Stewart v. California Department of Education et al

Filing 208

ORDER Spreading Mandate of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Vacating Appeal Mandate Hearing; Granting Defendant Poway Unified School District, et al.'s Request to Waive Further Proceedings Re: Vexatious Litigant Determinatio n. The mandate is spread, and this Court once again has jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the Appeal Mandate hearing previously scheduled for November 27, 2012. The vexatious litigant issue presented in Defendant's Ju ne 4, 2009 motion was the only issue remaining open for reconsideration by this Court on remand. Hence, there are no further matters within the purview of this Court to determine. The circuit court has affirmed this Court's February 8, 2010 Judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' claims. The Judgment remains in full force and effect and this case remains closed. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 11/15/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service). (akr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JASON P. STEWART, et al.,

CASE NO. 07CV0971-MMA (WVG)
Plaintiffs,

12
13

ORDER SPREADING MANDATE OF
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT;

vs.

14
VACATING APPEAL MANDATE
HEARING;

15

GRANTING DEFENDANTS POWAY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.’s
REQUEST TO WAIVE FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS RE: VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT DETERMINATION

16
17
18
19

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

20
21
22

APPEAL MANDATE
On September 20, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered

23

judgment in this case, affirming this Court’s February 8, 2010 Judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’

24

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), the

25

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; vacating the

26

Court’s February 8, 2010 Order declaring Plaintiff Lindsey Stewart a vexatious litigant and

27

imposing a pre-filing injunction; and remanding the action to this Court for further consideration

28

of its pre-filing determination. The circuit court’s judgment took effect October 15, 2012, and

-1-

07CV0971

1

constitutes the formal mandate issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate

2

Procedure. The mandate is spread, and this Court once again has jurisdiction over this action.

3

Accordingly, the Court VACATES the Appeal Mandate hearing previously scheduled for

4

November 27, 2012.

5
6

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION
On June 4, 2009, Defendants Poway Unified School District, et al. filed a Motion for an

7

Order Requiring Plaintiffs to Furnish Security Pursuant to California Civil Procedure Section 391,

8

et seq., arguing that Plaintiff Lindsey Stewart qualifies as a vexatious litigant. See Civil Case No.

9

08cv2254-MMA, Doc. No. 24. In its February 8, 2010 Order, the Court granted Defendants’

10

motion and issued a pre-filing injunction against Ms. Stewart. See Doc. No. 189. As noted above,

11

the circuit court vacated that portion of the Court’s February 8, 2010 Order granting the motion

12

and issuing the injunction, and remanded the matter for further consideration upon the basis of a

13

more fully developed record.

14

On November 13, 2012, Defendants Poway Unified School District, et al. filed a Notice of

15

Intent to Dismiss Vexatious Litigant Claim. See Doc. No. 207. Defendants now request “to waive

16

any further follow-up proceedings on the pre-filing determination of a vexatious litigant

17

designation against Lindsey Stewart.” Id. As such, the Court shall consider Defendants’ motion

18

withdrawn.

19
20

CONCLUSION
It is well-settled that “a mandate is controlling as to matters within its compass.” Sprague

21

v. Ticonic Nat’l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 168 (1939). The rule of mandate prohibits a lower court,

22

upon receiving the mandate of a higher court, from “vary[ing] it or examin[ing] it for any other

23

purpose than execution.” However, “the lower court may consider and decide any matters left

24

open by the mandate of the court.” United States v. Cote, 51 F.3d 178, 181-82 (9th Cir. 1995)

25

(alterations and quotation marks omitted), quoting In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247,

26

255-56 (1895). The vexatious litigant issue presented in Defendant’s June 4, 2009 motion was the

27

only issue remaining open for reconsideration by this Court on remand. Hence, there are no

28

further matters within the purview of this Court to determine.
-2-

07CV0971

1

The circuit court has affirmed this Court’s February 8, 2010 Judgment dismissing

2

Plaintiffs’ claims. See Doc. No. 190. The Judgment remains in full force and effect and this case

3

remains closed.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: November 15, 2012

6
7

Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

07CV0971