Cleare v. Super. Ct.

── Cleare v. Super. Ct. ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/17/26 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SAM CLEARE et al., Petitioners, A173289 v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA (Contra Costa County COSTA COUNTY, Super. Ct. No. N24-01353) Respondent; ORDER MODIFYING OPINION WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] et al., Real Parties in Interest THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 25, 2026, be modified as follows: On page 13, in the third independent paragraph, delete the sentence that begins with the word “As” and ends with the word “requirement”, and replace it with a sentence that reads as follows: “While there is evidence that the District applied for and apparently obtained some waivers from the Commission on Teachers Credentialing, we do not understand it to demonstrate that the District did all it could in this regard before that body or that the State Board of Education was ever approached.” 1  With this modification, the paragraph now reads as follows: As plaintiffs confirmed at the motion for new trial, they argued that “[the District] could have gotten—they should have, they were required legally to get a waiver, if they really have exhausted every other thing. To establish impossibility, it has to be . . . a real impossibility. [¶] They’re required, if they’ve exhausted all efforts, to go to the commissioner of teacher credentials . . . [¶] . . . . [¶] . . . . [T]hey can go to the state agency and get a waiver or make their impossibility case there.” While there is evidence that the District applied for and apparently obtained some waivers from the Commission on Teachers Credentialing, we do not understand it to demonstrate that the District did all it could in this regard before that body or that the State Board of Education was ever approached. Until this appears―indeed, until all other options are exhausted―the District cannot make a claim of impossibility, that is to say, the District cannot show that it has done everything possible and is still unable to assign credentialed instructors to classrooms. This modification does not effect a change in the Judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(c)(2).) The petition for rehearing is denied. Dated: ____________________________ Stewart, P.J. 2 Superior Court of Contra Costa County Hon. Benjamin T. Reyes, II and Hon. Terri Mockler Counsel: Munger, Tolles & Olson, Rohit K. Singla, Dane P. Shikman, Kyra Schoonover, Laura R. Perry; Public Advocates, John T. Affeldt, Karissa A. D. Provenza for Petitioners. Laura P. Juran, Brian Schmidt for California Teachers Association; Rothner Seagall & Greenstone, Julia Harumi Mass for California Federation of Teachers Association, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners. Megan Stanton-Trehan for Disability Rights California and Jinny Kim for Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners. Victor Leung for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California and RYSE; Morrison & Foerster, Jack W. Londen as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners No Appearance for Respondent. Leone Alberts & Duus, Katherine A. Alberts for Real Parties in Interest. 3 Filed 3/25/26 (unmodified version) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION