Wagnon, et al v Rocklin Unified School District, et al
Filing
74
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/16/2023 ORDERING that Regarding supplemental briefing, the parties shall confer and file a joint statement on the issues outlined. This joint statement is due within 21 days of this order, and the court construes Judge Delaney's May 15th minute order and the parties representations to the courtroom deputy as notice to resume consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment. After the parties submit their supplemental briefing, defendants' motion will be taken under submission without need for a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Reader, L)
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
Plaintiffs,
13
14
v.
No. 2:17–cv–1666–KJN–CONSENT
ORDER RESETTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION AND
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
ROCKLIN U.S.D., et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Currently pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which
17
18
plaintiffs oppose. 1 (ECF Nos. 59, 63.) Upon review, the court ordered the parties to supplement
19
their briefs concerning the scope of their arguments. (ECF No. 66.) The parties conferred and
20
agreed to vacate the hearing on the motion so that they could attend a settlement conference.
21
(ECF Nos. 67, 68.) On May 15, 2023, Magistrate Judge Delaney issued a minute order noting the
22
case did not settle. (ECF No. 73.) Thereafter, counsel inquired with the undersigned’s courtroom
23
deputy about resetting the motion without need for it to be fully refiled. The court concurs, and
24
will resume addressing defendants’ motion. However, after further review, the court has
25
determined that a hearing on the matter is not necessary, and so will take the motion under
26
submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
27
28
1
The matter is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ consent to the magistrate judge’s
jurisdiction for all purposes, as per 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 23, 24.)
1
1
2
Additionally, the court is in need of further supplemental briefing. The parties shall
confer and file a joint statement addressing the following:
3
1. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ disability discrimination
4
claims, arguing that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the
5
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Between the time of the parties’ briefing and
6
this order, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Perez v Sturgis Public Schools
7
that appears to foreclose defendants’ argument. 143 S. Ct. 859 (2023). If defendants
8
concur with the court’s perspective, they shall state as much. If defendants disagree, the
9
parties shall lay out their opposing arguments in the joint statement.
10
2. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the ADA and § 504 claims as brought
11
by plaintiff Alicia Wagnon. However, the court had previously noted the scope of these
12
claims (as alleged in the complaint) appear to have been brought only by plaintiff Sullivan
13
From. Based on representations made in the prior joint statement (ECF No. 67), the
14
parties disagree over the scope of these claims, and so requested permission to supplement
15
their briefing. The parties shall lay out their opposing arguments in the joint statement.
ORDER
16
17
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
18
1. Regarding supplemental briefing, the parties shall confer and file a joint statement on
the issues outlined above. This joint statement is due within 21 days of this order; and
19
20
2. The court construes Judge Delaney’s May 15th minute order and the parties
21
representations to the courtroom deputy as notice to resume consideration of
22
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After the parties submit their
23
supplemental briefing, defendants’ motion will be taken under submission without
24
need for a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
25
Dated: May 16, 2023
26
27
28
wagn.1666
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?