Sandles v. Cal. Commission on Teacher Credentialing CA5

── Sandles v. Cal. Commission on Teacher Credentialing CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 Sandles v. Cal. Commission on Teacher Credentialing CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DAVID LEE SANDLES, F089140 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. BCV-23-102712) v. CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON TEACHER OPINION CREDENTIALING, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Gregory A. Pulskamp, Judge. Prometheus Civic Law and Matthew Sean Harrison for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Carl W. Sonne, Assistant Attorney General, Joshua A. Room, Shawn Paul Cook, and Matthew A. King, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-  INTRODUCTION Appellant David Lee Sandles seeks review of the denial of his petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, which sought to set aside the decision of respondent California Commission on Teacher Credentialing revoking his teaching credentials. Appellant asserts the trial court applied the wrong standard of review by inappropriately deferring to respondent’s findings, rather than conducting a limited trial de novo. Further, appellant claims the court did not apply the factors set forth in Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal.3d 214 (Morrison), the seminal case on judicial review of the revocation of teaching licenses. We agree with appellant on both counts. The court applied neither the correct test nor the correct standard of review in evaluating respondent’s decision. We find these errors were prejudicial, as it is reasonably probable the court would not have reached the same conclusions as respondent, had it approached this case using its independent judgment, rather than deferring to the agency. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant first became credentialed as a teacher in California in April 2001, ultimately holding multiple subject and specialist instruction credentials. Appellant began working for the Bakersfield City School District (BCSD)1 in 2004, working as an elementary and middle school teacher. By all accounts, appellant was an accomplished, well-regarded, and effective instructor, and was respected and liked by his colleagues as well as his students and their parents. He obtained a master’s degree in education in 2011 from California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB), and a doctorate in education in 2013 from California State University, Fresno. Appellant taught primarily low-income and English learning students with “multiple educational and mental health challenges.” 1 BCSD is a large school district, comprising almost 30,000 students, over 4,000 employees, and more than 40 schools. 2. He was named Teacher of the Year in 2008–2009, established and ran a successful spelling bee program, received positive teacher evaluations, ran a districtwide summer training institute for more than 500 teachers, and was the team lead for his middle school’s Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports program, which received an award. Appellant’s relationship with his superiors became