Hoschler

Hoschler v. Sacramento City Unified School District

Good Law
149 Cal. App. 4th 258·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 487·2007 Daily Journal DAR 4411·57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 115·25 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1881
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 3, 2007C050940California4,947 words

Opinion

Opinion

Butz, J.

Plaintiff Stephen Hoschler appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate, which sought his reinstatement as a teacher for defendant Sacramento City Unified School District (the District).

The central issue in this case is whether the District gave Hoschler timely notice of his nonreelection as a teacher for the 2004-2005 term under Education Code section 44929.21. Section 44929.21 provides that an employee on probationary status is deemed to have been “reelected” for the next succeeding school year unless the District “notifies]” him by March 15 of its decision not to retain him. The statute does not prescribe how such notice shall be given. Here, the District sent a notice of nonretention to Hoschler by certified mail on March 12, but he did not receive actual notice until weeks later.

The trial court ruled that sending the notice by certified mail complied with section 44929.21, even though the statute does not prescribe certified mail as an acceptable method of notice. Hoschler argues that the decision contravenes the settled principle that, where a statute is silent as to the method of notice, personal notice is required. We agree with Hoschler…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.