Cheteni v. Malia Vella and Carrie Lopes

Background

The case concerns the California Department of Education’s suspension of federal Emergency Assistance for Non-Public Schools funding to The VR School. Malia Vella was then-Deputy Superintendent of the California Department of Education with oversight of the program, and Carrie Lopes was an Education Administrator who supported its implementation. Cheteni operated The VR School and applied for two rounds of funding.

The school reported that all of its stated students came from low-income families. It received $115,631 in direct reimbursements under the first funding program. The California Department of Education later allocated $834,102 in services and assistance under the second program. Concerns arose after an approved vendor questioned an invoice involving InventXR, LLC, which appeared to share an address with The VR School and was associated with Cheteni. The department then conducted a monitoring review.

The review team concluded that the materials provided did not adequately support the school’s reported enrollment, low-income student count, or prior expenditures. After the school did not provide additional documentation requested during the review, Vella decided to suspend additional funding until appropriate documentation was provided. Lopes informed the school of that decision on April 17, 2023, and Vella later provided a more detailed explanation.

Cheteni sued Vella and Lopes in their individual capacities. The remaining claims were procedural due process, First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, and a claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Cheteni represented himself. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no important factual dispute requires a trial and that one side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Procedural Due Process Claim

The court rejected Cheteni’s claim that the defendants deprived him of property without fair procedures. The court explained that such a claim requires both a protected property or liberty interest and inadequate procedures.

The court found that Cheteni had not established that The VR School was eligible for the second funding program. Applicants had to show that at least 20 percent of their students were from low-income families and had to retain records verifying the reported information. The materials Cheteni provided did not establish the required enrollment or low-income counts. Because the evidence did not show eligibility, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Cheteni had a property interest in the funding.

The court also found that Cheteni was given multiple opportunities to provide documentation during the monitoring review. Although he pointed to an email indicating that an appeal could begin and to materials concerning a complaint process, the court concluded that those materials did not show that he was denied due process. The court entered judgment for the defendants on this claim.

First Amendment Retaliation Claim

Cheteni argued that the defendants suspended the funding in retaliation for his complaints about racial discrimination. The court held that the evidence did not allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the complaints caused the adverse action.

The court found that the monitoring review began because of concerns about possible self-dealing and that the decision to suspend funding was made after the school failed to provide required documentation. Lopes had informed The VR School of the suspension on April 17, 2023, before Cheteni’s formal May 17 discrimination complaint and the May 20 letter providing additional explanation. The court also found that Cheteni’s references to earlier complaints in 2022 lacked sufficient detail and evidentiary support. The court entered judgment for the defendants on the retaliation claim.

Equal Protection and Title VI Claims

Cheteni claimed that the defendants treated him differently because of his race and that White-operated schools received more opportunities to correct documentation problems. The court analyzed the equal protection and Title VI claims together because both required evidence of intentional discrimination. Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance.

The court found that the defendants had strong evidence of nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions: a conflict-of-interest concern prompted the monitoring review, and the school did not provide sufficient documentation after repeated opportunities. The court determined that Cheteni’s evidence— including uncorroborated allegations about statements and racial comments—did not show that race was more likely than not the reason for the defendants’ actions. The court therefore entered judgment for the defendants on both claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety and denied Cheteni’s motion for summary judgment.