This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Modification: Mt. Diablo Unified School Dist. v. Clayton Valley Charter High School

Ruling by

Stuart R. Pollak

Lower Court

Contra Costa County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

Steven K. Austin

A 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/4

Cite as

2021 DJDAR 10869

Published

Oct. 20, 2021

Filing Date

Oct. 18, 2021

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Reversed and Remanded

Case Fully Briefed

May 18, 2021

Oral Argument

Sep. 28, 2021


MT. 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.

#278243

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424