Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of Education
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/21/2017. Parties shall show cause in writing, if any they have, why this action should not be stayed or, in the alternative, why this action should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Andrews, P)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MORGAN HILL CONCERNED
PARENTS ASSOC., CONCERNED
No. 2:11-cv-3471 KJM AC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action claim that defendant California
Department of Education (CDE) is violating its obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to ensure that all children with
disabilities in California receive a “free appropriate public education,” otherwise known as a
FAPE. First Am. Compl., ECF No. 6, at 1-2. Plaintiffs have alleged that CDE is failing to
adequately monitor, investigate or enforce the provision of FAPE in local school districts. ECF
No. 6 at 2.
It has come to the court’s attention that CDE is implementing a statewide
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) concerning its statewide IDEA monitoring obligations under the
supervision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See ECF
No. 2330 in Emma C. v. Torlakson, Case No. 3:96-cv-4179 (VC); see also Order filed Dec. 8,
2016 in Emma C. v. Delaine Eastin, et al., Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-16479, and
Emma C. v. State Board of Education, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-16557 3:96-cv-
04179 VC, slip op. at 5-6. The plaintiffs in this action seek declaratory and injunctive relief
requiring CDE to adopt and implement “a statewide monitoring, investigative and enforcement
model that verifiably measures and ensures the provision of FAPE . . .” ECF No. 6 at 4.
The remedial proceedings in Emma C. raise the possibility of substantial
duplication of effort by this court. “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its
own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending
resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of
California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) authorizes
transfer of civil actions “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice
. . . .”, and both this court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California have Local Rules governing Related Cases designed to avoid duplication of judicial
effort and conflicting results. See L.R. 123 (E.D. Cal.); Civil L.R. 3-12 (N.D. Cal.).
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days
from the date of this order the parties shall show cause in writing, if any they have, why this
action should not be stayed pending completion of the remedial proceedings in Emma C. or, in
the alternative, why this action should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California for possible relation to Emma C. in accordance with the
applicable Local Rule.
DATED: November 21, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?