IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

Similar documents
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

IN THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT WASHINGTON COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/06/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA COMPLAINT. I. Preliminary Statement

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WEBER COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

Case 8:16-cv CEH-AAS Document 8 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 25 PageID 210

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH. Civil No.: Judge

Case: 1:11-cv DCN Doc #: 2 Filed: 11/03/11 1 of 12. PageID #: 13

No BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY, COUNTY, ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BLUEFIELD DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAN JUAN COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH. Case No. v. Judge WILLIE GRAYEYES,

Case 3:16-cv RLY-MPB Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1

Case 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BLUEFIELD DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : COMPLAINT

Smith v United Church of Christ 2011 NY Slip Op 30205(U) January 19, 2011 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Milton A.

Respondent. PETITIONERS Vickers, UCE, Ready

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION COMPLAINT

THEALLIANCE 2017 MANUAL. of The Christian and Missionary Alliance

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SUMMIT COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Roanoke Division ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT.

Central Wasatch Commission

Case 8:19-cv Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 1 of 31 PageID 1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY AT INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURl

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION


Curtis L. Johnston Selman v. Cobb County School District, et al June 30, 2003

FEB Upon consideration of the Motion to Proceed filed in the above cause, and. now being sufficiently advised in the premises,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BYLAWS FOR AGAPE CHINESE ALLIANCE CHURCH

Case 1:12-cv RJS Document 8 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 8

6:13-cv GRA Date Filed 09/11/13 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 25. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Greenville Division

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD. Docket # 1850 DECISION

John M. O Connor, Esq. ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C.

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street, Denver, CO 80202

(Article I, Change of Name)

Frequently Asked Questions for Incoming Churches Joining Foursquare via the Covenant Agreement

EXHIBIT 4 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 11/07/ :40 PM. the. Affirmation of Laurel J. Eveleigh

INTERNATIONAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST A California Nonprofit Religious Corporation An Affiliation of Churches. Charter Affiliation Agreement

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT CRITTENDEN COUNTY APPELLEES SECOND MOTION AND BRIEF FOR RECONSIDERATION

The State of West Virginia, by and through its duly elected Attorney General, Patrick

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA No.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER 93 ( CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECKS ) OF THE MANALAPAN TOWNSHIP CODE Ordinance No.

The One Church Plan Summary of Plan

County of Kane Office of County Board Kane County Government Center. DOCUMENT VET SHEET for Karen McConnaughay Chairman, Kane County Board (1J I6 A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case No.: Honorable Judge Commissioner. COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, LORIE JEAN KENDALL RICKS, individually and as

1. Responding to Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information or belief

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

and sexuality, a local church or annual conference may indicate its desire to form or join a self-governing

SIM GILL DISTRICT ATTORNEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE FILE NO: 08 CVS Plaintiffs, Defendants.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH DECISION 1315

Case 3:18-cv BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

R. BLAKE HAMILTON. Shareholder. Salt Lake City.

May 23, Attention:

Administrative law - consultative body appointed by Minister- judicial review of its powers and activities.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. CIVIL No.

The General Assembly declare and enact as follows:-

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, LAW DIVISION COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Powell v. Portland School District. Chronology

DIOCESE OF WILLOCHRA. Churchwarden / Secretary. of congregation. do hereby certify that the number of persons from this congregation

BYLAWS. The Rock of the Christian and Missionary Alliance

Case 2:11-cv GP Document 12 Filed 09/29/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JENSIE L. ANDERSON. University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law

Case 1:01-cv RGS Document 56 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

lo) [E ~ [E ~ \Yl [E rr\ lru JUN 2 I 2012 ty

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT MOUNT ZION MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH **********

Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, and Lemons, JJ., and Russell, S.J.

FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 11/16/ :25 AM

PROPOSALS MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN: 5:00 p.m., April 30, Proposals received after this time will not be evaluated.

Case 2:18-cr RJS Document 1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

CANON XVII. The Licensing of Clergy. I. The Issue of Licenses; Registers, Inhibitions and Transfers

100 EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY

2:13-cv RMG Date Filed 08/15/17 Entry Number 83-1 Page 1 of 12

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT C/W SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. ************

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Page 1. Page 2. Page 4 1 (Pages 1 to 4) Page 3

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: Filed: 05/11/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2260

SC COSA Fall Legal Summit August 26, 2016 Thomas K. Barlow, Esq. Childs & Halligan, P.A.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION OF INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT

Plaintiff, -vs- CASE NO CACE (07) Defendants. / DEER VALLEY REALTY, INC., Plaintiff, -vs- CASE NO.: CACE (07) Defendants.

CARL HERNANDEZ III. Managing Editor, BYU Journal of Public Law, , J. Reuben Clark Law School

C&MA Accredited Local Church Constitution

Wall High School. SAT Evening Course Offerings Prepare for the SAT. Multiple Sessions Offered for Summer, Winter, and Spring SATs

NO AFFIDAVIT OF CHAD BATES

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

IRS Private Letter Ruling (Deacons)

THE POWERS OF A PARISH MEETING IN A PARISH WITHOUT A SEPARATE PARISH COUNCIL

Chapter 7 Unmarked Graves and the Rasmusson Lawsuit ( )

Transcription:

Jerry Salcido (11956) jerry@salcidolaw.com Spencer Benny Salcido (14490) benny@salcidolaw.com SALCIDO LAW FIRM PLLC 43 W 9000 S Ste B Sandy UT 84070 801.413.1753 Phone 801.618.1380 Fax Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH PATTI BATEMAN, DAVID COX, TIMOTHY OSBORN, CHRISTEL SWASEY, GARY THOMPSON, STEVE WHITEHOUSE, Plaintiffs, PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Case No.: Judge: v. UTAH STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. COMES NOW Plaintiffs Patti Bateman, David Cox, Timothy Osborn, Christel Swasey, Gary Thompson, and Steve Whitehouse ( Plaintiffs ), through counsel, and hereby submit the following Petition for Declaratory Judgment as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Patti Bateman is a retired teacher. She was teaching in a Utah elementary school in 2010. She is a resident of Utah. 2. Plaintiff David Cox is an elementary school teacher. He was teaching in a Utah elementary school in 2010. He is a resident of Utah.

3. Plaintiff Timothy Osborn is a former member of the Alpine School Board. He was a member of the Alpine School Board in 2010. He is a resident of Utah. 4. Plaintiff Christel Swasey is a parent of school aged children and a licensed educator. She is a resident of Utah. 5. Plaintiff Gary Thompson is a parent of school aged children. He is a resident of Utah. 6. Plaintiff Steve Whitehouse is a board member of the Maeser Prep Charter School. He was a board member in 2010. He is a resident of Utah. 7. The Utah State Board of Education (the Board ) is a governmental entity created by Article 10, Section 3 of the Utah State Constitution. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 78A-5-102 and Utah Code Ann. 78B-6-401. 9. Venue is proper in Salt Lake County under Utah Code 78B-3-307(1)(b). ALLEGATIONS 10. On August 6, 2010, the Board established new minimum standards for curriculum to be taught in Utah s public schools. These new minimum standards were developed by a group called the Common Core State Standards Initiative, a national group formed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The minimum standards are referred to as the Common Core. 11. The minimum standards contained in Common Core are only for the subject areas of English Language Arts ( ELA ) and Math. Common Core is a written statement defining and listing the minimum standards for curriculum and instruction requirements in Utah s public schools. Common Core will be fully effective in the 2014-2015 school year. 2

12. Beginning this school year, all ELA and Math teachers are required to teach curriculum and prepare students for aligned assessments in a way that satisfies Common Core. A trial test aligned with Common Core was administered last year in preparation for the actual test. This school year students are required to show mastery of Common Core through the new test; the test will be administered to all students. 13. Common Core was never published as a proposed rule by the Board. 14. Common Core is not found in the Utah Administrative Code but a written version of it can be found on the website of the Utah State Office of Education ( USOE ). The Board does not consider Common Core a rule under the definition as provided by law; therefore, the Board did not follow administrative rulemaking procedures in establishing and implementing Common Core and the aligned assessments. 15. The Utah State Legislature has directed the Board to establish rules and standards related to curriculum and instruction requirements. The Utah State Legislature has also directed the Board to consult with local school boards, school superintendents, teachers, employers, and parents in establishing minimum standards related to curriculum and instruction requirements. 16. Upon information and belief, the Board did not consult with local school boards, school superintendents, teachers, employers, and parents in the establishment and implementation of Common Core. 17. Plaintiffs objected to the establishment and implementation of Common Core but were never given notice, as required by administrative rulemaking procedures, of the Board s intent to establish and implement Common Core. Plaintiffs never had an opportunity to express their opposition to Common Core prior to its establishment and implementation because there was never a prescribed time period for public comment. 3

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment that Common Core is a Rule, Utah Code 63G-3-102(16)(a)) 18. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all preceding paragraphs in this Petition in this cause 19. A justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and the Board, specifically that Common Core is not recognized by the Board as a rule. 20. The interests of the parties are adverse as the Board refuses to recognize Common Core as a rule and Plaintiffs believe it is a rule. 21. Plaintiffs have a legally protected interest in the controversy, that is, they have been affected by or are interested in Common Core. 22. The issues between the parties involved are ripe for judicial determination because Common Core is currently enforced in Utah s public schools as an administrative rule. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment that Common Core is Subject to the Rulemaking Process, Utah Code 63G-3-101 et seq. ) 23. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all preceding paragraphs in this Petition in this cause 24. A justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and the Board, specifically the making of standards for curriculum and instruction is subject to the administrative rulemaking process. 25. The interests of the parties are adverse as the Board failed to follow the administrative rulemaking process for Common Core, thereby removing Plaintiffs ability to participate in the rulemaking process. 4

26. Plaintiffs have a legally protected interest in the controversy, that is, they have been affected by or are interested in Common Core. 27. The issues between the parties involved are ripe for judicial determination because there is a dispute as to whether Common Core is subject to the rulemaking process. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment that Common Core is Unenforceable in Utah Schools, Utah Code Ann. 63G-3-202) 28. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all preceding paragraphs in this Petition in this cause 29. A justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and the Board, specifically if Common Core is enforceable in Utah s public schools. 30. The interests of the parties are adverse as the Board seeks to enforce Common Core in Utah s public schools. 31. Plaintiffs have a legally protected interest in the controversy, that is, they have been affected by or are interested in Common Core. 32. The issues between the parties involved are ripe for judicial determination because the Board is enforcing Common Core in Utah s public schools. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment that the Board did not Consult with the Parties Required by Utah Code Ann. 53A-1-402.6) 33. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all preceding paragraphs in this Petition in this cause 5

34. A justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and the Board, specifically if the Board consulted with local school boards, school superintendents, teachers, employers, and parents in establishment and implementation of Common Core. 35. The interests of the parties are adverse as the Board failed to consult with local school boards, school superintendents, teachers, employers, and parents as required by law. 36. Plaintiffs have a legally protected interest in the controversy, that is, they were entitled to be consulted by the Board. 37. The issues between the parties involved are ripe for judicial determination because the Board denied Plaintiffs their right to be consulted in the establishment and implementation of Common Core. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. For declaratory judgment that Common Core is a rule. 2. For declaratory judgment that Common Core is subject to the administrative rulemaking process. 3. For declaratory judgment that Common Core and its associated assessments are unenforceable in Utah s public schools. 4. For declaratory judgment that the Board failed to consult with local school boards, school superintendents, teachers, employers, and parents as required by law, and that the Board shall consult with them on the establishment and implementation of any standards concerning curriculum and instruction requirements. 5. For an order enjoining the Board from further implementing Common Core in Utah s public schools, from requiring Utah s public schools to further adopt or abide by Common Core, and from enforcing Common Core in Utah s public schools. 6

DATED this 31st day of July, 2014. SALCIDO LAW FIRM PLLC /s/ Spencer Salcido Attorneys for Plaintiff 7