Carpinteria Unified School District v. All Interested Persons

Case Number

25CV06826

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/21/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Application for Judgment of Validation

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Carpinteria Unified School District: Kristopher R. Wood, Donald S. Field, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Craig Price, Griffith & Thornburg, LLP

                                   

For Defendants All Interested Persons: No appearance

RULING

The application for judgment of validation is granted. A [Proposed] Judgment has been submitted that the Court intends to sign.

Background

On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff Carpinteria Unified School District (the District) filed its complaint in this action asserting one cause of action for validation under Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq.

The complaint alleges:

On December 12, 2022, the District was sued in a lawsuit by a former student (the Judgment Obligee) who asserted claims for alleged personal injuries that had been revived under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) After several years of litigation, the District and the Judgment Obligee settled the lawsuit through a judgment entered against the District in the principal amount of $1,750,000 (Settlement Payment). (Complaint, ¶¶ 11, 12 & exhibit A.) The Settlement Payment is to be financed by issuing judgment obligation bonds in an amount sufficient to pay the judgment and the cost of issuance of the bonds. (Complaint, ¶¶ 14-24.) The issuance of the bonds is subject to obtaining a validation judgment. (Complaint, ¶¶ 14-17, 25-29.)

The allegations of the complaint are evidenced and supported by the declaration of Diana F. Rigby, the Superintendent of the District. (Rigby decl., ¶¶ 8.)

On November 15, 2025, the Court issued an order for publication of summons.

The summons was subsequently published in the Coastal View News in a manner consistent with law and the Court’s order for publication. Proof of publication of summons was filed with the Court on December 16, 2025.

No person contacted counsel for the District expressing interest in this validation action or otherwise requesting a copy of the complaint. (Wood decl., filed Dec. 19, 2025, ¶ 5.) No person filed any document responsive to the complaint with the Court.

On December 18, 2025, the Court entered default as to all Defendants in this action, identified in the complaint as “all persons interested in the matter of the validity of proceedings relating to the authorization and issuance of bonds, including refunding bonds, to be issued with respect to certain obligations of the Carpinteria Unified School District arising under a stipulated judgment, an indenture and any other related contracts and agreements authorized or contemplated by the Carpinteria School District Board of Education, and the adopting of a resolution pertaining thereto.” (Capitalization altered.)

On December 19, 2025, the District filed this application for validation judgment. Because this is an action in rem and no party has appeared to respond to the complaint, there is no person to whom service of the application or supporting papers can be made.

Hearing on the application for validation judgment was advanced to this hearing date by ex parte order on January 8, 2026.

Analysis

“A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter, and for 60 days thereafter, bring an action in the superior Court of the county in which the principal office of the public agency is located to determine the validity of such matter. The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 860.)

“A local agency may bring an action to determine the validity of its bonds, warrants, contracts, obligations or evidences of indebtedness pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Gov. Code, § 53511, subd. (a).)

“An action may be brought pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the validity of any issuance or proposed issuance of refunding bonds under this article, and the legality and validity of all proceedings previously taken or proposed to be taken in a resolution or ordinance adopted by the local agency for the authorization, issuance, sale, and delivery of the bonds, for entering into any credit reimbursement or other agreement in connection therewith, for the use of the proceeds of the bonds, and for the payment of the principal of, and interest on, the bonds.” (Gov. Code, § 53589.5.)

“ ‘[I]n its most common and practical application, the validating proceeding is used to secure a judicial determination that proceedings by a local government entity, such as the issuance of municipal bonds and the resolution or ordinance authorizing the bonds, are valid, legal, and binding. Assurance as to the legality of the proceedings surrounding the issuance of municipal bonds is essential before underwriters will purchase bonds for resale to the public.’ [Citation.]” (Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835, 842.)

“Jurisdiction of all interested parties may be had by publication of summons ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 861.) The Court finds that the District has complied with the publication requirements both of section 861 and of the order of this Court and established jurisdiction under sections 861, 861.1, and 862.

No interested party has, by the date specified in the summons or otherwise, appeared and contested the legality or validity of the matter sought to be determined. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 862.)

“For purposes of this chapter, bonds, warrants, contracts, obligations, and evidences of indebtedness shall be deemed to be in existence upon their authorization. Bonds and warrants shall be deemed authorized as of the date of adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution or ordinance authorizing their issuance, and contracts shall be deemed authorized as of the date of adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution or ordinance approving the contract and authorizing its execution.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 864.)

The Court has considered the evidence presented and the arguments of the District set forth in its application for judgment. For the reasons set forth in the application, the Court grants the application and will enter judgment as requested by the District.