Last week it was reported, incorrectly, by another newspaper that the Board of Education had voted to reject a settlement of the Lifschitz lawsuit, a settlement that required only that Dr. Amanda Stern replace Sigalie Sabag as Vice President of the Board of Education.

In fact, there was no such vote. We know that because had there been one, the Board would have announced it publicly in a report of actions taken during closed session meetings.

Rather, the decision to reject the settlement was made, insisted upon and implemented solely by Board President Judith Manouchehri acting alone. There was no vote. Rather, subsequent to the rejection, the law firm representing all of the defendants, Ms. Manouchehri, Sigalie Sabag, Russell Stuart and the District was replaced by four different law firms, each one representing one of the defendants.

Stay with me. I will explain below the practical significance of Ms. Manouchehri’s refusal to allow a vote on whether to accept a settlement that she didn’t want.

I will not speculate as to why Ms. Manouchehri acted as she did – you can reach your own conclusion.

Spoiler Alert: I do not support Ms. Manouchehri’s bid for re-election to the Board of Education. Some might say that I am biased against her. I disagree. Bias is an irrational predisposition. There is nothing irrational about my views.

The case now moves forward toward trial with lots of legal firepower confronting Daniel Lifschitz, an intrepid young lawyer if ever there was one.

All in a battle to attempt to defend the retaliatory action of Ms. Manouchehri. Presumably the fees for the law firm quartet will be paid by the District and/or its insurers. I wonder whether Ms. Manouchehri would have unilaterally rejected the settlement if she was personally paying any part of the legal fees.

I should note that I contacted Ms. Manouchehri for her comments on the settlement debacle but she claimed that she could not comment on “pending litigation” which is her consistent policy except when it isn’t.

Let’s look at the background:

December 16, 2025 – Ms. Manouchehril disregarded District ByLaw 9100 that required the election of Dr. Stern as Vice President. She stated that she could not vote for Dr. Stern as required based on unexplained accusations of Brown Act violations and other vague innuendo.

December 17. 2025 to mid January – a great deal of public outrage and criticism was expressed about the ByLaw violation, the orchestrated attempt to humiliate Dr. Stern (even though Ms. Manouchehri had planned to reject the required rotation to Dr. Stern even allowing her to make an acceptance speech) and “election” of Ms. Sabag. The Board also announced that it intended to amend the ByLaw to eliminate the rotation and, unrelatedly, also eliminate the one term restriction on service as President. This would allow Ms. Manouchehri to remain President indefinitely.

January 26, 2026 – Dan Lifschitz files lawsuit challenging the election of Ms. Sabag and seeking to stop that election until its legality could be finally determined after trial.

January 27, 2026 – the Court declined to postpone the election because it found that appropriate relief could be granted including, but not limited to, removal of Ms. Sabag as Vice President after on a trial on the merits.

January 27, 2026 – the District issued a press release about the court hearing falsely stating that the court had held: that “the Board conducts its business lawfully, transparently, and in full compliance with applicable law.” Of course, the court had done no such thing. And in an action that is not only inconsistent with the Manouchehri rule against commenting on pending litigation but also could be viewed as mean-spirited, a District employee sent this press release to every one of Mr. Lifschitz’s law firm colleagues.

Early February, 2026 – On her invitation, I met with Ms. Manouchehri and the same District employee at the high school.

I asked Ms. Manouchehri who wrote the false press release. She claimed that she did not know. I asked who directed the District employee to send the false press release to Mr. Lifschitz’s colleagues. She claimed that she did not know.

I suggested that we ask the District employee who was standing with us who wrote it and who gave him the direction to send it to Mr. Lifschitz’s colleagues. Astonishingly, Ms. Manouchehri ordered that he not respond. (If she really did not know, it appears that she did not want to know.)

Even as of Ms. Manouchehri’s deposition on August 4, she testified under oath that she did not know.

Given Ms. Manouchehri’s policy against commenting on pending litigation, it is surprising that even six months later she had not undertaken to learn who was responsible for violating her rule.

Notably, when I asked her a few days ago for her comments regarding the proposed settlement she once again invoked this no comment on pending litigation policy.

April 9, 2026 – the Court denied the District’s motion to dismiss the case and rejected all of the District’s legal justifications for its actions. When asked for comment, the District invoked Ms.Manouchehri’s sometimes rule against commenting on litigation.

April to July 21 – Mr. Lifschitz sends requests for documents and depositions of the defendants. The defendants stall and object until July 21 when the court orders the District to produce documents and to sit for for depositions at which Ms. Manouchehri, Mr. Stuart and Ms. Sabag would have to answer questions under oath.

July 22 – Immediately after the court ordered depositions, District counsel contacted Mr. Lifschitz and requested a settlement discussion. The timing suggests at least a lack of enthusiasm on the part of these defendants about testifying under oath,

July 22 to July 28 – extensive settlement discussions occur between the lawyers with substantial input from the individual defendants. A final Settlement Agreement was prepared. The terms were nothing more than the election of Dr. Stern, removal of the false press release from the District’s website and payment of approximately $5500 of Mr. Lifschitz’s recoverable costs. At the request of District counsel, it was signed by Mr. Lifschitz and taken into the Board’s closed session meeting on July 28 for discussion and vote by the Board. A few hours later, Board counsel advised Mr. Lifschitz that the Board did not accept the Settlement and that discussions were “done.”

July 31 – Mr. Lifschitz deduced from the absence of any report of a closed session vote after the July 28 meeting that there must not have been such a vote. He re-extended his offer/ willingness to enter into the same Settlement Agreement until the end of the August 4 meeting to enable the Board to have a vote on it.

July 31 – When Ms. Manouchehri continued, after further requests, to refuse to agendize the matter for the August 4 meeting, Dr. Stern sent to her the following communication:

“Hi Judy

I have considered your note [providing excuses for not agendizing the matter].

Your refusal to call a closed session meeting on Tuesday August 4 is a serious mistake.

“We have an offer to settle a case that is costing the District substantial resources and is a major distraction, both privately and publicly.

“The offer is not frivolous; it has been thoroughly negotiated by all concerned including counsel for the District and Board members.

This Board has not voted on whether to accept or reject this offer.

“This is time-sensitive;, the offer remains open only until Tuesday night. If a meeting on Monday or Tuesday is, in your view, somehow impossible (which objectively it is not), you could ask your new counsel to request a short extension of the offer.

“If you refuse to call a closed session meeting in time for the Board to consider the offer while it is still open, you alone will have unilaterally rejected it. That rejection by you acting alone is both improper and irresponsible and you have no such authority.

“I urge you to reconsider and perform your duty to set a closed session meeting in time before the offer expires.

“Respectfully,

“Dr. Amanda Stern”

Dr. Stern received no response and the offer of settlement lapsed. At no time did Ms. Manouchehri claim that there had been a vote.

So the embarrassing and expensive litigation grinds forward.

While Judith Manouchehri may be serving as President of the Board, she is only one of five. She is not the queen and she should not presume to act as though she is.

***

On Saturday August 8, the Iconic Peninsula Beverly Hills celebrated its 35th Anniversary with an elegant breakfast from the front desk throughout the living room. The Peninsula epitomizes Beverly Hills as it captures the best of the City and is a place where many of us go to celebrate special occasions and share its beautiful spaces with guests from all over the world.

Mayor Craig Corman cut a symbolic ribbon at the front of the hotel assisted by General Manager Offer Nissenbaum and Council Members Sharona Nazarian (who was escorted by her accomplished son Aaron), and Lester Friedman. Others in attendance included former Mayors Dr. Julian Gold and John Mirisch and beautiful fiance Yamani Caliwara, Todd Johnson of the Chamber of Commerce, Julie Wagner of the Conference and Visitors Bureau, Rotary President Sandy Pressman and MWD Vice Chairman Dr. Barry Pressman.

We are very fortunate to have the Peninsula Beverly Hills in our City and I wish the hotel and its staff a happy birthday and many happy returns.