Ruling by
Stuart R. PollakLower Court
Contra Costa County Superior CourtLower Court Judge
Steven K. AustinA school district cannot charge a charter school a pro rata share of overall district 'facilities costs' if the charter school already pays for those costs for its own premises.
Court
California Courts of Appeal 1DCA/4Cite as
2021 DJDAR 10869Published
Oct. 20, 2021Filing Date
Oct. 18, 2021Opinion Type
ModificationDisposition Type
Reversed and RemandedCase Fully Briefed
May 18, 2021Oral Argument
Sep. 28, 2021MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CLAYTON VALLEY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL,
Defendant and Appellant.
No. A158195
(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. MSC15-00574)
CLAYTON VALLEY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant and Respondent.
No. A158202
(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. MSN16-1356)
California Courts of Appeal
First Appellate District
Division Four
Filed October 18, 2021
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING;
NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 1, 2021, be modified as follows:
On page 18, line 7, after the sentence ending with "per-square-foot charge," add as footnote 10 the following footnote, which will require renumbering all subsequent footnotes:
10 As set forth at pages 8-9, ante, the charter school in this case paid approximately 99 percent of the ongoing operations and maintenance costs incurred at its facility in the school years at issue. We do not address and express no opinion on how costs should be apportioned for a hypothetical charter school that pays only a portion, less than substantially all, of the ongoing operations and maintenance costs at its facility.
There is no change in the judgment.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424