Z.F., et al v. Ripon Unified School District, et al

Filing 304

JUDGMENT dated *6/14/2017* in favor of VMRC and RUSD Defendants against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Z.F., A.N., and their respective parents pursuant to order signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/13/2017. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

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,
Plaintiffs,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
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,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:10-CV-00523 TLN-CKD
JUDGMENT

1
2

VALLEY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL CENTER,
RICHARD JACOBS, and TARA SISEMOREHESTER,

3
4
5

Counterclaimants,
v.
M.A.F. and SPECIAL NEEDS ADVOCATES
FOR UNDERSTANDING,

6
Counterdefendants.
7
8
9

This matter was before the Court, the Honorable Troy L. Nunley, United States District Court

10

Judge, presiding, on two separate motions for summary judgment. The first of these was filed by

11

Defendant Valley Mountain Regional Center (“VMRC”). The second was filed by Defendants Ripon

12

Unified School District (“RUSD”), Ripon Unified School District Board of Trustees, and San Joaquin

13

County Office of Education (collectively, “RUSD Defendants”). The evidence presented having been

14

fully considered, the issues having been duly heard, and a decision having been duly rendered,

15

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDICATED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of VMRC

16

and RUSD Defendants and against Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act Section 504 claim; in

17

favor of VMRC and against Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs’ Unruh Civil Rights Act Claim; and in favor of

18

RUSD Defendants and against Plaintiffs Z.F., A.N., and their respective parents on Plaintiffs’ ADA

19

claim. Plaintiffs’ Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice.

20
21

JUDGMENT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: June 13, 2017

24
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2