Wagnon v. Rocklin Unified School District

Opinion

ALICIA WAGNON, et al., No. 2:17–cv–1666–KJN–CONSENT Plaintiffs, ORDER RESETTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND v. ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

ROCKLIN U.S.D., et al., Defendants. Currently pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which plaintiffs oppose.1 (ECF Nos. 59, 63.) Upon review, the court ordered the parties to supplement their briefs concerning the scope of their arguments. (ECF No. 66.) The parties conferred and agreed to vacate the hearing on the motion so that they could attend a settlement conference. (ECF Nos. 67, 68.) On May 15, 2023, Magistrate Judge Delaney issued a minute order noting the case did not settle. (ECF No. 73.) Thereafter, counsel inquired with the undersigned’s courtroom deputy about resetting the motion without need for it to be fully refiled. The court concurs, and will resume addressing defendants’ motion. However, after further review, the court has determined that a hearing on the matter is not necessary, and so will take the motion under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 1 The matter is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ consent to the magistrate judge’s 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 confer and file a joint statement addressing the following: 1. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ disability discrimination claims, arguing that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Between the time of the parties’ briefing and this order, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Perez v Sturgis Public Schools that appears to foreclose defendants’ argument. 143 S. Ct. 859 (2023). If defendants concur with the court’s perspective, they shall state as much. If defendants disagree, the parties shall lay out their opposing arguments in the joint statement. 2. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the ADA and § 504 claims as brought by plaintiff Alicia Wagnon. However, the court had previously noted the scope of these claims (as alleged in the complaint) appear to have been brought only by plaintiff Sullivan From. Based on representations made in the prior joint statement (ECF No. 67), the parties disagree over the scope of these claims, and so requested permission to supplement their briefing. The parties shall lay out their opposing arguments in the joint statement. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Regarding supplemental briefing, the parties shall confer and file a joint statement on the issues outlined above. This joint statement is due within 21 days of this order; and 2. The court construes Judge Delaney’s May 15th minute order and the parties representations to the courtroom deputy as notice to resume consideration of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After the parties submit their supplemental briefing, defendants’ motion will be taken under submission without need for a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Dated: May 16, 2023 %6 Foci) Aharon wagn.1666 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE