Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00759/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00759-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:7422 Appeal from Administrative Decision

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 04cv0759

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDIA HOUSTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 04-CV-0759 WQH (CAB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REPLACEMENT EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO STAY (DOC.

NO. 173), GRANTING UOP

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS (DOC. NO. 171), AND

TERMINATING CASE

vs.

GOVERNING BOARD OF THE

ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT,

etc., et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, JUDGE:

I. Introduction

Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Replacement Ex Parte Application to Stay

Proceedings Pending Circuit Decisions in #04-55708 (doc. no. 173), and the Motion to Dismiss filed

by Defendants University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, Glenn A. Fait, Trevor Skarda,

California Special Education Hearings Office, Institute for Administrative Justice, and Amy Prewitt

(the “UOP Defendants”) (doc. no. 171). The Court finds these motions suitable for decision on the

papers pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1).

II. Ex Parte Application to Stay Proceedings

Plaintiffs move the Court to stay the instant matter on the grounds that they have filed an

appeal in a separate, closed matter, Case No. 00-CV-2475. Plaintiffs attach a “Consolidated Appellate

Case 3:04-cv-00759-WQH-CAB Document 175 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 04cv0759

Brief,” which they assert constitutes an appeal of Case No. 00-CV-2475, as well as a supposedly

“related matter involving different parties, Case No. 04-CV-0438. Plaintiffs state that in their

appellate brief, Plaintiffs ask the Ninth Circuit “to open that appeal to this matter USDC 04-CV-0759,

so the Defendants in this matter can engage.” (Replacement Ex Parte App. To Stay 1-2.) Plaintiffs

further assert that the instant matter “is also the amended complaint in USDC 00-CV-2475,” and that

Plaintiffs are “asking the Circuit to vacate all orders in this case which were issued by J. Hayes on

grounds at 9th Circuit case Canseco v. U.S.” (Id. 2.) “Thus,” Plaintiffs state, “it is fair and proper to

ask the Circuit [to] open the appeal to this case. It is also proper to request a stay in this case in as

it is effectively on appeal in #04-55708.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) 

There has been no appeal taken in this case. Plaintiffs’ desire that the Ninth Circuit “open”

the appeal of two separate matters to include this case, is not a sufficient basis for the Court to enter

a stay. The Motion to Stay (doc. no. 173) is therefore DENIED.

III. Motion to Dismiss

The UOP Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). The UOP Defendants

contend that this case should be dismissed based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, in that

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeks to litigate issues that are identical to those raised in the previous lawsuit, Case

No. 00-CV-2475, which were finally adjudicated. In that case, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ IDEA

claims because Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and the Court declined to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. As the UOP Defendants correctly

assert, “[t]he plaintiffs, even with the addition of Jonas Houston, assert no new causes of action, raise

no new issues or make any new arguments that their complaint supports with any understandable facts

or coherent explanations as to how any applicable laws entitle them to a remedy from the UOP

Defendants.” (Mem. in support of Mot. to Dismiss 9.) In addition, Defendants correctly point out that

Plaintiffs have not alleged any due process hearings that became final since the Court’s ruling in Case

No. 00-CV-2475. There is no showing that Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies

since the adjudication of Case No. 00-CV-2475, and the Court agrees that Plaintiffs are collaterally

estopped from re-litigating this issue. Indeed, in the Court’s August 2, 2005 Order in the instant

Case 3:04-cv-00759-WQH-CAB Document 175 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 04cv0759

matter, the Court already found that collateral estoppel precludes re-litigation of the issues decided

in Case No. 00-CV-2475 as to other Defendants, who have now been dismissed. The Court now

concludes that the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies

likewise bar Plaintiffs’ claims against the UOP Defendants, who are the only remaining defendants

in this lawsuit. Accordingly, the UOP Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 171) is GRANTED.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Stay (doc. no. 173) is DENIED,

and the UOP Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 171) is GRANTED. The Clerk is ORDERED

to terminate this case, and enter judgment in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 19, 2006

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00759-WQH-CAB Document 175 Filed 12/19/06 Page 3 of 3