Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education

Filed 7/11/13

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

TODAY‟S FRESH START, INC., ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S195852 v. ) ) Ct.App. 2/1 B212966 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF ) EDUCATION et al., ) Los Angeles County ) Super. Ct. No. BS112656 Defendants and Appellants. ) ____________________________________) ) TODAY‟S FRESH START, INC., ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) Ct.App. 2/1 B214470 v. ) ) Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF ) Super. Ct. No. BS112656 EDUCATION et al., ) ) Defendants and Respondents. ) ____________________________________)

Two decades ago, California became one of the first states in the country to authorize charter schools—public schools funded with public money but run by private individuals or entities rather than traditional public school districts. The Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq., added by Stats. 1992, ch. 781, § 1, pp. 3756-3761) authorized various public bodies to approve charters, supervise charter school operations, and revoke charters in the event particular

1

standards and conditions were not met. But the original law did not specify the procedures that would accompany a contemplated charter revocation. In 2006, the Legislature remedied that omission, adopting provisions governing the hearing on, decision on, and appeal of a charter revocation. (Ed. Code, § 47607, subds. (c)- (k), as amended by Stats. 2006, ch. 757, § 1, pp. 6012-6014.)1 In response to a writ petition by Today‟s Fresh Start, Inc., an entity challenging its school‟s charter revocation, we consider whether the procedures adopted by the Legislature are sufficient under the federal and state due process clauses. (See U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a).) The school contends, inter alia, that it has not been afforded a hearing before an impartial adjudicator because the body deciding whether to revoke its charter has an interest in ensuring that funds flowing to charter schools are reallocated to other public schools. No such interest has been shown here; the school has not established that the Legislature‟s chosen procedures denied it the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” (Armstrong v. Manzo (1965) 380 U.S. 545, 552) by a decision maker without financial or other bias. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeal‟s judgment denying writ relief and upholding as constitutional section 47607. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Charter Schools The Legislature is charged with providing a public education system for the citizens of the State of California. (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 5; California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 243.) It has long done that through the establishment of public school districts (Matosantos, at p. 243)