Piper v. Commission on Professional Competence CA3

Filed 11/25/25 Piper v. Commission on Professional Competence CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

CAMILLE PIPER, C101026

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2021- 80003787CUWMGDS) v.

COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE,

Defendant;

ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent

The Commission on Professional Competence (the commission) upheld Camille Piper’s dismissal from employment with the Elk Grove Unified School District (the district). Piper filed a complaint and petition for administrative and traditional mandamus. The trial court denied Piper’s writ claims on the merits, sustained the district’s demurrer to any non-writ causes of action, and later dismissed the non-writ

1

causes of action after Piper failed to timely amend them. Before judgment was entered, Piper filed a motion for new trial and motions for relief from judgment, which the trial court later denied. Representing herself, Piper appeals and challenges both the judgment and the denial of one motion for relief. Because her notice of appeal does not identify or timely appeal from the judgment, we lack jurisdiction to address her challenges to the judgment. And because Piper fails to demonstrate that the trial court erred by denying her motion for relief, we affirm the trial court’s order on that motion. Statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule references are to the California Rules of Court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2019, the district began termination proceedings against Piper, charging her with various causes for dismissal. Piper denied the charges and requested a hearing before the commission. After a 13-day hearing in which Piper represented herself, the commission found cause to dismiss Piper from employment. Still representing herself, Piper filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and petition for administrative mandate and traditional mandate. (§§ 1094.5, 1085.) After the trial court sustained the district’s demurrer to Piper’s pleading with leave to amend, Piper filed a second amended pleading. She asked the court to reverse the commission decision and award her various damages, including full-time employment, back wages, sick leave, benefits, and $17 million. The district filed a second demurrer. In October 2022, the court held hearings on the second demurrer and Piper’s requests for administrative and traditional mandate. The court denied Piper’s requests for administrative and traditional writ of mandate on the merits. To the extent the petition included any non-writ causes of action, the court sustained the district’s demurrer on uncertainty grounds and granted leave for Piper to amend any non-writ causes of action