Wong v. Regents of University of California

• Decision Date: 05 March 1971
• Citation: 93 Cal.Rptr. 502,15 Cal.App.3d 823
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: B. WONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 27857.

Page 502

93 Cal.Rptr. 502

15 Cal.App.3d 823

B. WONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 27857.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

March 5, 1971.

Hearing Denied April 29, 1971.

Lewis, Rouda & Winchell, San Francisco, for plaintiff-appellant.

Thomas J. Cunningham, John P. Sparrow, Berkeley, for defendant-respondent.

ELKINGTON, Associate Justice.

Appellant B. Wong filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court against respondent Regents of the University of California. He alleged that he had been enrolled as a graduate student in the university's School of Medicine and that on or about July 2, 1968, he was given written notice that he was dismissed from the school.

He further alleged:

'VI

'That on or about July 2, 1968, petitioner had completed the Third (3rd) Year of Medical School of the University of California; that petitioner had successfully passed all the courses of the Third (3rd) Year and had met the requirements set or outlined for him during the course of study of the Third (3rd) Year of Medical School. That, in fact, petitioner had repeated the Third (3rd) Year of study upon the request of the Dean of the Medical School and had at the time of dismissal, attended the Medical School for a total of four (4) academic years; that petitioner successfully passed all his courses in the Third (3rd) Year but voluntarily followed advice given him and repeated the academic year improving grades in all courses that were repeated. That, in fact, at the time dismissed, petitioner had successfully passed and completed all the academic requirements of the First (1st), Second (2nd) and Third (3rd) Years of Medical School.

'VII

'That at all times mentioned herein, petitioner has conducted himself both morally and ethically according to the highest standards of propriety and has remained at all times free of any unbecoming behavior capable of subjecting him to disciplinary action or dismissal. * * *

'X

'That respondents, and each of them, and their agents, based the dismissal of the petitioner on the delegated authority of the REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA as set forth in Section 900 of the Academic Senate Manual which states: 'The status of students in the Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing and Pharmacy in the San Francisco Division shall be determined by the appropriate faculty or its designated agent. Students may be placed on probation or made subject to dismissal not only for scholastic deficiencies but also for deficiencies in other qualifications for these professions.'

'XI

'By imposing the above-mentioned dismissal upon petitioner, respondents, and each of them, proceeded in excess of its jurisdiction and denied petitioner due process of law and prejudicially abused its discretion in that the rules and regulations of the University of California which it was alleged petitioner failed to qualify, were vague and ambiguous and did not give petitioner notice of the standards or methods they purportedly required in that there is no means of determining 'the deficiencies in other qualifications'; that there is no standard set forth as a guide to the requirements, if any, alleged to be the cause of petitioner's dismissal as set forth in the Academic Senate Manual, Section 900, referred to hereinabove. * * *

'XIV

'That petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies and has no appeal nor any plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.'

By his petition Wong sought to compel respondent to 'proceed forthwith to classify petitioner Wong as a Fourth (4th) Year Medical Student in the next session of the Medical School of the University of California at San Francisco, reinstating petitioner fully as a student therein.'

Respondent thereafter filed a general demurrer to the petition 'on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.'

With the demurrer respondents filed an 'Answer to Writ of Mandate' denying certain of the petition's allegations and alleging, among other things: (1) that Wong was found to be scholastically deficient in his ultimate fitness to practice medicine; (2) that his four-year cumulative scholastic performance placed him at the bottom of a class of 122 students; (3) that he had not exhausted certain available administrative remedies; and (4) that he was dismissed at his own request in order to enroll in the university's College of Letters and Sciences.

A hearing was thereafter held, the record of which is not before us. Following that hearing the court entered 'Judgment Denying Peremptory Writ.' The judgment was based upon 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,' dated April 1, 1969, which in part recited: 'The Court heard and examined the proof, including documentary evidence, offered by the respective parties. * * *' The 'documentary evidence' appears to have been the allegations of respondent's verified answer and certain exhibits attached thereto. Generally the allegations of the answer were found to be true. No ruling was made on respondent's demurrer.

Wong then moved 'To Reopen for Further Consideration.' Among other things he insisted: That the court had heard argument only on the general demurrer and did not hear the case on the merits; that the court had improperly accepted the recitals of respondent's answer as true without giving him an opportunity to respond thereto; that the findings, conclusions, and judgment were improper; and that the court should only have ruled on the demurrer. The motion to reopen for further consideration was granted, and an order was signed and filed as follows: 'Good Cause Appearing Therefor, the Memorandum Decision heretofore entered * * * is hereby set aside and the above entitled matter is reopened.' We interpret this order, as did the parties in the superior court, to be an order setting aside the judgment. ¹

Another hearing was held May 12, 1969, following which the court 'denied the Petition for Writ of Mandate and sustained a Demurrer thereto without leave to amend.' Judgment was thereafter entered, (1) denying the peremptory writ application on the grounds, among others, stated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of April 1, 1969 (see Ante), and (2) sustaining respondent's general demurrer without leave to amend. This judgment purports to be both a decision on the merits of Wong's writ application, And, to be a dismissal of the proceedings upon sustaining of the demurrer without leave to amend. The dual nature of the judgment is significant; as a judgment on the merits, upon becoming final it would be res judicata as to the issues decided (see generally 3 Witkin, Cal.Procedure, pp. 1926--1927); while as a judgment of dismissal upon the sustaining of a demurrer, it ordinarily would not (see 3 Witkin, supra, pp. 1938--1939; Lunsford v. Kosanke, 140 Cal.App.2d 623, 627--631, 295 P.2d 432.) It is this judgment from which Wong has appealed.

From a reading of the record of the May 12, 1969 hearing it becomes apparent that the only issue before the court was respondent's general demurrer. Obviously then, insofar as it purports to be a judgment on the merits, it was inadvertently and erroneously entered. (See Tringham v. State Board of Education, 137 Cal.App.2d 733, 739, 290 P.2d 890.

The remaining question before us is whether Wong's petition for mandate states grounds for the requested relief. In resolving such an issue 'Neither trial nor appellate courts should be detracted from the main issue, or rather, the only issue involved in a demurrer hearing, namely, whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.' (Griffith v. Department of Public Works, 141 Cal.App.2d 376, 381, 296 P.2d 838, 842.)

It is conceded by respondent that the dismissal of a medical student may be judicially set aside where it appears to have been arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith. (See Connelly v. University of Vermont and State Agr. College, D.C., 244 F.Supp. 156, 159, hereinafter referred to.)

By its demurrer respondent admitted 'the truth of all allegations which are well pleaded, however improbable the facts may be.' (Lee v. Hensley, 103 Cal.App.2d 697, 704, 230 P.2d 159, 163.)

We advert to the petition's paragraphs VI, VII, X and XI (quoted Ante). These allegations, unexplained and uncontroverted in any way as they are for purposes of demurrer, must reasonably be held to allege that the university officials were acting arbitrarily and capriciously in Wong's dismissal. The petition for mandate accordingly stated a cause of action, and the judgment, insofar as it dismissed the mandate proceedings upon the sustaining of respondent's general demurrer, was erroneous. The judgment, for that reason also, must be reversed.

Respondent's secondary contention that Wong's petition for mandate is defective since he has not alleged 'that he exhausted his administrative remedies by appealing to respondent' is without merit. The statement of paragraph XIV (quoted Ante) 'That petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies' is a sufficient allegation.

The parties have presented to us certain other questions of law, the resolution of which has become unnecessary in reaching our conclusion that the judgment must be reversed. However, since their decision will probably be essential to the final determination of the case we are required to pass upon them. (Code Civ.Proc., § 53; Yarrow v. State of California, 53 Cal.2d 427, 439--440, 2 Cal.Rptr. 137, 348 P.2d 687; Salsbery v. Ritter, 48 Cal.2d 1, 6, 306 P.2d 897; Sloboden v. Time Oil Co., 131 Cal.App.2d 557, 563, 281 P.2d 85; Chamberlain Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 74 Cal.App.2d 941, 942--943, 170 P.2d 85.)

The first of such questions concerns the extent of permissible judicial review of a medical school's determination that a student's scholastic standing and qualifications are...