Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: BS174007, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BS174007    Hearing Date: April 24, 2024    Dept: 82

Peter Heffner v. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing

Case Number BS174007

Motion to Enforce Writ of Mandate

Peter Heffner (“Petitioner”) filed this petition for a writ of administrative mandate against the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (the “Commission” or “Respondent”).  In 2018, the Commission suspected Petitioner’s teaching credential for 90 days and placed him on probation for five years.  Petitioner sought to restore his teaching credential free of these restrictions. 

On August 10, 2021, the court (Beckloff, J.) granted Petitioner’s writ of mandate.  In the Commission’s decision, “it expressly found that Petitioner’s ‘conduct does not constitute unfitness to teach.’”  (See Court’s Order Granting Petition, dated July 6, 2020, at 7.)  Judge Beckloff found that the Commission’s finding “precludes the Commission’s disciplinary actions complained of by Petitioner here.”  Specifically, Judge Beckloff held: “While the Commission labeled Petitioner’s conduct ‘unprofessional,” such unprofessional conduct did not render him unfit to teach.  Without such a finding, the Commission’s disciplinary action was unwarranted.”  (Ibid.) 

On remand, the Commission held a new hearing.  On August 11, 2022, the Commission issued a new order finding: “Analysis of the totality of the Morrison criteria, set forth above, indicates that Respondent’s misconduct is related to his fitness to teach.  Respondent has demonstrated that he requires further instruction on professional boundaries, in respect to inappropriately invading the privacy of students, and the duties and requirements of reporting suspicion of child abuse.”  (See Writ-Return (Writ of Mandate), dated September 7, 2022, at 9.)  The Commission imposed the same discipline, viz., an actual suspension of 90 days and probation for five years. 

            Now, Petitioner moves for an order directing the Commission to “comply with the Writ of Mandate, and completely restore Petitioner’s credential to good standing forthwith.”  Petitioner also seeks an order finding that Respondent is in noncompliance with the court’s order.  There are several problems with Petitioner’s motion.

            As an initial matter, the motion is procedurally defective.  The proof of service is defective on its face.  The proof of service was executed on October 6, 2022, but the motion was served on April 9, 2024.  Even assuming the motion was served on April 9, 2024, which was the date of filing, this does not afford statutory notice, per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b).  At the close of his brief, Petitioner requests leave for an amended briefing schedule and “waives [his] right to file a Reply brief, to allow Respondent sufficient time to file an Opposition any time prior to the hearing of April 24, 2024.”  (Mot. 9.)  Petitioner was required to make this request, by ex parte application, before filing his motion.  His untimely request to amend the statutory schedule and hear the motion on shortened time is denied. 

            More important, Respondent complied with Judge Beckloff’s order, and Petitioner seeks to challenge a new administrative decision.  Judge Beckloff merely ordered that “Respondent’s decision of February 16, 2018, is set aside.”  (See Judgment, dated August 31, 2021, at 2.)  Judge Beckloff deleted all of Petitioner’s requested findings, including that “Petitioner is fit to teach” and that Respondent “shall cease and desist from all current disciplinary actions against Petitioner . . . related to this action and its accusations.”  (See ibid.)  Respondent did so and held a new hearing, following which Respondent issued a new administrative decision, dated August 11, 2022.  Thus, the motion is effectively a supplemental petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, which requires proper notice, full briefing, and lodging of the administrative record. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

            1.         Petitioner’s motion is denied.

            2.         Petitioner shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.