Newhall School Dist. v. Acton-Agua Unified School Dist. CA2/3

Filed 8/26/15 Newhall School Dist. v. Acton-Agua Unified School Dist. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

NEWHALL SCHOOL DISTRICT, B260731 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. BS149061) ACTON-AGUA DULCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents; ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY FOR LETTERS, ARTS AND SCIENCES, INCORPORATED, Real Party in Interest.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Dannis Woliver Kelley, Sue Ann Salmon Evans and Karl H. Widell for Plaintiff and Appellant. Dannis Woliver Kelley, Sue Ann Salmon Evans and Karl H. Widell for Castaic Union School District, Saugus Union School District, Sulphur Springs Union School District, William S. Hart Union High School District and Inglewood Unified School District as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. David Holmquist and Devora Navera-Reed for Los Angeles Unified School District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Andra M. Donovan for San Diego Unified School District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Jose A. Gonzales and Jose A. Gonzales for Vista Unified School District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Girard & Edwards, David W. Girard, Heather M. Edwards and Eric E. Stevens for Defendant and Respondent Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District. Young, Minney & Corr, Paul C. Minney and Kathleen M. Ebert for Respondent and Real Party in Interest Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences, Incorporated. _________________________ INTRODUCTION Plaintiff school district filed a petition seeking a writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) to compel defendant school district to rescind the approval of the petition of real party in interest for a charter for an elementary school to be located outside the boundaries of defendant’s district and within plaintiffs’ district. The trial court declined to rescind the charter ab initio for violation of the Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.).1 Instead, the court remanded the matter to defendant to hold a new hearing that complied with the provisions of the Act for placing charter schools out of district. (§§ 47605 & 47605.1.) Plaintiff’s appeal challenges the court’s refusal to revoke the charter immediately while remanding the case to defendant. After plaintiff filed its appeal, defendant held a new hearing, as directed by the trial court, and approved a new charter, and real party in interest surrendered the charter at issue. We hold the appeal is moot because plaintiff seeks to rescind a charter that no longer exists and so we are unable to provide plaintiff with any effective relief. We dismiss the appeal as moot. SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS The Charter Schools Act generally requires that charter schools be located within the districts or counties where they are chartered. (§ 47605, subd. (a)(1).) The Act