Carpinteria Unified School District vs The Commission on Professional Competence

Case Number

24CV01068

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/07/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion Stay

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth below, petitioner’s motion to stay enforcement of Commission on Professional Competence’s Decision is granted. The court will sign the proposed order submitted by petitioner.

Background:

This action commenced on February 26, 2024, by the filing of the petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus by petitioner Carpinteria Unified School District (“CUSC”) against respondent The Commission on Professional Competence (“Commission”). John Hotchner (“Hotchner”) is the real party in interest.

As alleged in the petition:

On March 18, 2022, CUSD issued a Notice of Unprofessional Conduct and Unsatisfactory Performance (“Notice”) for inappropriate and unprofessional conduct. (Pet., ¶ 8.) The Notice directed Hotchner “to, among other things, maintain professional boundaries with students; refrain from stating or implying that students are interested in anything other than a professional teacher-student relationship with him; refrain from stating or implying that he is interested in anything other than a professional teacher-student relationship; refrain from making comments about students interacting with others sexually or romantically or being sexually or romantically interested in others; refrain from making comments about or discussing spending time with students outside of school; refrain from touching students or their belongings; refrain from administering student dress code, ‘coding’ students, or speaking or communicating with students about their dress in any manner; refrain from teasing and picking on students; refrain from arguing with students and/or engaging in a power struggle with them; and refrain from removing students from another teacher’s class or reprimanding students in another teacher’s class or on campus.” (Ibid.)

On September 13, 2022, the Director of Human Resources signed and filed a verified Statement of Charges with CUSD’s Board of Education (“Board”) charging that cause exists to immediately suspend Hotchner without pay and dismiss him from employment. (Pet., ¶ 9.) The Board approved the Statement of Charges and found that there was cause to dismiss Hotchner for immoral conduct, dishonesty, unprofessional conduct, and persistent violation of or refusal to obey regulations prescribed by the Board or the State. (Ibid.)

On September 14, 2022, CUSD served Hotchner with notice that the Board was suspending him without pay, effective immediately, and intended to dismiss him from employment at the expiration of 30 days from the date of service of the notice, unless Hotchner demanded a hearing. (Pet., ¶ 10.)

On October 14, 2022, Hotchner filed a Notice of Defense and Request for Hearing with Board and a Motion for Immediate Reversal of Suspension, alleging that the Statement of Charges failed to allege willful refusal to perform or immoral conduct sufficient to support an immediate unpaid suspension. (Pet., ¶ 11.) On November 16, 2022, the Motion was denied, finding that CUSD “alleged sufficient facts in the Statement of Charges that, if true, would constitute immoral conduct and support immediate suspension . . .” (Pet., ¶ 12 & Exh. 1.)

Over several days, from March 13, 2023, until September 1, 2023, the Commission conducted a hearing via videoconference. (Pet., ¶ 13.)

On December 26, 2023, the Commission issued its decision finding that Hotchner had engaged in conduct that was inappropriate, unprofessional, had no legitimate educational purpose, had the effect of making students uncomfortable or embarrassing them, and which negatively impacted students. (Pet., ¶ 15.) Despite these findings, the Commission concluded that dismissal was not warranted because CUSD failed to establish Hotchner was unfit to teach, and that CUSD failed to establish Hotchner’s actions were immoral, that he engaged in acts of dishonesty, that he engaged in persistent violation of or refusal to obey school laws, or that he was unfit for service. (Ibid.) As a result, the Commission dismissed the Statement of Charges against Hotchner and ordered that CUSD continue to employ Hotchner. (Ibid. & Exh. 2.)

CUSD alleges that the Commission’s dismissal was an abuse of discretion, not supported by the Commission’s own findings, conclusions, or the weight of the evidence in the record. (Pet., ¶ 17.)

On April 4, 2024, Hotchner filed his original answer to the petition. On April 24, 2024, Hotchner filed an amended answer to the petition, admitting some allegations, denying some allegations, and asserting six affirmative defenses.

CUSD now moves to stay enforcement of the Commission’s decision. Hotchner opposes the motion.

The hearing on the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus is scheduled for February 21, 2025.

Analysis:

CUSD argues: “The public interest is best served by granting [CUSD’s] requested stay, and not disturbing the status quo, until the Petition is resolved because, otherwise, public injury will result. Should the Court deny the requested stay, [CUSD] will be forced to reinstate an unfit and immoral teacher to the classroom and subject students to emotional and, potentially, physical harm. Moreover, absent a stay, [CUSD] will be required to provide Hotchner with backpay and his current salary, as he is currently suspended from his employment without pay- amounts which [CUSD] will likely not be able to recoup if the Court reverses the Commission’s decision. In contrast, should the Court grant [CUSD’s] request for a stay, the only interest that would be impacted is Hotchner’s private, financial interest. Additionally, any monetary injury that Hotchner suffers would be minimal because the Court will hear this matter in less than four (4) months, and Hotchner will be made whole in the event the Court sustains the Commission’s decision.” (Motion, p. 1, ll. 9-20.) (Note: As mentioned above, the hearing on the Writ is scheduled for February 21, 2025; two weeks after the hearing on the present motion.)

Hotchner argues: “Hotchner, a teacher for [CUSD], prevailed before [the Commission] after [CUSD] sought to dismiss him, as the [Commission] found that Hotchner was not unfit to teach. Despite a statutory command that [CUSD] abide by that decision within five days after its issuance, [CUSD] has not restored Hotchner to paid status. Ten months after the [Commission’s] decision, and eight months after filing the instant action seeking a writ from this court, [CUSD] finally filed a motion to stay the [Commission’s] decision. The Court should deny the motion for stay because of [CUSD’s] inexcusable delay and because forcing a teacher to continue going unpaid even after he has prevailed before the [Commission] is against the public interest.” (Opp., p. 4, ll. 2-10.)

“[T]he court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision pending the judgment of the court, or until the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the notice, whichever occurs first. However, no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (g).)

“By its clear language, the power to stay a decision pending review which subdivision (g) grants is not absolute; the provision mandates that no stay be imposed when a stay would be against the public interest. Hence, it unequivocally requires that the superior court weigh the public interest in each individual case. This comports fully with the “ ‘inherent power’ ” of each superior court “ ‘to exercise reasonable control over litigation before it ....’ ” [Citation.]” (Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 176, 187.)

CUSD argues that the only potential harm that might result from the issuance of a stay of the Commission’s decision is to Hotchner’s personal finances, and that that is not against public interest.

In opposition, Hotchner attempts to make an argument that a stay would be against the public interest. However, the opposition, in this regard, is conclusory and circular. Hotchner argues that CUSD’s position ignores the findings of the Commission, and that the “real balance” is CUSD’s financial interests versus that of Hotchner and his family. None of the argument directly addresses how a stay would be against the public interest. The argument is, in essence, that a stay would be unfair to Hotchner, and his family, in that he has been, and continues to be, unpaid.

The court finds that the issuance of a stay would not be, in any way, against the public interest. On the contrary, given the very serious allegations of this case, it would be more likely to be against the public interest to not issue a stay. This is especially so given that the hearing on the Writ is scheduled to take place in just two weeks and, should Hotchner prevail, he will be entitled to back pay with interest, as acknowledged by CUSD.

Finally, the court finds Hotchner’s laches argument misconstrues the timeline of events in this case, is unsupported by convincing authority, and is unpersuasive.

The stay will be granted.