Wagnon, et al v Rocklin Unified School District, et al

Filing 66

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/1/23 ORDERING that the parties shall confer and file a joint statement by 3/6/23 at 4:00 p.m.(Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALICIA WAGNON, et al.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 2:17–cv–1666–KJN–CONSENT
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROCKLIN U.S.D., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Currently before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment, set for a hearing

18

on March 15, 2023 before the undersigned. In reviewing the parties’ briefs, the court requires

19

supplemental briefing on the following issues:

20

1. Defendant Hawkins has moved for summary judgment on claim seven, the Unruh Act

21

claim. (ECF No. 59-1 at 15 (“Defendant Hawkins in his personal capacity is entitled to

22

summary judgment on the seventh claim for relief . . . .”).) Plaintiffs responded that this

23

claim was only asserted against Rocklin USD, and so defendants’ argument is moot. In

24

reply, defendants contend the Unruh Act claim should be barred in its entirety.

25

a. The complaint only asserts an Unruh Act claim only against Rocklin USD, as

26

plaintiff contends. Further, Judge Nunley already granted Rocklin USD immunity

27

on this claim. (See ECF No. 22.) Thus, in any sense of construction, it appears

28

the Unruh Act claim is no longer cognizable.
1

1

b. The parties shall confer and submit a joint statement as to their perspectives on this

2

issue (either jointly agreeing with the court or laying out their competing

3

arguments as to why the court should entertain arguments about the Unruh claim).

4
5
6

2. Defendants move for summary judgment on all of plaintiff Wagnon’s claims, asserting a
lack of standing.
a. Wagnon opposes, arguing she has shown sufficient injury to assert claims for

7

disability discrimination. However, the Complaint does not appear to allege any

8

claims by Wagnon for violations of the ADA or § 504. The only claims Wagnon

9

appears to have alleged are (V) negligence and (VIII) Bane Act claims. (See ECF

10

No. 1 at 7-10, naming S.R.F. as the only plaintiff for the ADA and § 504 claims

11

and alleging facts in those sections only concerning From’s injuries.) Thus, it

12

appears Wagnon’s argument regarding her standing to assert ADA and § 504

13

claims is inapposite, and the court should only consider whether Wagnon has

14

shown injury regarding the negligence and Bane Act claims.

15

b. However, in reply, defendants only proffer an argument that Wagnon has no

16

standing on the Bane Act claim; they fail to argue any issues regarding Wagnon’s

17

negligence claim. Based on this, the court is inclined to treat defendants’ motion

18

for summary judgment on Wagnon’s claims as solely concerning the Bane Act

19

claim.

20
21
22

c. The parties shall confer on these issues and clarify the scope of Wagnon’s claims
and defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
3. Outside of those two substantive issues, it appears there will still be claims for negligence

23

(either from both From and Wagnon, or just From himself) and battery (from From) that

24

are ripe for trial—regardless of the outcome of the motion for summary judgment.

25

a. The parties shall confirm that, regardless of the outcome of defendants’ motion for

26

summary judgment on the § 1983, ADA, § 504, Unruh Act, and Bane Act claims,

27

the negligence and battery claims against Hawkins will proceed to trial.

28

b. Given this, the court inquires as to whether the parties are interested in revisiting
2

1

settlement talks for this case. The court is aware that VDRP was unsuccessful in

2

January 2022. However, the parties have represented at prior hearings that they

3

could not come to terms without seeing the universe of discovery. Now that

4

discovery has closed, the parties shall consider this option and report to the court

5

on whether another settlement conference could be fruitful.
ORDER

6
7

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

8

1. The parties shall confer and file a joint statement on the issues outlined above. This

9

joint statement is due by Monday, March 6, 2023 at 4:00 p.m.

10

2. Should the parties require more time to complete the joint statement regarding the first

11

two issues, they shall file a notice to vacate the March 15th hearing. After the joint

12

statement is filed, defendants may re-notice the motion for a hearing, so long it is set

13

for at least 14 days from the date of the filing of the joint statement. Judge Newman

14

typically hears civil matters on Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m.

15

3. Should the parties wish to engage in settlement talks, they shall indicate as much in

16

the joint statement and file a notice to vacate the March 15th hearing. In that scenario,

17

the undersigned would endeavor to find the parties another magistrate judge to

18

mediate this dispute.

19

Dated: March 1, 2023

20
21
22
23

wagn.1666

24
25
26
27
28
3