was she deprived of this right i mean you know even the letters that you rely on didn't say never coming to school they said you can come into the school but you have to get you have to ask us because of the way that she and after that letter she asked for permission to come on to the to the to the school it was given on a number of occasions and i don't know when i was going to ask whether any of cajuns when it wasn't given it wasn't given when she children's rights that's correct but i don't see how that happened here but i think they're in the sense after that letter that you're relying on for the federal retaliation claim said you could come on to the to the school grounds you just have to let us know and they gave her permission and they never denied her permission with respect to this disabled child and at least as that triggered the issuance of this letter was all advocacy on behalf of her her child i'm sorry i didn't hear all the what triggered the issuance of the letter to begin with was all advocacy on behalf of her yeah but there's advocacy and there's advocacy and they weren't the letter didn't say that she couldn't come into the school to advocate for her child or for any other reason all they did was place what seems to me on its face to be a reasonable restriction saying give us notice of when you want to comment and we'll act on it and they they gave a thorough and a number of instances i don't understand the purpose of this lawsuit you expect to collect a lot of money yeah absolutely not so what is the purpose of this and then a longer in the school i'm not saying it's moot i'm just trying to understand what the what what what the whole purpose of this lawsuit is i know she got aggravated with the school administration they got aggravated with her not without good reason and undisputed facts what's the purpose of the slawson it's easy to look at this situation say oh what's the big deal she has to ask permission to come on campus well st of all your honor there are a lot of circumstances where parents are allowed to come on campus without asking permission is not an equal protection cases no it's not statute sort of envisions that you within a reasonable time after asking you should be allowed to come on campus right that's what fifty one thousand one hundred and one says it does and they sent her a letter that said give us twenty four hours notice that's correct but and you could and in response the judge corman question did they ever say when she gave twenty four hours notice that she couldn't come absolutely they did and with time and there was one incident actually involving her disabled child she accompanied her disabled child on a field trip and that was her practice because he has cerebral palsy and he needs that special care to make sure exists and get jostled he also has some severe allergies after that field trip she was told by the principal if you go on another field trip we're going to yeah she did and she was told no you can't go so i'm just trying to find a new record can you show me where in the record she asked for after getting the letter to d p letter she said i bet i'd like to come shop in twenty four hours they letter attached to the complaint it's my letter the reason i got involved in this case to begin with with respect to that issue was that my client was told you can't go on a field trip with your son tomorrow and so i wrote a letter to the school on the a letter is attached to the that she made a request twenty four hours beforehand in the school district within that twenty four hour period said no yes ok i didn't find it recommended to give a reason i'm saying no and that's part of the problem here is there was no reason to it your honor and you know the the the real fundamental problem here is this is a very serious restriction because it gave the principal the ability to say the authority to say no without any review with any justification school she did say you know in an instance where it seemed to be very clearly in response to mrs canfield's expression of her st amendment rights critical of the teacher then being critical of the teacher is not grounds to she just didn't want to talk to you she didn't want to ask questions she was avoiding her this was this was there was no yelling at anyone there was no intimidation she was simply complaining about the change of ends but let  moment that there was a violation of the california statute and just for purposes discretion is there any california case suggesting there's a private cause of action under that's natural there's nothing on point except for the general principle that a reason for the ban on misty o me incidences having to do with her advocacy for her just say both child and then it's cites to statutes that clearly don't apply and i'm wondering if some of the center staff is just pretext for they didn't want to deal with than a parent every child  could have different views and some of this they could not even prove but let's say there was there are provisions under the california code and california has legislated comprehensively in this area here's what you do when there's a disruption this this is the appropriate response in this case they did not do what they were permitted to do under this town and were in summary judgment here yes so everybody agrees protected class everybody agrees they gave a facially valid reason for their actions and now we're at the question of whether there's any evidence or pretext enough evidence or pretext to to get past s and want to be turned out not to be true you make you may show up in front of a jury and they may turn down everything you say so the question is what's the evidence of pretext that should have precluded summary judgment being granted on on the retaliation claims  on the statement claims while one of the factors consider in this was what with their reaction and instead of relying on any statute their claim ok the reason we did this was this was terribly disruptive that was there in their explanation well if it was then they had statutes that govern this kind of a disruption and that's what they should have implemented instead of doing so and the searches are very clear as to what kind of behavior including using foul language or being abusive where a parent willfully disrupts with that kind of a language then they can be banned for fourteen days but there is nothing here in any california statute that authorizes an indefinite period of banned having to ask permission twenty four hours in advance and then having the principal be able to say no without any explanation there's just no authority and making it in forcible by a criminal penalty i mean they told these parents you will be arrested this wasn't just you know please give us a threat that you're going to be arrested producing something that isn't illegal pretty count under california law could he school say to all parents but it's an idea retaliation issue we want twenty four hours notice before your coming that the request must be granted so i know i'm putting aside i did not write them to say is telling someone that they have to ask twenty four hours in advance to to come to campus is on its face seems to be ok undercover i think if california enacted a piece of legislation that said this is our policy then that probably would be you know not have your answer different question the one i'm asking which is probably fall to my question existing california law school district says you know we'd like all parents to let us know a day before they want to be on campus ok i don't i'm suspect it would might be all right yes your honor i don't see anything then that would overtly prove prevent but the problem is not so much asking for the permission the problem is that i'm young we can say no and we can say no anytime we want for any reason and if you think about how potent that is to retaliate or to you to use to  actually contemplated or actually initially drafted a word or of this kind and the side not the senate because it appeared that the situation had resolved itself then they actually sent another letter a defense on the california that has to do well this is this is it was not really that does not fall into the discretionary exception that would be for for personal immunity but in fact there is no discretion to do something you don't have the authority to do they did not have the authority to to tell her that she could not come on the campus let me ask you as you said is an issue of fact i suppose we accept that everything they say about her is true they still couldn't of issue that they could not have imposed the restrictions that were imposed in that letter of the words just give us no notice and request and even if they and that that was that letter would be that even if she did everything that they say she did yes because there is no was already under california law when a parent is disruptive to send that kind of a letter and require the permit the permission of the principal had if she had honestly are if she had done everything that they said that she didn't that letter if still doesn't a rat rise even to the level of disruption that under california law would justify banning a p into a classroom curse out a teacher in vogue or language place the teacher or school personnel in such fear that they have to hide in a closet and they can't issue a letter of this kind in which that ultimately and in most instances when she asked to come on they granted it your honor if she had done that which she did not do there's a promise of my question is  would have been a violation of a criminal provision regarding parents willfully disrupting it would have been a misdemeanor and they could ban her under six hundred and twenty six dollars for fourteen days but they don't know that's what they could do it in your view even though they could or for whatever period of time they could not in your view require her to get twenty four hours ask in advance for twenty four hours and get permission to go the key there yes or no they could not because that that extends the ban beyond anything that is contemplated under under the law but they could count on they could tell all parents they had a twenty four hours in advance that yes you know the real problem is that the principal would you're really saying i think if this is what makes this illegal in your view is that it's a retaliation i'm not sure that telling any parent that they have to take twenty you know they can't come on campus with twenty four hours advance permission violates any california law which you're really saying is if this was done in retaliation for advocacy of one for a child i but i think it does go a little further than that if you look at the statute that governs the access by registered sex offenders that statute does say you have to get twenty four hours notice and you have to get permission now if it was just twenty four hours notice in this situation that would be somewhat different but if it says twenty four hours notice and permission and that tomorrow we're taking a field trip so you're perceiving from us an absolute right to attend the campus twenty four hours after giving notice and i don't find that anywhere in the statute you know you're not and you're not made i understand you're a television crime and i think it's the it's the heart of this case but i'm having trouble understanding the violation of the california statute just because they could have done something else then that the problem is your honor if if they said look you know when you're you're asking to do something they say well this isn't a convenient time let's do it another time that's one thing it's quite another to say no you can't do that well here are you can do that which claims do you think they're disputed issues those looking at mr canfield he did not use any foul language he was a victim he was attacked he took that position at the time he took it in his deposition that he got no opportunity for kids yes theoretically they could put a requirement of written permission every time but it wouldn't stand parents wouldn't put up with it well whether they put up with it or not is not the issue see that's what it's going to ford putting up with it is not a legal argument i mean be a real problem here is you think they were picking on your client and there's some evidence that they were but i think that's that goes to you rehabilitation claim but i don't much or how it goes to your state that's that's my problem i'm just letting you know  play please the court daniel motor ferry for the defendants pelleas i like to start arguments with common ground and simple questions of what everyone can agree on there's no dispute certainly not hearing the argument of counsel and questions from the court there's no dispute certainly that parents do not have the absolute right to unfettered access to a school any time they please so then the question is under what circumstances if any do they have the right to access well it is a does a preliminary question which is let's assume you're denied access under a circumstance where the school district shouldn't be denying you access if you have a private cause of action for damages said i can't find a case either so what's the school districts position my position your honor is that if the legislature had intended to create personal liability for school administrators every time they deny access to a person to come to campus the legislature would well have said that so your position is there is no private person it's a simple way to speak to put it assuming there is a private cause of action  and assuming as your as your friend says that it's probably ok to say to parents you've got to ask for twenty four hours in advance before you come under what grounds may permission be denied under state law granted so for those things where the parents were invited just a case in is there for imposing this request and authorization certainly knowing there the record shows for soon there was a controversy at the beginning of the year of whether or not mrs canfield's youngest daughter ought to be assigned to this because this class as part of that there was a meeting with the motion explicitly stated in responding to defendant's statement of under speeded facts plaintiffs have noted that although several of the listed facts are not supported by admissible evidence plaintiffs have designated them as under sputum for purposes of or judgment motion there are no disputed facts whatsoever when it's did not produce any admissible evidence of their own the only exhibits the plaintiffs produced whatsoever were attached haphazardly to the back of they were my understand my understanding is the california claims were dismissed out of twelve b six motion that's correct so so they would address so that you have to take them so you have to take the complaint in the light most favorable to the complaint of correct indeed they may have been we have a claiming their face so what you're saying is that even if someone is kept out of the school for no reason that's what she alleges it turns out you got a reason but that summary judgment she says i was kept out of the school for no reason  you win that case one hundred and fifty times if you try it because you've got a reason but it's a motion to dismiss and she says i was kept out for no reason can you keep her out for no reason i believe so your honor i believe that that's part of the discretion vested in the school administrators to determine when a reasonable time is for the plaintiff to come to campus because the statute only provides that they must be allowed to come within a reasonable time after making the request with respect to at least this one occasion they were not allowed to come correct correct but that's not in the face of the complaint that's part of the difficulty of  mixing the two factual records i understand so that the complaint just the complaint makes the broad allegation that i'm entitled to come and you can impose this twenty four hour restriction on me for that and the the field trip issue that was addressed earlier that issue is on the face of the complaint and what's actually alleged is that plaintiff's daughter indicated that her mother would be attending the field trip the teacher not one of the defendants in this case made a comment that she did not believe that the mother was permitted to come to the field trip it was then run up the chain of command  council got involved with sending a letter and ultimately she was permitted to attend a field trip so so that's why we asked you your your opponent this question in the end were there circumstances where she asked for permission to come to the campus to observe and she then she was completely denied that permission with respect to this field i don't understand that on this one field trip the two parents were not allowed to go your honor i don't believe that there's anything in the record in the good ok that's why i was asking a question they may have been somebody may have said don't come but eventually they got to go i believe that's very good with respect to the federal claims and i think you know we're we all agree if you like common ground agree that we're at the rd step of the so called we don't like this analysis is there any evidence or pretext or sufficient evidence to create a triable issue fact your honor there goes to what i was saying a moment ago the plaintiffs did not present any evidence whatsoever in opposition to the welcome they made up presented lead to some of the evidence they say that in the record is evidence of pretext say that that some of these actions were taken shortly after they engage in advocacy efforts on behalf of their child that's where the case law in the case of the miracle proximity by itself  not not enough but it's a fact well certainly ok now we have a silly ask the other faction you can because i don't think it's disputed that these facts exist there's some sort of there's intemperate internal e mails and intemperate internal e mail i think about these parents i i'm not asking you to defend it or not defend it but it is there and there's a letter that cites provisions that are not applicable to this particular remedy which is for fourteen you know which is the give us twenty four hours notice it's at or so why don't have those things together because i think those are the only things there are also the fact that in the briefing on appeal they offer reasons completely different from the reasons that appear in the letter for defending the reason i'd left those out course i wanted to get to that's i'm not sure they're relevant but i record even if they weren't offered by your opponent why don't they create enough of an issue of fact and pretext your honor st of all we can't be so myopic to look at only the fact that mrs canfield was coming to the school in january and february with regard to her disabled child and then the letter comes out in march again that that would go back to temple proximity alone what we're dealing with here is not the fact of advocacy it's the method of my clients have a right to come and advocate before this court but if i began using lay person with a degree in education citing the wrong statute i don't think it is evidence whatsoever of animist toward a person based on advocacy for a disabled person there's there's no that's a gigantic question a jury jury should decide though i thought i don't think a reasonable jury could make that conclusion and i think that that's that's a giant logical leap to go from someone i think it's too myopic to look at just one incident using the media where you put all these instances in here and i think you know they may it may be that the school officials just standard she might just say didn't want to deal with this ward the more i work with mrs canfield the more i believe public education might not be the medium for educating our children that e mail is sent out right before she gets the opi don't be the letter to the people that wri e i don't recall the precise date your honor but it also might already know there's a bunch of stuff going back with our teachers and by the way you get to trial and the jury might say boy they were all perfectly justified in doing it she was impossible but there's a bunch of exchanges there saying please protect me from this woman keep her off you know keep her away from me i'm backing this up the line because i'm afraid to do with her and when you put that all together and some of the reasons they were afraid to deal with her was her advocacy the mode of it not the not the fact of it you know it's not enough to warrant one member only in summary judgment to create an issue of fact about whether or not this ban was or does this not context which would be the purpose of laying foundation the context is that there was discussion among not just the school but with the parents about whether or not their child might be better in a private program and that's again that's not in the record because the e mail wasn't in the record so these are these e mails all show up just attached to a response paper correct an aide felt so uncomfortable that she would harden a lock closet until misty left the campus in order to avoid unpleasant interactions with her and i also suggested that other relevant facts one disputed you said they were all disputed with respect to that specific one you said it was disputed now what i'm looking at you are statement of undisputed facts and particularly on page e r one  which you say it's understood you did following these incidents with misty nisco moved out so uncomfortable that she would hide inside a clock classroom until nestle left the campus in order to avoid them pleasant interactions with her you say that it did when you put it in your statement of undisputed facts with your answer to me correct i when i said that i had assumed these were undisputed yes but i specifically asked you about this one and you said that there was that i was disputed what i was trying to communicate your honor is that misty did not attack this woman that this was her gift that misty had no idea that she was even doing this that that what she was uncomfortable with next the preceding undisputed is that you would not candid and answering my questions your honor and i find that to be unacceptable if you look at me and to explain we did put in supplemental excerpts of record about ms camilla and what she said is the reason that she was not wanting to be there if he felt that misty was critical about her that she was critical of her work that she felt that she might lose her job because of misty's criticisms it wasn't because misty had attacked her so yes the fact that she was a that she felt that misty was critical of her performance that's what she said in her declaration that we're that we submitted in the supplemental excerpts of record but i'm looking at your understand your response in their statement of facts there's about five facts that are disputed mostly it's legal conclusions so every fact is undisputed that you said was undisputed blown correct you don't get to change your view on appeal yet yes there were some facts for which we said that there was no admissible evidence to say well i'm talking you know i'm looking at the their statement of undisputed facts and you i only count six objections some of them are partial objections some are the best insofar as it deals with miss canfield other than for legal reasons which you know the there were various things that were disputed with respect to that letter and you know if i could go through for example the idea that they that children were discharged because somehow this required to protect their privacy there's no evidence of that at all in the record they did they didn't put any evidence to support that this isn't a well put sixty two says miscarriage poor reporter d n c to the principal telling dr so and so correct that's not evidence that in fact what is you that's what i'm trying to find out it doesn't say that mr camfield said he didn't use any profanity that's the only place in which you say it's not correct what we're saying is that the letter is inadmissible it doesn't that's a legal issue understand right so that's that's not a disputed fact and the only matter letter my right the only fact you dispute that was asserted here was that mr campfield i did not use any profanity we're just getting the truth of the contents of that  all they say she sent this e mail yes she sent the e mail that she had was it true you know that's that's my problem it's a it's a it's a time for summary judgment a judgment a judge is trying to figure out what facts are disputed they say there's some here's some facts and you say the e mails not admissible it lacks foundation in all the legal objections fair enough the judge can rule on those what your factual dispute with e mail mr campfield testify did he not did not use any anything here you argue that it's not admissible and we can deal with that but you know a factual dispute anything other than that we dispute that he has profanity mr boyd turn out dead and my guy and i don't understand but with respect to that here's how you respond to it and it's very carefully drawn california has occupied the field they said if there's a disruption you can tell the parent to leave if they refuse to leave you can have them arrested if they could have created a willful material disruption you can ban them for fourteen days but under no circumstances can extend beyond fourteen days and that is really the fundamental problem here because they're getting around to the california statutes which are completely comprehensive if california said the imposition what you can do under that case is make them require requests for twenty four hours advance and give the principal the option of saying no california could have said that they didn't this was a completely unjustified position and not only that but it was was it was coupled with a threat of criminal prosecution and there is simply no criminal statute on the books that says that a parent can be arrested and prosecuted for coming on to campus six months later just because the principal said no