Garau v. Torrance Unified Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 25 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | B231114,B232442,B238798 |
| Parties | CARLOS GARAU, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County
APPEALS from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Kevin C. Brazile, Judge. Affirmed in part; and reversed and remanded in part.
Olga H. Garau, in pro per, and for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen and Richard R. Terzian for Defendant and Appellant.
The three separate appeals and one cross-appeal at issue here arise out of a lawsuit filed in 2004 by Attorney Olga Garau on behalf of her husband Carlos Garau and the couple's then school-aged daughters, Liliana Garau and Odalys Garau, against the Torrance Unified School District (TUSD) alleging causes of action for constitutional violations and statutory breaches, and seeking damages, declaratory and injunctive relief based on a claim that TUSD had denied them a free and equal public education. More specifically the Garaus complain that TUSD had imposed certain fees, charges and financial burdens upon them (and other students) for activities, supplies and programs in violation of the "free school" clause in the California Constitution. After a prolonged and active period of litigation involving several rounds of dispositive motions and arbitration, including a prior appeal in this court, the matter proceeded to a bench trial in late 2010. At the conclusion of the Garaus' case in chief the trial court granted TUSD's motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. At the same time, the trial court also issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) why sanctions should not be imposed. The TUSD subsequently filed a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1038 and a motion for sanctions under section 128.7. After judgment was entered in the case, the court granted the motion for sanctions and fees in favor of TUSD.
The Garaus appealed from: (1) the underlying judgment (appeal No. B231114), (2) the post-judgment fee and sanction order (appeal No. B232442) and (3) the post-judgment minute order directing the superior court clerk to enter the amount of costs, and fees awarded to TUSD into the final judgment (appeal No. B238798). TUSD filed a cross-appeal of the post-judgment fee and sanctions order.
As we shall explain, only the Garaus' claims with respect to the award of Code of Civil Procedure section 1038 attorney's fees against Olga Garau and the sanctions order have merit. Likewise, TUSD has demonstrated that in awarding fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038, the trial court failed to consider whether TUSD was entitled to fees incurred in connection with the causes of action for equitable relief. Accordingly,we affirm the underlying judgment in appeal No. B231114 and reverse and remand the post-judgment orders in appeal No. B232442 and in appeal No. B238798.
On September 15, 2003, the Garaus filed a claim pursuant to the Government Claims Act for damages arising from allegedly unlawful fees imposed by TUSD. On October 7, 2003, the TUSD rejected the claim. Thereafter, on April 6, 2004, the Garaus filed a verified original complaint which alleged seven causes of action based on various legal theories1 and seeking various remedies (damages, injunction, declaratory relief) arising from the same factual allegations — purported violations of the California Constitution, statutes, and regulations. The central contention of all of the claims was that TUSD charged its students or their parents, or failed to pay for, various services, activities and supplies in violation of the "free public education" clause of the California Constitution (art. IX, § 5).
TUSD filed a demurrer to the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action. On July 1, 2004, the trial court stayed the first through sixth causes of action while the Garaus litigated the seventh cause of action for writ of mandate. The Garaus then filed a petition for a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.
On August 20, 2004, Judge David Yaffe heard the motion and ruled that the Garaus lacked standing to pursue a writ because they failed to show they possessed a beneficial interest in the claimed fees and charges. Specifically, the trial court found that the Garaus had not shown that they had been required to pay, or that they had actually paid, any particular charge or fee. Accordingly, the court dismissed the seventh cause ofaction "until a final judgment is entered with respect to the other causes of action in plaintiffs' complaint."
The stay of the other causes of action was lifted and on October 4, 2004, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the second (unlawful solicitation), fourth (violation of equal protection), fifth (declaratory relief), and sixth (injunctive relief) causes of action and overruled the demurrer as to the third (common count—money had and received) cause of action. The court found that the claim for unlawful solicitation was invalid on its face because the Garaus were not deceived into believing that they were required to pay money to TUSD, and because they did not pay any money as a result of the solicitation. The court rejected the equal protection claim, finding as a matter of law that the Garaus could not show their rights were violated when, inter alia, they were provided with school supplies that others were not. The court then determined that what remained in the case - the third cause of action for money had and received - was a limited jurisdiction damages case because the parties agreed only $1,600 was at stake, and therefore the trial court reclassified the case and transferred it to the limited civil jurisdiction department.2
In February 2007 the case was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator issued an opinion rejecting all of the Garaus' claims, except a claim related to a $5.00 student planner they had been required to purchase. The Garaus sought a trial de novo.
Ultimately, the case was returned to unlimited jurisdiction status and assigned to Judge Kevin C. Brazile. In 2008, the court granted the Garaus' motion to amend the complaint in part, but leave to restate the claims for equal protection and unlawful solicitation was denied. The Garaus filed an amended complaint alleging all of the same causes of action as the original complaint with the exception of the unlawful solicitationclaim. TUSD filed a demurrer to the complaint. The court sustained the demurrer as to the common count without leave to amend. On January 8, 2009, the Garaus filed the operative third amended complaint.
In November 2009, the trial court heard the TUSD's summary adjudication motion on the first cause of action, which sought damages for the TUSD's alleged breach of mandatory duties under the Government Claims Act. As an exhibit in support of the motion, TUSD attached a "Special Damages Chart" prepared by the Garaus for the 2007 arbitration, which summarized the items they claimed constituted their damages. The Garuas objected to the chart on the ground that it was not properly authenticated, and as a result the trial court denied the summary adjudication motion.3
The case proceeded on the third amended complaint, which contained three causes of action. The first cause of action sought damages for alleged violation of TUSD's mandatory duty under the Government Code to provide a free public education by charging for various goods and services. The second cause of action for declaratory relief sought a declaration that the charges and fees imposed by TUSD in violation of its mandatory duties was unlawful. The third cause of action was for injunctive relief to prevent future allegedly unlawful charges associated with the educational process. The second and third causes of action incorporated the first cause of action by reference and all three causes of action also incorporated the preliminary factual allegations. The third amended complaint related to allegedly unlawful charges made by TUSD for educational activities and sought three different remedies - damages, declaratory relief and injunction.
The preliminary "Factual Allegations" of the complaints remained substantially the same throughout every amendment. The Garaus alleged that they should not havehad to pay for shoes and apparel for physical education class, optional videos of musical performances, earthquake kits, fees for college entrance and advanced placement examinations, and/or for health insurance for participation in high school sports activities. The operative complaint also alleged that the TUSD charged for some items that the Garaus conceded at trial they had never paid for, including graduation gowns, film for a school project that was provided by the school, and costs associated with participating in high school band or cheerleading activities.
In October 2010 three causes of action proceeded to a bench trial. Prior to commencement of the trial, TUSD filed several motions in limine. The trial court granted TUSD's motion No. 2 to limit evidence of damages "to within six months of the filing of a tort claim with the school district, which was filed on September 15, 2003."
On October 27, 2010, following presentation of the Garaus' case, the trial court granted the TUSD's motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial