On March 18, 2021 a
Complaint,Petition
was filed
involving a dispute between
Abraham Lincoln High School Of San Francisco,
Balboa High School Alumni Association,
Burton, John,
George Washington High School Alumni Assciation,
Lowell Alumni Association,
Mission High School Alumni Association,
Sakata, Karen Shigezumi,
San Francisco Taxpayers Association,
and
Matthews, Vincent,
San Francisco Board Of Education,
San Francisco Unified School District,
for WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
oem YN DW BF BN
a
Un Bp BW N SF SO
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
135 Main Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
A Professional Law Corporation
NN Ne Se Se eS
no = S © w® AD
Suzanne Solomon, Bar No. 169005 Pp r ¥
ssolomon@lcwlegal.com Sunetine tied
Sylvia J. Quach, Bar No. 316741 on gillonnt
squach@lcwlegal.com MAY
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE * 26 2021
A Professional Law Corporation
135 Main Street, 7th Floor we nee AE, COURT
San Francisco, California 94105 ° i fe
Telephone: 415.512.3000 Deputy Clerk
Facsimile: 415.856.0306
Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF EDUCATION; SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT; and VINCENT MATTHEWS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
ABRAHAM LINCOLN HIGH Case No.: CPF-21-517410
SCHOOL ALUMNI ASSOCIATION;
SAN FRANCISCO TAXPAYERS [HON. ETHAN P. SCHULMAN, DEPT. 302]
ASSOCIATION; GEORGE
WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL Complaint Filed: March 17, 2021
ALUMNI ASSOCIATION; JOHN FAC Filed: April 2, 2021
BURTON; KAREN SHIGEZUMI
SAKATA, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Plaintiff and Petitioner,
Date: May 6, 2021
v. Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF Judge: Honorable Ethan P. Schulman.
EDUCATION; SAN FRANCISCO
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; (*Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Gov.
VINCENT MATTHEWS in his official Code, § 6103.)
capacity as San Francisco Superintendent
of Schools,
Defendants and Respondents.
yoN YY N YN
oN A uN fk Ww
TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
The hearing on the Order to Show Cause why a writ should not issue compelling
Respondents to repeal Resolution No. 211-12A1 and dissolve the School Names Committee came
on regularly for hearing on May 6, 2021, in Department 302 of the San Francisco County
Superior Court, the honorable Ethan P. Schulman presiding. Paul D. Scott and Lani Anne
1
Order Dismissing First Amended Petition For Writ of Mandate
SA231\03719641917.v10 ON DH BP WwW BY Kw
a a ae
UB wWw NY FE SS
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
135 Main Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Nw N NY NY NY NY NR NY Ye Se SB ew
oN DAD UN FR Bw NY FF OD OD Oe NID
Remick appeared on behalf of Petitioners Abraham Lincoln High School of San Francisco
Alumni Association, San Francisco Taxpayers Association, George Washington High School
Alumni Association, Lowell Alumni Association, Balboa High School Alumni Association,
Mission High School Alumni Association, John Burton and Karen Shigezumi Sakata (collectively
“Petitioners”). Suzanne Solomon appeared on Respondents San Francisco Board of Education,
San Francisco Unified School District, and Vincent Matthews (collectively “Respondents”).
After considering the parties’ briefs and arguments, the Court rules as follows:
The order to show cause is discharged, and the Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate is
dismissed as moot.
By the First Amended Petition, Petitioners seek a writ of mandate ordering Respondents
to repeal Resolution No. 211-12A1, relating to the renaming of San Francisco Unified School
District schools, as well as related declaratory and injunctive relief, on the grounds that in
enacting that Resolution at its January 26, 2021 meeting, Respondent Board of Education violated
the Brown Act.
On April 6, 2021, after suspending the work of the panel it had previously appointed to
advise it regarding the renaming process, the Board rescinded Resolution 211-12A1.
No school was renamed pursuant to the Board's resolutions.
As a result, the parties agree that the proceeding is moot, and must be dismissed. "A case
is considered moot when 'the question addressed was at one time a live issue in the case," but has
been deprived of life because of events occurring after the judicial process was initiated.’.. . .
The pivotal question in determining if a case is moot is therefore whether the court can grant the
plaintiff any effectual relief." (Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191
Cal.App.4th 1559, 1574 (citations omitted).) "When events render a case moot the court, whether
trial or appellate, should generally dismiss it." (Jd; see, e.g., TransparentGov Novato v. City of
Novato (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 140, 150-153 [affirming dismissal of petition for violations of
Brown Act, where city council adopted new policy following claimed violations, and petitioner
therefore did not demonstrate a justifiable controversy warranting mandamus or declaratory
relief].)
2
Order Dismissing First Amended Petition For Writ of Mandate
$A231\03719641917.v11 The Court declines Petitioners’ request in their Reply to make findings that the action is
2}| not frivolous or to address any of the other arguments raised by the parties. "The rendering of
3|| advisory opinions falls within neither the functions nor the jurisdiction" of California courts.
(People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 912.)
IT IS SO ORDERED:
ZO
Dated: M: ZG, 2001 “
ate ay LY, AF
dg
Honorable Ethan P. Schulman
oOo YN DH WH
10
11
12
g
g
13
14
15
Liebert Cassidy Wh:
135 Main Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
A Professional Law Cot
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Order Dismissing First Amended Petition For Writ of Mandate
$A231\037\9641917.v1
Preview
oem YN DW BF BN a Un Bp BW N SF SO Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 135 Main Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 A Professional Law Corporation NN Ne Se Se eS no = S © w® AD Suzanne Solomon, Bar No. 169005 Pp r ¥ ssolomon@lcwlegal.com Sunetine tied Sylvia J. Quach, Bar No. 316741 on gillonnt squach@lcwlegal.com MAY LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE * 26 2021 A Professional Law Corporation 135 Main Street, 7th Floor we nee AE, COURT San Francisco, California 94105 ° i fe Telephone: 415.512.3000 Deputy Clerk Facsimile: 415.856.0306 Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF EDUCATION; SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; and VINCENT MATTHEWS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ABRAHAM LINCOLN HIGH Case No.: CPF-21-517410 SCHOOL ALUMNI ASSOCIATION; SAN FRANCISCO TAXPAYERS [HON. ETHAN P. SCHULMAN, DEPT. 302] ASSOCIATION; GEORGE WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL Complaint Filed: March 17, 2021 ALUMNI ASSOCIATION; JOHN FAC Filed: April 2, 2021 BURTON; KAREN SHIGEZUMI SAKATA, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Plaintiff and Petitioner, Date: May 6, 2021 v. Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF Judge: Honorable Ethan P. Schulman. EDUCATION; SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; (*Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Gov. VINCENT MATTHEWS in his official Code, § 6103.) capacity as San Francisco Superintendent of Schools, Defendants and Respondents. yoN YY N YN oN A uN fk Ww TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: The hearing on the Order to Show Cause why a writ should not issue compelling Respondents to repeal Resolution No. 211-12A1 and dissolve the School Names Committee came on regularly for hearing on May 6, 2021, in Department 302 of the San Francisco County Superior Court, the honorable Ethan P. Schulman presiding. Paul D. Scott and Lani Anne 1 Order Dismissing First Amended Petition For Writ of Mandate SA231\03719641917.v10 ON DH BP WwW BY Kw a a ae UB wWw NY FE SS Liebert Cassidy Whitmore A Professional Law Corporation 135 Main Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Nw N NY NY NY NY NR NY Ye Se SB ew oN DAD UN FR Bw NY FF OD OD Oe NID Remick appeared on behalf of Petitioners Abraham Lincoln High School of San Francisco Alumni Association, San Francisco Taxpayers Association, George Washington High School Alumni Association, Lowell Alumni Association, Balboa High School Alumni Association, Mission High School Alumni Association, John Burton and Karen Shigezumi Sakata (collectively “Petitioners”). Suzanne Solomon appeared on Respondents San Francisco Board of Education, San Francisco Unified School District, and Vincent Matthews (collectively “Respondents”). After considering the parties’ briefs and arguments, the Court rules as follows: The order to show cause is discharged, and the Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate is dismissed as moot. By the First Amended Petition, Petitioners seek a writ of mandate ordering Respondents to repeal Resolution No. 211-12A1, relating to the renaming of San Francisco Unified School District schools, as well as related declaratory and injunctive relief, on the grounds that in enacting that Resolution at its January 26, 2021 meeting, Respondent Board of Education violated the Brown Act. On April 6, 2021, after suspending the work of the panel it had previously appointed to advise it regarding the renaming process, the Board rescinded Resolution 211-12A1. No school was renamed pursuant to the Board's resolutions. As a result, the parties agree that the proceeding is moot, and must be dismissed. "A case is considered moot when 'the question addressed was at one time a live issue in the case," but has been deprived of life because of events occurring after the judicial process was initiated.’.. . . The pivotal question in determining if a case is moot is therefore whether the court can grant the plaintiff any effectual relief." (Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1574 (citations omitted).) "When events render a case moot the court, whether trial or appellate, should generally dismiss it." (Jd; see, e.g., TransparentGov Novato v. City of Novato (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 140, 150-153 [affirming dismissal of petition for violations of Brown Act, where city council adopted new policy following claimed violations, and petitioner therefore did not demonstrate a justifiable controversy warranting mandamus or declaratory relief].) 2 Order Dismissing First Amended Petition For Writ of Mandate $A231\03719641917.v11 The Court declines Petitioners’ request in their Reply to make findings that the action is 2}| not frivolous or to address any of the other arguments raised by the parties. "The rendering of 3|| advisory opinions falls within neither the functions nor the jurisdiction" of California courts. (People ex rel. Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 910, 912.) IT IS SO ORDERED: ZO Dated: M: ZG, 2001 “ ate ay LY, AF dg Honorable Ethan P. Schulman oOo YN DH WH 10 11 12 g g 13 14 15 Liebert Cassidy Wh: 135 Main Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 A Professional Law Cot 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Order Dismissing First Amended Petition For Writ of Mandate $A231\037\9641917.v1