W.A. v. Patterson Joint Unified School District

Full title: W.A., by and through his parents and guardians ad litem, S.A. and J.A.…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 21, 2011

Case No: 1:10-cv-01317-LJO-SMS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011)

Opinion

Case No: 1:10-cv-01317-LJO-SMS.

January 21, 2011

LOUGHREY ASSOCIATES, TAMARA L. LOUGHREY, Bar No. 227001, Oakland, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Jeffrey R. Olson, # 120945, Loura Erickson, # 258371, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte Carruth LLP, Centre Plaza Office Tower, Modesto, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, PATTERSON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CARLI BRIONES, and DAVE HODGE.

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

SANDRA SNYDER, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiffs W.A., by and through his parents, S.A. and J.A., and S.A. and J.A. individually (Plaintiffs) along with Defendants Patterson Joint Unified School District, Carli Brionnes and Dave Hodge (Defendants) (collectively, the Parties), hereby stipulate and agree to the following: 1. Defendants believe they are entitled to file a Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiffs claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without affording Plaintiffs the benefit of conducting formal discovery. Plaintiffs believe they are entitled to conduct discovery on the claim because they were not able to do so during the administrative hearing on their IDEA claim and because discovery is necessary to obtain further evidence to oppose a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs believe a Motion for Summary Judgment on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is premature in light of the fact that no discovery has been conducted and plan to oppose the motion on that basis. Plaintiffs also reserve the right to request that they be permitted to conduct discovery. However, given that the Court has indicated that Defendants will be permitted to file a motion, the Parties stipulate and agree to the following briefing schedule regarding the pending IDEA appeal and the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.

April 29, 2011. May 31, 2011. June 17, 2011. June 27, 2011.

1. Each party shall file a Motion for Summary Judgment by 2. Each party shall file an Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by 3. Each party shall file a Reply motion by 4. A hearing on the motions shall occur on

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefore:

1. Each party shall file a Motion for Summary Judgment by April 29, 2011.

2. Each party shall file an Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by May 31, 2011.

3. Each party shall file a Reply motion by June 17, 2011.

4. A hearing on the motions shall occur on June 27, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom #4 before Judge O'Neill.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2011