BriefCal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 5, 20211 Brian D. Bock, Esq. (SBN 189936) Proactive Legal-The Bock Law Group, PC 2 31610 Railroad Canyon Rd, Ste 2 Canyon Lake, CA 92587 3 Tel 951-261-5333 I Fax 951-261-5345 4 brian@proactiveBLG.com Exempt from Filing Fees Government Code § 6103 5 Attorneys for Respondent, 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LOMA PRIETA JOINT UN1FIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DAVID KISSNER AND SHAHRY AR ROKNI, PETITIONERS, vs. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS DR. MARY ANN DEWAN; SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, LOMA PRIETA JOINT UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT; SANTA CLARA COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS SHANNON BUSHEY; SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CLERK TRICIA WEBBER; AND DOES 1-10; RESPONDENTS. Case No.: 21CV381463 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOMA PRIETA JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE DATE: June 7, 2021 TIME : 1 :30pm DEPT: 12 Respondent LOMA PRIETA JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT hereby provides the following MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOMA PRIETA JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO THE VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE filed by Petitioners DAVID KISSNER and SHAHRY AR ROKNI: 1. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE OF LOMA PRIETA JUSD CASE NO. 21CV38l463 Envelope: 6536192 Electronically filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/27/2021 2:15 PM Reviewed By:M Vu Case #21CV381463 Env #6536192 1 L 2 ARGUMENT 3 Whereas LOMA PRIETA JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ("LPJUSD" or "LOMA PRIETA") 4 had no authority, control, jurisdiction or other duty or obligation to act in any of the manners alleged by the 5 Petitioners, there are no grounds for holding it liable in any manner for the claims or causes alleged in the 6 Petition. LPJUSD otherwise joins in the Statement of Non-Opposition filed by the Santa Clara County Registrar 7 of Voters. LPJUSD is committed to following the laws that apply if this Court issues a writ after considering the 8 merits of any arguments between Petitioners and any other Respondents. 9 As to LPJUSD, the Petition suffers from an irreparable fatal defect because it does not set forth any 10 cause of action, claim, basis for relief, plea in equity, or facts sufficient for haling this responding party into 11 Court. Moreover, it would be unfair to allow an amendment now given the exigency of the case. 12 There is just no "clear, present, and usually ministerial duty on the part of [this respondent]. Rutgard v 13 City of Los Angeles (2020) 52 CA5th 815, 824; Hernandez v Department of Motor Vehicles (2020) 49 CA5th 14 928, 93 5 [ additional citations] ("mandamus lies to compel the performance of a clear, present, and ministerial 15 duty where the petitioner has a beneficial right to the performance of that duty")." See, California Civil Writ 16 Practice (4th ed. Cal. CEB 2021) §2.5. 17 Moreover, "A ministerial act is an act that a public officer is required to perform in a prescribed 18 manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority and without regard to his own judgment or opinion 19 concerning such act's propriety or impropriety, when a given set of facts exists." California Ass 'n of Prof 20 Scientists v Department of Fin. (2011) 195 CA4th 1228, 1236, quoting Kavanaugh v West Sonoma County 21 Union High Sch. Dist. (2003) 29 C4th 911, 916. See, California Civil Writ Practice (4th ed. Cal. CEB 2021) 22 §2.6. See also, Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2019) 43 CA5th 23 175, 182 (trial court sustained demurrer on ground that respondents had no clear, mandatory, statutory duty that 24 they failed to perform; affirmed on appeal). Here, the "prescribed manner" of handling the issues rai5ed by 25 Petitioners was not '"prescribed" as to LPWSD. As indicated throughout the responsive pleadings in this case, 26 LPJUSD has no problem complying with obligations which will possibly come later, and which are wholly 27 contingent on any litigation outcomes as to the County Office of Education. 28 2. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE OF LOMA PRIETA JUSD CASE NO. 21CV381463 1 Issuance of writ relief always lies within the discretion of the court and may be denied when issuance of 2 a writ is unnecessary to secure compliance with the law. TransparentGov Novato v City of Novato (2019) 34 3 CA5th 140, 148. There is no compliance with the law to be secured as to LPIDSD. 4 Lastly, if the relief sought by Petitioners was granted, LPIDSD may be unable to carry out legal 5 mandates with respect to meeting financial obligations to students and other stakeholders of the school district. 6 Petitioners demand an election that could cost several hundred thousand dollars and the cost of which, for the 7 benefit of a grand total of approximately 834 voters, would be passed on to the District by the other Respondents 8 in this action. LOMA PRIETA takes exception to the setting of anything other than a mail-in ballot election per 9 Elections Code§ 12112 (which it would voluntarily agree to once any obligations on its part were triggered). 10 TI. 11 CONCLUSION 12 Whereas there is no factual, legal, or equitable basis for ordering, decreeing, or commanding the 13 performance of any act or duty as against LOMA PRIETA JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent 14 respectfully requests that the Court order as follows: 15 1. That the Petition be denied or dismissed as against LPJUSD. 16 2. In the event the Petition is granted, and a writ is issued, the Court any special election be in the manner 17 of a mail-in ballot election as part of the Court's inherent powers per CCP § 128(a). 18 3. Lastly, if LPIDSD is forced to remain in this case for now, then it is respectfully requested that the 19 proposed demurrer attached to the Answer/Response as Exhibit "l" be deemed filed as of the date below 20 or that instructions be given as to the setting of a hearing on the demurrer without prejudice to LPIDSD's 21 rights as set forth in the responsive pleadings. 22 Respectfully submitted, 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated; May 27, 2021 Proactive Legal-The Bock Law Group, PC By Electronic Signature Brian D. Bock, Esq. Attorneys for Respondent, LOMA PRIETA JOINT UNJFIED SCHOL DISTRICT. 3. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE OF LOMA PRIETA JUSD CASE NO. 21CV381463
