BHUSD Lawsuit Draws Public Scrutiny Over Cost and Political Context

As litigation over the Beverly Hills Unified School District Board of Education's vice presidency moves toward a December trial, a newly published letter from Beverly Hills resident Sammy Cohen is raising questions about the cost, purpose and political context of the lawsuit.

Cohen's letter, published Aug. 26 by the Beverly Press and Park La Brea News, was written in response to an earlier letter from plaintiff Daniel Lifschitz, who argued that the Board should be held accountable for its handling of the dispute. Cohen offered a sharply different view, questioning whether the litigation itself is benefiting BHUSD students and taxpayers.

"There will always be disagreements over school board decisions, but lawsuits should not become political tools," Cohen wrote. "Our tax dollars should be going toward classrooms, student programs, teachers, campus safety and educational opportunities - not prolonged courtroom battles over board titles."

Lifschitz, a Beverly Hills parent and attorney, filed the lawsuit in January against BHUSD and Board Members Judith Manouchehri, Sigalie Sabag and Russell Stuart. The case challenges the Board's December 2025 election of Sabag as vice president rather than Amanda Stern and seeks a writ requiring Stern to be installed in the position. The Board subsequently amended its bylaws and conducted another officer election in January, again electing Sabag.

Cohen also questioned the political circumstances surrounding the case, noting that Lifschitz's wife, Kim Lifschitz, is currently a candidate for the BHUSD Board of Education in the Nov. 3 election. That candidacy has also surfaced during the litigation. On Aug. 25, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Tiana J. Murillo denied a request by the defense to depose Kim Lifschitz and ruled that discovery concerning political motives and other matters unrelated to the alleged Brown Act violation was not relevant to the case.

Cohen further questioned why Stern, whose vice presidential position is at the center of the litigation, did not bring the lawsuit herself.

"If Amanda Stern believed she was personally wronged by not being named vice president, why did she not file the lawsuit herself?" Cohen wrote.

The litigation has produced several contested court proceedings. In April, the court largely overruled the district's attempt to dispose of the case at the pleading stage, allowing Lifschitz's petition to continue. In July, Judge Murillo ordered Manouchehri, Sabag, Stuart and a district representative to sit for depositions and permitted Lifschitz to pursue discovery concerning the district's contention that a Brown Act violation affected the original officer election.

The case is now scheduled for a Dec. 1 hearing on Lifschitz's petition for writ of mandate, one month after the Nov. 3 BHUSD Board election. Opening briefs are due Oct. 2, with the district and individual respondents' opposition due Nov. 2 and Lifschitz's reply due Nov. 13.

Cohen concluded his letter by framing the dispute as a question for the broader Beverly Hills community: whether the continuing litigation is providing a meaningful benefit to BHUSD students and taxpayers or generating political attention at their expense.