Rodriguez v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 MARINO JAIR RODRIGUEZ, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01379-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TERMINATING THE CROSS- MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 9 v. JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 62, 77 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment as to 14 Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Dkt. Nos. 62, 77. For the reasons discussed below, both motions are 16 The Court recited the factual and litigation history of this matter in its first order 17 addressing these motions, and it will not repeat that background here. See Dkt. No. 93; Rodriguez 18 v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Auth., No. 23-CV-01379-HSG, 2024 WL 4778049, at *1 19 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2024). As relevant here, Plaintiffs brought eight claims against Defendant 20 Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (“VTA”)—a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of 21 the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and seven state law claims 22 under California law. See Dkt. No. 28 (“Compl.”). VTA moved for summary judgment on 23 Plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim and on several of Plaintiffs’ state law claims. See Dkt. Nos. 62 24 (“Mot.”), 80 (“Opp”), 84 (“Reply”). Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on multiple 25 state law claims. See Dkt. Nos. 77 (“Cross Mot.”), 79 (“Cross Opp.”), 85 (“Cross Reply”). 26 On November 12, 2024, the Court denied VTA’s motion for summary judgment as to the 27 federal claim and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing regarding the proper standard of 1 to address (1) VTA’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ state law claims and (2) 2 Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The Court took this approach because it concluded that 3 “the standard of review is likely dispositive in resolving Plaintiffs’ federal claim [and] the standard 4 also impacts whether the Court would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 5 remaining state-law claims, because it would do so only if some federal claim survives.” Id. at *5. 6 The Court has now reviewed the parties’ supplemental briefing. See Dkt. Nos. 97, 98. 7 Although the parties disagree regarding the appropriate mechanism to resolve the factual disputes 8 identified in the Court’s prior order, the parties agree that some sort of factual adjudication is 9 necessary. VTA “urges the Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual disputes 10 regarding the applicable standard of review,” Dkt. No. 98, while Plaintiffs argue that “the factual 11 issues .. . must be resolved by the jury.” Dkt. No. 97. Regardless of mechanism, resolving these 12 factual disputes will likely prove dispositive for Plaintiffs’ federal claim, and, in turn, will affect 13 whether the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See Rodriguez, 2024 WL 4778049, at *5. 3 15 Accordingly, since the only issues left for resolution in the pending cross motions for a 16 || summary judgment go to the state law claims and since the Court’s future jurisdiction over these 3 17 claims is uncertain, the Court TERMINATES WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL the cross 18 motions for summary judgment, Dkt. Nos. 62, 77. Once the factual issues bearing on the standard 19 of review are resolved and the standard of review is determined, the parties may renew their 20 motions for summary judgment as to the state law claims if the Court exercises jurisdiction over 21 those claims. 22 24 Dated: 3/3/2025 * Abauprerl § Mb) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 26 United States District Judge 27 28