Exhibit A. Under such regime, as the ‘Graduate Affairs’ office indicated, should the student fail t0 meet 0r comply with any part 0f his/her probationary conditions, student would be expelled from school without possibility of return. Under CSU’s and SDSU’S published rules and policies, “Administrative” probation and/or disqualification are reserved to be applied 10 a student for reasons other than “Academic/GPA” reasons (Exhibit K). These new conditions, once more, not only far exceed CSU’s and SDSU’s own policies, they also are outside 0f the boundaries ofCSU and SDSU’S policies. Faced with yet another rejection 0f his ‘petition’, should the Plaintiff object t0 these conditions, Plaintiff reluctantly agreed t0 SDSU’s conditions so he could return to his education and challenge the legality and legitimacy 0f these new and previous set of SDSU’s conditions in courts after his readmission. ©00~JO\U’:$UJt\.)--a NNN-Ap-Ir-Ir-th-tr-A-Ih-Ap-I-n NHOKOOOQONKfl$bJNHO DECLARATION OF FRED RASSAII Placing a student 0n “Administrative” probation for academic/GPA reasons, and requiring the student to achieve a substantially higher GPA than what is required by CSU’s and SDSU’S own policies and what is required 0f other students, and barring Plaintiff from repeating or registering for additional courses after Spring semester 2021, or after only 2 years of enrollment at SDSU, are malicious, unlawful, wrongful, arbitrary, extraneous and capricious. They constitute bad faith and breach 0f contract, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They are intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage 0f the student. And are liable, slander, misrepresentation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional stress. They further violate student’s right to education as well as student’s ‘Equal Right’ protection clause 0f the 14”“ Amendment under the U.S. Constitution. The conditions and requirements that were placed 0n Plaintiff by CSU 0n August 2, 2019, and again on February 05, 2020, as requirements for approval of his application for ‘immediate reinstatement’ and ‘reinstatement after disqualification’ were and are unlawful and outside 0f the boundaries 0f CSU’s and SDSU’s own policies. The denial 0f Plaintiffs “Immediate Reinstatement After Disqualification” 0n August 8, 2019, was a retaliatory action against Plaintiff’s objection and rejection 0f such requirement. This denial of the Plaintiff’s application was also a retaliatory action against the Plaintiff for Plaintiffs repeated objections to SDSU’S violation of section 668.164 (Disbursing Funds) 0f Title 34 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sub-section (d)(1)(i), sections (A), (B), and (C), as well as section 668.1 64 (Disbursing Funds) of Title 34 OfCode of Federal Regulations (CFR), sub- section (d)(4) (student Choice), all subsections under (i) including (ii), (Exhibit L). This SDSU’s action against Plaintiffwas fithher a retaliatory action against Plaintiff for Plaintiff‘s repeated complaints to the Department 0f Physics for great lack 0f qualification, inadequacies, deficiencies, and great lack 0f knowledge 0f the subject matters in the part of the instructor teaching one halt‘of all courses in Medical Physics Master’s Degree Program at SDSU, Plaintiff's major of study, resulting in plaintiff receiving inadequate instructionS/education in this instructor’s courses, leading t0 Plaintiff‘s repeated lower than required grades in this instructor’s courses. As a result of‘these retaliatory denial ofPlaintiff‘s application, the education and graduation 0f Plaintiff has been delayed by one whole year, up to this point, November 16, 2020, when this case was first filed with the Superior Court. Therefore, delaying Plaintiff‘s eventual employment in the field ofhis study by one year, and loss ofincome for that period. pg. 6 / As stated above, CSU again has placed requirements and conditions outside of their own policies 0n Plaintiff for readmitting him into CSU and SDSU in Fall semester 2020. This not only makes it, if not impossible but very difficult, t0 achieve such high GPA 0f 3.633 in Plaintiffs first semester after readmission. Especially since half of all required courses in this major, Medical Physics, are taught by a completely unqualified instructor, by whose admissions, not only his education is in an unrelated field, he also lacks the necessary licensing and credentials t0 practice Medical Physics. And again by his own admission, he “learned” Medical Physics by not having his education in that field, rather by “I read the ‘textbook’ and thought about if”, Meaning thinking about the subjects in the book and “figured them up.” Also, by his own admission, “You can learn only 10% from the lectures”, referring to his own lectures, “you must leam the other 90% on your own.” For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff, Fred Rassaii, respectfully requests that this honorable court t0 issue an order, compelling CSU and SDSU t0 remove the Plaintiff from “Administrative” probation. Further, plaintiff asks the honorable court t0 issue an order compelling CSU and SDSU to remove the requirement 0f attaining minimum GPA 0f 3.633 in the first semester after readmission, and reinstitute the GPA 0f 2.85 for the first semester after readmission and cumulative GPA 0f 2.85 at the end 0f the second semester after readmission, as these requirements are CSU’s and SDSU’S own published policies. Plaintiff also respectfully request this honorable court t0 issue an order compelling the CSU and SDSU to lift the unlawful condition/restriction placed 0n plaintiff by SDSU t0 never register 0r readmit to CSU/SDSU after fall semester 2020, 0r Spring semester 2021. Such conditi0n(s) placed 0n any student pursuing education, violate the student’s right to education at a public school. Plaintiff rCSpectfully requests this honorable court t0 issue an order compelling CSU t0 pay Plaintiff, as a compensatory damage, a sum 0f $150,000 (national average starting salary 0f a Medical Physicist) for one year loss of employment income due t0 Plaintiff‘s delay in graduation caused by the unlawful denial of Plaintiff’s petition for readmission in August 0f 2019, consequently delaying Plaintiff's employment by one year. Plaintiff, further request this honorable court t0 order CSU t0 pay Plaintiffa sum 0f$500,000 for mental anguish the Plaintiffhas been suffering by Plaintiff’s expulsion from SDSU in May of 2019. As it was stated above, this expulsion was the result 0f CSU/SDSU violating their own policies, in attempt t0 silence the Plaintiff in his attempt t0 force the school 10 comply with the Federal and slate laws with respect to Federal and state pg. 7 student financial aid policies, as well as Plaintiff’s objections t0 school having employed an incompetent and ineffective instructor. Resulting in violating Plaintiff’s constitutional right to education and to be free 0ftyranny. Plaintiff also request that this honorable court to order CSU to pay Plaintiffa sum 0f$10,000,000 as a punitive damage for such egregious, clear and present and deliberate intent and attempt to retaliate against Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s repeated objections t0 SDSU’S Violation of Federal and State laws with regard to Federal and State student financial aid program laws, and Plaintiff’s repeated obj ections for receiving utterly an incompetent and insufficient education at SDSU, resulting, not only to a physical expulsion from school for a period 0f one year, but Plaintiff having to repeat the inefficient courses he took at SDSU, possibly at another university, so to learn what SDSU was supposed to teach Plaintiff when Plaintiff took these courses at SDSU for the first time. Very Respectfully, Frgassaii (plaintiff) NovembeF-W / MCA /g/2(;/ j/g Self-Represented pg. 8 EXE‘EEMQ gwaggfig @201? RECEIVEDmufgzmu JAN102020 Gm duals and Research Affairs Division ofGradunmfljfam Son Diego State Unlvemlty ' 5500 Campanile Drive ' ' - San DlagoCA 91182-8220 SAN DIEGO STATE mom: 619 - 594 - 5213 UNIVERSITY WWW“ Petition For Readmission After Disqualification, or on Probation This petition ahouid be completed by thc student in conjunctlon with I11: Graduate Adviser, who must algn on page 2. RaSSaii ' Fred B1 6438578 Last Name Hm: V A Middrp Ream frassall@live.com k v . 669-2424 725 Emau - . -. ~ V wagons, I 195 East San- Fernando 8L. San Jose CA ' 951 12 Street address (19ml mulling) r City State . Zip C‘odc ~ Medical Phyéigs (ms) Medical Physics (MS) ‘ pmvious graduaze program (and concentration/apcoianmion) [mended program (and conmnuauon/apcaauzwon) Fall 201 8 Spring 2019 None Fall 2020 f'Imt semester in Finn} semester Additional someaters with coursework Semes tor you wish previous grad. program hefom disqualification afier disqualification (6.3.,ch studies) to be madmiued Content ofma Pmlflou ' ' = . , . K) Complete Ihia form, Including tho Academic Pian on page 2, signed by the Graduate Adviser ofyour Intended program. 2) Submit n typed explanation that includes the following information: o Explanation of tho mlcfiuatingdmumtnmes that ladjo poor academic performanca Theée circumstances muut have been sedans, compelling and beyond your control. It must be clear that the underlying Issues are now resolved and will not Impede fixtum academic performnnw. "'- - e Scpurata document(s) from a third party that vcn‘fy your description ofthe circumstances. 6 You: intent to Increase your GPA so that academic probation ls removed, prefembLy In one semester. ‘ o Your infant to meet all grade requirements, and gmduato in a reasonable tima frame. 3) (Recommended) A latter of recommendation from the program's Graduate Adviser, emailed directly to the Assistant Dean for Graduate Affairs (AsatDcanGRA@maiLsdsundu). Submission and Review Submit petition. statement and supporting documunimion to Graduate Admisslons. Prospective Student Center in SSW 100. Ifit is not possible to submit the petition in person, mail to: Sun Diego Sum: University Office of Graduate Admissions 5500 Campanile Dzlva San Diego, CA 92182-8225 / . fl l Rwiscd mmmom Pcthiun Pot Readlniaahn And Reinzmlcmenl Met Dfupmllficaflon Pentium For Ruadmlnlon 0n Probation Academic Plan (to he completed with Graduate Advisor for intend'ed program) PHYS-BBO: RADIOLOGICAL PHYSICS (0-). PHYS-GTOA: MEDICAL PHYSICS (0-) Llst past caursos with grades oflncomplete that you {mend to complete. Have you discussed thls with the instructor? None Llst courses in pragmss at thls tlmc, and flnticipatcd grades 9 units Average unit load par somcstar aflor reudmieslon First semester after readmission Spring 2021 Antlelpatcd semester ofdogmc completion Second semester nftor readmission mm Halt; Wad; Q&wg 1111135 mmMum (mum!) PHYS 560 (repeat) ~ 3 A- PHYS 670A (repeat) 3 A- PHYS 565 3 B+ PHYS 674 3 B+ PHYS 672A (Lab) 3 8+ PHYS 798 ’ 3 CR PHYS 798 3 CR o q ufl‘fi) %flq ¢k a‘ Q f; GTA Projections (calcmate with Graduam visor) «s «“5” 4"" , WW/yhgn giggugufiog 935w lei at da e n fit Egglicublo) Unusnucumled “11:9 13 ' - W «(Md :ifiy /, 1:3 Post-bucc. cumuintivo GPA 2.35 2.71 / /2.Bb:>k(d‘/ nos GPA (Masters only) L/ 300M GPA (Mamar’s only) GRADUATE ADVISOR: Acknowledgement ofAcademic Plrln Tho nondemic plan descrlbcd above ls reasonable. and the amdent i3 llkaly to complete this program within u reasonable time 775MM WW 12/1 6/201 9 Graduate Advisoralgnalure Date A 7|; QM») 300A aw 7-2 3.00 > a aw w g?" /q 7 3 53 631/5 :___,___ PcliIion Far Rondmisxion full Rcinxmcmum Altar Disqualificafltin Palin'unfdr Rendmlssjon On Probation STUDENT: Acknowicdgcmcnt of Academic Probation Extension E Itmdcramnd {hat ifl am minmmch will hc on ncndcmic probation. I understand -Ih‘al‘ [-mua‘t cam n term GPA u,l'2.85_'or highcr-in my 'lirstscmestcr. or.~bc qunalifiad l understand thntI must misc my pustrbucculaurauc cumulaLivo GPA lo-9 .85 or higher by thu’ cud of thc-.sccond semester or be dlsm'mlifiod. ”’F‘f ”MIA, . I. sagjgi‘iejzg'tg gaminhLeai 74%"4. ‘ "' “w. . , _ _ V Student.sigrmum Date ‘ 'Su'bmisalon and Revien Submit pufiliun. étntcmcm and Supperflng documentation m Gmduulu Admissmtm. i’rospecfiw Studépnt' Center inSSW 100. If“ )5 riot possible to submii thcpzlifiou in pcrsbn mull to: 82m chqulato Univcrnity QfiTce Di Graduate Admrs‘sionu 5500 Canlpuniic Drive S'nu Diego. CA1 92 [82-8225 Appeals Students may ajppmnl-denied pairings dtremlym the Assislsm Dean for6111mm: Afiuits (AastDaauGR'Mc'xmmll sdsuedu). This appeal must be Eumaorted by n later of recuimneinlmion fmmma Graduate Advisor,_emailed diremly to‘ AsstDcanGRAQmaiLStlsu e‘du GRADUATE AN!).Rmsmnmmmmlis ' g Approved 4U Denied CL kl?) ‘ ,. ,_3.'5f7~°1®. Dean omeduate Affairs qr\Design'cc ' Dim: A Tippmi Wm resAmeM ’ 2" g’ZD'ZQ Wt. Andrew Bohonak Wed 2/5/2020 8:32 AM ifié To: You Cc: Fridolin Weber; Andrew Bohonak Dear Fred, I reviewed your readmission plan, which assumes you would take 5 graded courses during the 2020-2021 academic year, plus two ungraded 798 courses. As I understand it, the goal would be to graduate with a plan B Master's degree in Spring 2021. I performed this review under the assumption that all past and future courses would be applied to the Master's degree, with the exception 0f Physics 410. The plan you submitted would not lead to graduation for several reasons. a) A maximum of l course on the Program 0f Study may be repeated, and only if the Graduate Advisor successfully petitions on the student's behalf. Your pIan includes two repeats. b) If two repeats were granted (which would be a highly unusual exception), then as you and Dr. Weber correctly calculated, the cumulative GPA would be exactly 2.85 by the end of Spring 2021. However, because you have not taken any courses numbered below 300, your "300+l“ GPA is equivalent to the cumulative GPA. The 300+1 GPA needs to be 3.00 for a degree to be issued. c) Under the plan you submitted, the Program of Study has expanded from a 30 unit degree to a 36 unit degree. (Because of the two course repeats.) It would not be possible to expand it even further with more repeats. The only way to guarantee graduation (z guarantee 300+l GPA 0f 3.00 or higher) would be for you to earn a 3.78 GPA or higher for the remaining 5 graded courses. If we optimistically assume that you wiII earn grades of A in both Spring 2021 courses, then the minimum GPA in Fall must be 3.633. Idiscussed your case with Dr) Weber. We can approve readmission undera modified plan in which you are admitted on both academic probation and administrative probation. There would be four components. The pathway t0 graduation is quite narrow. A 1) Dr. Weber has requested permission for you t0 repeat two courses for the Program of Study, which is highly unusual. Readmission with a 2.35 cumulative GPA is also an unusual exception. I will approve these petitions, but won't be abie to approve any future adjustments, extensions or special requests. 2) Under administrative probation, your Fall 2020 term GPA must be 3.633 0r higher, (assuming you take three graded courses for use on the Program of Study). If the Fall GPA is lower, you would be administratively disqualified without the possibility of readmission. 3) Under academic probation, you would be disqualified if your Fall 2020 term GPA is less than 2.85. But this isn‘t relevant, since it is lower than the 3.633 threshoid. 4) Under administrative probation, your Spring 2020 grades must be sufficiently high to meet all graduation requirements. It wiII not be possible to repeat 0r register for additional courses after Spring 2020. Under the worst case scenario, you would have a "300+1 GPA" of 2.99 at the end of Spring 2021, and be disqualified without the possibility of continuation. After re-reading this email, I appreciate that the tone is rather formal and business-Iike, rather than encouraging. So I want to end by emphasizing that both the Medical Physics program and Graduate Affairs strongly support your efforts to complete the degree by Spring 2021, if you can earn the necessary grades. Please let us know if you'll be able to meet the challenge? Sincerely, Andrew Bohonak Exhibit B Petition Fridolin Weber Wed 7/24/2019 11:51 AM T0: Fred Rassaii FRASSAI!@|ive.com FYI, you petition has been submitted to Grad Affairs this moming. Exhibit C Graduatt and Resealth Affairs vaision ofGraduat: Afi’airs San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego CA 92182 ‘ 8220 SAN DIEGO STATE Phone 619 ‘ s94 ' 5213 UNIVERsnY Fax: 619 - 594 1:319 Immediate Reinstatement After Disqualification (Reapplication not necessary) Students who have been disqualified may petition for immediate reinstatement ifthcy have a reasonable plan for improving their gades, and there is strong support fiom the graduate adviser. Students who have been disqualified for more than one semester must reapply to the university (and 'file a difi'erent petition). f. This petition should be completed by the student in conjunction with the Graduate Adviser, who must sign on page 2. Rassaii Fred 816438578 Last Name First Middle frassaii@|ive.com 669-242-1725 Email Telephone 299 17th Street San Diego CA 921 O1 Sheet address (local mailing) City State Zip Code MS Medical Physics Fall 201 8 Graduate program (and concenu-ationlspecialization) First semester in program Content of the Petition 1) Complete this form, including the Academic Plan on page 2, signed by your Graduate Advisor. 2) Submit a typed explanation that includes the following information: a o Explanation ofthe extenuating circumstances that led to poor academic performance. These circumstances must have been serious, compelling and beyond your control. It must be clear that the underlying issues are now resolved and will not impede fiJture academic performance. 0 Separate document(s) fi'om a. third party that verify your description ofthe circumstances. o Your intent to increase your GPA so that academic probation is removed, preferably in one semester. o Your intent to meet all grade requirements, and graduate in a reasonable time flame. 3) (Recommended) A letter ofrecommendation fiom the program's Graduate Adviser, emailed directly to the Assistant Dean for Graduate Afi'airs (AsstDeanGRA@maiLsdsu.edu). Submission and Review Submit petition, statement and supporting documentation to Graduate Affairs in SSE 1410. If it is not possible to submit the patition in person, mail to: San Diego State University Graduate Affairs, MC 8220 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 921 32-8220 5 I Revised 07106120 [8 Petition For Immediatc Reinstatement Academic Plan (to be completed with Graduate Advisor) PHYS 410. PHYS 560, PHYS 670A. Have been discussed with instructors. List past courses with grades ofIncomplcte that you intend to complete. Have you discussed this with thc instructor“? List couxses in progress at this time, and anticipated grades 9unfis Average unit load per semester after reinstatement First semester after reinstatement Course Units Letter gmde PHYS 410 3 B PHYS 560 3 B PHYS 565 3 A FaH2020 ‘ Anticipated semester of degree completion Second semester after reinstatement I Couge Units Letter ggade [your goal) I5HYS 670A 3 A PHYS 798 3 CR PHYS 674A 3 > GPA Projections (calculate with Graduate Adviser) Current Anticipated after Anticipated afler l semester (ifreinstated) 2 semesters (ifreinstated) Units attempted 9, 9 Post-bacc. cumulative GPA 2-35 2'90 3-1 0 POS GPA (Nlastcr's only) 300+! GPA (Master’s only) GRADUATE ADVISOR: Acknowledgement ofAcademic Plan The academic plan described above is reasonable, and the'student is likely to complete this program within a reasonable time. Graduate Adviser signature \TU Date Petition For Immediate Reinstatcmcm STUDENT: Acknowledgement ofAcademic Probation Extension E I understand that if I am reinstated, Iwill be on academic probation. E 1 understand that I must earn a term GPA of2.85 or higher in my first semester, or be disqualified. E I understand that I must raise my post-baccalaureaxe cumulative GPA to 2.85 or higher by the cnd of the second semester, or be disqualified. g/A fl ' 06/054201 9 Student signature Date o o . / Submlsswn 8nd Renew ’ Submit petition, statement and supporting documentation to Graduate Affairs, SSE 1410. [f it is not possible to submit the petition in person, mail to: San Diego State University Graduate Afiairs, MC 8220 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92182-8220 Appeals Students may appeal denied petitions directly to the Assistant Dean for Graduate Afl'airs (AsstDcanGRA@maiI.sdsu.cdu). This appeal must be supported by a letter ofrecommendation from the Graduate Adviser, emailed directly t0 AsstDeanGRA@mail.sdsu.edu. GRADUATE AND RESEARCH AFFARS D Approved D Denied \ Dean of Graduate Afhirs or Dcsignee Date Andrew Bohonak Fri 8/2/2019 10:15 AM To: You Cc: Fridolin Weber; Andrew Bohonak Dear Fred, I have reviewed your petition for reinstatement, and have discussed it with Dr. Weber. Unfortunately, I will not be able to approve immediate reinstatement, because there isn't a realistic plan t0 avoid being disqualified yet again. In order to avoid another disqualification at the end 0f the fall semester, your cumulative GPA would need t0 reach 2.85 or higher. Ifyou earn two B's and one A in three classes (as proposed), then your cumulative GPA rises from 2.35 t0 2.67. You'll be disqualified again. YOu'd need three grades of"A" in 9 units this fall t0 cross that threshold. And then in a future semester, your Program 0f Study GPA and your "300+1" GPA would both need to rise even further, to 3.00. Otherwise a degree can't be issued. I'm sorry not to have better news. In winter 2019/2020, you could apply for readmission. (Tobegin Fall 2020.) However, the petition for readmission on probation is very similar to the petition for immediate reinstatement. A specific course list and GPA projectiou would need to be in place for your first year. Your graduate advisor would make an initial admission recommendation, and then I would need to review all the GPA projections it before the process moves forward. If you d0 wish to apply for readmission, please ask Dr. Weber if the program would be likely t0 approve it 0r ifyour application would be considered in the same batch as all new applicants. Ifthere is a realistic chance for readmission, then you and Dr. Weber can collaborate early this fall on a coursework plan t0 cover all semesters in the remainder 0f your degree. I can review that plan with him to make sure that the GPA projections are all reasonable. Please let me know if you have any questions? Sincerely, Andrew Bohonak Andrew J. Bohonak Assistant Dean 0f Graduate Affairs Professor of Biology ' San Diego State University Graduate Affairs, MC 8220 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92182-8220 Email: AsstDeanGRA@sdsu.edu Phone: 619-594-5213 Fax: 619-594-0189 Web: mzllaztecgradsdsufidu/gxa DOffice: SSE 1410 Exhibit E Fred Rassaii Fri 8/2/2019 3:28 PM T0: Andrew Bohonak Bcc: Usha Sinha; Fn'dolin Weber; sxvcltcr®sdsu.cdu Dear Mr. Bohonak. Thank you so much for your response. | appreciate it very much. lfl may bring your attention to the upper top section of page 3 of the "Immediate Reinstatement After Disqualification" form (the petition form), under "Acknowledgement of Academic Probation Extension", the student is O_nIy required to bring his/her "t_e_rfi_fl GPA up to 2.85 or higher in the first semester/term after reinstatement, and not the overall cumulative GPA as you have alluded to. I believe I discussed this very same topic with Dr. Weber and Dr. Sinha both via email and in person in my meetings with them individually. | spent most of the summer researching the policies regarding graduate readmission after disqualification, at the school (campus) level, CSU level, as well as researching sections of the title 5 of the CCR regarding this matter. After all my research, l failed to encounter any section in any of these three mediums requiring the disqualified student t0 bring his/her cumulative GPA to the required level in the first semester after readmission. However, all section(s), in any of these three mediums, that discusses such requirement, states that the student must bring his/her "m1" GPA up to the required level in the first semester after reinstatement. Placing such requirement on a disqualified student, as you have suggested, would place an unreasonable and unattainable expectation on the student, one that most students may not be able to fulfiI, resuiting in student's second disqualification. This might have been one 0f the reasons that no one in the position of enacting a ruIe/law has made such suggestion. Other reasons would be that under the CCR no student is required to receive a grade higher than the minimum required grade in his/her major for any reason. In my case, this minimum grade is the grade of "B". This is not to say that students should not strive for grades higher that "B". | respectfully request that you review this matter further and reconsider your decision in this regard. The plan that Dr. Weber, in consultation with Dr. Sinha, has devised for me t0 follow for the remainder of my graduate study is not only fair and equitable, it also conforms to the campus and CSU's regulations. Thank you so much in advance. l look forward to hear from you at your earliest possible convenience. Very Respectfully, Fred Rassaii 816438578 Re: Reinstatement petition Andrew Bohonak Mon 8/5/2019 11:36 AM T0: Fred Rassaii Cc: Fridolin Weber ; Andrew Bohonak AsstDeanGRAQsdsuVedu Dear Mr. Rassaii, (copying Dr. Weber) As I mentioned in the previous email, immediate reinstatement after disqualification should be tied into a solid plan for degree completion. If a graduate student's cumulative GPA falls below 2.85, they need t0 bring it above that threshold in one semester. A second semester 0n probati0n can be granted if the term GPA is above 2.85, but the cumulative GPA has not yet reached that mark. Students are academically disqualified by the Registrar if the first term GPA if less than 2.85, 0r the cumulative is still below 2.85 after 2 semesters. Upon appeal, the Registrar may approve immediate reinstatement (rather than requiring the student to reapply to the university). When approved, reinstatement is normally with the condition that the cumulative GPA reaches 2.85 in just one additional semester. That would be three semesters total 0n probation. Two new semesters might be approved as an exception (making a total of four on probation), but that is not the norm. As you point out, the language 0n the petition is not very clear on this point. The front page indicates that one semester is preferable, but the checkbox 0n the third page only mentions two semesters. Prompted by your email, I'll make this more clear for the future. For now: Dr. Weber and I have discussed immediate reinstatement with one additional semester 0n probation. The plan was not reasonable, as I described below. At your request, we will g0 back and see if the program supports a plan such as you describe below. I'll work with him t0 reach a decision as soon as possible. best, Andrew Bohonak Re: Reinstatement petition Fred Rassaii Tue 8/6/2019 10:53 AM To: Andrew Bohonak AsstDeanGRAngdsuedu Thank you. lwait for your decision. Fred Rassaii 816438578 Re: Reinstatement petition Andrew Bohonak Wed 8/7/2019 9:00 AM To: Fred Rassaii Cc: Fridolin Weber ; Andrew Bohonak AsstDeanGRA@sdsu_edu Dear Mr. Rassaii, l have revisited the previous decision with the Physics Master's program. I asked whether they would be able to revise (and support) a plan for Fall 2019 reinstatement with specific courses and grade thresholds. It would have to have these aspects: - First term GPA of 2.85 or higher - By the end 0f the second term, cumulative GPA 0f 2.85 or higher - Ultimately, both the Program of Study GPA and the ”300+1" GPA must reach 3.00 for graduation. - It seems reasonable that the minimum grades t0 meet these GPA requirements will be earned. The program has opted not t0 present a revised plan for immediate reinstatement. As l mentioned in the original email, readmission for Fall 2020 may be possibie, if the program supports your application and the GPA projections are reasonable. Sincerely, Andrew Bohonak ’- Re: Reinstatement petition Fred Rassaii Wed 8/7/2019 1:46 PM To: Andrew Bohonak Cc; Fridolin Weber ; Usha Sinha usinhaQsdsu‘edu Hello Mr. Bohonak: Thank you for your response. l appreciate it. The department of physics had already approved my immediate reinstatement by forwarding to your office the department's approved petition form for immediate reinstatement (fall 2019). Has the department withdrawn its approval? [believe the program and the resulting term and cumulative GPA that the department of physics has devised and approved and sent to your office for approval does meet all the requirements you listed in your last email. The exception is that the department made an error in tabulating the first and second semester cumulative GPA on the petition form. As you indicated in your earlier email, following the department's plan of study, my cumulative GPA after the first semester would be 2.68. And at the end of the second semester af‘ter return this GPA (cumulative) would be 2.92 (ifl calculated them correctly). These two cumulative GPA were recorded incorrectly on the petition form sent to your office earlier by Dr. Weber. However, this petition, one with incorrect recorded cumulative GPA, still conforms to all your requirements stated in your last email; firstm GPA of 2.85 or higher, and second semester cumulative GPA of 2.85 or higher. Also, | am fully aware that to graduate I must receive a grade of "B" or higher in all my major required courses. l still have to take 2 labs, outside of the program of study listed on the petition form, to satisfy all major required courses, upon completion of which, my graduating cumulative GPA should be above 3.0. Now, unless the department has opted t0 withdraw their previous support for my immediate reinstatement, l believe a revised petition for an immediate reinstatement would not be necessary, and the one submitted to your office earlier by Dr. Weber for your approval should go forward, with the corrections for first and second semester cumulative GPA of-course. Therefore, if this satisfies your requirements listed in your last email, should I ask Dr. Weber to kindly make corrections t0 cumulative GPA on the petition form and resubmit it to your office for your review and hopefully your approval? I would appreciate it very much. Thank you so much. Fred Rassaii F Exhfibfit G Your petition for immediate reinstatement Fridolin Weber Thu 8/8/2019 8:34 PM To: Fred Rassaii Cc: Andrew Bohonak ; Usha Sinha usinha@sdsu.edu Dear Fred, this email is in relation to the email [hat you received from Dr. Bohonak on August 7, 2019: Dear Mr. Rassaii, Ihavc revisited the previous decision with the Physics Master's program. I asked whether they would be able to revise (and support) a plan for Fall 2019 reinstatement with Specific courses and grade thresholds. It would have to have these aspects: - First term GPA of 2.85 or higher - By the end of the Second term, cumulative GPA of 2.85 or higher - Ultimately, both the Program of Study GPA and the "300+1" GPA must reach 3.00 for graduation. - It seems reasonable that the minimum grades to meet these GPA requirements will be earned. The program has opted not to present a revised plan for immediate reinstatement. As I mentioned in the original email, readmission for Fall 2020 may be possible, if the program supports your application and the GPA projections are reasonable. Sincerely, Andrew Bohonak Dr. Sinha and I no longer support your “Petition For Immediate Reinstatement” since we have come to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that you will complete the required course work with the GPA scores listed in Dr. Bohanak’s emails. The plan for immediate reinstatement is therefore obsolete. Dr. Sinha and I will be glad to devise a study plan for you that will help you prepare for readmission to the Medical Physics program in Fall 2020. » Sincerely Fridolin Weber Fridolin Weber, PhD Distinguished Professor of Physics Associate Chair & Graduate Advisor Department of Physics CSan Diego State University 7 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92182-1233, USA http:/lfweber.sdsu.edu/~ fweber/ Exhfibfifi Re: Your petition for immediate reinstatement Fred Rassaii Fri 8/9/2019 11:26 AM To: Fridolin Weber Cc: Usha Sinha ; Andrew Bohonak AsstDeanGRAngdsuedu Bcc: swelter@sdsur.edu Hello Dr. Weber. Thank you for your response. I appreciate it. Dr. Weber, the plan you devised on the petition form you approved and sent me for my signature, the one that you submitted to the Graduate Affairs office on 7/24/19, conformed with all the requirements listed on Mr. Bohonak's last email: First semester (after reinstatement) GPA of 2.85 or above: your plan conforms to it. Second semester (after reinstatement) cumulative GPA of 2.85 or above: your plan conforms to that also. Graduate GPA of 3.0 or above: your plan conforms to that as well. Please bare in mind that there are still 2 additional labs not listed 0n the petition that | have to take, after which my graduate GPA would be raised to above 3.0. There is no need for a new revised petition and a new plan. The first plan conformed with ail SDSU and CSU requirements as Mr. Bohonak listed in his last email. There was however, a couple of errors on the second page of the petition, calculating the projected cumulative GPA of the first and second semester after reinstatement. But these two minor errors do not concern the requirements listed. l do not see why this petition needed to be revised. Funny, that af‘ter meeting with Mr. Bohonak, suddenly you n0 longer believe the plan that you devised and believed would be achievable. Dr. Weber, I have lived long enough to be able to read between the lines. At this point l do not believe the issue is my ability or inability to achieve the required GPA. l know, given correct and effective instructions, l can achieve the required grades if not exceeding it. l have proven that in my undergraduate studies as well as in Dr. Sinha‘s courses. As you should know by now, there are no courses/topics in medical physics major that come even within a mile of any course in undergraduate physics in terms of complexity and difficulty. And l have obtained a bachelor of science degree in physics and a minor in mathematics. | believe, with complete certainty, that there are other issues and forces at play here that is in opposition to my return to my education at SDSU this fall, next fall, or any other fall. I realized that after receiving Mr. Bohonak's first email. | am very much familiar with the politics of the work place, as well as cognizance of the fact that no one involve in such politics would ever acknowledge participating in one. | am just very sorry and very disappointed that you and Dr. Sinha, for whom l have tremendous respect and fondness, surrendered yourselves to those forces and those politics. lwill not take up your time any more by going back and force discussing this issue. | will pursue the matter through other avenues. For now, l would like for you to send me a copy of the petition form you approved and signed and forwarded to the Graduate Affairs office on July 24, 2019. I would appreciate it very much. Thank you again for your efforts. Sincerely, Fred Rassaii Exhibit I Re: Your petition for immediate reinstatement Fridolin Weber Fri 8/9/2019 3:47 PM To: Fred Rassaii Cc: Usha Sinha ; Andrew Bohonak AsstDeanGRAQsdsuvedu Hello Fred, you already have a copy of the petition. Check the email I sent you on 7/16/19. Thanks Fridolin Fridolin Weber, PhD Distinguished Professor of Physics Associate Chair BL Graduate Advisor Department of Physis San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92182-1233, USA hug:flfwebersdsu.edu/~fwcber/ Exhibit 33 | Graduate Bullelln ' SDSU wO Requirements for Master's Degrees a rota! ofsr'x units in ARP 743 will be accepted; no more than a total of 12 units in ARP 744 will be accepted; and no more than a total offline units in ARP 745 will be accepted toward the degree. Master of Social Work Degree Thirty-eight units of 500-, 600-, 7'00- numbered courses earned while in graduate standing and for the advanced stand- ing degree or 60-63 units of 500-, 600-, 700-numbered courses earned while in graduate standing and for the standard degree as specified by the School of Social Work at least 30 of which must be completed in residence. Courses required to remove under- graduate deficiencies in addition to the minimum units for the degree. No more than a total of six units in courses numbered 797 and 798 will be accepted for credit toward the degree. Grade Point Averages Grade point averages of at [east 3.0 (B) must be maintained in: 1. All courses listed on the official degree program. 2. All courses, 300-[evel and above. taken at San Diego State University concurrently with or subsequently to the earli- est course listed on the official degree program. including courses accepted for transfer credit. A grade point average of at least 2.85 must be maintained in all courses on the graduate record. No transfer or extension credit may be used to improve the grade point average of units com- pleted at San Diego State University whether computed to deter- mine the average on the official degree program or the overall average. Grade Restrictions for Master's Degree Programs No course in which a final grade below "C” (2.0) was earned may be used to satisfy the requirements for an advanced degree No 500-, 600-, or 700-numbered courses graded Credit/No Credit except those offered for Credit/No Credit only are acceptable for a master's degree program. No undergraduate courses graded Credit/No Credit may be assigned to the deficiencies listed on a master's degree program. At least 70 percent ofthe units used to fuIfilI the minimum requirements on a master's degree program shall be letter graded. Units graded CrediUNo Credit earned in practice, field experi- ences. and Internships explicitly stated as specific requirements for a graduate degree will not be included in the determination of the number of non-lettergraded units allowabie on the program of study. Degree Time Limitations All requirements for advanced certificates and master's degrees coursework must be completed within six years after initial registration in course(s) used towards the completion of degree requirements. All requirements for master's andjoint mas- ter's degrees entailing more than 36 units must be completed wlthin seven years after initial registration in course(s) used towards the completion of degree requirements. Time spent on leave 0f absence is counted toward the degree time limit. Stu- dents who do not graduate by this deadline will be subject to administrative disquaiification by the graduate dean. With the approval of the program or department graduate adviser, a stu- dent in the sixth academic year of graduate study may appeal to the graduate dean for a one-year time [imit extension. Students validating by examination will be required to specify a date-cer- tain by which all requirements for the degree will be completed. Only in exceptional circumstances will this time limit exceed one calendar year from the date of validation. A course or pro- gram may be validated by examination only once. Students who exceed the time limit and wish to continue their studies must for- mally apply for new admission. Programs readmitting students who have been disqualified for exceeding the time Hmit should consult with the student at the time of readmission to determine whether credits previously earned will meet current degree requirements. Disqualified and readmitted students will be held to current Graduate Bulfetln requirements and will need approval from their program adviser to use expired courses. Expired courses from an outside university cannot be used toward the fulfillment of degree requirements. Subject (Thesis/Dissertation) Research Involving Human Subjects or Animal Subjects Committee authorization must be obtained in advance of con- ducting research Involving humans 0r animals. Failure to observe this requirement could resu1t in the refuse! of the university to accept the compIeted thesisldissertation. Research in which information is obtained about an individual through the use of a survey, interview. observation or experimen- tation or which Invotves analysis of previously collected human tissues, records, samptes or other existing or secondary data is subject to review and approval ofthe Institutional Review Board (IRB). For students enrolled in ajolnt doctoral program. IRB review may be required at each campus. Students are responsible for knowing and complying with IRB review requirements at the insti- tution(s) in which they enrolled. [RB review application materials and guidance on the SDSU campus may be obtained online at httpszllnewscenter.sdsu.edulresearchaffairs/default‘aspx. Students planning to conduct research that involves the use of live, vertebrate animals must be listed on a protocol approved by the Instltutlonal Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) where the research will take place. Ifthe research will occur undera SDSU approved protocol, the student must be listed on the responsible faculty's animal protocot form and receive required training. Appli- cation materials used to request a review by the [ACUC may be obtained online at httgzl/grasdsuedu/Iacuc or through the Divi- sion of Research Affairs located in Gateway Center. Room 3519. Upon receipt of written authorization from the relevant commit- tee. [RB or JACUC, students may Initiate their research and regis- ter for required coursework. Thesis, Plan A and Non-Thesis, Plan B Satisfactory completion of a thesis, project, or comprehensive examination is defined as follows: a. A thesIs is the written product ofa systematic study ofa sig- nificant problem. It Identifies the problem. states the major assumptions, explains the significance of the undertaking. sets forth the sources for and the methods of gathering information, analyzes the data, and ofi'ers a conclusion or recommendation. The finished product evidences original- ity. critical and independent thinking. appropriate organi- zation, language. and format, high level of writing compe- tency, and thorough documentation. In most cases, an oral defense of the thesis is requlred. b. A project Is a significant undertaking appropriate to the fine and applied arts or t0 professional fields. It evidences originality and Independent thinking, appropriate form. lan- guage use, organization, and rationale. It Is described and summarized in a written abstract that includes the project's significance, objectives, methodology, and a conclusion or recommendation. An oral defense of the project may be required. c. A comprehensive examination Is an assessment of the stu- dent's ability to integrate the knowledge of the area, show critical and independent thinklng. and demonstrate mas- tery of the subject matter. The results of the examination evidence Independent thinking, appropriate organization and high level 0f writing competency. critica1 analysis. and accuracy of documentation. A record of the examination questions and responses shall be maintained in accor- dance with the records retention policy of the California State University. Plan A. requiring a thesis or project. may be selected by a stu- dent seeking the master's degree, provided the department or school includes 799A, Thesis. on the official program of study. Course 799A represents three units of academic credit and can only be taken Creditho Credit. A grade of “CR” is granted by the Division of Graduate Affairs upon thesis approval by the thesis committee, the department or school. and the Graduate Coun- cil. Students will not be permitted to register in 799A until they have been ofi‘lcially advanced to candidacy, and have an officially Exhibit K Graduate Bulletin f SDSU University Policies students in good academic standing. with programs of study on file, will retain their original bulletin status as long as the student remains matriculated. Probation and Disqualification Academic Probation (Grade Point Average Deficiency) A post-baccalaureate graduate student in any admission cate- gory shall be placed on academic probation ifthe student fails to maintain a cumulative grade point average of at least 2.85 in all units attempted subsequent to admission to the university. Students In a graduate degree program in conditional or clas- sified standing should consult the section of this bulletin enti- tled 'General Requirements for Doctoral Programs" and ”Basic Requirements for the Master‘s Degree“ for additiona1 grade point average requirements for degree seeking students. Academic Disqualification (Grade Point Average Deficiency) A graduate student whose cumulative grade point average falls below 2.85 for work attempted at San Diego State University will be placed on academic probation at the end of the semes- ter. lf during the first semester on probation the student does not achieve a term GPA ofa 2.85 or better, the siudentwill be disqual- ified from San Diego State University. If during the first semester on probation the student earns a term GPA of 2.85 or better in San Diego Stale University coursework. but still has an overall cumulative GPA less than 2.85, the student wiil continue on aca- demic probation for a second semester. lfatthe end ofthe second semester a student fails to achieve a cumulative GPA of 2.85, the student will be subject to academic disqualification from further attendance at the university. If at the end ofthe second semester the student has attained a 2.85 cumulative GPA or better on alt work attempted at San Diego State University, academic proba- tion will be lifted. Reinstatement of Academically Disqualified Students Graduate students who are academically disqualified from fur- ther attendance at the university may not attend SDSU, to Include SDSU Global Campus, for a minimum of one full semester. They must me an application for readmission with a $70 application fee. They will be sent a Petition for Reinstatement that they need to return as soon as possible. Readmission to the unlversity is NOT automatic. Each applicant will be considered on an Individual basis by the graduate adviser with recommendations to the grad- uate dean. Administrative Disqualification Departments or schools of the university may recommend that the graduate dean dismiss from the program any graduate stu- dent whose performance in a degree. cenificate. or credential program is judged unsatisfactory with respect to the scholastic or professional standards of the program other than GPA. ln addi- tion, an appropriate campus administrator may disqualify a stu- dent who at any time during enrollment has demonstrated behav- ior so contrary to the standards of the profession for which the student is preparing as to render himlher unfit for the profession. In such cases, disqualification will occur immediately upon notice to the student, which shall include an explanation ofthe basis for the action. and the campus may require the student to discon- tinue enrollment as of the date of the notification. Students will be notified when they are subject to dismissal from the major and given a chance to respond in writing. ”the department or school decides to proceed with the administrative disqualification. they will notify the graduate dean of the decision and the student will be disqualified and officially removed from the major at the end of the semester. Examples of unsatisfactory performance include but are not limited to: withdrawaI from all or a substantial ponion of a program of studies in two successive terms or In any three terms, failure to adhere to professional standards (see section on Standards for Professional Graduate Student Conduct), failure to make normal progress toward the degree. failure to fulfill condi- tions for ful1y classified admi55ion within the time specified, denial of advancement to candidacy for a degree. and failure in presen- tation of a thesis or comprehensive examination. Upon the dean’s issuance of disqualification, the student‘s sta- tus will become undeclared and the student will become ineligi- ble to enroll In coursework from his or her program. If the student wishes to apply to another San Diego State University graduate program. the Information regarding his or her dismissal will be included with the application materials forwarded to the new pro- gram prior to an admission decision. Unless a student has been accepted to a new graduate program by the end of the semester following dismissal. the student will be ineligible for registration and will need to reapply to the university if she or he wishes lo return to the university. Student Conduct Inappropriate conduct by students or applicants for admission is subject to discipline on the San Diego State University cam- pus. The Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities estab» lishes standards and procedures in accordance with regulations contained in Secfions 41301, 41302 of Title 5. California Code of Regulations. Procedures are set forth in CSU Executive Order 1098 (revised June 23, 2015} at httg:I/calstate.edu/eo/EO-1098- rev-6-23-15.html. These sections are as follows: 41301. Standards for Student Conduct. A. Campus Community Values The university is committed to maintaining a safe and healthy living and learning environment for students, faculty, and staff. Each member of the campus community should choose behav- iors that contribute toward this end. Students are expected to be good citizens and to engage 1n responsible behaviors that reflect well upon their university, to be civil to one another and to others in the campus community. and contribute positivelyto student and university life. B. Grounds for Student Discipline Student behavior that is not consistent with the Student Con- duct Code is addressed through an educational process that Is designed to promote safety and good citizenship and, when necessary, Impose appropriate consequences. The following are the grounds upon which student discipline can be based: 1. Dishonesty,including: a. Cheating. piagfarism, or other forms of academic dishonesty that are intended to gain unfair academic advantage. b. Furnishing false information to a university official, facul- ty member. or campus office. c. Forgery, alteration. or misuse ofa university document. key, or identification instrument d. Misrepresenting one's selfto be an authorized agent of the university or one ofits auxiliaries. 2. Unaumorized entry into, presence in. use of, or misuse of university property. 3. Willful. material and substantial disruption or obstruction of a unlversity-related activity. or anyon-campus actlvity. 4. Participating in an activity that substantially and materially disrupts the normal operations ofthe university, or infringes 0n the rights of members ofthe university community. 5. Willful. material and substantial obstruction of the free flow of pedestrlan or other traffic. on or leading to campus prop- erty or an off-campus university related activity. 6. Disorderly, lewd. indecent, or obscene behavior at a uni- versity related activity. 0r directed toward a member ofthe universIty community. 7. Conduct [hat threatens or endangers the health or safety ofany person within or related to the university community. Including physical abuse. threats. intimidation. harassment. or sexual misconduct. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18 . 19. Hazing, or conspiracy to haze. Hazing is defined as any method of initiation or pre-initiation into a student organi- zation or student body. whether or not the organization or body is officially recognized by an educational institution, which is likely to cause serious bodily injury to any former, current, or prospective student of any school. community college. coilege, unlversity or other educational institution in this state (Penal Code 245.6), and in addition, any act likely to cause physical harm, personal degradation or dis~ grace resulting in physical or mental harm, to any former. current. or prospective student of any school. community co1lege, college, university or other educational institution. The term “hazing' does not include customary athletic events or school sanctioned events. Neither the express or imp1ied consent of a victim ofhaz- ing. nor the lack ofactive participation in a particular hazing incident is a defense. Apathy or acquiescence in the pres- ence of hazing is not a neutral act, and is also a violation of this section. Use, possession, manufacture, or distributfon of illegal drugs or drug-related paraphernalia, (except as expressly permitted by Iaw and university regulations) or the mis- use of legal pharmaceutica1 drugs. SDSU does not permit the possession or use of marijuana even with a medical recommendation. Use. possession. manufacture, or distribution of alcohoiic beverages (except as express1y permitted by law and uni- versity regulations). 0r public intoxication while on campus or at a university related activity. Theft 0f property or services from the university commu- nity. or misappropriation of university resources. Unauthorized destruction or damage to university property or other property in the university community. Possession or misuse of firearms or guns. replicas, ammu- nition. explosives, fireworks. knives, other weapons, or dangerous chemicals (without the prior authorization of the university president) on campus or at a university related activity. Unauthorized recording. dissemination, or publication of academic preséntations (including handwritten notes) for a commercial purpose. Misuse of computer facilities or resources. including: a. Unauthorized entry Into a file. for any purpose. b. Unauthorized transfer ofa file. c. Use of another's identification or password. d. Use of computing facilities. campus network, or other resources to interfere with the work of another member ofthe university community. e. Use of computing facilities and resources to send ob- scene or intlmldating and abusive messages. f. Use of computing facilities and resources to interfere with normal university operations. g. Use of computing facilities and resources in violation of copyright laws. h. Wolatlon of a campus computer use policy. Violation ofany published university policy, rule, regulation or presidential order. Failure to comp1y with directions, or interference. with any university official or any public safety officer while acting in the performance of his/her duties. Any act chargeable as a violation ofa federal. state. or local law that poses a substantial threat to the safety or well-be- Ing of members of the university community. to property within the university community or poses a significant threat of disruption or interference with university operations. \fio1ation of the Student Conduct Procedures. including: a. Falsification. distortion, or misrepresentation of informa- tion related to a student discipline matter. b. Disruption or Interference with the orderly progress of a student discipline proceeding. c. Initiation ofa student discipline proceeding in bad faith. d. Attempting to discourage another from participating In University Policies the student discipline matter. e. Attempting to influence the Impartiality of any partici- pant in a student discipline matter. f. Verbal or physical harassment or intimidation of any participant in a student discipline matter. g. Failure to comply with the sanction(s) imposed under a student discipline proceeding. 20.Encouraging, permitting, or assisting another to do any act that could subject him or her to discipline. C. Procedures for Enforcing This Code The chancellor shall adopt procedures to ensure students are afforded appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard before the university imposes any sanction for a violation of the Student Conduct Code. CSU Executive Order 1098 (revised June 23, 2015), at httpzllcalstate.edu/eo/EO-1098-rev-623-15. M- D. Application of This Code Sanctions for the conduct listed above can be imposed on applicants, enrolled students. students between academic terms, graduates awaiting degrees. and students who with- draw from school while a disciplinary matter is pending. Con- duct that threatens the safety or security of the campus com- munity, or substantially disrupts the functions or operation of the unIversity is within thejun'sdiction of this Article regardless ofwhether it occurs on or off campus. Nothing in this Code may conflict with California Education Code Section 66301 that pro- hibits disciplinary action against students based on behavior protected by the First Amendment. 41302. Disposition of Fees: Campus Emergency: Interim Suspension. The president ofthe campus may place on probation, suspend. or expel a student for one or more of the causes enumerated in Section 41301. No fees ortuition paid by or for such studentfor the semester. quarter, or summer session in which he or she Is susA pended or expelled shail be refunded. lfthe student is readmitted before the dose of the semester, quarter, or summer session in which he or she is suspended. no additional tuition or fees shall be required ofthe student on account ofthe suspension. During periods of campus emergency, as determined by’ the president of the individual campus. the president may. after con- sultation with the chancellor. place Into immediate effect any emergency regulations. procedures, and other measures deemed necessary or appropriate to meet the emergency. safeguard per- sons and property, and maintain educatlonal activities. The president may immediately impose an interim suspension in all cases in which there is reasonabIe cause to believe that such an immediate suspension is required In order to protect lives or property and to insure the maintenance of order. A student so placed on interim suspension shall be given prompt notice of charges and the opportunity for a hearing within 1O days of the imposition oflnterim suspension. During the period of interim sus- pension, the student shall not. without prior written permission of the president or designated representative. enter any campus of the California State University other than to attend the hearing. Violation ofany condition oflnterim suspension shall be grounds for expulsion. Student Grievances If a student believes that a professor's treatment is grossly unfair or that a professor's behavior is clearly unprofessional. the student may bring the complaint to the proper university authori- ties and official reviewing bodies by following the Procedures for Handling Student Grievances Against Members of the Faculty. adopted by the Faculty Senate. A copy of the procedures may be obtained from the Office of the Student Ombudsman. Student Services East. Room 1105. Cheating and Plagiarism Institutions of higher education are founded to impart knowl- edge, seek truth. and encourage one's development for the good of society. University students shall lhus be intellectuaHy and morally obliged to pursue studies with honesty and integrity. In nSGS Ullallnfi GIPnDQ-‘S I Exhlbit L From: Student Account Services - SDSU Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 3:39 PM To: FRASSAII@L|VE.COM Subject: Direct Deposit Reminder RASSAII, FRED 81 6438578 Enrollment of Direct Deposit Required The Office of Financial Aid and Scholarships has sent financial aid disbursement information to our office and it has been posted to your student account. However, our records indicate that you have not signed up for Direct Deposit. At SDSU, Direct Deposit is mandatory for students who receive financial aid and scholarships. Several email messages have been sent to students regarding this process. If you have signed up within the last several days, it may just be a timing issue and we will disburse funds to you as soon as possible. Students who have just recently signed up for Direct Deposit may receive a check for the first disbursement since your banking information may not have been validated yet. If you have not signed up for Direct Deposit, please visit our web site at Onfline Student Account and provide your bank account information as soon as possible to avoid further delays in receiving your financial aid. For instructions on how to enroll in direct deposit click ESE. Copyright © 2018 San Diego State University, All rights reserved. This is a notice that you have not signed up for Direct Deposit to receive your Financial Aid Refund. Our mailing address is: San Diego State University 5500 Camganile Dr San Diego: CA 92182-1615 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update vour preferences or unsubscribe from this list. ufrq ~ 5‘. EflEV§®D ‘ . 9 E Outlook + New message Fave rites lnbox Sent Items Drafts Add favorite Folders lnbox Junk Email Drafts Sent Items Deleted Items 165 Archive Conversation Hist... New fo1der - Upgrade to Office 365 wim premium Ouflook feaiures ,5 Hyou have signed up within the last several days, it may just be a timing @fiégj???‘ 6) Reply v Delete E Archive ® Junk v § Sweep '53 Move to V Q Categorize v ’I‘ Not Enrolled in Direct Deposit 1.31.19 u I l . x SAN DIEGO STATE UNWEIEITY Student Account, Serficvs rDear Student, The Office of Financial Aid and Scholarships has sent financial aid disb_qrsement information to our office and it has been posted to your studeht account. However, our records indicate that you have not > sighed up for Direct Deposit. At SDSU, Direct Deposit i5 the easiest, j‘fastest and most secure way for students to receive financial aid and sfih'olarships. Several email messages havé been sent to stude’nts .r'eg'arding this process. issue_and we Will disburse funds to you as soon as possible. Students ,who have just recently signed up for Direct Dtépositmay receive lfiyou have n'ot slgned u_p. for Direct Deposit, please .visit our w'eb site at Oglifig Studg'pt Agfigu m and provide your bank account inforr'nati’ n’as soon as possible to avoid further delays in receiving your financial ald. For instructions on hq’w‘. t9 enrplt_zin-djrect deposit click HERE Copyright © 2019 San Diéga Smra Uhfreié‘fily, AU fights reserved. ‘ ’ i VNorenroupdin Direct Depress! 1.31.19 ' a fi . Our mailing address is: - - 1‘. r‘-. I San Diego Slalé University . l} . z I 5500 Campanile Dr > ‘ , ‘ I ; . San mega, CA 921 32.1515 - 1 Add us 10 yflr aggress took Want lo qhanga haw yuu receive these emails? You can update your oraferenccs or unsubscnbe from this fist. m It looks like you‘re using an ad blocker. To maximize the: 3 Title 34. Education, Subtitle B. Regulation 0fthe Office of the Department 0f Education, Chapter VI. OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Part 668. STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISION, Subpart K. Cash Management, Section 668.164. Disbursing funds. Tfltfle 34 (Code 01f Federafl Reguflatfions § 668.164 - Disbursing funds (a) Disbursement. (1) Except as provided under garagragh ga)(2) of this section, a disbursement of title IV, HEA program funds occurs on the date that the institution credits the student's ledger account or pays the student or parent directly with - (fl) Funds received from the Secretary; or (ii) Institutional funds used in advance of receiving title IV, HEA program funds. (2) (i) For a Direct Loan for which the student is subject to the delayed disbursement requirements under 34 CFR 685.303(b)(5), if an institution credits a student's ledger account with institutional funds earlier than 3O days after the beginning of a payment period, the Secretary considers that the institution makes that disbursement on the 30th day after the beginning of the payment period; or (ii) If an institution credits a student's ledger account with institutional funds earlier than 10 days before the first day of classes of a payment period, the Secretary considers that the institution makes that disbursement on the 10th day before the first day of classes of a payment period. (b) Disbursements by payment period. (1) Except for paying a student under the FWS program or unless 34 CFR 685.303gd)(4)(i) applies, an institution must disburse during the current payment period the amount of title IV, HEA program funds that a student enrolled at the institution, or the student's parent, is eligible to receive for that payment period. (2) An institution may make a prior year, late, or retroactive disbursement, as provided under paragraph (c)(3). (j), or (k) of this section, respectively, during the current payment period as long as the student was enrolled and eligible during the payment period covered by that prior year, late. or retroactive disbursement. (3) At the time a disbursement is made to a student for a payment period, an institution must confirm that the student is eligible for the type and amount of title IV, HEA program funds identified by that disbursement. A third-party servicer is also responsible for confirming the student's eligibility if the institution engages the servicer to perform activities or transactions that lead to or support that disbursement. Those activities and transactions include but are not limited t0 - (i) Determining the type and amount of title IV, HEA program funds that a student is eligible to receive; (ii) Requesting funds under a payment method described in 668.162; or (iii) Accounting for funds that are originated, requested, or disbursed, in reports or data submissions to the Secretary. (c) Crediting a student's ledger account. (1) An institution may credit a student's ledger account with title IV, HEA program funds to pay for allowable charges associated with the current payment period. Allowable charges are - (i) The amount oftuition, fees, and institutionally provided room and board assessed the student for the payment pen'od or, as provided in garagragh [c)(5) ofthis section, the prorated amount of those charges if the institution debits the student's ledger account for more than the charges associated with the payment period; and (ii) The amount incurred by the student for the payment period for purchasing books, supplies. and other educationally related goods and services provided by the institution for which the institution obtains the student's or parent's authorization under § 668.165(b). (2) An institution may include the costs of books and supplies as part 0f tuition and fees under garagragh (CM 1 )(i) of this section if - (i) The institution - (A) Has an arrangement with a book publisher or other entity that enables it to make those books or supplies available to students below competitive market rates; (B) Provides a way for a student to obtain those books and supplies by the seventh day of a payment period; and (C) Has a policy under which the student may opt out of the way the institution provides for the student to obtain books and supplies under this paragraph (c)(2). A student who opts out under this paragraph (c)(2) is considered to also opt out under paragragh (m)(3) ofthis section; (ii) The institution documents 0n a current basis that the books or supplies. including digital or electronic course materials, are not available elsewhere or accessible by students enrolled in that program from sources other than those provided 0r authorized by the institution; or (iii) The institution demonstrates there is a compelling health or safety reason. (3) (i) An institution may include in one or more payment periods for the current year, prior year charges of not more than $200 for - (A) Tuition, fees, and institutionally provided room and board, as provided under garagragh (6)11 )(i) of this section, without obtaining the student's or parent's authorization; and (B) Educationally related goods and services provided by the institution, as described in garagragh (cm )(ii) of this section, ifthe institution obtains the student's or parent's authorization under § 668.165(b). (ii) For purposes of this section - (A) The current year is - (1) The current loan period for a student or parent who receives only a Direct Loan; (2) The current award year for a student who does not receive a Direct Loan but receives funds under any other title IV, HEA program; or (3) At the discretion of the institution, either the current loan period or the current award year if a student receives a Direct Loan and funds from any other title IV, HEA program. (B) A prior year is any loan period or award year prior to the current loan period or award year, as applicable. (4) An institution may include in {he current payment period unpaid allowable charges from any previous payment period in the current award year or current loan period for which the student was eligible for title IV, HEA program funds. (5) For purposes of this section, an institution determines the prorated amount of charges associated with the current payment period by - (i) For a program with substantially equal payment periods, dividing the total institutional charges for the program by the number of payment periods in the program; or (fii) For other programs, dividing the number of credit or clock hours in the current payment period by the total number of credit or clock hours in the program, and multiplying that result by the total institutional charges for the program. (d) Direct paymen ts. (1) Except as provided under garagragh mm) of this section, an institution makes a direct payment - (i) To a student, for the amount of the title EV, HEA program funds that a student is efiigible to receive, including Direct PLUS Loan funds that the student's parent authorized the student to receive, by w (A) Initiating an EFT of that amount to the student's financiafl account; (B) Hssuing a check for that amount payabfle to, and requfiring the endorsement of, the student; or (C) Dispensing cash for which the institution obtains a receipt signed by the student; (ii) To a parent, for the amount of the Direct PLUS Loan funds that a parent does not authorize the student to receive, by - (A) Bnitiating an EFT of that amount to the parent‘s financfiafl account; (B) Issuing a check fou- that amount payabfle to and [requfiring the endorsement of the parent; or (C) Dispensing cash for which the institution obtains a receipt signed by the parent. (2) Issuing a check. An institution issues a check on the date that fit - (i) Mails the check to the student or parent; or (ii) Notifies the student or parent that the check is available for immediate pick-up at a specified location at the institution. The institution may hold the check for no longer than 21 days after the date it notifies the student or parent. If the student or parent does not pick up the check, the institution must immediately mail the check to the student or parent, pay the student or parent directly by other means, or return the funds to the appropriate title IV, HEA program. (3) Payments by the Secretary. The Secretary may pay title IV, HEA credit balances under paragraphs (h) and (m) of this section directly to a student or parent using a method established or authorized by the Secretary and published in the Federal Register. (4) Student choice. (i) An institution located in a State that makes direct payments to a student by EFT and that enters into an arrangement described in paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, including an institution that uses a third-party servicer to make those payments, must establish a selection process under which the student chooses one of several options for receiving those payments. (A) In implementing its selection process, the institution must - (1) Inform the student in writing that he or she is not required to open or obtain a financial account or access device offered by or through a specific financial institution; (2) Ensure that the Student's options for receiving direct payments are described and presented in a clear, fact-based, and neutral manner; (3) Ensure that initiating direct payments by EFT to a student's existing financial account is as timely and no more onerous to the student as initiating an EFT to an account provided under an arrangement described in paragraph (e) or (f) of this section; (4) Allow the student to change, at any time, his or her previously selected payment option, as long as the student provides the institution with written notice of the change within a reasonable time; (5) Ensure that no account option is preselected; and (6) Ensure that a student who does not make an affirmative selection is paid the full amount of the credit balance within the appropriate time- period specified in paragragh (hflZ) of this section, using a method specified in paragraph (d111l of this section. (B) In describing the options under its selection process, the institution - {1) Must present prominently as the first option, the financial account belonging to the student; (2) Must list and identify the major features and commonly assessed fees associated with each financial account offered under the arrangements described in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, as well as a URL for the terms and conditions of each account. For each account, if an institution by July 1, 2017 follows the format, content, and update requirements specified by the Secretary in a notice published in the Federal Register following consultation with the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, it will be in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph with respect to the major features and assessed fees associated with the account; and (3) May provide, for the benefit of the student, information about available financial accounts other than those described in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section that have deposit insurance under 12 CFR Qart 330, or share insurance in accordance with 12 CFR part 745. (ii) An institution that does not offer or use any financial accounts offered under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section may make direct payments to a student's or parent's existing financial account, or issue a check or disburse cash to the student or parent without establishing the selection process described in garagragh (d)(4)(i) of this section. (e) Tier one arrangement. (1) ln a Tier one (T1) arrangement - (i) An institution located in a State has a contract with a third-party servicer under which the servicer performs one or more of the functions associated with processing direct payments of title lV, HEA program funds on behalf of the institution; and (ii) The institution or third-parly servicer makes payments to - (A) One 0r more financial accounts that are offered to students under the contract; (B) A financial account where information about the account is communicated directly to students by the third-party servicer, or the institution on behalf of or in conjunction with the third-party servicer; or (C) A financial account where information about the account is communicated directly to students by an entity contracting with or affiliated with the third-party servicer. (2) Under a T1 arrangement, the institution must - (i) Ensure that the student‘s consent to open the financial account is obtained before an access device, or any representation of an access device, is sent to the student. except that an institution may send the student an access device that is a card provided to the student for institutional purposes, such as a student ID card, so long as the institution Or financial institution obtains the student‘s consent before validating the device to enable the student to access the financial account; (ii) Ensure that any personally identifiable information about a student that is shared with the third-party servicer before the student makes a selection under garagragh (d)(4)§i) of this section - Exhibit B College ofGraduate Studies San Dxego Sate University 5500 Campanile Drive San Die CA 92182 . 8220 Phone: 19 . 594 .5213 Fax: 619 - 594 . 0819 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY Petition For Immediate Reinstatement After Disqualification Students who have been disqualified may petition for immediate reinstatement ifthey have a reasonable plan for improving their grades, and there is strong support fiom the graduate adviser. Students who have been disqualified for more than one semester must reapply to the university (and file a different petition). This petition should be completed by the student in conjunction with the Graduate Adviser, who must sigm on page 2. Last Name First Middle RedID Email Telephone Stwet address (local mailing) City State Zip Code Graduate program (and concennationfspecialization) First semester in program Content ofthe Petition 1) Complete this form, including the Academic Plan on page 2, sigled by your Graduate Adviser. 2) Submit a typed explanation that includw the following information: o Explanation ofthe extenuating circumstances that led to poor academic performance. 'Ihese circumstances must have been serious, compelling and beyond your control. It must be clear that the underlying issues are now resolved and will not impede future academic performance. o Separate document(s) fiom a third party that verify your dmcription ofthe circumstancm O Your intent to increase your cumulative GPA so that academic probation is removed, preferably in one semester. o Your intent to meet all gade requirements, and graduate in a reasonable time flame. 3) (Recommended) A letter ofrecommendation fiom the program's Graduate Adviser, emailed directly to the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies (AsstDeanGRA@sdsu.edu). Submission and Review Submit petition, statement and supporting documentation to Graduate Studios in SSE 1410. If it is not possible to submit the petition in person, mail to: San Diego State University Graduate Studiw, MC 8220 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92132-3220 Revised 04/07/2021 Petition For Imdiate Reinstatement Academic Plan (to be completed with Graduate Adviser) List past courses with grades of Incomplete that you intend to complete. Have you discussed this with the instructor? List courses in progress at this time, and anticipated grades Average unit load per semester afier reinstatement Anticipated semester of degree completion First semester after reinstatement Second semester after reinstatement Course Units Letter glade Course Units Letter gade {your goal) (your goal) GPA Projections (calculate with Graduate Advisor) Current Anticipated afier Anticipated after 1 semwter (if reinstated) 2 semesters (if reinstated) Units attempted Post-bacc. cumulative GPA POS GPA (Master's only) 300+I GPA (Master's only) GRADUATE ADVISOR: Acknowledgement of Academic Plan The academic plan described above is reasonable, and the student is likely t0 complete this program within a reasonable time. Graduate Adviser name Signature Date 2 Revised 04/07/2021 Petition For Imrmdiate Reinsmwmem STUDENT: Acknowledgement of Academic Probation Extension D I understand that if I am reinstated, I will be on academic probation. D Iunderstand thal I must earn a term GPA of 3.00 or higher in my first semester, or be disqualified. U I understand that I must raise my post-baccalaureate cumulative GPA to 3.00 or higher by the end ofthe second semester, or be disqualified. Student signature Date Submission and Review Submit petition, statement and supporting documentation to Graduate Studies, SSE 1410. Ifit is not possible to submit the petition in person, mail to: San Diego State University Graduate Studies, MC 8220 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92132-8220 Appeals Students may appeal denied petitions directly to the Associate Dmn of Graduate Studies (AsstDeanGRA@sdsu.edu). This appeal must be supported by a letter ofrecommendation from the Graduate Advisor, emailed directly to AsstDeanGRA@sdsu.edu. GRADUATE STUDIES D Approved D Denied Dean of Graduate Studies or Desiglee Date 3 Revised 04/07/2021 Petition For Immediate Reinstatement Minimum Grade Requirements For Graduate Students Master‘s students may graduate only ifall ofthe following gade requirements are met: A. Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.00 or grcaler for courses in the Program of Study, excluding transfer courses (= "SDSU POS GPA"). B. GPA of 3.00 or grealer for courses in the POS, including transfer courses (= "Total POS GPA"). C. GPA of 3.00 or mater for the 300-level and above courses taken concurrently with, or subsequent to, the earliest course listed on the POS (= "300+! GPA"). This includes transfer courses from other institutions. Couxscs taken prior t0 the first course on the POS are not used in this calculation. D. GPA of 3.00 or greater for all SDSU courses on the graduate record (= "Post-baccalaureate Cumulative GPA"). This does not include transfer courses from other institutions. E. A minimum grade ofC for every course in the filed POS. However, some degee pregams may require a higher grade than C for one or more courses (see the Graduate Bulletin). F. In addition to these university-widc requirements, some Master‘s programs also have a minimum GPA requirement for specific core courses taken by all students in the program (see the Graduate Bulletin). Master's students are subject to academic disqualification when the Post-Baccalaurcatc Cumulative GPA falls below 3.00. Minimum Grade Requirements For Certificate Students Certificates may be issued only if all ofthe following grade requirements are met: A. GPA of3.00 or mater for all courses used to meet certificate requirements (= "Certificate GPA"). B. GPA 0f3.00 or mater for all SDSU courses on the yaduate record (= "Post-baccalaureatc Cumulative GPA"). C. A minimum grade ofC for evexy course used to meet certificate requirements. However, some certificate programs may require a higher gade than C for one or more courss (See the Graduate Bulletin). Certificate students arc subject to academic disqualification when the Post-Baccalaureate Cumulative GPA falls below 3.00. Students pursuing a certificate who are co-enrolled in a Master's or doctoral program must also meet the additional gade requirements listed above. Minimum Grade Requirements For Credentiai Students Credential students are subject to academic disqualification when the Post-Baccalaurcatc Cumulative GPA falls below 3.00. Students pursuing a credential who are co-enrolled in a Master's, doctoral and/or certificate progam must also meet the additiOnaI grade requirements listed above. Immediate Reinstatement After Disqualification (Same Graduate Program) Graduate students who have been disqualified may petition for immediate reinstatement. Students who have been disqualified for more than one semester must reapply to the university (and file a different petition). Reinstatement is NOT automatic, and each applicant's petition will be considered on an individual basis. Review generally requires at least 10 business days. Readmission And Reinstatement After Disqualification Students who have been disqualified for more than one semmter must reapply to the university, and file a diffcrcnt petition. The readmission petition is available from Graduate Admissions, Prospective Student Center in SSW 100. 4 Revised 04/07/2021 College of Graduate Studies San D1ego Stale University 5500 Campanile Drive San Die 0 CA 92182 . 8220 Phone: 19 . 594 . 5213 Fax: 619 . 594 . 0819 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY Petition For Readmissiou And Reinstatement After Disqualification Petition For Admission On Probation This petition should be completed by the student in conjunction with the Graduate Adviser, who must Sig} on page 2. Last Name First Middle RedID Email Telephone Street address (local mailing) City State Zip Code Previous graduate program (and concentration/specialization) Intended progam (and concentration/specialization) First semester in Fina] semester Additional semesters with coursework Semester you wish previous grad. program before disqualification afier disqualification (e.g., Global Campus) to be readmitted Content 0fthe Petition 1) Complete this form, including the Academic Plan on page 2, sigmed by the Graduate Advisor ofyour intended program. 2) Submit a typed explanation that includes the following information: o Explanation 0fthe extenuating circumstances that led to poor academic performance. These circumstances must have been serious, compelling and beyond your control. It must be clear that the underlying issues are now resolved and will not impede future academic performance. o Separate document(s) from a third party that verify your description of the circumstances. o Your intent to increase your cumulative GPA so that academic probation is removed, preferably in one semester. o Your intent to meet all grade requirements, and graduate in a reasonable time flame. 3) (Recommended) A letter ofrecommendation from the program's Graduate Advisor, emailed directly to the Associate Dean for Graduate Affairs (AsstDeanGRA@sdsu.edu). Submission and Review Submit petition, statement and supporting documentation to Graduate Admissions, Prospective Student Center in SSW 100. If it is not possible to submit the petition in person, mail to: San Diego State University Ofi'lcc ofGraduate Admissions 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 921 82-8225 Rgviscd 04/08I2021 Petition For Readmission And Reinstatement After Disqualification Petition For Admission On Probation Academic Plan (to be completed with Graduate Advisor for intended program) List past courses with grades of Incomplete that you intend to complete. Have you discussed this with the instructor? List courses in progress at this time, and anticipated grades Average unit load per semester afier readmission Anticipated semester 0f degree completion First semester after readmission Second semester after readmission Course Units Letter gade Course Units Letter gade [your goal} [your goal) GPA Projections (calculate with Graduate Adviser) When disqualified Current Anticipated afier Anticipated afier (ifapglicablel 1 semester (ifreadmirted) 2 semesters (ifreadmitted) Units attempted Post-bacc. cumulative GPA POS GPA (Master's only) 300+] GPA (Master's only) GRADUATE ADVISOR: Acknowledgement of Academic Plan The academic plan described above is reasonable, and the student is likely to complete this program within a reasonable time. Graduate Advisor name Sigmture Date Revised 04/08/2021 2 Petition For Readmission And Reinstatement After Disqualification Petition For Admission On Probation STUDENT: Acknowledgement of Academic Probation Extension D I understand that if I am reinstated, I will be 0n academic probation. D l understand that I must earn a term GPA 0f 3.00 or higher in my first semester, or be disqualified. D I understand that I must raise my post-baccalaureate cumulative GPA to 3.00 or higher by the end ofthe second semester, or be disqualified. Student signature Date Submission and Review Submit petition, statement and supporting documentation t0 Graduate Admissions, Prospecti ve Student Center in SSW 100. If it is not possible to submit the petition in person, mail to: San Diego State University Office 0f Graduate Admissions 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 921 82-8225 Appeals Students may appeal denied petitions directly to the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies (AsstDeanGRA@sdsu.edu). This appeal must be supponed by a letter ofrecommendation from the Graduate Adviser, emailed directly t0 AsstDeanGRA@sdsu.edu. GRADUATE STUDIES D Approved D Denied Dean 0f Graduate Studies or Designee Date Revised 04/08/2021 3 Petition For Readmission And Reinstatement After Disqualification Petition For Admission On Probation Minimum Grade Requirements For Graduate Students Master‘s students may graduate only if all of the following gTade requirements are met: A. Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.00 or greater for courses in the Program of Study, excluding transfer courses (= "SDSU POS GPA"). B. GPA 0f3.00 0r grealer for courses in the POS, including transfer courses (= "Total POS GPA"). C. GPA 0f3.00 or greater for the 300-levcl and above courses taken concurrently with, or subsequent to, the earliest course listed on the POS (= "300+1 GPA"). This includes transfer courses from other institutions. Courses taken prior Io the first course on the POS are not used in this calculation. D. GPA of3.00 or greater for all SDSU courses 0n the graduate record (= "Post-baccalaureate Cumulative GPA") This docs not include transfer courses from other institutions. E. A minimum gade ofC for every course in the filed POS. However, some degree programs may require a higher grade than C for one or more courses (see the Graduate Bulletin). F. In addition t0 these university-wide requirements, some Mastel’s programs also have a minimum GPA requirement for specific core courses taken by all students in the program (sec the Graduate Bulletin). Mastel’s students are subject Lo academic disqualification when the Post-Baccalaureate Cumulative GPA falls below 3.00. Minimum Grade Requirements For Advanced Certificate Students Certificates may be issued only if all ofthe following grade requirements arc met: A. GPA of 3.00 or greater for all courses used to meet certificate requirements (= "Cenificate GPA"). B. GPA 0f3.00 or greater for all SDSU courses on the graduate record (= "Post-baccalaureate Cumulative GPA"). C. A minimum gade ofC for every coursc used to meet cenificalc requirements. However, some certificate programs may require a higher grade than C for one or more coursm (see the Graduate Bulletin). Certificate students are subject to academic disqualification when the Post-Baccalaureate Cumulative GPA falls below 3.00. Students pursuing a certificate who are co-enrolled 'm a Master's or doctoral program must also meet the additional grade requirements listed above. Minimum Grade Requirements For Credential Students Credential students are subject to academic disqualification when the Post-Baccalaureate Cumulative GPA falls below 3.00. Students pursuing a credential who are co-enrolled in a Master‘s, doctoral and/or certificate program must also meet the additional grade requirements listed above. Readmission And Reinstatement After Disqualification (Same Graduate Program) Graduate students who have been academically disqualified may not attend SDSU (including SDSU Global Campus) for a minimum of one full semester. After that time, students may file an application for readmission. If the graduate program recommends readmission, this Petition must be submitted as soon as possible. Readmission to the university is NOT automatic, and each applicant's petition will be considered on an individual basis. Review generally requires at least 10 business days. Readmission And Reinstatement After Disqualification (New Graduate Program) A11 requirements for reinstatement into the same graduate program also apply to reinstatement into a new graduate program. The 300+1 GPA calculation will begin with the earliest semester for any course in the new POS. According t0 university policy, the entire SDSU graduate record (including previous programs) is used in the Post-baccalaureate Cumulative GPA calculation. There is no "amnesty" policy when entering a new program. Therefore, it may be impossiblc for students who arc disqualified with particularly low grades to construct a reasonable plan to meet all graduation grads requirements at SDSU, even ifthey are readmitted to a different program. Revised 04/080021 4 Exhibit C OOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 zuuvamusz Santa Clara - Civil MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ Acting Attorney General 0f California BRANDON FIELDS Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 282942 15 15 Clay Street, 20th Floor P.O. Box 70550 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 Telephone: (510) 879-0752 Fax: (510) 622-2270 E-mail: Brandon.Fields@doj.ca.gov C A~ Flore Emmmms ngusmfimcfiudbéflm, County of Santa Clara, on 4/1 9I2021 3:46 PM Reviewed By: A. Floresca Case #200V374092 Envelope: 6270359 AttorneysforRespondent The Board ofTrustees 0f the California State University (erroneously sued as The State ofCahfomia) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CLERK OF THE COURT Fred Rassaii, Petitioner, The Board 0f Trustees of the California State University (erroneously sued as The State 0f California), Respondent. 1 Case N0. 20CV374092 RESPONDENT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PETITIONER FRED RASSAII’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS Date: May 18, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 19 Judge: Hon. Peter H. Kirwan Tn'al Date: Action Filed: December 8, 2020 \ Respondent The Board ofTrustces ofthe California State University’s Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities In Support of Demurrer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii’s Petition for Writ ofAdministrative Mandamus (20CV3 74092) ON \DOOKJ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 5 I. In Rassaii’s Prior Lawsuit, This Court Upheld Rassaii’s Academic Disqualification From the Graduate Master’s Degree Program at SDSU .............. 5 II. In the Present Lawsuit, Rassaii Again Challenges His Academic Disqualification From the Same Master’s Program ................................................ 6 HI. Rassaii Has Filed a Third Lawsuit, Again Challenging His Academic Disqualification From the Same Master’s Program ................................................ 7 STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 7 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 8 I. The Doctrines of Claim and Issue Preclusion Bar Rassaii’s Petition Because Rassaii Could Have Litigated His Present Claims and Issues in His Prior Lawsuit Against CSU but Failed to Do So.............................................. 8 A. Alternatively, Rassaii’s Petition Should Be Abated Because the Petition Raises the Same Claim in His Prior Lawsuit ............................... 10 II. CSU Does Not Owe Rassaii a Ministerial Duty of Reinstatement in Accordance with Terms Contrary to Constitutionally Permissible GPA Requirements Set Forth in the California Code of Regulations ............................ 10 III. The Government Code Bars Any Claim for Monetary Relief Against CSU ........ 13 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 13 2 Respondent The Board ofTrustees 0f the California State University‘s Memorandum of Points and Authorities 1n Support ochmun-er to Petitioner Fred Rassaii‘s Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus (20CV374092) U.) OOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Board ofCurators 0fUniversity ofMissoun' v. Horowitz (1978) 435 U.S. 78 .................................................................................................................. 11 Bucur v. Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 175 ................................................................................................. 8, 9 Doe v. Doe 1 (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1185 .............................................................. . .................................... 7 Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. C0. (2004) 116 Ca1.App.4th 968 ..................................................................................................... 7 Ferreira v. Keller (1970) 4 Ca1.App.3d 292 ......................................................................................................... 10 Flores v. California Dept. ofCorrecrz'ons & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199 ....................................................................................... 10, 11, 13 Kemper v. County ofSan Diego (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1075 ............................................................................................. 9, 10 Lzmgren v. Deukmejz’an (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727 .............................................................................................................. 13 McKinney v. Santa Clara (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 787 ....................................................................................................... 8 Paulsen v. Golden Gate Universiry (1979) 25 Cal.3d 803 .............................................................................................................. 13 People ex rel. Younger v. County ofEl Dorado (1971) 5 Cal.3d 480 ................................................................................................................ 11 Schonfeldt v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1462 ..................................................................................................... 7 Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813 ................................................................................................... l3 State Bd. ofEducation v. Honig (1993) l3 Cal.App.4th 720 ..................................................................................................... 12 3 Respondent The Board ofTrustees of the California State University’s Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities Ln Support of Demurrer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii’s Petition for Writ ofAdministrative Mandamus (20CV374092) \JONtn-bUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - (continued) Page Wulfien v. Dalton (1944) 24 Ca1.2d 891 .............................................................................................................. 10 STATUTES California Code of Regulations Title 5 § 41300(f) ................................................................ passim Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e) ..................................................................................................................... 7 § 430.70 ..................................................................................................................................... 7 § 472 ................................................................................................................ L ......................... 8 § 597 ........................................................................................................................................ 10 § 1005 ........................................................................................................................................ 8 § 1085 ...................................................................................................................................... 11 § 1086 ...................................................................................................................................... 11 § 1089 ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Gov. Code § 818 ........................................................................................................................................ 13 § 900 et seq ............................................................................................................................. 13 Km LMgfl 4 Type Footer Info Here 2 («Matter Primary Court Case #») A M (J1 m‘xlO“ §L 5C ._. HL t r-Vw L l KL AA (@l/éfé é ‘ at Wino. 117 Ca u/(U JIg/w 5 33' fijralafWM/‘S 3Q 6M“ 29‘0“” INTRODUCTION fa Petitioner Fred Rassaii (Rassaii) is a former graduate student at San Diego State University (“SDSU”) who was disqualified fiom the graduate program in 2020 afier failing to meet SDSU’S grade-point-avcrage (“GPA”) requirement. He filed a prior writ petition with this Court alleging that the university’s GPA requirement, which is established by regulations is unlawfijl. This CourtHwy“ Hug... ---I entered a judgment against Rassaii concluding that the United States Constitution a e. Califomia constitution authorize respondent Board of Trustees of the California State University (“CSU”)1 to disqualify him fi'om graduate studi\'es at SDSU for a deficient GPA, which Rassaii has appealed. In addition, Rassaii filed this instant petition for writ of administrative mandamus (“Petition”) after SDSU denied him readmission t0 the graduate program based on his again having failing to meet SDSU’s GPA regirement, seekLrgg to once again challenge the validimif. that requirement. He seeks an order from this Court rquiring CSU to reinstate him to the______._ w graduate program under a proposed remstatement plan that mandates a lower GPA requlrement vthan the regulations permit. Hence, the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion and plea in abatement bar Fred Rassaii’s Petition because this Petition alleges the same claims and issues as his prior petition that this Court has already resolved. This Petition also fails because CSU does not owe him a ministerial duty to an admission reinstatement plan inconsistent with the California Code of Regulations. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. IN RASSAII’S PRIOR LAWSUIT, THIS COURT UPHELD RASSAH’S ACADEMIC DISQUALIFICATION FROM THE GRADUATE MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAM AT SDSU In 2019, Rassaii filed a lawsuit against CSU challenging his disqualification from the Physics Master’s Degree program at SDSU following the 2018 Fall Semester afier earning a GPA -16wer than the required 3.0 for two consecutive semesters. (Request for Judicial Notice “RJN,” 11 1 & Exh. 1 at 1-6.) Specifically, Rassaii’s 2019 lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of l Respondent The Board of Trustees of the California State University referred t0 itself as \ “Trustees” in Rassaii’s 2019 lawsuit against it. 5 Respondent The Board of Trustees 0f the California State University's Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support ofDemurIer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii’s Petition for Writ ofAdministrative Mandamus (ZUCV374092) OO--]O\ l! \W A §41300(£) of Title 5 ofthe California Code of Regulations (CCR) (“section 413000)”), the regulation upon which CSU relied to disqualify him for deficient GPA for one semester fi'om SDSU. (Id) On September 30, 2020, this Court sustained CSU’S demurrer t0 Rassaii’s 2019 lawsuit and entered a judgment against Rassaii upholding the legality of Section 41300(f) and CSU’s disqualification of Rassaii for deficient GPA under that regulation. (RJN, 11 2 & Exh. 2 at 1-9.) Rassaii’s appeal 0f that judgment is pending. (RJN, 1] 3 & Exh. 3 at 1.) II. IN THE PRESENT LAWSUIT, RASSAII AGAIN CHALLENGES HIS ACADEMIC DISQUALIFICATION FROM THE SAME MASTER’S PROGRAM On December 8, 2020, Rassaii filed the instant Petition against CSU. (Petition at 1.) In substance, Rassaii’s instant Petition on'ce again challenges his disqualification fiom the same Master’s program at SDSU for deficient GPA pursuant to Section 413006). (Id. at pg. 1-6 & RJN, fil 6 & Exh. 6 at pg. 15:140.) This time, Rassaii’s Petition asserts an additional claim for relief, which is a Court order.c0mpelling CSU to retract certain reinstatement conditions to the same Master’s program for the 2020 Fall Semester, and to impose other more favorable (t0 him) reinstatement conditions that he contends comply with CSU’s established policies. (Petition at pg. 1-6.) Specifically, Rassaii challenges CSU’S Administrative Probation reinstatement plan, which allowed bin; to repeat only one graduate level course, and required him to earn a minimum 3.633 term GPA for the 2020 Fall Semester, a minimum 3.0 cumulative GPA for the 2021 Spring Semester, without the possibility 0f repeating or taking additional courses afier the 2021 Spring Semester. (Petition at pg. 3 & Exh. A.) Rassaii claims without merit that, according to CSU’s general policies, a disqualified gTaduate student seeking reinstatement is only required to earn a minimum 2.85 term GPA in thevfirst semester following reinstatement, and a minimum 2.85 cumulative GPA in the second semEster following reinstatement. (Id. at pg. 2.) Rassaii claims those policies are set forth in SDSU’s Graduate Bulletin and reinstatement forms. (Id) Rassaii also claims he had an incompetentprofessor dun‘ng the 2020 Fall Semester. (Id. at pg. 5.) His Petition seeks $650,000 in damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. (Id. at 5-6.) 6 Respondent The Board ofTrustees of the California State University’s Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities Ln Support 0f Demurrer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii’s Petition for Writ ofAdministrative Mandamus (20CV374092) Rassaii’s Petition alleges n0 facts about his grades afier the 2020 Fall Semester. (Petition at pg. 1-6.) However, the judicially noticeable facts show Rassaii completed the 2020 Fall Semester with a 2.56 semester GPA, well below the minimum 2.85 semester GPA that his Petition demands. (RJN, 1} 4 & Exh. 4 at 1~2.) The judicially noticeable facts also show Rassaii accepted the challenged reinstatement conditions nearly three months before his deadline t0 respond to the demurrer that CSU brought against him in his prior lawsuit, and he thus had the opportunity t0 raise this additional argument, but declined to d0 so, in the prior petition. (Petition at pg. 3 & Exh. A,RJN,115&Exh.5at1.) m. RASSAII HAS FILED A THIRD LAWSUIT, AGAEN CHALLENGING HIS ACADEMIC DISQUALHFICATION FROM THE SAME MASTER’S PROGRAM On February 26, 2021, Rassaii filed a third repetitive lawsuit against CSU challenging his disqualification from the same Master’s program. (RJN, fl 6 & Exh. 6 at pg. 1-17.) In his third lawsuit, Rassaii concedes that he was aware of the alleged incompetent education at SDSU “right from the onset” of the 2018 Fall Semester, but failed to allege this in his prior petitions. (Id. at pgs. 3~4.) STANDARD 0F REVIEW A petition for writ of administrative mandamus is subject t0 demurrer when it fails t0 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause ofaction. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, subd. (e) & 1089.) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading, raising issues of law, not fact. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Ca1.App.4th 968, 994.) However, a demurrer may challenge defects that appear 0n the face of the pleading as well as judicially noticeable matters outside the pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.70; Doe v. Doe I (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1 185, 1189.) Furthermore, it is proper to sustain a demurrer Without leave to amend When it is not possible t0 cure the defects in the complaint, or when amendment is filtile. (See, e.g., Schonfela’t v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1465.) / / / 7 Respondent The Board of Trustees 0f the California Stalte University’s Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities lu Support of Demurrer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii’s Petition for Writ ofAdministrative Mandamus (20CV374092) 10 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 ' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 ARGUMENT I. THE DOCTRINES 0F CLAIM AND ISSUE PRECLUSION BAR RASSAII’S PETITION BECAUSE RASSAH COULD HAVE LITIGATED HIS PRESENT CLAIMS AND ISSUES IN HIS PRIOR LAWSUIT AGAINST CSU BUT FAILED T0 Do So. Rassaii's Petition fails t0 state a claim, and therefore subject t0 demurrer, because it is barred by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. The legal doctfine of claim preclusion bars piecemeal litigation by prohibiting the relitigation of claims and issues between the same parties which have already been adjudicated in an earlier proceeding, or which could have been litigated in that prior proceeding. (See, Bucur v. Ahmad (2016) 244 Ca1.App.4th 175, 185 [concluding new causes of action bared by the docUine of claim preclusion because within the scope of earlier action and should have been raised then].) The requisite elements of claim preclusion are, “(1) the claim in the present action must be identical to a claim litigated or that could have been litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment 0n the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party 0r in privity with a party t0 the prior proceeding.” (Id.) (Emphasis added.) The doctrine 0f claim preclusion bars Rassaii’s Petition because there is a prior final judgment on the merits between the same panics and Rassaii could have litigated his present claims in that prior action. (McKinney v. Santa Clara (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 787, 79S [concluding judgment sustaining demurrer final and 0n the men'ts when new complaint states the same facts and the formerjudgment determined that these facts did not constitute a cause 0f action].) Rassaii indisputably could have challenged CSU’s Administrative Probation conditions in his first lawsuit against CSU that raised virtually identical issues about his GPA and asserted rights about his initial disqualification from the same graduate program, because he was aware of those conditions when he opposed CSU’S demurrer in his first lawsuit. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 472, 1005 [setting forth rule that plaintiff has a right t0 amend the complaint until the time the opposition to the demurrer is due].) If Rassaii had an objection t0 the conditions, specifically the GPA requirement, he could have raised that issue and litigated it in his prior suit. Judicially noticeable facts show CSU re- 8 Respondent The Board ofTrustees 0f the California State University's Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities In Support 0f Demurrer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii’s Petition for Writ ofAdministrative Mandamus (20CV374092) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 admitted Rassaii as a graduate student pursuant to its Administrative Probation conditions 0n March 12, 2020, nearly three months before his deadline to file an opposition or amended complaint in response to the demurrer that CSU brought against his previous lawsuit. (Petition at pg. 3 & Exh. A, RJN, 1H] 2, 5, Exh. 2 & Exh. 5 at 1.) As such, the doctrine of claim preclusion bars Rassaii’s present Petition because his objection to CSU’s Administrative Probation conditions asserted the same primary right (the right t0 be in the graduate program) and is within the scope of his prior lawsuit, and could have been litigated then. (Bucur, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at 185.) The application of claim preclusion barring Rassaii’s Petition is appropriate because the doctn'ne “rests upon the sound policy of limiting litigation by preventing a party who has had one fair adversary hearing on an issue fiom again drawing it into controversy and subjecting the other party t0 filrther expense in its reexamination.” (Bucur, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at 185.) In other words, Rassaii cannot continue to re-litigate the same claim asserting the right t0 be enrolled in graduate education at SDSU based on a lower GPA requirement, especially when he could have, but failed to, raise the Administrative Probation GPA requirement in his pn'or suit. The doctn'ne of issue preclusion also bars Rassaii’s Petition. The legal doctn'ne of issue preclusion prohibits relitigation 0f previously decided issues even if the second suit raises different causes of action. (Kemper v. County ofSan Diego (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1088 [concluding issues raised in subsequent litigation barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion because based on identical issue actually litigated and determined in previous litigation].) “Issue preclusion applies (1) afier final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit. . .” (Id) Specifically, the second element is met when identical factual allegations are at stake in the two proceedings, “even if some factual matters or legal theories that could have been presented with reSpect r0 that issue were not presented.” (Id. at 1089) (Emphasis in original.) Accordingly, “the fact a party asserts new legal or factual theories or new evidence relevant to an issue previously decided does not affect the applicability of the [issue preclusion] bar.” (Id. at 1090-1091.) 9 Respondent The Board ofTrustces of the California State University’s Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities Ln Support of Demurrer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii‘s Petition for Writ ofAdufinistrative Mandamus (20CV374092) l . CO mmdfl 8 9 10 fdmfnm I 12 Charm} 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I The doctrine 0f issue preclusion applies here because Rassaii’s Petition is based 0n CSU’S application 0f Section 41 300(D’s GPA requirement in relation to his GPA, an issue he had a “full and fair opportunity to litigate” in his prior suit. (Id) Issue preclusion is warranted because a “primary purpose 0f the [issue preclusion] doctrine is t0 prevent inconsistent judicial rulings.” (Id. at 1095.) This court has already ruled CSU’s application of the academic sanctions under Section 413006) based on deficient GPA is constitutional. (RJN, 1] 2 & Exh. 2 at 1-9.) Rassaii is improperly seeking to relitigate his challenge to the CSU’s GPA requirement, which was already decided against him in hjs prior petition. He is barred fiom suing again 0n the same GPA- requirement issue in this case. A. Alternatively, Rassaii’s Petition Should Be Abated Because the Petition 7L; Raises the Same Claim In His Prior Lawsuit Wm ér Alternatively, Rassaii’s Petition should be abated/continued pending resolution of the appeal 0f his 2019 Lawsuit, because the same primary right to be in the graduate programl is the gravamen of both the 2019 Lawsuit and the Petition, and is therefore improper t0 re-litigate. (Code CiV. Proc. § S97 [codifying defense ofplea in abatement]; Wulfien v. Dalton (1944) 24 Ca1.2d 891, 896 [explaining rule 0f abatement nearly identical t0 doctrine of claim preclusion: if a judgment in favor of the defendant in the first action would be a complete bar to the second action, the pendency of the first action should give defendant the right to have the second one abated/continued. . .Thus, once the parties are seen to be the same, the primary right theory of the cause of action is invoked, then differences in remedy or legal theory of the wrong are disregarded]; and Ferreira v. Keller (1970) 4 Ca1.App.3d 292, 294-298 [confirming plea 0f abatement defense may be raised 0n demurrer].) CSU DOES NOT OWE RASSAII A MINISTERIAL DUTY 0F REINSTATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS CONTRARY T0 CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE GPA REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH 1N THE CALIFORNIACODE 0F REGULATIONS Rassaii’s Petition also fails t0 state a claim because CSU does not have a ministerial duty to reinstate him t0 the Master’s Degree program based on a lower GPA requirement contrary t0 applicable California regulations and CSU’s graduate education policies. (Flores v. California Dept. 0f Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 205 [explaining writ relief 10 Respondent The Board ofTrustees of the California State University’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Demurrer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii‘s Petition for Wn‘t ofAdministrative Mandamus (20CV374092) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 "-‘3‘ 22 \Q 23 24 25 26 27 28 only available t0 compel a public body to perform a ministerial act which a statute 0r regulation specially enjoins].) A writ 0f mandaté under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 “may be issued against a public body or public officer ‘to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, 0r station’ in cases ‘where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law.’” (Flores, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at 209.) “Two basic requirements are essential to the issuance of the writ: (1) A clear, present and usually ministerial duty upon the part 0f the respondent; and (2) a clear, present and beneficial fight in the petitioner t0 the performance of that duty.” (Id. at 209 quoting Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1085, 1086 & People ex rel. Younger v. County ofEl Dorado (I971) 5 Cal.3d 480, 491.) “A ‘ministerial duty’ is one generally imposed upon a person in public office who, by viflue 0f that position, is obligated ‘to perform in a prescribed manner required by law when a given state of facts exists.” (Flores, supra, 224 Ca1.App.4th at 209 quoting City ofKing City v. Community Bank ofCentral California (2005) 131 Ca1.App.4th 913, 926.) CSU does not have a ministerial duty t0 comply with Rassaii’s demands to follow a lower GPA requirement. To the contrary, and consistent with the court’s prior ruling, CSU have the discretion to impose academic sanctions based 0n Section 41300(f) ofTitle 5 of the California Code of Regulations (“Section 41 3006)”), which sets forth constitutionally permissible GPAW“ requirements for graduate students. (RJN, fl] 2, Exh. 2 at 7-8; Board ofCumtors 0f University 0fJ_ Missouri v. Horowitz (1978) 435 U.S. 78, 89-9.) Contrary to the Petition’s core allegations, CSU’s Administrative Probation conditions are consistent with Section 41 3006) and its written policies. Those conditions required Rassaii t0 earn a minimum 3.633 term GPA for 2020 Fall Semester, a minimum 3.0 cumulative GPA for the 2021 Spring Semester, without the possibility of repeating more than one course or taking 313;;m than 30 units. As the court held in Rassaii’s prior lawsuit, pursuant t0 the minimum 3.0 cumulative GPA requirement set forth in Section 413006), “[CSU] may place a graduate student 0n academic probation if the student fails t0 maintain a cumulative GPA of at least 3.0, and may also impose additional academic sanctions, such as disqualificationfi'om the graduate program I I Respondent The Board ofTrustees 0f the California State University’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support 0fDemurrer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii’s Petition for Writ ofAdministrative Mandamus (20CV374092) ~40 m 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 orfi'omfurther enrollment at the campus as determined by [C510, if the student fails to maintain a 3.0 GPA while on academic probation.” (RJN, fl] 2, Exh. 2 at 7.) (Emphasis added.) Moreover, CSU’s Graduate Bulletin requires a minimal 3.0 GPA in graduate programs and does not entitle students t0 repeat a course. Consistent with Section 41300(f), CSU’s Graduate Bulletin states, “[GPAs] of at least 3.0 (B) must be maintained in: (1) all courses listed on the official degree program [and] (2) all courses, 300-level and above.. .” (RJN, SI 7, Exh. 7 at Pg. 80.) In regards to course repeats, the Bulletin states that repeating a course is generally not permitted and that a student may be permitted to repeat only one course with prior permission: “ordinarily, a graduate student may not repeat courses taken as part of an official master’s degree program; however, with prior permission 0f the graduate adviser, a student may repeat one course on the official program of study in which a grade ofC (2.0) has been earned.” (RJN, fl] 7, Exh. 7 at Pg. 69.) (Emphasis Added.) Finally, the Physics Master’s Degree program is a 30-min program. (RJN, 1] 7, Exh. 7 at Pg. 358.} Recordingly, the Administrative Probation plan, allowing Rassaii to repeat one course and reqfiiring him t0 earn 30 units and a 3.0 cumulative GPA at the end of the 2021 Spring Semester is entirely consistent with Section 41 300(f) and CSU’s SDSU applicable written policies. / Rassaii’s contention that ccrtaigprovisions in CSU’s SDSU reinstatement forms and Graduate Bulletin only require him t0 earn a minimum 2.85 tenn GPA after his first semester following reinstatement and a minimum 2.85 cumulative GPA after his second semesterWyv- following reinstatement are simply wrong. Those provisions, whjch are consistent with SectionWM 413000), only apply to other graduate programs which, unlike Rassaii’s program, do not have 30 unit limitations. (RJN, 1] 7, Exh. 7 at Pg. 358.) Furthermore, those provisions are inapplicable to”W N.- M Rassaii because they typically apply t0 graduate students who d0 not have cumulative GPA deficits as great as his. (Id.) Lastly, those provisions are unenforceable to the extent that théyW conflict in any way with the legislative prescriptions 0f Section 41300(f). (State Bd. ofEducation v. Honig (1993) l3 Cal.AppAth 720, 750 [explaining the Legislature has plenary authority andJ that if there is any doubt as'to the Legislature’s power to act in any given case, the doubt should be resolved in favor 0f the Legislature’s action].) 12 ”fr Respondent The Board of Trustees of the Califomja State University’s Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities 1n Support ofDemurrer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii’s Petition for Wn't of Administrative Mandamus (20CV374092) HJON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Critically, the SDSU policies 0n which Rassaii relies do not help him because his claims are moot, as he never achieved the lower GPA that he seeks t0 have applied. Judicially noticeable facts show he completed the 2020 Fall Semester with a 2.56 semester GPA, well below not just the 3.0 applicable to his program, but also well below the 2.85 term GPA that Rassaii advocates should apply. (RJN, i] 4 & Exh. 4; Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 732 [concluding writ of mandamus should not issue if the conditions giving rise to the duty no longer exist].) Accordingly, Rassaii cannot seek admission into a semester that has already occurred, and for which he failed t0 maintain an adequate GPA even under his own theory. Likewise, it is mathematically impossible for Rassaii t0 raise his cumulative GPA t0 3.0 even if he were re- admitted t0 take classes for a final semester to complete 3O units. Finally, Rassaii’s allegation that he had an incompetent professor is irrelevant to his writ petition because that is not a legal basis t0 compel CSU to re-admit him as a graduate student. (Paulsen v. Golden Gate University (1979) 25 Cal.3d 803, 808 [concluding “there is a widely accepted rule ofjudicial nonintervention into the academic affairs of schools”].) m. THE GOVERNMENT CODE BARS ANY CLAIM FOR MONETARY RELIEF AGAINST CSU __---- Finally, Rassaii’s claim for monetary relief against CSU must be rej cctéd for a host of reasons, including that monetary damages are unavailable on a writ petition and that judicially noticeable facts show he failed to timely submit a government claim as required by the Govemment Claims Act. (RJN, i] 8 & Exh. 8; GOV. Code § 900 ct seq; Flores v. California Dept. ofCorrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 205 [concluding mandamus should not be issued if petitioner has an adequate legal remedy].) Furthermore, as a public entity, CSU cannot be subject to punitive damages under Government Code section 81 8. CONCLUSKON Rassaii has filed successive lawsuits seeking t0 be reinstated to SDSU’s graduate program when he undisputedly failed t0 maintain the GPA required by university regulations and policies. His petition should thus be dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile. (Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 827 [concluding “leave to amend may be denied where 13 Respondent The Board ofTrustees of the California State University’s Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities Ln Support ofDemurrer to Petitioner Fred Rassaii’s Petition for Wn't of Administrative Mandamus (20CV374092) \lO‘x m 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 permitting an amendment would be futile. . .”].) The allegations in Rassaii’s Petition and the judicially noticeable facts show his claims are barred by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion and plea in abatement. Furthermore, CSU also does not owe him a ministerial duty t0 an admission reinstatement plan inconsistent with Section 41 300(1), and his claims are moot because his 2.56 tcnn GPA for the 2020 Fall Semester demonstrates CSU properly disqualified him from further enrollment pursuant t0 Section 41 300(0. His requested remedy of a lower GPA requirement can never allow him to be reinstated t0 the graduate program because he has not been able t0 meet his own proffered minimum GPA. Dated: April 19, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ Acting Attorney General 0f California ii“ BRANDON FIELDS Deputy Attorney General Attorneysfor Respondent The Board 0f Trustees 0fthe California State University (erroneously sued as The State ofCaliforniq) OK2021900065 91365353.docx 14 Respondent The Board ofTrustees of the California State University’s Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities In Support of Demurrer t0 Petitioner Fred Rassaii’s Petition for Writ of Admjnistrative Mandamus (20CV374092) Exhibit D From: Student Account Services - SDSU Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 3:39 PM T0: FRASSAII@LIVE.COM Subject: Direct Deposit Reminder RASSAM,FRED 8%6433578 Emoflflmem o1? Ifin'ecit Deposit Reqwfiremfl The @fl'fice o? Finawcfiafl Aid] anal Schoflarshfips has semfi fitmancfiafl aid] disbursemem Enfawmafifion {m ow office mm] EIE Haas beam] posited] to your student account“ Efioweverg mar recowdls findficafie thafi you have [mot signed] [mp Em anew Deposit” At SDSU, Wreck Ieposiifi fis mamdafmm fion' studems who [recefive financial] afid and schoflafisflnfipsu Severafl emafifl messages have been sent {to sfimflenfis regardifimg fihfis processn flfi‘ yaw have ségned Imp wfifkflnfitm {the Has? severafl flays, Efi may just {be a fifimfimg issue and} we wfiflfl disburse funds 11m yaw as soon as possfibflen Sfiudemts who have jusfi' vecemfifly sfigned up ifm’ Bfifiecfi Deposit many Kecefive a check fou- ‘Ehe firsfi disbursemem since your banking finfiomafifiom may not have been vaflfidafied yet Eff you have nofi signed] Imp gm" Diwecfi .egwsfifi, pflease visa? own" web sfifle at Onfline Student Account and provfide yaw bank account Enfiomatmn as 5mm as possfibfle 1m avofid Emma? deflays Em recefivfing yaw finamcfiafl afiaflu For finsflmcfifioms mm how fio emofifl firm cflfin'ect deposfifi cflfick HERE“ Copyright © 2018 San Diego State University, All rights reserved. This is a notice that you have not signed up for Direct Deposit to receive your Financial Aid Refund. Our mailing address is: San Diego State University 5500 Camganile Dr San Diego, CA 92182-1615 Add us to vour address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update vour preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Ill < EI]@V%®D + New message Favorites lnbox Sent Items Drafts Add favorite Folders lnbox Junk Emafif Drafts Sent Items Deleted Items 185 Archive Conversation flist... New folder V Upgrade to Office 365 Mm premium Oufiook features A“ i _ Students who haVe just recently signed up for Direct DBpositmay receive ‘ '1 " ‘ _ ’ . a che'c'k _fo‘r’ the' first disbursement slnc'e your banking informauo'n may .v ,0 Search <3 Reply v Delete E Archive ® Junk V § Sweep E Move to V O Categorize V ’1" Not Enrolled in Direct Deposit 1.31.19 . 'y n ( SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY Student Account Sen‘ims FDear Student, The Office of Financial Aid and Scholarships has sent financial aid disbursement information to our office and it has been posted to your student account. However our records indicate that you have not signed up for Direct Deposit. At SDSU Direct Deposit Is the easiest, fastest and most secure way for students to receive financial aid and scholarships. Several email messages have been sent to students régarding this process. 1f you have signed up within th‘e last several days, it may just be a timing Issue'and we Will disburée funds to you as soon as possible. J_‘g ‘ 1’. If you have not signed up for Direct Deposit plea’se vislt ourmeb site '- y at Onlilug Sluggnt Agggnl 'and provide your bank account Infonnatzon as -. f soon as posslbté to avoid farther delays'In receiving yourfinan‘cial aid.- qu instructions on hqw t9 enrgfilléin directdeposit 'click HERE. Copynfgm o 20:9 San D.ego Sgnts University. A1 nghts reserved . v, ” I Nor enrolled in Di(ect Depos:t1 .31 19 I ' I Our mailing address is: > I ,K '1 [.1 ~ _ San Diggo SmteyUniversity _ ' , ‘- v,‘ 5500 Campanile Dr ‘ ‘ -' San mega) CA 921324615,WW « " .' 14;, u Want lo change hm: you receive lhese emaiié? You can update your preferences or un§ubscnhe from lhis Hsl. »' ' i _'. m lt looks 1ike you're using an ad blocker. To maximize the: $ Title 34. Education, Subtitle B. Regulation of the Office ofthe Department 0f Education, Chapter VI. OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Part 668. STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISION, Subpart K. Cash Management, Section 668.164. Disbursing funds. Titfie 34 Code 0f Federal Regufiations § 668.164 - Disbursing funds (a) Disbursement. (1) Except as provided under garagragh (31(2) 0f this section, a disbursement oftitle IV, HEA program funds occurs on the date that the institution credits the student's ledger account or pays the student or parent directly with - (i) Funds received from the Secretary; or (ii) Institutional funds used in advance of receiving title IV, HEA program funds. (2) (i) For a Direct Loan for which the student is subject to the delayed disbursement requirements under 34 CFR 685.303gb)§5), if an institution credits a student's ledger account with institutional funds earlier than 30 days after the beginning of a payment period. the Secretary considers that the institution makes that disbursement on the 30th day after the beginning ofthe payment period; or (ii) lf an institution credits a student's ledger account with institutional funds earlier than 1O days before the first day 0f classes of a payment period, the Secretary considers that the institution makes that disbursement 0n the 10th day before the first day of classes of a payment period. (b) Disbursements by payment period. (1) Except for paying a student under the FWS program or unless 34 CFR 685.3031d)(4)(i) applies, an institution must disburse during the current payment period the amount of title IV, HEA program funds that a student enrolled at the institution, or the student's parent, is eligible t0 receive for that payment period. (2) An institution may make a prior year, late, or retroactive disbursement, as provided under paragraph (c)(3), (j), or (k) ofthis section, respectively, during the current payment period as long as the student was enrolled and eligible during the payment period covered by that prior year, late, or retroactive disbursement. (3) At the time a disbursement is made to a student for a payment period, an institution must confirm that the student is eligible forthe type and amount of title IV, HEA program funds identified by that disbursement. A third-party servicer is also responsible for confirming the student's eligibility if the institution engages the servicer to perform activities or transactions that lead to or suppod that disbursement. Those activities and transactions include but are not limited to - (i) Determining the type and amount oftitle IV, HEA program funds that a student is eligible to receive; (ii) Requesting funds under a payment method described in § 668.162; or (iii) Accounting for funds that are originated, requested, or disbursed, in reports or data submissions to the Secretary. (c) Crediting a student's ledger account. (1) An institution may credit a student's ledger account with title IV, HEA program funds to pay for allowable charges associated with the current payment period. Allowable charges are - (i) The amount of tuition, fees, and institutionally provided room and board assessed the student for the payment period or, as provided in garagragh (c)(51 ofthis section. the prorated amount of those charges if the institution debits the student's ledger account for more than the charges associated with the payment period; and (ii) The amount incurred by the student forthe payment period for purchasing books, supplies, and other educationally related goods and services provided by the institution for which the institution obtains the student's or parent's authorization under § 668.165(b). (2) An institution may include the costs of books and supplies as part of tuition and fees under paragraph (0mm) of this section if - (i) The institution - (A) Has an arrangement with a book publisher or other entity that enables it t0 make those books or supplies available to students below competitive market rates; (B) Provides a way for a student to obtain those books and supplies by the seventh day of a payment pen‘od; and (C) Has a policy under which the student may opt out of the way the institution provides for the student to obtain books and supplies under this paragraph (c)(2). A student who opts out under this paragraph (c)(2) is considered to also opt out under garagragh (m)(3) of this section; (ii) The institution documents on a current basis that the books or supplies, including digital or electronic course materials, are not available elsewhere or accessible by students enrolled in that program from sources other than those provided or authorized by the institution; or (iii) The institution demonstrates there is a compelling health or safety reason. (3) (i) An institution may include in one or more payment periods for the current year, prior year charges of not more than $200 for - (A) Tuition, fees, and institutionally provided room and board, as provided under garagragh (c)(mi) of this section, without obtaining the student's or parent's authorization; and (B) Educationally related goods and services provided by the institution, as described in garagragh (c)(1 )(ii) of this section, if the institution obtains the student's or parent's authorization under § 668.165(b). (ii) For purposes of this section - (A) The current year ES - (1) The current loan period for a student or parent who receives only a Direct Loan; (2) The current award year for a student who does not receive a Direct Loan but receives funds under any other title IV, HEA program; or (3) At the discretion of the institution, either the current loan period 0r the current award year if a student receives a Direct Loan and funds from any other title IV, HEA program. (B) A prior year is any loan period or award year prior to the current loan period or award year, as appiicable. (4) An institution may include in {he current payment period unpaid allowable charges from any previous payment period in the current award year or current loan period for which the student was eligible for title IV, HEA program funds. (5) For purposes of this section, an institution determines the prorated amount of charges associated with the current payment period by - (i) For a program with substantially equal payment periods, dividing the total institutional charges for the program by the number of payment periods in the program; or (ii) For other programs, dividing the number of credit or clock hours in the current payment period by the total number of credit or clock hours in the program, and multiplying that result by the total institutional charges for the program. (d) Direct payments. (1) Except as provided under garagragh (d113) of this section, an institution makes a direct payment - (i) To a student, for the amount of the title IV, HEA program funds that a student is eligible to receive, including Direct PLUS Loan funds that the student's parent authorized the student to receive, by - (A) Initiating an EFT of that amount to the student's financial account; (B) Issuing a check for that amount payable to, and requiring the endorsement of, the student; or (C) Dispensing cash for which the institution obtains a receipt signed by the student; (ii) To a parent, for the amount of the Direct PLUS Loan funds that a parent does not authorize the student to receive, by - (A) Initiating an EFT of that amount to the parent's financial account; (B) Issuing a check for that amount payable to and requiring the endorsement of the parent; or (C) Dispensing cash for which the institution obtains a receipt signed by the parent. (2) Issuing a check. An institution issues a check on the date that it - (i) Mails the check to the student or parent; or (ii) Notifies the student or parent that the check is available for immediate pick-up at a specified location at the institution. The institution may hold the check for no longer than 21 days after the date it notifies the student or parent. If the student or parent does not pick up the check, the institution must immediately mail the check to the student or parent, pay the student or parent directly by other means, or return the funds to the appropriate title IV, HEA program. (3) Payments by the Secretary. The Secretary may pay title IV, HEA credit baiances under paragraphs (h) and (m) of this section directly to a student or parent using a method established or authorized by the Secretary and published in the Federal Register. (4) Student choice, (i) An institution located in a State that makes direct payments to a student by EFT and that enters into an arrangement described in paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, including an institution that uses a third-party servicer to make those payments, must establish a selection process under which the student chooses one of several options for receiving those payments. (A) In implementing its selection process, the institution must - (1) Inform the student in writing that he or she is not required to open or obtain a financial account or access device offered by or through a specific financial institution; (2) Ensure that the student's options for receiving direct payments are described and presented in a clear, fact-based, and neutral manner; (3) Ensure that initiating direct payments by EFT to a student's existing financial account is as timely and no more onerous to the student as initiating an EFT to an account provided under an arrangement described in paragraph (e) or (f) of this section; (4) Allow the student to change, at any time, his or her previously selected payment option, as long as the student provides the institution with written notice of the change within a reasonable time; (5) Ensure that no account option is preselected; and (6) Ensure that a student who does not make an affirmative selection is paid the full amount of the credit balance within the appropriate time- period specified in garagragh (hu21 of this section, using a method specified in garagraeh (dufl of this section. (B) In describing the options under its selection process, the institution - (1) Must present prominently as the first option, the financial account belonging to the student; (2) Must Hist and identify the major features and commonfly assessed fees associated with each financial account offered under the arrangements described in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, as weflfl as a URL for the terms and conditions of each account. For each account, if an institution by Jufly 1, 2017 foflflows the format, content, and update requirements specified by the Secretary fin a notice published in the Federafl Register fofllowfing consufltation with the Bureau 0f Consumer Financiafl Protection, it wifli be in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph with respect to the major features and assessed fees associated with the account; and (3) May provide, for the benefit of the student, information about availabfle financial accounts other than those described fin paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section that have deposit insurance under 12 CFR Qart 330, or share insurance fin accordance with 12 CFR part 745. (ii) An finstitution that does not offer or use any financial] accounts offered under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section may make direct payments to a student‘s or parent"s existfing financiafl account, or fissue a check or disburse cash to the student or parent wfithout estabflishing the seflection process described in garagragh §dfl4fli) of this section. (e) Tier one arrangement. (1) In a Tier one (F1) arrangement - (i) An institution located in a State has a contract with a third-party servicer under which the servicer performs one or more of the functions associated with processing direct payments of title IV, HEA program funds on behalf of the institution; and (ii) The institution or third-party servicer makes payments to - (A) One or more financial accounts that are offered to students under the contract; (B) A financial account where information about the account is communicated directly to students by the third-party servicer, or the institution on behalf of or in conjunction with the third-party servicer; or (C) A financial account where information about the account is communicated directly to students by an entity contracting with or affiliated with the third-party servicer. (2) Under a T1 arrangement. the institution must - (fl) Ensure that the student's consent to open the financial account is obtained before an access device, or any representation of an access device, is sent to the student, except that an institution may send the student an access device that is a card provided to the student for institutional purposes, such as a student ID card. so long as the institution or financial institution obtains the student's consent before validating the device to enable the student to access the financial account; (ii) Ensure that any personally identifiable information about a student that is shared with the third-party servicer before the student makes a selection under garagragh (d)(4)(i) of this section -