SPB v. Washoe County School District

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00340
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 SPB, NH, and JHB, individuals, Case No. 3:22-cv-00340-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO 6 STAY WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 7 Defendant. 8 9 Plaintiffs SPB, NH, and JHB sued Defendant Washoe County School 10 District for violations of JHB’s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities 11 Education Act (“IDEA”). The Court granted Plaintiffs partial summary judgment, 12 finding that the District violated its child find obligation and denied JHB a free 13 appropriate public education (“FAPE”) under the IDEA. (ECF No. 57.) The Court 14 declined to rule on appropriate reimbursement or equitable remedy and ordered 15 Plaintiffs to file a motion for reimbursement. (Id.) 16 The District moved the Court to reconsider its order, arguing that the Court 17 should not have allowed Plaintiffs to file additional briefing on remedies. (ECF No. 18 58.) The District then moved the Court to stay proceedings pending adjudication 19 of the motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 66.) For the following reasons, the 20 Court denies Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 58) and denies 21 Defendant’s motion to stay (ECF No. 66). The Court grants Defendant’s motion 22 for an extension of time (ECF No. 75). 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 A district court may reconsider an interlocutory order for cause, so long as 25 it retains jurisdiction. LR 59-1(a). Reconsideration may be appropriate if the 26 district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 27 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening 28 1 change in controlling law.” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th 2 Cir. 2013) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 3 1993)); see also LR 59-1(a). “Clear error occurs when ‘the reviewing court on the 4 entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 5 committed.’” Smith, 727 F.3d at 955 (citing United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 6 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored [and a] movant 7 must not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only to the extent) 8 necessary to explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts.” LR 59- 9 1(b). 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 a. Motion for Reconsideration 12 The District does not present newly discovered evidence or argue that there 13 has been an intervening change of law. Instead, the District asserts that the 14 Court’s order violates federal and local rules of civil procedure, the IDEA, and the 15 due process clause. (ECF No. 58 at 9.) 16 District courts have broad discretion to manage their dockets. Johnson v. 17 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). And the Ninth 18 Circuit has found that a court does not abuse its discretion when ordering 19 supplemental briefing. See, e.g., Heyman v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of 20 Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., No. 21-16377, 2022 WL 3594080, at *2 (9th Cir. 21 Aug. 23, 2022) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering 22 supplemental motions for summary judgment from the parties regarding certain 23 claims”); Arizona v. City of Tucson, 761 F.3d 1005, 1009 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the 24 district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the State to provide 25 additional information through supplemental briefing, in lieu of ordering formal 26 discovery”). 27 As the District points out, the IDEA permits the introduction of “additional 28 1 evidence.” 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(e)(2). Accordingly, “judicial review in IDEA cases 2 differs substantially from judicial review in other agency actions, in which courts 3 generally are confined to the administrative record and are held to a highly 4 deferential standard of review.” Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467, 5 1471 (9th Cir. 1993). In Ojai, the Ninth Circuit construed the term “additional” 6 to mean “supplemental” and explained that: “‘The determination of what is 7 ‘additional’ evidence must be left to the discretion of the trial court which must 8 be careful not to allow such evidence to change the character of the hearing from 9 one of review to a trial de novo.’” Id. at 1472-3 (quoting Town of Burlington v. 10 Department of Edu., 736 F.2d 773, 791 (1st Cir. 1984)). The Court’s order 11 requesting additional briefing on remedies does not transform this case into a de 12 novo trial; it merely allows the Court to fashion an appropriate equitable remedy. 13 Other courts have adopted the same approach that the Court took in this 14 case. See, e.g., J.R. by & through Perez v. Ventura Unified Sch. Dist., 668 F. Supp. 15 3d 1054, 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2023) (finding an IDEA violation and ordering 16 supplemental briefing on remedies); A.P. v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., No. CV 17 19-7965-MWF (SSX), 2021 WL 810416, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2021) (same). 18 The Court’s decision to order supplemental briefing on remedies is within 19 its broad authority to manage its docket and its broad discretion to craft 20 appropriate relief under IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii); Forest Grove Sch. 21 Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 238 (2009). The District has failed to demonstrate that 22 the Court committed clear error or that reconsideration is warranted for any other 23 reason. 24 b. Motion to Stay 25 The District moved the Court to stay this case pending adjudication of the 26 motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 66.) Because the Court denies the motion 27 for reconsideration, the motion to stay is denied as moot. 28 1 c. Motion to Extend 2 The District moves to extend the deadline for its response to Plaintiffs’ 3 || motion to supplement the administrative record (ECF No. 67), arguing that such 4 || a response may not be necessary if the Court grants either the Defendant’s 5 |} motion to strike (ECF No. 73) or motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 58). Good 6 || cause appearing, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for an extension of time 7 || (ECF No. 75). 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 10 || 66) is denied. 11 It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion to stay (ECF No. 58) is denied. 12 It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion for an extension of time (ECF 13 || No. 75) is granted. 14 Defendant has until 14 days after this Court rules on Defendant’s motion 15 || to strike (ECF No. 73) to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the 16 || administrative record (ECF No. 67). 17 Plaintiffs are directed to submit a motion as instructed in the Court’s prior 18 || order (ECF No. 57), not to exceed twenty pages, within 30 days of this order. The 19 || District will have 21 days to respond, and Plaintiffs will have 14 days to reply. To 20 || summarize, the deadlines shall be as follows: 21 e Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing: February 24, 2025 22 e Defendant’s response: March 17, 2025 23 e Plaintiffs’ reply: March 31, 2025 24 25 DATED: January 24, 2025 an 26 Aras plot? 27 ANNER TRAUM 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE