Wormuth et al v. Lammersville Union School District et al

Filing 181

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 01/18/18 AMENDING 170 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment at 24, as follows: Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is derivative of his ADA disability discrimination claim. Cohen v. City of Cu lver City, 754 F.3d 690, 701 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining Unruh Act disability discrimination claims under California Civil Code § 51(f) are derivative of ADA disability discrimination claims); Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal. 4th 661, 670 (2009 ) (same); see also Opp'n at 24 ("The legal theories behind th[is] claim[] mirror the Federal claims discussed above."). Accordingly, analysis of the Unruh Act claim mirrors that of the ADA claim: Summary judgment is GRANTED to the exte nt the Unruh Act claim derives from a disability based discrimination theory, but summary judgment is DENIED to the extent the Unruh Act claim derives from a reasonable accommodation theory. Further, insofar as the order, MSJ Order at 31, currentl y reads, "Unruh Act disability discrimination claim against Principal Yeager and the District (claim five) is DENIED in full[,]" the order will be AMENDED to read as follows: "Unruh Act disability discrimination claim against Principal Yeager and the District (claim five) is DENIED as to the reasonable accommodation theory, but GRANTED as to all other theories." (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

ADRIANNA WORMUTH, SCOTT
WORMUTH and H.W., a minor, by and
through his guardians ad litem
ADRIANNA WORMUTH and SCOTT
WORMUTH,

v.

14

16
17

ORDER

Plaintiff,

13

15

No. 2:15-cv-01572-KJM-EFB

LAMMERSVILLE UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT, JAMES YEAGER, DAWN
IBBS, TERESA HAUN, KIRK
NICHOLAS, and KHUSHWINDER GILL,
and DOES 1-30,

18

Defendants.

19
Defendants’ motion for correction or clarification under Federal Rule of Civil

20
21

Procedure 60(a) is before the court. Plaintiff opposes. The court reviewed the matter with the

22

parties at hearing on January 12, 2018. For the following reasons, and noting that plaintiff at

23

hearing did not object to the court’s proposed resolution, defendants’ motion is GRANTED to the

24

extent set forth below.

25

I.

BACKGROUND

26

On December 12, 2017, the court issued an order denying in part and granting in

27

part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. MSJ Order, ECF No. 170.1 On December 29,

28

1

As reflected in the docket, a duplicate order was filed on December 13, 2017. ECF No. 171.
1

1

2017, defendants filed an ex parte application to shorten time for notice of hearing on its motion

2

for correction or clarification of the court’s order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).

3

See Ex Parte App., ECF No. 173; Mot., ECF No. 173-1. Plaintiff opposed defendants’ ex parte

4

application. ECF No. 174. On January 3, 2018, the court issued a minute order providing an

5

expedited briefing schedule on defendants’ Rule 60(a) motion and notifying the parties that the

6

court would address the motion at the final pretrial conference set for January 12, 2018. Min.

7

Order, ECF No. 175.

8
9

Plaintiff subsequently filed an opposition to defendants’ Rule 60(a) motion.
Opp’n, ECF No. 178. Although afforded an opportunity to file a reply, see Min. Order,

10

defendants did not do so. The court resolves the motion here as it indicated it would at hearing on

11

January 12. See ECF No. 179 (Jan. 12, 2018 Hearing Mins.).

12

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

13

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), “[t]he court may correct a clerical

14

mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment,

15

order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Rule 60(a) “may be used to make an

16

order reflect the actual intentions of the court, plus necessary implications. Jones & Guerrero

17

Co., Inc. v. Sealift Pac., 650 F.2d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608

18

F.2d 1234, 1236–37 (9th Cir. 1979)). The “touchstone” of Rule 60(a) “is fidelity to the intent

19

behind the original judgment.” Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1078 (9th Cir. 2012). The

20

Ninth Circuit has thus “consistently interpreted Rule 60(a) to allow a district court to correct

21

omissions so long as those corrections are limited to clarification of matters intended to be

22

implied or subsumed by the original judgment, rather than a change of course or a modification to

23

the intended legal effect of a judgment.” Id. at 1077. The district court has discretion to grant a

24

Rule 60(a) motion. Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven, 745 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing

25

Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1077).

26

/////

27
28

The court refers to ECF No. 170 in this order.
2

1

III.

2

DISCUSSION
In its order, the court addressed two theories of liability plaintiff raised under Title

3

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (“ADA”), and Section 504 of the

4

federal Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. MSJ Order at 17–22; see id. at 17 (noting ADA and

5

Rehabilitation Act claims are properly examined together). Under the first theory, alleging

6

disability based discrimination, the court found “the record contains no triable issues as to

7

whether plaintiff’s disability motivated the bullying at all, or whether the District knew the bully

8

was motivated by his disability.” MSJ Order at 20. In light of the missing nexus between

9

plaintiff’s disability and the alleged discrimination, the court granted defendants’ motion for

10

summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s disability based discrimination claim. Id. Under

11

the second theory, alleging defendants did not provide plaintiff reasonable accommodations, the

12

court found sufficient evidence to support plaintiff’s claim and therefore denied defendants’

13

motion for summary judgment. Id. at 22.

14
15

Concluding its analysis of plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act discrimination
claims, the court explained:

16

The court GRANTS summary judgment as to the first disability
theory, but DENIES summary judgment as to the second theory.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act disability
discrimination claims will proceed to trial, limited to the District’s
failure to provide reasonable accommodations.

17
18
19
20

Id.
The court proceeded to analyze plaintiff’s claim under the California Unruh Act,

21

California Civil Code § 51(f). Id. at 24. The court noted plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim was

22

derivative of his ADA claim. Id. The court then concluded that because it “denied summary

23

judgment on plaintiff’s ADA claim based on the missing nexus between plaintiff’s disability and

24

the harassment he endured[, t]he court therefore denies summary judgment on the Unruh Act

25

claim as it requires the same nexus.” Id. (citation omitted).

26

Defendants move for clarification of the court’s order, arguing the court’s

27

reasoning with respect to plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is ambiguous, “particularly, in its reference

28

to the nexus requirement discussed in connection with its ruling granting Defendants’ Motion as
3

1

to Plaintiff’s ADA disability discrimination claim.” Mot. at 5. Defendants contend, “[s]ince the

2

Court granted Defendants’ Motion as to the ADA disability based discrimination claim, it seems

3

that Court [sic] may have intended to state that the motion, as it relates to Plaintiff’s Unruh Act

4

claim, was ‘granted,’ rather than ‘denied.’” Id. at 6.

5

Plaintiff opposes, arguing “[r]egardless of whether there was ambiguity . . . , the

6

Court’s ultimate order was both correct as a matter of law and is internally consistent because the

7

denial of summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiff’s ADA/504 cause of action necessarily

8

mandates a denial of the Plaintiff’s Unruh Act cause of action as well.” Opp’n at 2. At hearing,

9

however, as noted, plaintiff did not object to the court’s proposed clarification of its order.

10

Having reviewed its order, the court confirms its decision to deny summary

11

judgment on plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim, but concludes its explanation for this conclusion

12

contained “a mistake arising from oversight or omission . . . .” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).

13

Because defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation

14

Act claims under the reasonable accommodation theory, defendants are also not entitled to

15

summary judgment on the Unruh Act claim under that theory. At hearing, both parties agreed

16

with this clarification of the court’s reasoning. Thus, under Rule 60(a), the court will amend its

17

order to clarify that the basis for denial of summary judgment on plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is

18

plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation theory, not his disability based discrimination theory.

19

Accordingly, the MSJ Order will be amended as follows:

20

1.

21

The court denied summary judgment on plaintiff’s ADA claim
based on the missing nexus between plaintiff’s disability and the
harassment he endured. The court therefore denies summary
judgment on the Unruh Act claim as it requires the same nexus.
Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 701 (9th Cir. 2014)
(explaining Unruh Act disability discrimination claims are
derivative of ADA disability discrimination claims; Munson v. Del
Taco, Inc., 46 Cal. 4th 661 (2009) (same); see also Opp’n at 24
(“The legal theories behind th[is] claim[] mirror the Federal claims
discussed above”).

22
23
24
25
26
27

Insofar as the order, MSJ Order at 24, currently reads:

/////

28
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

the order will be AMENDED to read as follows:
Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is derivative of his ADA disability
discrimination claim. Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690,
701 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining Unruh Act disability discrimination
claims under California Civil Code § 51(f) are derivative of ADA
disability discrimination claims); Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal.
4th 661, 670 (2009) (same); see also Opp’n at 24 (“The legal
theories behind th[is] claim[] mirror the Federal claims discussed
above.”). Accordingly, analysis of the Unruh Act claim mirrors
that of the ADA claim: Summary judgment is GRANTED to the
extent the Unruh Act claim derives from a disability based
discrimination theory, but summary judgment is DENIED to the
extent the Unruh Act claim derives from a reasonable
accommodation theory.

9
2.

Further, insofar as the order, MSJ Order at 31, currently reads, “Unruh Act

10
disability discrimination claim against Principal Yeager and the District (claim five) is DENIED
11
in full[,]” the order will be AMENDED to read as follows: “Unruh Act disability discrimination
12
claim against Principal Yeager and the District (claim five) is DENIED as to the reasonable
13
accommodation theory, but GRANTED as to all other theories.”
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
DATED: January 18, 2018.
16
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5