In San Francisco, Virus is Contained but Schools Are Still Closed

[David Lockmiller]

Petitioners’ Reply:

Attorneys for Petitioners, Paul Scott, Lani Remick, and Laurence Tribe, write:

Only this lawsuit removed that resolution from the official record of the San Francisco Board of Education and precluded the Board from taking further actions predicated on the resolution. [Page 5, lines 1-2.]

The term “frivolous” means “totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” CCP § 128.5(a)(2). [Page 7, lines 10-11.] Petitioners would thus respectfully request that, in issuing its statement of decision in this matter, the Court set the public record straight on this point. The Court has sufficient briefing before it to state whether this action appears frivolous or filed in bad faith. Moreover, the Court has jurisdiction to make such a finding as part of its inherent and statutory power to control proceedings before it, including the false statements in the Repealing Resolution that was filed with the Court by Respondents. [Emphasis added in this post.] See e.g., In re Jackson (1985) 170 CA3d 773, 778 (outlining the court’s authority to exercise reasonable control over proceedings connected with the litigation before it); cf. CCP § 128.5 (permitting a court in any case to levy sanctions against parties who file frivolous or bad faith actions). [Page 7, lines 15-23.]

Based on the foregoing, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court a) hold that this action was not frivolous nor filed without proper purpose . . . . [Page 7, lines 25-26.]


The issues raised by the Board are important issues that merit public discussion, but such discussions will only be productive if handled in a forthright and transparent manner with proper notice and due process for all concerned. [Page 8, lines 3-5.]