From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kilroy v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Oct 3, 2017
Case No.: CV 16-09068-DMG (JDE) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017)

Opinion

Case No.: CV 16-09068-DMG (JDE)

10-03-2017

LORCAN T. KILROY, Plaintiff, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education ("LAUSD"), John Plevack, Paula Greene, Justo Avila, George McKenna, Scott Schmerelson, Monica Ratliff, and Ref Rodriguez ("Motion to Dismiss"), the Opposition of Plaintiff Lorcan T. Kilroy, the Reply of the moving defendants, the other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made.

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted, with some modifications noted below.

2. The Motion to Dismiss Causes of Action One through Eight against defendant LAUSD is GRANTED without leave to amend as to those claims. Any request to raise new causes of action against defendant LAUSD must be raised by way of a motion to amend.

3. The Motion to Dismiss Causes of Action One through Seven in the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED as to defendants John Plevack, Paula Greene, Justo Avila, George McKenna, Scott Schmerelson, Monica Ratliff, and Ref Rodriguez in their official capacities, without leave to amend as to those claims. Any request to raise new causes of action against LAUSD Individual Defendants in their official capacity must be raised by way of a motion to amend.

4. The Motion to Dismiss Causes of Action Nine and Ten by defendants John Plevack, Paula Greene, Justo Avila, George McKenna, Scott Schmerelson, Monica Ratliff, and Ref Rodriguez in their individual capacities is DENIED.

5. All remaining defendants, who have not otherwise filed their Answer, shall file their Answer to the First Amended Complaint within 21 days after the date of this Order. DATED: October 3, 2017

/s/_________

DOLLY M. GEE

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Kilroy v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Oct 3, 2017
Case No.: CV 16-09068-DMG (JDE) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017)
Case details for

Kilroy v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

Case Details

Full title:LORCAN T. KILROY, Plaintiff, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Oct 3, 2017

Citations

Case No.: CV 16-09068-DMG (JDE) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017)

Citing Cases

Stone Brewing Co. v. MillerCoors LLC

"The purpose of [Federal Rule of Evidence] 26(a) is to allow the parties to adequately prepare their cases…

Shaughnessy v. LVNV Funding, LLC

Accordingly, courts may exclude fact witness' testimony if it presents an unfair surprise to an opposing…