T.B. et al v. San Diego Unified School District
Filing
201
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part #198 Motion for Leave to Refile Motion and for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Court denies Defendant's application to the extent Defendant desires to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in addition to its anticipated motion for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims. The Court grants Defendant's application to the extent it intends to include the arguments raised in its prior motion for judgment on the pleadings within its summary judgment motion. Lastly, the Court grants Defendant's request to increase the page limitation on its upcoming summary judgment motion, and increases the page limitation on Defendant's opening brief to 50 pages, and increases the limitation on Defendant's reply brief to 25 pages. It is further ordered that the page limitation for Plaintiffs' opposition brief to Defendant's motion for summary judgment is increased from 25 pages to 50 pages. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 10/18/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)(jrd)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
T.B., a minor, by and through his Guardian
ad Litem, ALLISON BRENNEISE, and
ROBERT BRENNEISE,
12
Plaintiffs,
15
18
21
[Doc. No. 198]
Defendant.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
19
20
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
16
17
[Consolidated Action]
vs.
13
14
CASE NO. 08CV28-MMA (WMc)
BRENNEISE, et al.,
Defendants.
22
23
On October 7, 2011, Defendant San Diego Unified School District (“Defendant” or
24
“District”) filed an ex parte application to: (1) refile its motion for judgment on the pleadings, which
25
the Court denied without prejudice on May 4, 2011; and (2) increase the page limitations on the
26
District’s anticipated motion for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims. [Doc. No.
27
198.] Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s ex parte request. [Doc. No. 199.] For the reasons set forth
28
below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s ex parte application.
-1-
08cv28
1
I.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2
On April 14, 2011, Defendant filed two dispositive motions, including: (1) a motion for
3
partial judgment on the pleadings “with respect to the Plaintiffs’ claims of forced relocation to
4
Minnesota and the alleged damages connected with the move” [Doc. No. 131]; and (2) a motion for
5
summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ fifth and seventh claims for relief [Doc. No. 132]. Approximately
6
two weeks later, on May 2, 2011, Magistrate Judge McCurine issued an order intended to streamline
7
and expedite the litigation of this case by setting specific guidelines and limitations on the parties’
8
dispositive motion practice. [Doc. No. 142.] Specifically, Judge McCurine instructed each side to
9
“file a single motion for summary judgment regarding the remaining administrative claims in this
10
consolidated action,” if any, by June 13, 2011. [Id. ¶1.] Judge McCurine further advised the
11
parties, that “any challenges to the relevant administrative proceedings, including the OAH Decision
12
and the issues related to the compliance investigation by the California Department of Education,
13
shall be deemed waived if not addressed by the parties’ June 13 cross-motions for summary
14
judgment.” [Id. (emphasis in original).]
15
Judge McCurine’s May 2 order further held that if the parties intended to file motions for
16
summary judgment regarding the section 504 and ADA claims, they were required to do so within
17
30 days of the Court’s ruling on the administrative claims; the Court limited each side to a single
18
summary judgment motion on the section 504 and ADA claims. [Id. ¶4.] The parties were advised
19
“the Court will not entertain additional dispositive motions outside the scope of the motions
20
outlined in this order.” [Id. at p.2 (bold in original).] Accordingly, consistent with Judge
21
McCurine’s May 2 Order, on May 4, 2011, the Court denied Defendant’s two dispositive motions
22
filed on April 14, “without prejudice to the District’s ability to refile its motions in a manner
23
consistent with the Court’s May 2, 2011 Scheduling Order.” [Doc. No. 143 (caps omitted).]
24
On June 13, 2011—the deadline to file dispositive motions on the administrative
25
claims—each party filed a “Notice of Non-Filing of Motion” for summary judgment. [Doc. Nos.
26
152, 153.] Plaintiffs also sought guidance regarding whether they should promptly file their motion
27
for attorneys’ fees associated with their third claim for relief and the Court’s denial of the District’s
28
appeal of the OAH Decision. [Doc. No. 153, p.2.] On June 22, 2011, the Court instructed Plaintiffs
-2-
08cv28
1
to file their attorneys’ fee motion associated with the administrative claims by July 25, 2011. [Doc.
2
No. 154.] The Court also amended its May 2 Order with respect to the remaining claims, and
3
ordered each party to file its motion for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims, if
4
any, within 30 days of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees. [Id.]
5
Less than one month later, on July 21, 2011, Judge McCurine issued a Scheduling Order
6
which requires, among other things, that all pretrial motions be filed on or before November 28,
7
2011. [Doc. No. 158.] Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees is currently under submission. [Doc.
8
No. 191.] Defendant notes that Judge McCurine’s July 21 Scheduling Order does not reference the
9
Court’s prior orders governing the parties’ dispositive motion practice (i.e. Doc. Nos. 142, 154).
10
[Doc. No. 198, p.3.]
11
II.
DISCUSSION
12
(A)
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
13
Defendant asserts it intends to refile its motion for partial judgment on the pleadings to
14
address Plaintiffs’ claims of forced relocation to Minnesota and damages purportedly related to the
15
move. [Doc. No. 198.] Defendant contends refiling its motion for judgment on the pleadings is
16
consistent with the Court’s orders on this matter. Specifically, Defendant asserts the Court
17
previously dismissed the motion without prejudice to the District’s ability to refile, and the Court did
18
not expressly mention the motion for judgment on the pleadings in its scheduling orders. [Id. at p.2.]
19
The Court, however, finds that the record unambiguously prohibits Defendant from filing a separate
20
motion for judgment on the pleadings at this stage of the litigation.
21
First, Judge McCurine’s May 2 Order explicitly advises the parties that “the Court will not
22
entertain additional dispositive motions outside the scope of the motions outlined in this order.”
23
[Doc. No. 142, p.2.] The Order expressly permits each side to first file a motion for summary
24
judgment on the administrative issues, and subsequently, to file a second motion for summary
25
judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims. [See generally, id.] Second, after Judge McCurine
26
issued his May 2 Order, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings
27
“without prejudice to the District’s ability to refile its motion[] in a manner consistent with the
28
Court’s May 2, 2011 Scheduling Order.” [Doc. No. 143 (italics added).] Accordingly, consistent
-3-
08cv28
1
with the May 2 Order, Defendant may raise the arguments made in its earlier motion for judgment
2
on the pleadings within its upcoming summary judgment motion on the section 504 and ADA
3
claims. However, to the extent Defendant desires to file a separate, stand-alone motion for judgment
4
on the pleadings, in addition to the anticipated motion for summary judgment, it is not permitted to
5
do so.
6
The relevant Court orders have consistently limited each side to a single dispositive motion
7
on the administrative claims, and a single dispositive motion on the section 504 and ADA claims.
8
Although the orders refer only to motions for summary judgment, the clear intent behind the orders
9
is to focus the progression of this action and limit the number of dispositive motions filed by the
10
parties to ensure an efficient resolution to this consolidated action. Accordingly, Defendant’s ex
11
parte application is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent Defendant desires to raise arguments
12
regarding Plaintiffs’ ability to recover damages associated with their alleged forced relocation to
13
Minnesota, within its motion for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims.
14
Defendant’s ex parte application is DENIED IN PART, however, to the extent Defendant intends to
15
file a separate motion for judgment on the pleadings, in addition to the contemplated motion for
16
summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims. The Court declines to modify its existing
17
scheduling orders that do not contemplate, nor allow, Defendant to file more than one dispositive
18
motion on the section 504 and ADA issues.
19
(B)
Page Limitations
20
Defendant also moves the Court to expand the page limitations for its anticipated summary
21
judgment motion on the section 504 and ADA claims. Defendant originally requested the Court to
22
increase the page limitation on its opening brief from 25 pages to 50 pages, and the limitation on its
23
reply brief from 10 pages to 25 pages. [Doc. No. 198.] In its reply, Defendant indicates 45 pages
24
for its opening brief and 20 pages for its reply would be sufficient, given Plaintiffs’ representation
25
that they intend to dismiss their sixth claim for relief. [Doc. No. 200.] Upon due consideration, and
26
in light of the issues that will be addressed in the summary judgment motion, the Court finds
27
Defendant’s original request for a 50-page opening brief and 25-page reply is warranted.
28
Accordingly, Defendant’s ex parte application is GRANTED IN PART as it applies to the page
-4-
08cv28
1
limitations. In addition, the page limitation for Plaintiffs’ opposition brief to Defendant’s motion for
2
summary judgment is hereby increased from 25 pages to 50 pages.
3
III.
4
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
5
Defendant’s ex parte application. [Doc. No. 198.] The Court DENIES Defendant’s application to
6
the extent Defendant desires to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in addition to its
7
anticipated motion for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims. The Court
8
GRANTS Defendant’s application to the extent it intends to include the arguments raised in its prior
9
motion for judgment on the pleadings within its summary judgment motion. Lastly, the Court
10
GRANTS Defendant’s request to increase the page limitation on its upcoming summary judgment
11
motion, and hereby increases the page limitation on Defendant’s opening brief from 25 pages to 50
12
pages, and increases the limitation on Defendant’s reply brief from 10 pages to 25 pages. IT IS
13
FURTHER ORDERED that the page limitation for Plaintiffs’ opposition brief to Defendant’s
14
motion for summary judgment is increased from 25 pages to 50 pages.
15
Consistent with the Court’s most recent scheduling order of July 21, 2011, the parties shall
16
file their respective motions for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims within 30
17
days of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, but in no event, later than
18
November 28, 2011—the pretrial motion cut-off. [See Doc. No. 158, ¶5.]
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
23
DATED: October 18, 2011
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
08cv28
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?