From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brand v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Feb 8, 2012
B230455 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2012)

Opinion

B230455

02-08-2012

N. KAY BRAND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.

N. Kay Brand, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. David Holmquist, General Counsel, Alexander Molina, Associate General Counsel, and Charlie L. Hill, Assistant General Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC415731)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John A. Kronstadt, Judge. Affirmed.

N. Kay Brand, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

David Holmquist, General Counsel, Alexander Molina, Associate General Counsel, and Charlie L. Hill, Assistant General Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff and appellant N. Kay Brand appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend to Brand's fourth amended complaint alleging breach of contract against defendant and respondent Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Because Brand's brief fails to set forth an identifiable appellate issue, and the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, we affirm.

Allegations of the Fourth Amended Complaint for Breach of Contract

Brand was hired by LAUSD as a school teacher. Her salary was set by the collective bargaining agreement between LAUSD and United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA). Brand was a member in good standing of UTLA. From 2005, LAUSD failed to pay Brand all wages, salary, and benefits due her under the collective bargaining agreement.

Brand made verbal and written demands for payment. LAUSD has acknowledged the hours and days Brand worked but has refused to compensate her. The collective bargaining agreement did not require Brand to utilize its grievance procedure, and Brand remained free to pursue her rights by filing a civil action. Brand is owed in excess of $50,000 as a result of being forced into resignation, improperly put on leave of absence, improperly classified as a temporary teacher and taken off staff at Los Angeles High School, and being underpaid.

LAUSD's Demurrer to the Fourth Amended Complaint

LAUSD demurred on three grounds. First, Brand cannot allege breach of contract because her public employment was governed by statute rather than by contract. Second, her exclusive remedy under the collective bargaining agreement was the arbitration grievance process. Third, Brand failed to file a timely claim under Government Code section 900 et seq.

Opposition to the Demurrer

Brand did state a cause of action for breach of contract between UTLA and LAUSD. Under the collective bargaining agreement, there was a class of employees who could opt out of the grievance process, and Brand was a member of that class. Brand was not required to comply with the Government Code because claims for wages and salary are expressly exempt under Government Code section 905.

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court took judicial notice of the 2006-2009 agreement between LAUSD and UTLA. Among the rights detailed in the agreement are salary, transfers, health and welfare, class size, substitute employees, and safety. Violations of rights under the agreement are subject to the grievance procedures set forth in Article V. After oral argument, the trial court sustained the demurrer, ruling that Brand was subject to the grievance procedure of the collective bargaining agreement, which was her exclusive remedy. Individual employment relationships with governmental entities are covered by statute and are not subject to civil actions for breach of contract.

Brand's Opening Brief on Appeal

Brand's 19-page statement of facts does not discuss the contents of the fourth amended complaint. Instead, she explains her employment at Los Angeles High School as an art teacher, since 1997. The school was old, under-funded, overcrowded, and filled with toxic substances. A competent principal lasted only a short time before being forced out of the school "with bad feelings, inappropriate racial slurs, and defamation of his character." Poor leadership followed at the racially diverse campus.

Illegal fiscal management decisions were made by LAUSD. An extended period of corruption prevailed. Brand suffered injuries at the school in trip and fall accidents. Toxic poisons caused further injury to her. Brand was threatened with arrest for complaining of the conditions. UTLA refused to support her complaints. She was demoted to the position of temporary substitute teacher, and when transferred to another school, was again exposed to toxic materials resulting in injury. Her pay was cut in half in retaliation for her complaints.

LAUSD hired illegal attorneys and fraudulent medical doctors to fight Brand's claims. She was involuntarily locked up and drugged for 13 days. Property related to her complaints was frequently stolen. Checks to her were not honored by banks, and records were erased. LAUSD retaliated by forcing her to change insurance plans and blocking her doctoral education. She continues to be the victim of crime, including theft and hijacking of her computer.

The 15-page argument portion of the opening brief complains that environmental poisons caused Brand's injuries and damages. The brief quotes from numerous statutes and makes occasional reference to case law. Quotations from the argument on the demurrer to the fourth amended complaint are set forth. The brief does not set forth the contents of the fourth amended complaint, does not discuss the demurrer or the opposition, and contains no argument regarding the merits of the trial court's ruling.

DISCUSSION

In Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985, our Supreme Court held "that mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. (See Lawrence v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 611, 619, fn. 4.)" We apply the rule of Rappleyea in this appeal, and affirm on the basis that appellant's briefing does not comply with the California Rules of Court, fails to cite to the record, references matters outside the appellate record, and contains no discussion of pertinent legal authority.

An appellate brief must state each point under a separate heading or subheading. Each point must be supported by argument. Citation of authority is required, if possible. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(1)(B).) References to matters in the record must include citation to the volume and page number where the matter appears. (Id. rule 8.204(1)(C); In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406.) The appellant's opening brief must provide a summary of significant facts, but is limited to matters in the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(2)(C).) An appellate court may find issues forfeited for noncompliance with the rules pertaining to the form and content of appellate briefs. (In re S.C., supra, at p. 407.)

The brief filed by Brand runs afoul of these rules. The brief relies on facts not contained in the fourth amended complaint. No cognizable legal argument is made. There is no discussion of the merits of the trial court's ruling. An appellate court has no obligation to make an independent search of the record to find error or grounds to support the judgment. (Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545.) Because Brand has failed to demonstrate on appeal that her breach of contract claim was exempt from the grievance procedures of the collective bargaining, no prejudicial error has been demonstrated and the judgment must be affirmed. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to the Los Angeles Unified School District.

KRIEGLER, J. We concur:

ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.

MOSK, J.


Summaries of

Brand v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Feb 8, 2012
B230455 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2012)
Case details for

Brand v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.

Case Details

Full title:N. KAY BRAND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

Date published: Feb 8, 2012

Citations

B230455 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2012)