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)

Download PDF
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?