a ‘The Law Offices of Darryl Yorkey ‘Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Attn: YORKEY, DARRYL D Romo a Professional Law Corporation PO Box 9636 Attn: Bryant, Guy A Berkeley, CA 94709. 5075 Hopyard Road Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94588-3361 Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Hayward Hall of Justice Epple No. RG18922005. Plaitetitonrs) Order vs. Demurrer to Complaint Alameda County Board of Education Defend Respondents) L (Abbreviated Title) ‘The Demurrer to Complaint filed for Albany Unified School District was set for hearing on 03/04/2019 at 09:00:00 in Department 512 before the Honorable Karin S Schwartz. The Tentative Ruling was published and was contested. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: ‘On March 4, 2019, in Department 512 of the above-enttled court, Real Party in Interest Albany Unified ‘School District's Demurrer to Petitioner Cedric Epple's Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate cane on for hearing, After oral argument by counsel forthe patie, the court took the matter under submission, ‘The curt now VACATES its submission ode 1 rctive and consider supplemental bring fromthe parties on the issue of the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure ("C.C.P.") section 1094.6 to Petitioner's claims in this case. In this action, Epple challenges the decision ofthe Alameda County Board of Education ("Boar") to deny his appeal of the Albany High School District's decision to expel him from Albany High School, (Petition, $9 8, 11, 12, 13.) The District argues in its demurrer that Epple's writ petition is barred by the 90-day statute of limitations in C.C.P. section 1094.6. Epple does not contest the applicability section of the 1094.6, but argues that the statute of limitations was tolled by the federal Tolling Statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1367(d), and California's equitable tolling doctrine, C.CP. section 1094.6 provides that judicial review of a local agency's decision may take place under section 1094.5 only if the lawsuit is filed within the 90-day period required by section 1094.6, subdivision (b). Section 1094.6, subdivision (c), however, states: "As used in this section, decision means a decision subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5, suspending, demoting, or dismissing an officer or employee, revoking, denying an application for a permit, license, or other entitlement, imposing a civil or administrative penalty, fine, charge, or cost, or denying an application for any retirement benefit or allowance." (C.C.P. § 1094.6(¢),) Itappears that the 90-day statute of limitations in C.C.P. section 1094.6 may not apply because the decision in this case may not fall within section 1094.6's definition of "decision." Epple does not challenge a decision of the District or Board to: (1) suspend, demote, or dismiss an officer ot ‘employee; (2) revoke or deny an application for a permit, license, or other entitlement; (3) impose a civil ‘or administrative penalty, fine, charge, or costs; or (4) deny an application for any retirement benefit or Orderallowance. It further appears that if section 1094.6 does not apply, then either a three- or four-year statute of limitations would apply to the claims in the petition (subject to a defense of laches). ‘The court invites the parties to submit simultaneous letter briefs, on or before April 30, 2019, not exceeding five pages in length, addressing the applicability of C.C.P. section 1094.6 to this action. Oral argument will not be scheduled unless one or more of the parties requests it in their letter brieffs). if no party requests oral argument, the casc will be resubmitted on the papers. ze Dated: 04/17/2019 Fin MAL Tudge Karin § Schwartz ‘OrderSHORT TE: Epple VS Alameda County Board of Education CASENUMBER RG18922005, ADDITIONAL ADDRESSEES FAGEN FRIEDMAN & FULFROST, LLP Attn: Smith, Cynthia M. 520 Capitol Mall, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 ‘Order