By Linda Baxley, Los Altos Parent
The
Honorable Patricia Lucas conducted a hearing On March 19 on BCS's amended
proposed judgment and LASD's alternative proposed judgment in the 2009
litigation between LASD and BCS over LASD's 2009-2010 offer.
LASD's
new lead trial attorney, Ray Cardozo, asked that the Court change three things
about BCS's proposed judgment:
1.
That paragraph 2 at page 1 of BCS's Amended Proposed Judgment reflect the
word "facilities" only, rather than "site." With this
change, the paragraph would read:
The
District shall provide Bullis with [deleted text: a site and] facilities
that are reasonably equivalent to the 10-acre minimum facilities [delete: sites]
enjoyed by the comparison schools.
LASD's
attorney argued that the affect of this change removes any potential ambiguity
as to what the word "site" would mean (e.g., does it mean only one
site? does it mean one site or a non-contiguous facility that is consistent with
what the law allows?) because it copies the language of Proposition 39.
2.
That paragraph 2 at page 3 be removed entirely since it could be read to
say that no configuration that included BCS's current facilities at Egan could
ever satisfy Proposition 39. That paragraph read in relevant part:
"The temporary camp site Bullis currently occupies is not reasonably
equivalent to the District's own comparison schools. . . .”
3.
That the paragraph allowing for continuing jurisdiction be removed.
LASD's attorney argued that continuing jurisdiction caused multiple
issues, including that if BCS sought to use the 2009-2010 judgment against
LASD's 2012-2013 offer, LASD would be denied notice about the parameters and limits
of BCS's complaint since BCS would not have to file a new writ (complaint)
describing the metes and bounds of their complaints. He also argued that
the state law governing writs (California Code of Civil Procedure, section
1085) speaks against continuing jurisdiction since it requires that there be a
"clear and present" duty and because the 2012-2013 offer was not
finalized, there is no clear and present duty. Finally he argued that
attempting to litigate a 2012-2013 offer under the 2009-2010 litigation caused
evidence issues as well if the proceedings were one for contempt instead of for
a hearing on their writ. In response to BCS's attorney's argument that
continuing jurisdiction was necessary to get prompt and timely relief, BCS's
attorney stated that an expedited proceeding could be reasonable, depending on
the circumstances.
Judge
Lucas heard argument on all three of these points and indicated that she would
go back and read the specific cases that each side said supported their
position and issue a timely judgment. She did not indicate what she meant
by a timely judgment.
Of
note, when pressed by Judge Lucas, BCS's attorney conceded two things:
1.
The Court of Appeals decision did not explicitly require LASD to give BCS its
own site (although he did argue that this was the "practical" effect
of the opinion); and
2.
The Court of Appeals decision did not state that the Egan campus could
not be used in any configuration as part of an offer to BCS.
