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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?