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)

Download PDF
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?