Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCP04041, Date: 2024-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP04041    Hearing Date: August 22, 2024    Dept: 86

Petitioner Vista Charter Public Schools seeks a writ of mandate compelling respondent California State Board of Education to: (1) set aside its September 13, 2023 decision affirming the denial of petitioner’s charter petition by the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles County Board of Education; and (2) reconsider and act on petitioner’s appeal of the denial of its charter petition based on applicable legal standards.

I.       Factual Background

A.           Charter Schools Act

In enacting the Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Ed. Code § 47600, et seq.), the Legislature intended “to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure.” (§ 47601.)[1] “Charter schools are public schools ‘“free from most state laws pertaining uniquely to school districts.”’ [Citation.] The freedom granted to charter schools is intended to promote choice and innovation, and to stimulate ‘competition within the public school system.’ [Citation.]” (California Charter Schools Assn. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1221, 1228 [“Cal. Charter Schools Assn.”].)

“In reviewing petitions for the establishment of charter schools . . . , the chartering authority shall be guided by the intent of the Legislature that charter schools are and should become an integral part of the California educational system and that the establishment of charter schools should be encouraged.” (§ 47605(c).) “The governing board of the school district shall grant a charter for the operation of a school under . . . if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice and with the interests of the community in which the school is proposing to locate. The governing board of the school district shall consider the academic needs of the pupils the school proposes to serve.” (Ibid.)

School districts shall not deny charter petitions “unless it makes written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific facts to support one or more of” eight enumerated findings. (§ 47605(c)(1-8).) As relevant here, one of these findings is that the charter school is “demonstrably unlikely to serve the interests of the entire community in which the school is proposing to locate,” in which case school district “shall detail specific facts and circumstances that analyze and consider” (1) “the extent to which the charter school would substantially undermine existing services, academic offerings, or programmatic offerings” and (2) whether “the proposed charter school would duplicate a program currently offered within the school district and the existing program has sufficient capacity for the pupils proposed to be served within reasonable proximity to where the charter school intends to locate.” (§ 47605(c)(7)(A-(B).)

            If a school district denies a charter petition, the petitioner may appeal to the county board of education. (§ 47605(k)(1)(A)(i).) The county board of education shall review the appeal using the same standards as the school district. (§ 47605(k)(1)(A)(ii).) If the county board of education denies the petition, the petitioner may appeal to the state board. (§ 47605(k)(2).) “[T]he state board may affirm the determination of the governing board of the school district or the county board of education, or both of those determinations, or may reverse only upon a determination that there was an abuse of discretion by each of the governing board of the school district and the county board of education. Abuse of discretion is the most deferential standard of review, under which the state board must give deference to the decisions of the governing board of the school district and the county board of education to deny the petition.” (§ 47605(k)(2)(E).)

B.           Petitioner Submits Charter Petition to School District

Petitioner Vista Charter Public Schools submitted its petition and supporting materials for the establishment of Vista Legacy Global Academy (“Vista Legacy”), to respondent Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD” or “District”) on August 17, 2022. (AR 2846-5234.) The petition sought to establish a new charter school within the geographic boundaries of LAUSD to serve 125 students in grade 9 in the first year of operation and up to 500 students in grades 9 through 12 by the fifth year of the school’s operation. (AR 46.)

LAUSD held a public hearing to determine support for the proposed charter school on October 11, 2022, and denied the charter petition on November 15, 2022. (AR 283, 2768.) LAUSD denied the petition based on three written findings. (AR 1368-79, 1399-1414.) First, pursuant to section 47605(c)(2), LAUSD found petitioner was demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition. (AR 1367.) This finding was based on several facts set forth in LAUSD’s decision, including: that the petition either omitted or failed to disclose information which raised concerns about transparency, including a representation regarding the status of another charter school under petitioner’s umbrella; inconsistencies in the petition, supporting documentation, and statements made by petitioner to LAUSD staff, which included budgetary inconsistencies; misalignment with legal requirements in the described high school program; and concerns with the performance of other charter schools run by petitioner as reflected in the California School Dashboard. (“Dashboard”). (AR 1401-05.)

Second, pursuant to section 47605(c)(5), LAUSD found that the petition did not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all of the required elements. (AR 1367.) LAUSD found that Vista Legacy’s petition did not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of (1) the school’s educational program, including its proposed dual enrollment program or career technical education (CTE) pathways, despite representing that all students would be required to take dual enrollment courses and (2) the school’s governance structure, based on the articles of incorporation of petitioner. (AR 1405-07.)

Third, pursuant to section 47605(c)(7), LAUSD found that Vista Legacy was demonstrably unlikely to serve the interests of the entire community in which the school’s proposed location. (AR 1367.) This finding was based on a determination that the school would substantially undermine/impact existing services, academic offerings, or programmatic offerings in the targeted community. (AR 1380-84.) LAUSD looked at enrollment trends in the proposed community, noting that 28 of the 33 existing public schools in the community were underenrolled based on current capacity, and that the majority of schools were underenrolled at a level that could impact programmatic offerings. (AR 1408-09.) Further, the finding included an analysis of the likely fiscal impact of the proposed charter school, including LAUSD’s loss of revenue and a corresponding need to reduce staff. (AR 1409-10.) The findings also asserted that a majority of the programs identified by Vista Legacy as non-duplicative were in fact already currently available in existing schools in the community. (AR 1410.) Finally, LAUSD noted that the performance levels of the existing charter schools run by petitioner did not reflect that Vista Legacy would be likely to meet the needs of the community it proposed to serve. (AR 1412-14.)

C.           Petitioner’s Appeal to County Board of Education

Petitioner appealed LAUSD’s decision to deny the charter petition to the Los Angeles County Board of Education (“LACBOE” or “County Board”). LACBOE held a public hearing to determine support for the proposed charter school on February 7, 2023. (AR 2553.) The County Board denied the appeal on March 14, 2023, setting forth three bases for denial in its adopted written findings. (AR 2586-87, 2552, 2768.)

First, LACBOE found petitioner was demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition, pursuant to section 47605(c)(2). (AR 2553-60.) This finding was supported by evidence that other charter schools run by petitioner had failed to timely submit Dashboard data. (AR 2553.) LACBOE found that this reflected that petitioner was unfamiliar with requirements of law that apply to charter schools. LACBOE also determined that petitioner submitted an unrealistic financial and operational plan for the proposed school, based on understated staff salaries and overstated revenue projections which could lead to a negative net income, lack of comprehensive fiscal policies, concerns about the relationship between the school and the charter management organization (“CMO”), and overstated projected enrollment. (AR 2553-58.) In addition, LACBOE noted concerns with the CTE pathways and dual enrollment program in the charter petition, including petitioner’s past history of not fully implementing a program in another charter school with a nearly identical petition, as well as vague and inconsistent policies for serving pupils with disabilities. (AR 2558-60.)

Second, LACBOE found that the charter petition did not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all of the required elements, pursuant to section 47605(c)(5). (AR 2560-62.) The descriptions LACBOE found not to be reasonably comprehensive included the education program, such as the proposed English Language Development program. LACBOE also found that the petition did not meet the requirements of section 47605(c)(5) due to the lack of offerings for the State Seal of Bi-literacy, the lack of description on how differentiation would look in the classroom, and the absence of a detailed plan to address credit deficient students. (AR 2560-61.) In addition, LACBOE found that the petition did not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of measurable pupil outcomes, including no cited annual academic outcomes for ninth or tenth grade students or for science in any grade and the use of internal assessments to meet proposed outcomes that were not usable or verifiable by LACBOE. (AR 2561.) Further, LACBOE found that the method for measuring pupil progress identified in the charter petition, which relied on comparison of “similar schools,” without a stated method for determining the schools or a way to retrieve internal assessment information from similar schools, was deficient, and that there was a misalignment between the measure of success of Advanced Placement (“AP”) success and the stated goal. (AR 2561.)

Third, LACBOE found that, pursuant to section 47605(c)(7), the charter school was demonstrably unlikely to serve the interests of the entire community in which the school’s proposed location. (AR 2562-63.) This finding was based on LACBOE’s determination that the proposed school would substantially undermine existing services, academic offerings, or programmatic offerings, as LAUSD could be forced to close and consolidate existing high schools and the projected enrollment of 500 would impact local schools. LACBOE also noted that the proposed school would duplicate current programs offered within the district, including programs at Belmont High School, LA Academy of the Arts & Enterprise, and Downtown Business High School. (AR 2563.)

D.           Petitioner Appeals Decisions of School District and County Board of Education to State Board

After the charter petition was denied by both LAUSD and LACBOE, petitioner submitted an appeal to the State Board of Education (“SBE”), along with the documentary record from its efforts before LAUSD and LACBOE, and a written submission setting out its allegations that LAUSD and LACBOE abused their discretion. (AR 2748-49.) LACBOE and LAUSD each timely submitted written oppositions to the appeal, addressing petitioner’s allegations and defending their decisions to deny. (AR 5954-67, 5981-91.)

As required by section 47605(k)(2)(D), on August 8, 2023, the Advisory Commission on Charter Schools (“ACCS”) held a public hearing to review the appeal and documentary record and voted to recommend that the SBE hear the appeal. (AR 1-2, 6019.) ACCS is an advisory body to the SBE, which is required to hold a hearing when a completed appeal has been filed and to “submit a recommendation to the state board whether there is sufficient evidence to hear the appeal or to summarily deny review of the appeal based on the documentary record.” (§ 47605(k)(2)(D).) Prior to the hearing, the ACCS posted an agenda, which included a recommendation by the California Department of Education (“CDE”) that the ACCS recommend the SBE hear the appeal. (AR 6-9.)

At its regularly scheduled board meeting on September 13, 2023, the SBE considered the ACCS recommendation and the documentary record and voted to hear the Vista Legacy charter appeal. (AR 6030-31, 6079.) The appeal itself was considered immediately after the decision to hear the appeal. (AR 6031.) SBE was presented with the written submissions from petitioner, LAUSD, and LACBOE; the documentary records prepared by LAUSD and LACBOE and submitted by petitioner; and the written recommendation from the CDE. (AR 6061.) Presentations were made to the SBE by the CDE, petitioner, LAUSD, and LACBOE. (AR 6083-6145.) The CDE presented its recommendation, which was to affirm the decisions of LAUSD and LACBOE on the grounds that the written factual findings by LAUSD and LACBOE were supported by evidence in the record, and that there were no abuses of discretion which would support reversal of either determination. (AR 6038-61.) The public was permitted to submit written letters of support and opposition to the appeal, and public comment was made before the SBE both in-person and remotely over the phone. (AR 6170:25-6186:12.) After the presentations, public comment, and board discussion, the SBE adopted the CDE’s recommendation with 10 yes votes, zero no votes, and one abstention, thereby affirming the decisions of LAUSD and LACBOE to deny the Vista Legacy charter petition. (AR 6080-81.)

The CDE’s recommendation, which was adopted by the SBE, was based on a determination: (1) that petitioner failed to meet its burden of detailing, with specific citations to the record, how either the LAUSD or LACBOE abused their discretion; (2) that there was evidence to support the findings by LAUSD and LACBOE; and (3) that LACBOE’s meeting proceeded in accordance with its bylaws. (AR 6045-60.)

II.      Procedural History

            On November 1, 2023, petitioner filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate. On March 12, 2023, respondent filed an Answer.

            On February 26, 2024, the Court overruled respondent’s demurrer to the second cause of action for writ of mandate under CCP § 1085 and sustained the demurrer to the first cause of action for writ of mandate under CCP § 1094.5. No leave to amend was granted.

            On June 24, 2024, petitioner filed an opening brief. On July 29, 2024, respondent filed an opposition. On August 7, 2024, petitioner filed a reply. The Court has received a hard copy of a joint appendix and an electronic copy of the administrative record.

III.     Standard of Review

 CCP § 1085(a) provides: “A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.”

“There are two essential requirements to the issuance of a traditional writ of mandate: (1) a clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent, and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right on the part of the petitioner to the performance of that duty.” (California Assn. for Health Services at Home v. State Dept. of Health Services (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 696, 704.) “An action in ordinary mandamus is proper where…the claim is that an agency has failed to act as required by law.” (Id. at 705.)

“When a party seeks review of an administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, judicial review is limited to examining the agency proceedings to ascertain whether the agency's action has been arbitrary, capricious or lacking entirely in evidentiary support, or whether the agency failed to follow the proper procedure and give notices required by law.” (Ideal Boat & Camper Storage v. County of Alameda (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 301, 311, citing Pomona Police Officers' Assn. v. City of Pomona (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 578, 584.) In independently reviewing legal questions, “An administrative agency's interpretation does not bind judicial review but it is entitled to consideration and respect.” (Housing Partners I, Inc. v. Duncan (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1335, 1343.)

An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties. (Evid. Code § 664.) In a CCP § 1085 writ petition, the petitioner generally bears the burden of proof. (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1154.)        

IV.     Analysis

A.           Evidentiary Matters

Petitioner’s requests to take judicial notice of Exhibits 6-9 and respondent’s request to take judicial notice of Exhibit 1 are GRANTED. (Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1196, fn. 17; Rubio v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 459, 476, fn. 3, citing Evid. Code § 452(c) [judicial notice taken of legislative history materials].)

B.           Merits

Petitioner’s main contention in the instant petition is that the SBE abused its discretion in affirming the denial of the petition by LAUSD and LACBOE by applying a “some impact” standard instead of determining whether Vista Legacy would “substantially undermine existing services, academic offerings, or programmatic offerings.” (§ 47605(c)(7); Pet. ¶¶ 25-27, 30.)

            The Court finds it is unnecessary to reach this issue, as LAUSD and LACBOE also determined that petitioner was “demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition” and that the subject charter petition did not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions” of the educational program of Vista Legacy or the governance structure. (§ 47605(c)(2), (c)(5)(A)(i), (c)(5)(D).) Petitioner did not address either of these findings.

            Instead, petitioner argues that the purported misinterpretation of section 47605(c)(7) alone warrants the issuance of a writ of mandate directing SBE to consider whether Vista Legacy would “substantially undermine existing services, academic offerings, or programmatic offerings.” Under the circumstances here, however, the other findings by LAUSD and LACBOE are sufficient to warrant denial of the appeal before SBE.

            Specifically, with respect to section 47605(c)(5), LAUSD found that the petition “does not provide sample course schedules, course sequence of all grades, and the specific courses proposed to be offered to 9^th grade students in the first year of operation.” (AR 1406.) The petition did not identify the subjects to be taught at each grade level. (AR 1406.) The petition indicated that there will only be six teachers in Vista Legacy’s first year of operation, but petitioner does not explain how the school can offer seven academic courses with only six teachers. (AR 1406.) The petition also did not explain how Vista Legacy’s dual enrollment program would fit into the daily schedule, nor how a student could complete an Associate’s degree before graduating. (AR 1406.) Petitioner also did not provide course descriptions for two of its three career technical education (“CTE”) pathways—Business and Climate Change—which prevented LAUSD from determining how students in these pathways would participate in dual enrollment courses. (AR 1406-07.) LAUSD also found that, although petitioner represented during the interview that all CTE pathways culminate in a certificate, petitioner did not identify any specific certification or how a student would earn any such certification. (AR 1407.) LAUSD also found that the petition did not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of Vista Legacy’s governance structure, as, for example, petitioner’s articles of incorporation did not include a school that it was currently operating (Vista Horizon Global Academy) in its articles of incorporation and statement of purpose. (AR 1407.)

            In the appeal of LAUSD’s denial, LACBOE determined that the charter petition did not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the education program, such as the proposed English Language Development program. (AR 2560.) LACBOE also found that the petition lacked an option for students to meet the State Seal of Bi-literacy, a description on how differentiation would look in the classroom, and a detailed plan to address credit deficient students. (AR 2560-61.) In addition, LACBOE found that the petition did not cite annual academic outcomes for ninth or tenth grade students or for science in any grade and that the use of internal assessments to meet proposed outcomes were not usable or verifiable by LACBOE. (AR 2561.) Further, LACBOE found that the method for measuring pupil progress was deficient, and that the measure of success of Advanced Placement (“AP”) success and the stated goal were misaligned. (AR 2561.)

            With respect to section 47065(c)(2), LAUSD noted that the statement in the petition that the Climate Change program includes dual enrollment with UC Irvine was inconsistent with petitioner’s statement during the Capacity Interview that Vista Legacy will not partner with UC Irvine. (AR 1404.) LAUSD also noted that, during the Capacity Interview, petitioner stated that Vista Legacy would employ a full-time principal, contradicting the budget’s reflection of a 0.26 Full Time Equivalence allocation for the Principal position in Year 1. (AR 1404.) LAUSD also found that, according to the charter petition, English Language Development instruction would occur between 7:30-8:30 a.m., which violates section 46148(a)(1)’s requirement that the school day begin no earlier than 8:30 a.m.  

LAUSD also questioned whether petitioner had adequate resources to successfully serve students in an additional school. Specifically, LAUSD found:

Of the organization’s five (5) currently operating charter schools, four (4) have California School Dashboard (“Dashboard”) data: Vista Charter Middle, Vista Heritage Global Academy, Vista Condor Global Academy, and Palm Lane Global Academy. Vista Charter Middle, Vista Heritage Global Academy, and Palm Lane Global Academy have underperformed the state on a majority of academic performance indicators for the three most recent years for which Dashboard data is available (2017, 2018, and 2019) and Vista Condor Global Academy underperformed the state on all academic performance indicators in 2019, the only year Dashboard data is available for the school. Additionally, Vista Heritage Global Academy is currently classified by the state as Low Performing.

(AR 1405, footnotes and citations omitted.) LAUSD also noted that petitioner recently took over operation of a school that had underperformed in 2017, 2018, and 2019; that petitioner was opening another charter school the same year as Vista Legacy; and that petitioner would have to dedicate resources to roll out additional grade levels at another school it was operating. (AR 1405.)

In the appeal of LAUSD’s denial, LACBOE also found that petitioner was demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the proposed educational program. LACBOE determined that petitioner submitted an unrealistic financial and operational plan for the proposed school. (AR 2554.) In particular, LACBOE determined that staff salaries were inflated by $407,000 and that revenues were potentially overstated, resulting in negative net income of $764,000 and insufficient reserves as required by state regulations and County Board policy. (AR 2554.) LACBOE also noted that there was no Climate Change curriculum currently in development to offer to students; that no credentialed teacher in Mandarin has been hired, even though petitioner operates another school whose charter petition contained the implementation of a Mandarin program; that petitioner does not currently offer Advanced Placement and Seal of Bi-literacy offerings; and that Vista Legacy’s plan to serve students with disabilities was vague and inconsistent. (AR 2559.)

            The findings set forth above were sufficient for the SBE to choose to deny petitioner’s appeal. With respect to LAUSD’s review of the charter petition, LAUSD made “written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific facts to support one or more of the following findings,” including the findings set forth in subdivisions (c)(2) and (c)(5). (§ 47605(c).) After LAUSD denied the charter petition, petitioner appealed to LACBOE, which reviewed the petition pursuant to section 47605(c). (§ 47605(k)(1)(A)(ii).) To the extent that LACBOE’s findings and citations to evidence are similar to the findings and citations of LAUSD, such similarity does not demonstrate LACBOE failed to conduct a de novo review of the charter petition. LACBOE was entitled to agree with LAUSD’s reasoning.

After LACBOE denied the appeal, SBE decided to hear the appeal. SBE affirmed the determinations of both LAUSD and LACBOE, as permitted under section 47605(k)(2)(E). (AR 6080; § 47605(k)(2)(E) [“If the state board hears the appeal, the state board may affirm the determination of the governing board of the school district or the county board of education, or both of those determinations….”].)

Further, there is no evidence that SBE did not consider the factors set forth in 5 C.C.R. § 11967.5.1. With respect to section 47605(c)(2), the SBE is required to consider whether petitioner’s past history of involvement in charter schools is “one that the SBE regards as unsuccessful,” whether petitioner is “unfamiliar in the SBE’s judgment with the content of the petition or the requirements of law that would apply to the proposed charter school,” and whether petitioner presented “an unrealistic financial and operational plan for the proposed charter school.” (5 C.C.R. § 11967.5.1(c)(1-3).) With respect to section 47605(c)(5), the SBE is required to consider whether the charter petition contains a “reasonably comprehensive” description of the educational program of the school, measurable pupil outcomes, and the method for measuring pupil progress identified in the charter petition. (5 C.C.R. § 11967.5.1(f)(1-3).)

            The California Department of Education recommended to affirm LAUSD and LACBOE’s determinations, explaining: “After reviewing the documentary record and supporting documentation submitted by the parties to this appeal, the CDE has determined that both the District and the County made written factual findings in accordance with EC Section 47605(c) and that the District’s and the County’s findings are supported by evidence in the record.” (AR 6041-42.) The documentary record includes discussion of the factors set forth in the LAUSD and LACBOE’s findings. (AR 1401-07, 2553-62, 6061.) SBE considered the CDE’s recommendation, as well as presentations from the CDE, petitioner, LAUSD, and LACBOE, and adopted the CDE’s recommendation. (AR 6038-61, 6080-81, 6083-6145.) 5 C.C.R. § 11967.5.1 does not require any particular findings be set forth by the SBE, only that they consider the factors contained therein. It is presumed that the SBE performed its official duties (Evid. Code § 664), and petitioner has not presented any persuasive argument to the contrary.

            While, in theory, an abuse of discretion concerning section 47605(c)(7) and the impact that Vista Legacy would have on existing services might be sufficient to warrant issuance of a writ of mandate, under the circumstances presented here, reasonable minds could find that the other findings of LAUSD and LACBOE—including that petitioner is demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the charter petition—are sufficient to warrant denial of the charter petition. Put another way, even if there were no evidence that Vista Legacy would substantially undermine existing services, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the petition nevertheless, because petitioner was unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the charter petition and the petition did not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the educational program, measurable pupil outcomes, or the method by which pupil progress in meeting those pupil outcomes is to be measured. While petitioner focuses on the claimed error with respect to section 47605(c)(7), petitioner neglects to provide any explanation why the

section 47605(c)(2) and section 47605(c)(5) findings are not, of themselves, sufficient to support denial of the charter petition.

            Lastly, petitioner argues that the SBE violated the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act by excluding petitioner’s employee from presenting public comment. Government Code § 11125.7(a) provides: “[T]he state body shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the state body on each agenda item before or during the state body’s discussion or consideration of the item.” During the SBE hearing, the SBE expressed concern that allowing an SBE employee to speak as a member of the public would improperly increase the amount of time that petitioner was otherwise allotted to speak. (AR 6168:22-6169:15.) “The state body may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public comment on particular issues and for each individual speaker.” (Gov. Code § 11125.7(b).) It was reasonable to bar petitioner’s employee, including an assistant superintendent (AR 6215:14-15), from speaking and effectively augmenting the amount of time that petitioner was allotted to speak during the hearing. In any event, petitioner’s employee was able to finish her comment. (AR 6216:13-26.)

            For the foregoing reasons, petitioner has not demonstrated any abuse of discretion justifying traditional mandamus relief.

V.      Conclusion

The petition is DENIED. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.231(n), respondent shall prepare, serve, and ultimately file a proposed judgment.