AFT Local 2121 et al v. Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

Filing 84

ORDER Re Docket Nos. 77 , 81 . Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/11/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AFT LOCAL 2121, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-03411-HSG

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 77, 81

9
10
11

ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR
COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES,
et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

The Court held a case management conference on December 13, 2016. Dkt. No. 76. At

14

the case management conference, the Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefing

15

regarding Plaintiffs’ requests that the Court (1) order Defendant Accrediting Commission for

16

Community and Junior Colleges (“ACCJC”) to delay implementation of any decision to terminate

17

City College of San Francisco’s accreditation pending a hearing on a temporary restraining order

18

(“TRO”) or (2) order ACCJC to inform Plaintiffs of its accreditation decision on a specific date.

19

Id. The parties have submitted their supplemental briefing. Dkt. Nos. 77, 81.

20
21

*

*

*

Having reviewed the parties’ supplemental briefing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’

22

requests. The Court finds persuasive ACCJC’s explanation that Plaintiffs’ requested forms of

23

relief are impracticable, inconsistent with an orderly process for making and documenting

24

ACCJC’s accreditation decisions, and unsupported by legal authority. The Court will hold

25

ACCJC to its representation that if it decides to terminate City College of San Francisco’s

26

accreditation, it will inform the public, including Plaintiffs, of its decision within 24 hours of

27

notifying the institution. Dkt. No. 81 at 3. Additionally, the Court is unaware of any law that

28

would prevent City College from informing Plaintiffs immediately once it is notified of the

1

termination of its accreditation status, if it so chooses. Although the timing of the briefing on any

2

TRO sought may be taxing on the parties and the Court, the Court declines to issue an actual or de

3

facto injunction that interferes with ACCJC’s normal business practices at this stage in the

4

litigation.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: 1/11/2017

7
8

______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2