Prescott v. White
California Court of Appeal Case Number B2002023
Second Appellate District, Division Nine
This case presents the following issues:
(1) Under what circumstances, if any, does the common law right to fair procedure require a private university to afford a student who is the subject of a disciplinary proceeding with the opportunity to utilize certain procedural processes, such as cross-examination of witnesses at a live hearing?
(2) Did the student who was the subject of the disciplinary proceeding in this matter waive or forfeit any right he may have had to cross-examine witnesses at a live hearing?
(3) Assuming it was error for the university to fail to provide the accused student with the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at a live hearing in this matter, was the error harmless?
(4) What effect, if any, does Senate Bill No. 493 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) have on the resolution of the issues
presented by this case?
Please note that while we have changed the parties' names, there are some typographical errors, ambiguities, missing pages, etc., as you are likely to confront such issues in your practices. We have done our best to preserve the authenticity of the original record so that you are working with documents that have the same appearance.
The problem is based on real cases. Any attempt by any person associated with a team, directly or indirectly, to contact the attorneys or the parties, to examine the case files, including any decisions, opinions, or briefs in the real cases on which the problem is based is prohibited and will result in disqualification of the entire team.
PAU is a private university.
Following his expulsion, Prescott filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Superior Court. The Superior Court denied the petition. Prescott filed a timely appeal.
Peter Prescott is the appellant in this proceeding; he is submitting an Opening Brief.
PAU is the respondent in this proceeding; the University is submitting a Respondent’s Brief.