Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of Education

Filing 339

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED
PARENTS ASSOC., CONCERNED
PARENTS ASSOC.,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:11-cv-3471 KJM AC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action claim that defendant California

19
20

Department of Education (CDE) is violating its obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities

21

Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to ensure that all children with

22

disabilities in California receive a “free appropriate public education,” otherwise known as a

23

FAPE. First Am. Compl., ECF No. 6, at 1-2. Plaintiffs have alleged that CDE is failing to

24

adequately monitor, investigate or enforce the provision of FAPE in local school districts. ECF

25

No. 6 at 2.

26

It has come to the court’s attention that CDE is implementing a statewide

27

Corrective Action Plan (CAP) concerning its statewide IDEA monitoring obligations under the

28

supervision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See ECF
1

1

No. 2330 in Emma C. v. Torlakson, Case No. 3:96-cv-4179 (VC); see also Order filed Dec. 8,

2

2016 in Emma C. v. Delaine Eastin, et al., Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-16479, and

3

Emma C. v. State Board of Education, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-16557 3:96-cv-

4

04179 VC, slip op. at 5-6. The plaintiffs in this action seek declaratory and injunctive relief

5

requiring CDE to adopt and implement “a statewide monitoring, investigative and enforcement

6

model that verifiably measures and ensures the provision of FAPE . . .” ECF No. 6 at 4.

7

The remedial proceedings in Emma C. raise the possibility of substantial

8

duplication of effort by this court. “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its

9

own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending

10

resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of

11

California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) authorizes

12

transfer of civil actions “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice

13

. . . .”, and both this court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of

14

California have Local Rules governing Related Cases designed to avoid duplication of judicial

15

effort and conflicting results. See L.R. 123 (E.D. Cal.); Civil L.R. 3-12 (N.D. Cal.).

16

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days

17

from the date of this order the parties shall show cause in writing, if any they have, why this

18

action should not be stayed pending completion of the remedial proceedings in Emma C. or, in

19

the alternative, why this action should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the

20

Northern District of California for possible relation to Emma C. in accordance with the

21

applicable Local Rule.

22

DATED: November 21, 2017.

23
24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2