Pedraza et al v. Alameda Unified School District et al

Filing 256

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken FOR BRIEFING ON DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ITS ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS, DISMISSING DISTRICT'S REMAINING COUNTER-CLAIMS AND DENYING MS. PEDRAZA'S 253 , 254 MOTIONS. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2011)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

LINDA PEDRAZA,
Plaintiff,

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 05-4977 CW

v.

11

ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
et al.,

14

Counter-Claimants,

15
16

ORDER FOR BRIEFING
ON DISTRICT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF ITS
ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND COSTS,
DISMISSING
DISTRICT'S
REMAINING COUNTERCLAIMS AND DENYING
MS. PEDRAZA'S
MOTIONS (Docket
Nos. 253 and 254)

v.

17

LINDA PEDRA and FRANCISCO
PEDRAZA,

18

Counter-Defendants.
________________________________/

19
20

On September 29, 2011, the Court issued an order granting

21
summary judgment of liability on the counter-claims for breach of
22
23

the 2003 Settlement Agreement and for express indemnity under that

24

Agreement asserted by Counter-Defendants Alameda Unified School

25

District and Alameda Unified School District Board of Education

26

(together, the District).

27

District's damages remained to be determined and that the District

28

In the Order, the Court noted that the

1

had not moved for summary judgment on three of its counter-claims,

2

which were still pending in the action.

3

District to file a statement proposing how to determine its

4

damages and how it proposed to proceed on its pending counter-

5

claims.

6

The Court ordered the

On October 4, 2011, the District filed a response indicating

7
that its damages on the two claims on which it prevailed consisted
8
9

solely of attorneys' fees and costs and suggested that it file a

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

11

that it would voluntarily dismiss without prejudice its remaining

12

pending counter-claims for enforcement of the 2007 mediated

13

agreement, fraud and attorneys' fees.1

14

The District also indicated

On October 7, 2011,

Plaintiff Linda Pedraza filed a response and opposition, in which

15
she essentially requests reconsideration of the Court's summary
16
17

judgment order.

On October 13, 2011, Ms. Pedraza filed documents

18

entitled, "Motion for Leave of Court to Supplement the Complaint,"

19

and "Motion for Ex Parte Relief."

20

papers submitted by the parties, the Court orders the District to

21

file a motion for summary judgment of its attorneys' fees and

22

costs, grants the District's request to dismiss its remaining

Having considered all the

23
counter-claims and declines to reconsider its summary judgment
24
25

order.

Ms. Pedraza's new motions to file a supplemental complaint

26
1

27
28

Although the District requests attorneys' fees as damages
in the claims on which it prevailed, it also requests dismissal of
a separate counter-claim for attorneys' fees.
2

1

(docket no. 253) and for ex parte relief (docket no. 254) are

2

denied.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party may ask a court to
reconsider an interlocutory order if the party can show:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material
difference in fact or law exists from that which was
presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory
order for which reconsideration is sought. The party
also must show that in the exercise of reasonable
diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not
know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory
order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of
law occurring after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material
facts or dispositive legal arguments which were
presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

13
Civ. L.R. 7-9
14
15

In her October 7 filing, Ms. Pedraza challenges the

16

admissibility of the District's evidence on the same grounds

17

she argued in her opposition to the District's motion for

18

summary judgment.

19

not a forum for relitigating previous arguments, the Court

20

declines to reconsider its summary judgment order.

Because a request for reconsideration is

21
In Ms. Pedraza's June 8, 2011 pretrial conference
22
statement, to which she alludes in her October 7, 2011
23
24

response, she indicated that discovery had not yet taken

25

place in this case and that she planned to seek depositions,

26

student records, and other documents such as emails, notes

27

and Individual Education Plan recordings.

28
3

If Ms. Pedraza did

1

not have the discovery she needed, she should have sought

2

discovery or alerted the Court of her need for discovery in

3

her opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

4
5
6

Furthermore, it does not appear that any further
discovery would have affected the outcome of the dispositive
motions.

The Court's summary judgment order addressed

7
several motions.

State Defendants' motion for judgment on

8
9

the pleadings was based on the allegations in Ms. Pedraza's

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

First Amended Complaint, not on evidence outside the

11

pleadings.

12

the outcome of that motion.

13

summary judgment on Ms. Pedraza's appeal of the Office of

14

Administrative Hearings' (OAH) Ruling and on her claims of

Therefore, any lack of discovery did not affect
The District's motion for

15
breach of the 2003 Settlement Agreement and violation of the
16
IDEA for 2003-04 based upon the breach of the Settlement
17
18

Agreement was based on the evidence in the administrative

19

record.

20

administrative record, if there was any, to raise a disputed

21

issue of material fact.

22

evidence from the administrative record.

23

Ms. Pedraza could have cited evidence from the

However, she failed to cite any
Therefore, any lack

of discovery did not affect the outcome of this motion.

24
Likewise, the District's motion for summary judgment on its
25
26

counter-claims of breach of contract and express indemnity

27

were based on citations to evidence in the administrative

28

record.

Ms. Pedraza also could have cited to the
4

1

administrative record.

2

light of the fact that the District's claims were based on

3

Mr. and Ms. Pedraza's failure to cooperate with service

4

providers, they could have countered with evidence in their

5

own possession showing that they did cooperate.

6

She failed to do so.

Further, in

They failed

to do so.

7
In sum, Ms. Pedraza's ability to raise a disputed issue
8
9

of material fact in all of the District's motions was not

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

dependent upon discovery of materials in the possession of

11

the District.

12

judgment order on the ground that Ms. Pedraza did not have

13

access to discovery in the possession of the District.

14

The Court declines to reconsider its summary

Within four weeks from the date of this order, the

15
District shall file a motion for summary judgment of its
16
attorneys' fees and costs.

Mr. and Ms. Pedraza shall file an

17
18

opposition within three weeks thereafter and the District may

19

file a reply one week later.

20

the papers.

21

evidence in the possession of the District in order to oppose

22

the attorneys' fees and costs motion, they may propound

23

The motion will be decided on

If Mr. and Ms. Pedraza believe they need

requests to the District for limited discovery solely related

24
to the issue of the amount of the District's attorneys' fees
25
26

and costs.

The District's counter-claims for enforcement of

27

the 2007 mediated settlement agreement, fraud and attorneys'

28

fees are dismissed without prejudice.
5

The Court denies Ms.

1

Pedraza's motions to supplement the complaint and for ex

2

parte relief.

(Docket Nos. 253 and 254).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: 10/20/2011

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6