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)

Download PDF
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

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?