## Facts

- Hector F.’s son, Brian, attended schools in the El Centro Elementary School District from 2008 to 2011 and had diagnosed emotional disabilities, including bipolar disorder and attention deficit disorder.
- Brian was repeatedly bullied and harassed, including being physically restrained and beaten and subjected to derogatory comments and ethnic slurs.
- In 2010, Hector and Brian’s mother reported bruises and scratches to school officials; the harassment allegedly continued.
- In 2011, Brian wrote incident reports identifying perpetrators, and his parents wrote the principal; the principal proposed moving Brian out of the only bilingual classroom, which the parents rejected.
- Hector sued for damages related to bullying and also sought broader relief alleging the District failed to adopt and implement legally required comprehensive school-safety plans and related anti-discrimination/anti-harassment obligations under the Education Code.
- Hector sought a writ of mandate, declaratory relief, and relief for alleged waste of taxpayer funds to compel districtwide compliance with the statutory scheme.

## Issues

1. Whether Hector had traditional “special interest” standing to seek mandamus and related relief after Brian no longer attended District schools and without allegations that Hector’s other children were currently being harassed.
2. Whether Hector had public-interest (citizen/taxpayer) standing to seek mandamus to enforce statutory duties intended to protect public school students from discrimination, harassment, and bullying.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held Hector lacked traditional standing because he alleged no current, individualized injury tied to ongoing attendance in the District.
- The Court of Appeal held Hector had public-interest standing under the public right/public duty exception to mandamus standing to seek enforcement of districtwide statutory obligations.
- The court reversed the order sustaining the District’s demurrer for lack of standing and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus generally requires that the petitioner have a legal or special interest in the outcome, typically shown by a concrete, individualized stake.
- California recognizes a public right/public duty exception permitting mandamus where the action seeks enforcement of a public duty affecting public rights; in such cases, it is sufficient that the petitioner is interested as a citizen in having the laws executed.
- Statutes imposing affirmative anti-discrimination and student-protection obligations on public schools, including requirements for comprehensive school-safety planning, may constitute enforceable public duties supporting public-interest standing when the requested relief is prospective and systemwide.

## Conclusion

A parent whose child no longer attends a school district may be denied traditional standing to seek mandate for lack of a current individualized stake, but may still proceed under the public-interest standing doctrine to compel a district’s compliance with statutory duties to protect students from discrimination, harassment, and bullying through required school-safety measures.


Hector F. v. El Centro Elementary Sch. Dist., 227 Cal. App. 4th 331 (Ct. App. 2014)