Updated at 3 p.m. Nov. 4, 2015
A Superior Court judge who dismissed a lawsuit against the Grossmont Union High School District over a never-built Alpine high school has vacated his own ruling.
Attorneys for both sides were informed Wednesday morning that in light of an appeals court ruling in the case — which favored the Alpine Union School District and an allied party — Judge Joel Pressman will reconsider the issue.
At stake is $42 million in Grossmont district bond money that Alpine wants set aside for a high school that backers say was promised in 2004 and 2008 voter-approved propositions — H and U.
A note from Pressman’s office ordered lawyers for both sides to appear in his court at 1:45 p.m. Friday for a status conference to set a further briefing schedule.
On Tuesday, the 11-campus Grossmont high school district declared victory in the case. But hours later, the state 4th District Court of Appeal issued a ruling that backed Alpine high school advocates.
Alan Brubaker, a lawyer respresenting the Alpine district, said the K-8 feeder district “is encouraged by the trial court’s reversal of its recent decision.”
“We intend to continue all efforts to see these promises fulfilled with the construction of a new high school in Alpine,” he said via email.
A lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, Alpine Taxpayers for Bond Accountability, predicted Tuesday that Pressman would be inclined to follow the lead of the appellate court.
Even after Pressman’s decision, Grossmont schools Superintendent Ralf Swenson told the school board Wednesday via email: “We remain optimistic that after further consideration of the evidence, the Court will come to the same conclusion as issued in the final ruling, and ultimately dismiss this matter.”
Warrington S. Parker III, an attorney for Grossmont, said in statement: “It is apparent that the trial court is proceeding carefully in light of the Court of Appeal decision.”
But the appellate decision “expressly contemplates that the trial court was and is entitled to consider additional evidence in considering the issues and it did so,” he said.
In Parker’s view, the appeals court is leaving the matter up to Pressman to decide.
Parker’s statement was quoted by Grossmont schools Swenson in a note to school trustees obtained by Times of San Diego:
Dear Trustees,
I would like to pass along information related to the roller-coaster ride we have been on regarding the series of decisions and rulings related to the lawsuit filed against our district by the parties in Alpine.
As we informed you yesterday, the final ruling on the Alpine Lawsuit matter was entered by Judge Pressman, dismissing the lawsuit on Alpine’s request for a permanent injunction against GUHSD and canceling all scheduled court dates in relation to a December, 2015 trial on the matter.
Following on the tail of that decision was an opinion entered by the Court of Appeals on GUHSD’s Appeal to the Superior Court’s earlier granting of a preliminary injunction (which had forced us to set aside the $42 million). The preliminary injunction would have remained in place pending the outcome of the permanent injunction trial in December, unless the matter was overturned on appeal or the final matter was decided or dismissed. Note: We initially understood the appeal would be heard this past July, however it was delayed until October due to the Appellate Court’s heavy calendar.
This morning, we received word that Judge Pressman had vacated his final ruling in light of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s Decision on GUHSD’s Appeal of the Preliminary Injunction. Judge Pressman indicated he will set a hearing to reconsider his ruling. He has requested that both parties appear in Court this Friday, November 6 at 1:45 for a Status Conference and to set dates for the new hearing.
A note from our attorney:
It is apparent that the trial court is proceeding carefully in light of the Court of Appeal decision. However, the Court of Appeal’s decision expressly contemplates that the trial court was and is entitled to consider additional evidence in considering the issues and it did so. To say it most succinctly, the Court of Appeal affirmed the preliminary injunction. It has left it to the trial court to decide the case on a full consideration of the evidence.
We remain optimistic that after further consideration of the evidence, the Court will come to the same conclusion as issued in the final ruling, and ultimately dismiss this matter.
We will update you following Friday’s Status Conference with the Court.
