Cheteni v. Vella

Background

Freedom Cheteni brought claims against Malia Vella and Carrie Lopes concerning the California Department of Education’s suspension of services and assistance for The VR School under the Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools program. The school had received $115,631 in direct reimbursements under the first round of funding and had received $324,846 in services under the second round before the suspension. The California Department of Education began reviewing the school’s eligibility after concerns about its reported low-income enrollment figures, documentation, and a possible conflict involving InventXR. The agency concluded that the school had not provided enough documentation to support its enrollment figures or its use of reimbursed funds.

The operative complaint asserted six claims: racial discrimination in contracting under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; denial of procedural due process; retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights; an unconstitutional taking without compensation; unequal protection; and discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Cheteni moved for partial summary judgment, a temporary restraining order, joinder of FACTS as a defendant, sealing of exhibits, and striking portions of defendants’ briefing.

Partial Summary Judgment

The court denied Cheteni’s motion for partial summary judgment on all six claims.

For the § 1981 contracting claim, the court held that Cheteni had not shown undisputed facts proving discrimination or disproving defendants’ stated nondiscriminatory reason for suspending funding: the alleged failure to provide adequate documentation. The court also held that The VR School, rather than Cheteni individually, was the proper party to bring a claim based on the school’s contractual relationship.

For procedural due process, the court found that Cheteni had not established either a protected property interest or a denial of adequate procedures. The evidence showed that officials gave him multiple opportunities to prove the school’s eligibility before suspending funding. The court therefore found that he had not shown a denial of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

For First Amendment retaliation, the court found that Cheteni had not presented undisputed facts showing that the school’s services would have continued absent a retaliatory motive. The court noted that he filed his formal discrimination complaint about one month after he was first told that services were being suspended, and that defendants attributed the suspension to inadequate enrollment documentation.

For the takings claim, the court held that Cheteni’s allegations—that he spent his own money expecting reimbursement—resembled a contract dispute and did not state a claim under the constitutional provision prohibiting uncompensated takings. The court also found that he had not presented undisputed evidence sufficient to obtain summary judgment.

For equal protection, the court found that Cheteni had not shown as a matter of law that discriminatory intent was more likely than not the reason for the agency’s actions. Cheteni relied on his allegation that white-operated private schools were not subjected to similar audits or documentation requirements, while defendants attributed the review to a specific concern and the absence of budget authority for general audits.

For the Title VI claim, the court stated that Cheteni would need to show that he was an intended beneficiary of the federally funded program and that defendants intentionally discriminated against him. The court found that insufficient documentation about the school’s low-income enrollment could mean that The VR School was not an intended beneficiary, and again found no undisputed proof of intentional discrimination.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court denied Cheteni’s application for a temporary restraining order and mandatory injunction. He sought to prevent defendants from interfering with alleged vendor contracts, stop communications about The VR School’s eligibility, require payment of funds, and obtain a preliminary-injunction hearing.

The court held that Cheteni had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, the first requirement for a temporary restraining order. It found that defendants had submitted sworn explanations for suspending funding and that Cheteni had not refuted those explanations with admissible evidence or shown them to be a pretext. The court also applied the higher standard for a mandatory injunction, which would change rather than preserve the existing situation, and found that the law and facts did not clearly favor Cheteni’s position.

Other Motions

The court denied the motion to strike references to The VR School as the “real party in interest.” The court found those references neither redundant, immaterial, impertinent, nor scandalous, and noted that it had previously questioned whether Cheteni could sue individually and had found authority indicating that The VR School was the proper party for a possible § 1981 claim.

The court denied the motion to join FACTS as a party. It found that the six claims concerned the California Department of Education’s decision to suspend The VR School’s eligibility, and that Cheteni had not shown FACTS was involved in that decision. The court stated that Cheteni could seek permission to amend his complaint to assert specific, plausible claims against FACTS, but such a motion would not automatically be granted.

The court granted the motion to seal the unredacted exhibits because they contained Cheteni’s birthday. It did not consider sanctions or other additional relief related to that request.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for partial summary judgment, the application for a temporary restraining order, the motion to strike, and the motion for joinder. It granted the motion to seal improperly filed exhibits but did not grant other relief related to sealing. The court ordered the parties to appear for an initial case-management conference on January 31, 2025, and to submit a joint case-management statement by January 24, 2025.