The father of a Sequoia High School student kicked out of an honors class for cheating isn't dropping his lawsuit against the school district even though a judge ruled in May that his son could not return to the program and that no evidence was presented to suggest the case could be won.

On Wednesday, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge George Miram set a trial date for April 8, 2013, despite a written assertion by the Sequoia Unified School District's attorney that the "suit is now moot, as (the) plaintiff has completed his sophomore year."

District attorney John Shupe said school officials assumed after the May ruling that the student's father, Jack Berghouse, wouldn't pursue legal action. Otherwise, Shupe added, he might have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

"We were hoping they would just drop it," Shupe said about the lawsuit, which was filed in April.

Shupe said neither Berghouse nor his lawyer Christine DeKlotz explained during Wednesday's case management conference why they wish to proceed with a trial. Berghouse and DeKlotz did not respond to requests for comment.

Although Berghouse has not disputed that his son copied homework from another student, he has alleged that the teenager's due process rights were violated.

News of the lawsuit exposed the family to public criticism. Berghouse said in an interview in April that he had received "a lot of hate calls" at his office, and the vast majority of letters sent

Sequoia Union High School District Superintendent Jim Lianides did not attend Wednesday's court conference; he said in an email that afternoon he was "very surprised to learn that the case is still active."

Lianides and Sequoia High School Principal Bonnie Hansen are both named as defendants in the suit.

In April, Berghouse told The Daily News that in kicking his son out of the honors class the school put his academic future at risk. The family had sought a more lenient punishment, such as having the teen work after school as a teacher's assistant.

And although his son had signed an "academic honesty pledge" at the beginning of the school year stating that cheating is grounds for immediate removal from the honors program, the lawsuit pointed out that a second document attached to the pledge states that a student would be removed only after a second plagiarism offense.

In addition to filing the suit, the father had asked the court to allow his son to re-enroll in the honors class for the rest of the semester while the matter is litigated.

In his May 17 ruling, Judge Miram wrote that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the case at trial.

"Plaintiffs' claim of comparative harm further ignores the significance of proven cheating on the student and upon the integrity of the educational institution in its entirety," Miram wrote.

Email Bonnie Eslinger at beslinger@dailynewsgroup.com; follow her at twitter.com/bonnieeslinger.