PUSD Board President Files Suit to Halt Recall Petition Against Her

Pasadena Unified School District Board President Tina Fredericks has asked a Los Angeles County judge to stop county election officials from allowing a recall petition against her to circulate, arguing that the petition contains false and misleading statements about her role in school consolidation planning.

Fredericks filed a verified petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief July 2 in Los Angeles Superior Court, naming the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and 124 unidentified “Doe” respondents.

The case was assigned to Judge Tiana J. Murillo in Department 834, according to a notice of case assignment.

Fredericks, who represents Trustee Area 6, is listed on the filing without an attorney and appears to be representing herself.

The filing seeks a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction barring the county from authorizing circulation of the recall petition until a court can decide whether it should be invalidated.

Fredericks brought the action under California Elections Code sections 13314 and 18600 and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 525. She designated it a priority matter, which under state law is entitled to precedence over other civil cases.

According to the petition, the county was set to conclude its public examination period for the recall petition by July 2 and could have authorized circulation to begin July 3.

Fredericks contends that allowing signature-gathering to proceed would cause irreparable harm to her and to district voters, and that a special election — which she says would be held sometime in 2027 — could cost the district an estimated $500,000.

The recall petition states that a notice of intention to circulate was served on Fredericks on May 28, and the petition itself was received by the county June 22.

In her court filing, Fredericks states the proponents filed their notice of intention on or about June 22. The recall petition lists 10 proponents and states that it seeks Fredericks’ removal from the Board of Education seat for District 6.

The recall petition’s stated grounds, which Fredericks reproduces and disputes in her filing, allege that she “betrayed the trust of the voters,” violated California’s Ralph M. Brown Act by coordinating school consolidation plans through private meetings and serial communications, drafted and advanced her own “Consolidation 2027” plan while portraying the process as independent, and worked with a consultant before it received a taxpayer-funded contract worth more than $233,000.

The grounds further allege that a closure plan would displace more than 3,800 students, many already displaced by the Eaton Fire, at a cost of $4 million to $5 million a year.

Fredericks denies each assertion in the petition. She contends no Brown Act violation occurred because the communications involved no more than two or three of the seven Board members, short of the majority required for an unlawful serial meeting. She states that “Consolidation 2027” was a compilation of her personal notes that was never circulated to other Board members, staff or the public, and was discovered only through an automated search the District conducted in response to a Public Records Act request.

The filing also states that the District’s Board of Education approved a consulting agreement with Total School Solutions on Jan. 22 through a district process, in a 5-2 vote, and that the Board voted 7-0 to terminate that contract without cause June 11. Fredericks argues that no official closure plan exists and that displacement figures cited in the recall are “speculative and misattributed to a non-existent plan.”

Fredericks attached six exhibits to the petition, including Board meeting minutes from December 2025, January 2026 and June 2026, the recall petition, Resolution No. 2852, and a June 12 letter from the law firm Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo responding on the District’s behalf to a Brown Act “cure and correct” demand.

According to the minutes, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2852, establishing optimal school size ranges, in a 4-3 vote Dec. 11. The June 12 letter, written by attorney Scott D. Danforth, addresses a demand from Gerrit Warren Bleeker dated May 15 and reviews specific text messages and emails among Board members Fredericks, Scott Harden, Yarma Velazquez and Kimberly Kenne.

In the letter, the District disputes that any unlawful serial meeting took place, stating there “does not appear to be coordination among more than three Board Members.” The letter also states that the demand was untimely, that the deadline to seek relief over the December resolution would have been March 11, and that the District considered the request complete after the Board rejected a draft Equity Impact Analysis on May 28 and moved to terminate the consultant’s contract. The letter acknowledges “the effect these communications have had on the public’s trust.”

Fredericks signed the petition under penalty of perjury on June 30 in Pasadena.

The county had not filed a response as of the documents reviewed, and the filing does not indicate whether the court has ruled on the requested restraining order.