Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library

Filed 10/25/06

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEY WELLS, a Minor, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs
and
Appellants,
S123951
v.
) Ct.App.
3
C042504
ONE2ONE LEARNING FOUNDATION
et al.,
Sierra
County
Defendants and Respondents; )
Super. Ct. No. S46-CV-5844
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Real Party in Interest and Respondent. )

MODIFICATION OF OPINION
BY THE COURT:
The opinion herein, filed on August 31, 2006, appearing at 39 Cal.4th 1164, is
modified as follows:
1. The sentence beginning on the second line of the first full paragraph on
page 1179 is modified to read as follows:
(2) On the other hand, the charter schools in this case, and their
operators, are “persons” subject to suit under both the CFCA and
the UCL, and are not exempt from either law merely because
such schools are deemed part of the public school system.
2. The penultimate sentence of the first full paragraph on page 1179 is
modified to read as follows:
1

---

Finally, a qui tam action under the CFCA against a charter
school or its operator is not subject to the Tort Claims Act (TCA;
Gov. Code, § 815 et seq.) requirement of prior presentment of a
claim for payment (see id., §§ 905, 910 et seq.).
3. The second and third sentences of the paragraph beginning at the
bottom of page 1200 are modified to read as follows:
Though charter schools are deemed part of the system of public
schools for purposes of academics and state funding eligibility,
and are subject to some oversight by public school officials (see
Wilson, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1136-1142), the charter
schools here are operated, not by the public school system, but
by distinct outside entities—which the parties characterize as
non-profit corporations—that are given substantial freedom to
achieve academic results free of interference by the public
educational bureaucracy. The sole relationship between the
charter school operators and the chartering districts in this case is
through the charters governing the schools’ operation.
4. The last sentence of the second full paragraph that begins on page 1201
is modified to read as follows:
The statutory purpose is equally served by applying the CFCA to
the independent corporations that receive public monies under
the CSA to operate the schools at issue here on behalf of the
public education system.
5. The first sentence of the third full paragraph that begins on page 1201
is modified to read as follows:
On the other hand, we conclude, the sovereign power over public
education is not infringed by application of the CFCA, including
its treble-damages-plus-penalties provisions, to the charter
school operators in this case.
6. The third and fourth sentences of the first full paragraph that begins on
page 1202 is modified to read as follows:
Yet application of the CFCA’s monetary remedies, however
harsh, to the charter school defendants presents no fundamental
threat to maintenance, within the affected districts, of basically
adequate free public educational services. Thus, application of
the CFCA to the charter school operators in this case cannot be
2

---

said to infringe the exercise of the sovereign power over public
education.
7. The paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 1203 and carries over
to page 1204 is modified to read as follows:
As we have indicated, the charter schools here are operated,
pursuant to the CSA, by corporations that, for purposes of the
CFCA, do not qualify as public entities. Though, by statutory
mandate, these institutions are an alternative form of public
schools financed by public education funds, they and their
operators are largely free and independent of management and
oversight by the public education bureaucracy. Indeed, the
charter schools compete with traditional public schools for
students, and they receive funding based on the number of
students they recruit and retain at the expense of the traditional
system. Insofar as their operators use deceptive business
practices to further these efforts, the purposes of the UCL are
served by subjecting them to the provisions of that statute.
8. The second sentence of the first full paragraph that begins on page
1204 is modified to read as follows:
Even if governmental entities, in the exercise of their sovereign
functions, are exempt from the UCL’s restrictions on their
competitive practices (see Community Memorial, supra,
50 Cal.App.4th 199, 209-211 [county was not “person” for
purposes of UCL, such that county hospital’s treatment of paying
patients in competition with private hospitals would be subject to
statute]), no reason appears to apply that principle to the charter
school defendants, which are covered by the plain terms of the
statute and which compete with the traditional public schools for
students and funding.
9. The heading of the section that begins on page 1213 is modified to read
as follows:
9. Did the CFCA cause of action against the charter school
defendants require prior presentment of a claim under the TCA?
10. The last sentence of the first full paragraph on page 1214 is modified
to read as follows:
3

---

However, those purposes do not expressly include coverage by
the TCA and, for reasons previously discussed in connection
with the CFCA, the charter school defendants do not fit
comfortably within any of the categories defined, for purposes of
the TCA, as “local public entities.”
11. The sixth sentence (excluding citations) of footnote 38 on page 1216
is modified to read as follows:
Insofar as “persons,” as defined in the CFCA, include the
corporations that operate the charter schools in this case, they are
not entitled to immunity under the TCA.
These modifications do not affect the judgment.
The first full paragraph of the concurring and dissenting opinion of Kennard, J. at
the top of page 1217 is modified to read as follows:

I concur in the majority’s holdings that: (1) public school districts are not subject
to lawsuits under the California False Claims Act; (2) the charter schools in this
case and their operators are subject to lawsuits under the California False Claims
Act and the unfair competition law; (3) plaintiffs’ claims, except for the allegation
that defendant One2One Learning Foundation failed to provide the education it
promised, are not barred as claims for “educational malfeasance”; and (4)
plaintiffs are not required to present written claims under the Torts Claim Act
before filing a qui tam action under the California False Claims Act.

This modification does not affect the judgment.
4

---

Opinion Information

Date:	Docket Number:
Wed, 10/25/2006	S123951M

Disposition
Aug 31 2006	Opinion filed

Dockets
Apr 8 2004	Petition for review filed   In Sacramento by counsel for Respondent {Charter School Resource Alliance}.
Apr 8 2004	Request for judicial notice received (pre-grant)   Respondent {Charter School Resource Alliance}.
Apr 9 2004	Received Court of Appeal record   One doghouse.
Apr 12 2004	4th petition for review filed   counsel for resps. (One2One Learning Foundation now known as Axis 4 Learning)
Apr 12 2004	Joinder to petition filed   by counsel for (Camptonville Elementary School District)
Apr 12 2004	5th petition for review filed   by counsel for resp. (Sierra Plumas Joint Unified Sch. District and Sierra Summit Academy)
Apr 12 2004	2nd petition for review filed   by counsel for resps. (The Camptonville Academy, Inc. and Janice Jablecki)
Apr 12 2004	3rd petition for review filed   by counsel for resp. (Mattole Unified Sch. Dist.)
Apr 12 2004	Request for judicial notice received (pre-grant)   from Mattole Unified Sch. Dist.)
Apr 30 2004	Answer to petition for review filed   by counsel for aplts. (Joey Wells, etc, et al.,)
May 10 2004	Reply to answer to petition filed   by counsel for resps. (One2 One Learning Found.)
May 10 2004	Reply to answer to petition filed   by counsel for (The Camptonville Academy, Inc. and Janis Jablecki)
May 10 2004	Filed:   by counsel for Charter School Resource Alliance, Joinder to Reply of resp. (One2One Learning Foundation)
Jun 2 2004	Change of contact information filed for:   counsel for Deft/Resp. (Camptonville Academy) Janis Jablecki)
Jun 8 2004	Time extended to grant or deny review   to and including July 9, 2004, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied.
Jun 23 2004	Petition for review granted (civil case)   Request for judicial notice granted. Votes: George, C.J., Baxter, Brown, and Moreno, JJ.
Jun 30 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for resp. (Charter School Resource Alliance) requests extension of time to August 23, 2004. to file the opening brief on the merits. *** granted *** order being prepared.
Jul 2 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for resp. (One 2 One Learning Found.) requests extension of time to August 23, 2004, to file the opening brief on the merits. *** granted *** order being prepared.
Jul 6 2004	Certification of interested entities or persons filed   by counsel aplt. (J. Wells)
Jul 7 2004	Extension of time granted   It is ordered that the time to serve and file ALL opening briefs in the case is extended to and including August 23, 2004.
Jul 8 2004	Certification of interested entities or persons filed   by counsel for resp. (Charter School Res.)
Jul 9 2004	Received:   from (Sierra Plumas Joint Unified Sch. District and Sierra Summit Academy) Request for Extension of time to August 23, 2004.
Jul 9 2004	Received:   from (Camptonville Academy,Inc, Janice Jablecki) Request for extension of time to August 23, 2004.
Jul 9 2004	Received:   from (Mattole Unified School District and Richard Graey) Request for Extenison of time to August 23, 2004.
Jul 9 2004	2nd record request   remaining records.
Jul 12 2004	Received Court of Appeal record   1 doghouse
Jul 21 2004	Certification of interested entities or persons filed   respondent (One 2 One Learning)
Jul 21 2004	Certification of interested entities or persons filed   by respondent (Mattole Unified Sch.Dist.)
Aug 3 2004	Certification of interested entities or persons filed   counsel for resp. (Camptonville Elem.School Dist.)
Aug 3 2004	Filed:   by counsel for (Camptonville Elem. Sch. Dist.) Substitution of Atty. David Robinet and Christian Keiner for Thomas Griffin
Aug 5 2004	Filed:   by counsel for resp. (Sierra Plumas Joint Unified Sch. Dist., et al.) correction to fax and phone numbers.
Aug 13 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for resp. (Charter School Resource Alliance) requests an extension of time to September 21, 2004 to file the opening brief on merits.
Aug 16 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for resp. One 2 One Learning Found. (Axis 4 Learning) requests an extension of time to September 21, 2004. to file the opening brief on the merits.
Aug 18 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for resp. (Sierra Plumas Joint Unified Sch. District and Sierra Summit Academy) requests extension of time to September 21, 2004, to file the opening brief.
Aug 18 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for resp. (Camptonville Union Elementary School Dist.) requests an extension of time to September 21, 2004, to file the opening brief.
Aug 24 2004	Order filed   It is ordered that the time to serve and file ALL opening briefs in this case is extended to and including September 21, 2004. No further extensions of time are contemplated.
Sep 20 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed   by counsel for Camptonville Elementary Sch. Dist.
Sep 20 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed   by counsel for Charter School Resource Alliance
Sep 20 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed   by counsel for (Mattole Unified Sch. Dist.)
Sep 21 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed   by counsel for (The Camptonville Academy, Inc. and Janice Jablecki)
Sep 21 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed   by counsel for (One 2 One Learning Foundation now know as Axis 4 Learning)
Sep 21 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed   by counsel for Sierra Plumas Unified Sch. Dist. and Sierra Summit Academy (40k)
Sep 30 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for (Wells) requests 60-day extension of time to Dec 20, 2004, to file the answer brief on the merits.
Oct 7 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for RPI (State of Calif.) requests extension of time to December 20, 2004, to file the answer brief on the metits.
Oct 12 2004	Extension of time granted   Appellant's time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including December 20, 2004. No further extensions of time or contemplated.
Oct 18 2004	Extension of time granted   Real Party in Interest time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including December 20, 2004. No further extensions of time are contemplated.
Nov 15 2004	Received:   amended word count to amicus brief of Statewide Assn of Community Colleges, etal
Nov 18 2004	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   Statewide Assoc. of Community Colleges, et al. in support of respondents/brief under same cover. (non-party)
Nov 30 2004	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Statewide Association of Community Colleges (non-party)
Nov 30 2004	Amicus curiae brief filed   Statewide Association of Community Colleges, et al., Any party may file a single consolidated answer to all amicus curiae briefs within 20 days after the last date that an application to file an amicus curiae brief may be filed under rule 29.1(f) (2).
Dec 17 2004	Answer brief on the merits filed   by counsel for RPI (State of Calif.)
Dec 20 2004	Received:   from counsel for aplt. (J. Wells) answer brief on the merits.
Dec 20 2004	Application to file over-length brief filed   by counsel for aplt. (J. Wells)
Dec 20 2004	Request for judicial notice filed (granted case)   by counsel for aplt. (J. Wells)
Dec 21 2004	Answer brief on the merits filed   with permission by counsel for appellant (J. Wells) ***consolidated answer***
Dec 23 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for resp. (Charter Sch. Res. Alliance) requests extension of time to February 7, 2005, to file the reply brief.
Dec 29 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for resp. (One 2 One Learning Found.) requests extension of time to February 7, 2005, to file the reply brief on the merits.
Dec 30 2004	Request for extension of time filed   by resp Camptonville Sch. Dist. to file the reply brief, to 2-7-05.
Dec 30 2004	Request for extension of time filed   by resp Charter School Resource Alliance to file the reply brief, to 2-7-05.
Jan 3 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)   Resps Sierra Plumas Joint Unified Sch. Dist and Sierra Summit Academy's reply brief to pltfs consolidated answer brief.
Jan 3 2005	Request for extension of time filed   by resp Camptonville Academy to file the reply brief, to 2-7-05.
Jan 4 2005	Extension of time granted   Respondent (Charter Sch. Resource Alliance) time to serve and file the reply brief is extended to and including February 7, 2005. No further extensions of time are comtemplated.
Jan 5 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)   by counsel for Sierra Plumas Joint Unified Sch. Dist. and Sierra Summit Academy to (RPI) State of Calif.'s answer brief.
Jan 5 2005	Extension of time granted   Respondent Camptonville Union Elementary Sch. Dist, time to serve and file the reply brief is extended to and including February 7, 2005. No further extensions of time are contemplated.
Jan 5 2005	Extension of time granted   Respondent The Camptonville Academy, Inc, and Janice Jablecki , time to serve and filed the reply brief is extended to and including February 7, 2005. No further extensions of time are contemplated.
Jan 5 2005	Extension of time granted   Respondent One2One Learning Foundation, time to serve and file the reply brief is extended to and including February 7, 2005. No further extensions of time are contemplated.
Jan 10 2005	Filed:   by counsel letter notification: Claudia Antoinette Baldwin departure from the Law Offices of Michael Sorgen and no longer associate counsel for plaintiff.
Jan 11 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   w/ brief by Fullerton Joint Union High Sch. District (non-party) in support of respondent.
Jan 20 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Fullerton Joint Union High School District, et al.
Jan 20 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Fullerton Joint Union High School District, et al., (non-party) in support of respondent is hereby granted. Notwithstanding any prior order of this court, any party may file a single consolidated answer to all filed amicus curiae briefs within 20 days after the court has acted upon timely applications to filed such briefs.
Feb 4 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)   by counsel for resp. (Camptonville Union Elementary Sch. Dist.) to State's brief and Plf's consolidated brief.
Feb 4 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)   by Resp Charter School Resource Alliance to RPI's (State of Calif) answer brief.
Feb 4 2005	Filed:   Resp. Charter School Resource Alliance application for permission to file oversize reply brief (to the answer brief of appellants) the brief is submitted with the application
Feb 7 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)   by counsel for resp. The Camptonville Academy and Janice Jablecki (consolidated reply)
Feb 7 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)   by counsel for resp. One 2 One Learning Foundation
Feb 14 2005	Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)   by counsel for Charter School Resource Alliance (overlength brief w/permission)
Mar 3 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   California State Association of Counties w/brief (non-party) in support of respondent.
Mar 4 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   Pacific Legal Foundation w/ brief (non-party)
Mar 8 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (non-party)
Mar 8 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   Coast Community College District, etal [in support of respondents]
Mar 8 2005	Received:   Request for Judicial Notice from PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, (non-party)
Mar 9 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Pacific Legal Foundation (non-party)
Mar 9 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Pacific Legal Foundation in support of respondents. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 20 days of the filing of the brief.
Mar 9 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   California State Association of Counties (non-parth)
Mar 9 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   California Association of Counties in support of defendants and respondents. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 20 days of the filing of the brief.
Mar 10 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   Taxpayers Against Fraud in support of plfs. and aplts. (non-party)
Mar 11 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   PricewaterhouseCoppers, LLP.
Mar 11 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   PricewaterhouseCoopers. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
Mar 11 2005	Request for judicial notice filed (granted case)   by PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP.
Mar 21 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Coast Community College District in support of respondents. answer due within twenty days.
Mar 21 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   COAST COMMINITY COLLEGE DISTRICT in support of respondent.
Mar 21 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Taxpayers Against Fraud in support of appellants. Answer due within 20 days.
Mar 21 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   TAXPAYERS AGAINST FRAUD in support of appellants. Answer due within 20 days.
Apr 7 2005	Received:   from Amicus Curiae Taxpayers Against Fraud request to file Errata to amicus curiae brief.
Apr 8 2005	Filed:   by amicus curiae Taxpayers Against Fraud, Errata to Amicus Auriae brief filed on 3-21-05.
Apr 11 2005	Response to amicus curiae brief filed   by counsel for Camptonville Academy, Inc. and Janice Jablecki to amicus curiae brief of Taxpayers Against Fraud.
Apr 11 2005	Response to amicus curiae brief filed   by counsel for (Sierra Plumas Unif. Sch. Dist. and Sierra Summit Academy) to a/c brief filed by Taxpayers Against Fraud.
May 2 2005	Filed:   by counsel for The Camptonville Academy, Inc. and Janis Jablecki, Notice of Unavailability. May 28, thru June 6 and July 22, 2005 thru August 1, 2005.
Jun 27 2005	Filed:   by counsel for Camptonville Union Elem. Sch. Dist. notification to delete association of D. Robinet as counsel.
Jul 25 2005	Notice of substitution of counsel   for Respondents {Sierra Plumas Joint Unified School District et al.,}.
Oct 25 2005	Filed:   by counsel for Fullerton High Sch. Dist. re: exclusion of Robert T. Bergin as co-counsel.
Mar 28 2006	Change of contact information filed for:   counsel for resps. Mattole Unified Sch. District and Richard Graey, name change of counsel's law firm to Needham, Davis, Kepner & Young, LLP effective 3-29-06
May 2 2006	Case ordered on calendar   June 8, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., in Los Angeles
May 11 2006	Justice pro tempore assigned   Justice Joan, Irion (4th Appellate Dist., Div. 1) (Werdegar, J., recused)
May 12 2006	Application filed to:   divide oral argument time. Counsel for separate respondents (Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District and Charter School Resource Alliance) request to divide time (20 minutes and 10 minutes, respectively).
May 12 2006	Application filed to:   divide oral argument time. Real party in interest State of California (deputy attorney general Mark Soble) and counsel for appellants Joey Wells et al. (Michael S. Sorgen) requesting to equally divide oral argument time.
May 17 2006	Order filed   The request of counsel for appellants and respondent State of California in the above-referenced cause to allow two counsel to argue on their behalf at oral argument is hereby granted. The request to allocate to respondent State of California 15 minutes, and appellants Wells et al. 15 minutes, of their 30-minute allotted time for oral argument is granted.
May 17 2006	Order filed   The request of counsel for respondents One2One Learning Foundation et al. in the above-referenced cause to allow two counsel to argue on behalf of respondents at oral argument is hereby granted. The request to allocate to Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District 20 minutes, & Charter School Resource Alliance 10 minutes, of respondents' 30-minute allotted time for oral argument is granted.
May 18 2006	Change of contact information filed for:   Counsels for Sierra Plumas Joint Unified School District and Sierra Summit Academy The new address and firm name is as follows: Evans, Wieckowski & Ward, LLP 745 University Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95825
Jun 8 2006	Cause argued and submitted
Aug 31 2006	Opinion filed   Reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings. OPINION BY: Baxter, J. ---- joined by: George, C.J., Chin, Moreno, Corrigan, JJ., Irion, JPT CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY: Kennard, J.
Sep 15 2006	Rehearing petition filed   counsel for California Charter Schools and Assoc. Joint Powers Authority
Sep 21 2006	Time extended to consider modification or rehearing   to and including November 29, 2006.
Oct 25 2006	Rehearing denied   Request to grant rehearing on our motion denied. Werdegar, J., was recused and did not participate.
Oct 25 2006	Opinion modified - no change in judgment
Oct 25 2006	Remittitur issued (civil case)
Nov 2 2006	Received:   receipt for remttitur from CA/3
Nov 16 2006	Note:   Records returned to CA/3 (4 vols.)

Briefs
Sep 20 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed
Sep 20 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed
Sep 20 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed
Sep 21 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed
Sep 21 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed
Sep 21 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed
Nov 30 2004	Amicus curiae brief filed
Dec 17 2004	Answer brief on the merits filed
Dec 21 2004	Answer brief on the merits filed
Jan 3 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)
Jan 5 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)
Jan 20 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Feb 4 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)
Feb 4 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)
Feb 7 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)
Feb 7 2005	Reply brief filed (case not yet fully briefed)
Feb 14 2005	Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
Mar 9 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Mar 9 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Mar 11 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Mar 21 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Mar 21 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 11 2005	Response to amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 11 2005	Response to amicus curiae brief filed

If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website