Opinion
No. 2:09-CV-03562-JAM-KJN.
September 20, 2011
MARK D. PETERS (sbn 110981), Peters Peters, Santa Rosa, CA, Attorney for Defendants FAIRFIELD-SUISUN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, WOODROW CARTER, EDYIE SANTOMIERI, KIM CARMICHAEL and GLORIA BANDY.
Mr. William M. Simpich, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication of Issues having come on the Court's regularly scheduled Law and Motion Calendar for September 7, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 6, with William M. Simpich appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs and Mark D. Peters appearing on behalf of Defendants, the Court having considered the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to the Motion, and the arguments of Counsel, and good cause appearing therefor,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication of Issues are granted as follows:
Regarding all Defendants' contention that Plaintiffs can not establish the but-for causation required to establish a claim under the Age Discrimination In Employment Act, the Motions are granted and that cause of action is dismissed as to all Defendants. ( Gross v. FBL Services, Inc. (2009) ___ U.S. ___, ___; 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2348.)
As to the individual Defendants' assertion that they may not incur liability under either Plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of the Age Discrimination In Employment Act, or their cause of action for violation of the California Fair Employment And Housing Act, the Motions are granted and Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is dismissed-as to individual Defendants Woodrow Carter, Kim Carmichael, Edyie Santomieri and Gloria Bandy. ( Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l, Inc. (9th Cir. 1993) 991 F.2d 583, 587; Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663; Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1173-1174.)
As to the School District's contention that it is immune from suit in federal Court pursuant to the sovereign immunity conferred by the eleventh amendment to the constitution, the Motions are granted and judgment is granted on the remaining Fair Employment and Housing Act cause of action as to Defendant Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District ( Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000) 528 U.S. 62, 66, 72 — 74.)
Regarding Defendants' argument that they should not incur any liability because their actions were required, and specifically authorized by the terms of the No Child Left Behind Act (Tit. 20 U.S.C. Section 6316, subdivisions (b)(7)(C)(iv), (b)(8)(B)(ii), and (b)(8)(B)(v)), the Motions are denied on that basis.
The Court does not reach Defendants' contentions that (1) they were statutorily immune from liability on Plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of the California Fair Employment And Housing Act pursuant to California Government Code Sections 820.2 and 815.2, subdivision (b), or (2) Defendants' argument that they were entitled to qualified immunity from liability from both causes of action in the Amended Complaint.
Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' evidence are well founded but need need not be decided as the Court can reach its decision without specifically ruling on these objections.
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Sonoma. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is 645 Fourth Street, Suite 213, Santa Rosa, California 95404. On the below mentioned date, I served the PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES on the attorneys of record in said action by entering it into the Electronic Case Filing System.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: September 18, 2011