Wagnon v. Rocklin Unified School District ( 2023 )

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., No. 2:17–cv–1666–KJN–CONSENT 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER RESETTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND 13 v. ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 14 ROCKLIN U.S.D., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Currently pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which 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 1 The matter is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ consent to the magistrate judge’s 28 jurisdiction for all purposes, as per 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 23, 24.) ] Additionally, the court is in need of further supplemental briefing. The parties shall 2 || 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. 16 ORDER 17 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 18 1. Regarding supplemental briefing, the parties shall confer and file a joint statement on 19 the issues outlined above. This joint statement is due within 21 days of this order; and 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 %6 Foci) Aharon 27 KENDALL J. NE wagn.1666 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28