Z.F., et al v. Ripon Unified School District, et al
Filing
143
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/28/2011 ORDERING Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification no later than 4/16/2012; this motion shall be noticed for hearing on the Court's earliest available regularly scheduled law and motion hearing date. Further Status Conference set for 8/6/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
10
11
Z.F, a minor, by and through his
parents M.A.F and J.F. and
M.A.F. and J.F. individually;
L.H., and J.H., minors, by and
through their parents J.A. and
J.R.H. and J.A. and J.R.H.
individually; A.N., a minor, by
and through his parents, G.N.
and M.R., and G.N. and M.R.
individually,
12
Plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and all
others similarly
situated,
13
14
15
v.
27
RIPON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(RUSD); RIPON UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES; SAN
JOAQUIN COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION; VALLEY MOUNTAIN
REGIONAL CENTER (VMRC), MODESTO
CITY SCHOOLS, MODESTO CITY
SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION,
RICHARD JACOBS, Executive
Director of VMRC, in his
official and individual
capacity, TARA SISEMORE-HESTER,
Coordinator for Autism Services
for VMRC, in her official and
individual capacity; VIRGINIA
JOHNSON, Director of Modesto
City Schools SELPA, in her
official and individual
capacity; SUE SWARTZLANDER,
Program Director for Modesto
City Schools, in her official
and individual capacity and Does
1 – 200.,
28
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
2:10-cv-00523-GEB-JFM
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
ORDER AND SETTING FURTHER
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
CONFERENCE; RULE 4(m) NOTICE
CONCERNING A COUNTERDEFENDANT
1
________________________________
2
VALLEY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL
CENTER, RICHARD JACOBS and TARA
SISEMORE-HESTER
3
4
Counter-claimants,
5
6
7
v.
M.A.F. and J.A., SPECIAL NEEDS
ADVOCATES FOR UNDERSTANDING,
and AUTISM REFORM CALIFORNIA,
8
9
Counter-defendants.
________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
10
11
The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for
12
hearing on October 3, 2011, is vacated since the parties’ Joint Status
13
Report filed on September 19, 2011 (“JSR”) indicates the following Order
14
should issue.
4(m) NOTICE
15
16
Counter-claimants state in the JSR that they “may . . . serve
17
counter-defendant Autism Reform California if they discover that this
18
former entity has resumed business in the state of California.” (JSR
19
2:4-5.) Counter-claimants are notified under Rule 4(m) of the Federal
20
Rules of Civil Procedure that since Counter-defendant Autism Reform
21
California has not been served with process within the 120 day period
22
prescribed in that Rule it may be dismissed as a defendant unless
23
Counter-claimants explain in a filing due no later than 4:00 p.m. on
24
October 7, 2011 “good cause for the failure” to serve this Counter-
25
defendant within Rule 4(m)’s prescribed period.
26
DOE DEFENDANTS, SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT
Plaintiffs state in the JSR that “they will need a minimum of
27
28
one
year
to
conduct
sufficient
discovery
2
to
identify
all
‘Doe’
1
defendants.” (JSR 2:7-8.) However, this statement does not provide
2
sufficient justification for issuance of a ruling providing Plaintiffs
3
the
4
explanation is required “so that the judge can consider whether [the
5
referenced] amendments may properly be sought solely under the Rule
6
15(a) standard, and whether structuring discovery pertinent to the
7
parties’ decision whether to amend is feasible.” Jackson v. Laureate,
8
Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (internal quotation marks and
9
citation omitted). Since sufficient justification has not been provided
10
concerning why Plaintiffs request “a minimum of one year” to conduct the
11
referenced discovery, Plaintiffs shall conduct discovery pertinent to
12
identifying Doe defendants forthwith. Plaintiffs have ninety (90) days
13
from the date on which this order is filed to file a motion in which
14
leave is sought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to file an
15
Amended Complaint substituting a named defendant in place of a Doe
16
defendant; the motion shall be noticed for hearing on the earliest
17
available regularly scheduled law and motion hearing date.
requested
amount
of
time
for
this
discovery.
A
sufficient
18
No further service, joinder of parties, or amendments to
19
pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court for good cause shown.
20
If leave is not sought as stated, Does 1 through 200 are dismissed from
21
this action.
22
ADDED DEFENDANT’S OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK AMENDMENT OF THIS ORDER
23
If Plaintiffs substitute a named defendant in place of a Doe
24
defendant, a copy of this Order shall be served on that defendant
25
concurrently with the service of process.
26
That defendant has 30 days after said service within which to
27
file a “Notice of Proposed Modification of Status Order.” Although a
28
newly-joined party’s proposed modification filed within this thirty day
3
1
period will not have to meet the good cause standard, no further
2
amendments will be permitted, except with leave of Court for good cause
3
shown.
4
CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION
5
Plaintiffs also state in the JSR that “[a] motion to certify
6
the class will be necessary once the ‘doe’ defendants are identified and
7
sufficient discovery has been undertaken to determine the size of the
8
class.” (JSR 2:21-23.) Plaintiffs do not estimate how much time they
9
desire to conduct discovery concerning the class certification issues.
10
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A) provides that when a party
11
seeks to sue as a representative of a class, “[a]t an early practicable
12
time . . . the court must determine by order whether to certify the
13
action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). Therefore, since
14
Plaintiff does not discuss what is practicable as contemplated by this
15
rule, Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification no later
16
than April 16, 2012; this motion shall be noticed for hearing on the
17
Court’s earliest available regularly scheduled law and motion hearing
18
date.
19
FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE
20
A further Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is scheduled
21
for hearing on August 6, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. A further joint status report
22
shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior.
23
Dated:
September 28, 2011
24
25
26
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?