<p><b>JACK O'CONNELL v. THE SUPERIOR COURT</b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <h4>Filed 8/11/06</h4> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">DIVISION FOUR</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p><br /> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p>JACK O'CONNELL, as Superintendent of Public Instruction etc., et al.,</p> <br /> <p> Petitioners,</p> <br /> <p>v.</p> <br /> <p>THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY,</p> <br /> <p> Respondent;</p> <br /> <p>LILIANA VALENZUELA et al.,</p> <br /> <p> Real Parties in Interest.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p> A113933</p> <br /> <p> (Alameda County</p> <br /> <p> Super. Ct. No. JCCP 4468)</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table> <br /> <p>I. Introduction</p> <br /> <p> By order of the California Supreme Court, we are charged with reviewing defendants'<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> petition for <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">writ of certiorari</a>, mandate, and other appropriate relief, challenging a preliminary injunction issued by the Alameda County Superior Court, but later stayed by the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">California Supreme Court</a>. That injunction restrained defendants from denying diplomas to members of the 2006 graduating class at California public high schools who were otherwise eligible to graduate, but who had not passed both portions of the California high school exit exam, otherwise known as the CAHSEE.</p> <br /> <p> We conclude, inter alia, that: (1) the trial court's determination that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their primary <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">equal protection claim</a> was supported by substantial evidence and legally proper, although the court's determination as to their secondary claim was not; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in the manner in which it balanced the factors it was legally required to consider in deciding a <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">motion for preliminary injunction</a>, and in concluding that the injunction was necessary in order to maintain the status quo while the underlying litigation proceeded; and (3) the remedy exceeded what the court had the legal authority to impose, and was otherwise overbroad in its scope. Accordingly, we grant defendants' writ petition, and vacate the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">preliminary injunction</a>.</p> <br /> <p>II. Factual Background and Procedural History</p> <br /> <p> The historical background facts relevant to this litigation are largely a matter of public record, and are not in dispute. In March 1999, the California Legislature found that â€