Middleton, Young & Minney, LLP is a leader in charter school law, with experience representing over 300 charter schools throughout the state.

Our expertise encompasses every facet of California charter school law, from planning to ongoing operation. We offer value by developing customized strategies to address each client's specific situation — now, and into the future.

Charter School Services

Charter School Development

MYM attorneys have assisted in the development of over two hundred charter school petitions over the last ten years in the State of California. MYM attorneys are experts in the areas of drafting charter school petitions and supporting documentation to meet the high standards of local school district, county boards of education, and the State Board of Education.

Our representation in the area of charter school development can be behind the scenes to assist in the drafting, development, and review of documentation (our office has hundreds of sample charters, policies, contracts, etc.) that may be utilized by clients for the development of charter petitions. Or, if desired, our office can be the point person in quarterbacking and strategizing the best way to proceed to achieve the ultimate goal of a successful charter petition approval.

Litigation, Appeals and Administrative Hearings

MYM's litigation practice group offers its clients a long history of dedicated and successful representation.

The litigation group is highly regarded in the legal community and has successfully represented charter schools at all levels of State and Federal jurisdiction — on such diverse matters as personnel disputes, civil rights, personal injury, and student issues. In addition, the firm has earned favorable decisions for clients in numerous administrative hearings involving grievances, unfair practice charges, layoffs and dismissals, arbitration's, expulsions, and special education.

The firm's approach is to work in partnership with clients, regularly communicating the status of the case, with an eye toward cost containment, and keeping clients informed of the progress of their case.

Examples of the firm's successful school-related litigation includes:

• Ridgecrest Charter School v.Sierra Sands Unified School District:
  (130 Cal.App.4th 986, 30 Cal.Rptr. 3d. 648, June 29, 2005) This California Court of Appeal decision establishes a charter school's right to a contiguous school facility under Proposition 39. The case also addresses other issues under Prop 39 in the allocation of facilities to charter schools, including, the proper allocation of a proportionate share of specialized and non-teaching station space, grade level configuration issues, and the school district's obligation to provide a factual basis for their allocation of facilities under Prop. 39 that can be reviewed by a court of law.
• Alianza Charter School v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District: (CV149133 June 2004) Establishing a conversion charter school’s right to separate legal representation to challenge violations of the charter by the granting agency.
• Aurora Charter School v. Sequoia School District (2002) (Case No. CIV 422653) Establishing a charter school's right to a Proposition 39 facility base and upon its reasonable projection of enrollment and establishing the legality of out of grade level granting of a charter school.
• Bay Area School for Independent Study v. Sunol Glen Unified School District (2002) (Case No. 2002070992) Establishing a charter school's right to continuous funding from the granting agency notwithstanding a dispute with the granting agency regarding ADA.
• Evenson v. El Dorado County Office of Education (1994) (Case No. 94-0465) Establishing a charter school's right to be free from collective bargaining. (Case overturned by subsequent legislation [AB 631]).
• Prosser Creek Charter School v. Placer County Office of Education (2002) Defending the right of a charter school to receive continued funding while facing a FCMAT audit.
• CCSA, PUC, Green Dot Public Schools v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2007) (This matter was resolved through settlement establishing charter school's rights to facilities under Proposition 39).
• CSBA, CTA v. SBE and Aspire Public Schools (2008) (The trial court recently found in favor of the State Board of Education and Aspire Public Schools, that the State Board of Education did not abuse its discretion in approving a statewide charter, was not required to revoke the charter for its failure to comply with the conditions in the MOU, and that SBE's use of the ACCS in the statewide charter approval process need not go through the regulatory review of the Administrative Procedure Act).
• CSBA, CTA et. al v. CDE, SBE (CCSA intervener) (2008) (Defending the SBE's recently amended Proposition 39 implementing regulations which clarified the rights for charter schools to receive reasonably equivalent contiguous school facilities).