Cebulski v. San Diego Unified School District

Opinion

CATHERINE CEBULSKI and THOMAS Case No.: 21-CV-503-CAB-JLB CEBULSKI (PARENTS), ON BEHALF OF THEIR CONSERVATEE, KARL AMENDED ORDER REGARDING CEBULSKI (STUDENT), SDUSD’S SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE SECOND Plaintiffs, THROUGH SEVENTH CAUSES OF v. ACTION OF PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 49] DISTRICT, Defendant.

On January 20, 2022, SDUSD filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). [Doc. No. 48.] On January 21, 2022, SDUSD filed special Anti- SLAPP motion to strike the second through seventh causes of action in the TAC (“Anti- SLAPP motion”). [Doc. No. 49.] On April 1, 2022, this Court issued an order which granted the motion to dismiss the third through seventh causes of action for failure to obtain leave of court pursuant to pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), and denied the motion to dismiss the second cause of action for violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §794. [Doc. No. 64.] On April 1, 2022, this Court issued a minute order denying the Anti-SLAPP }motion as moot. [Doc. No. 65.] At the request of SDUSD, the Court has reconsidered the Anti-SLAPP motion and amends it previous minute order [Doc. No. 65] as follows: Given that the Court has dismissed/striken the third through seventh causes of action pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1), the anti-SLAPP motion as to those causes of action is DENIED AS MOOT. As to the second cause of action for violation of Section 504 (a federal question claim), the anti-SLAPP motion is DENIED. Although an anti-SLAPP motion may be brought in federal court, the statute applies only to state law claims, because applying it to federal question claims in federal court would frustrate substantive federal rights. Nunag v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 711 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 580 F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2009)); see also Bulletin Displays, LLC vy. Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1181 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (prohibition of applying anti-SLAPP motions to federal question claims in federal court is not limited to claims exclusively within federal jurisdiction). SDUSD shall answer the TAC, as amended by the Court’s order on the motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 64], by April 22, 2022. Dated: April 8, 2022 (6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge