Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00049/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00049-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 07cv0049w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN R. HESS; et al.

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO: 07-CV-0049 W (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING IN-PART

AND DENYING IN-PART EX

PARTE MOTION FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

AND FOR CONTEMPT 

v.

RAMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT; et al., 

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for enforcement of the

preliminary injunction and for contempt against certain Defendants. The motion is based

on the grounds that Defendant Ramona Unified School District (the “District”) has not

complied with the Court’s September 19, 2007 order requiring the District to build a girls’

softball field that is of the same quality and with all of the same amenities as the boys’

baseball field. For the reasons addressed below, the Court GRANTS IN-PART AND

DENIES IN-PART Plaintiffs’ motion.

The parties are well aware of the factual background, and thus it is not necessary to

repeat it here. It is sufficient to note that the litigation arises from the District’s 30-year

practice of providing two on-campus baseball fields for the boys’ varsity and junior

varsity/freshman teams, while the girls’ softball teams were routinely shuffled around

various off-campus locations to practice and play their “home” games. 

Case 3:07-cv-00049-W-CAB Document 87 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 4
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 - 07cv0049w

As a result of the District’s practice, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit and sought a

preliminary injunction. On August 20, 2007, the Court granted the motion and ordered

the parties, with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, to make a good

faith effort to agree upon the precise form of relief to be granted. Unable to agree, on

September 13, 2007, Judge Bencivengo issued a Recommendation Regarding

Implementation of Injunctive Relief (“Recommendation”), recommending that the District

build a new dedicated softball field over the boys’ JV/freshman baseball field, oriented in

the same direction as the varsity baseball field. 

The District objected to Judge Bencivengo’s Recommendation, urging instead that

it be allowed to construct a “new Girls’ Softball field” on the current location of the

JV/freshman baseball field, but oriented in the same direction as the then-existing

JV/Freshman field. (Def.’s Sep. State. For Relief, p.6:24–26.) In addition to being able to

complete the necessary renovations by the start of the 2008 season, the District argued that

its proposal would reduce the fiscal impact, thereby allowing the District to continue with

plans to construct additional new facilities, including a softball/soccer complex.

Based on the District’s representations, on September 19, 2007, the Court ordered:

By the start of the 2008 softball season, the District shall construct a dedicated girls’

softball field on the current location of the boys’ junior varsity/freshman baseball

field. The field will be of the same quality and have all of the same amenities as the

existing boys’ varsity baseball field.

(Doc. No. 58.) After the February deadline passed, Plaintiffs filed the current ex parte

motion contending that the District has not complied with the order to construct a softball

field of the same quality and with all of the same amenities as the varsity baseball field. 

Having reviewed the moving papers and the evidence submitted by the parties, the

Court agrees with some of the Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS INPART and DENIES-IN PART the motion (Doc. No. 68), and ORDERS as follows:

1. The District shall build a new backstop that complies with the California

Interscholastic Federation recommended distance of 25 feet between home

Case 3:07-cv-00049-W-CAB Document 87 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 4
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

In Defendants’ Separate Proposal for Relief, the District represented that it would install “a

new permanent fence around the entire perimeter of the field.” (Doc. No. 50, at 6:27.)

2

Based on the parties’ papers, it appears that the following issues have been resolved:

(1) installation of the remaining wind screen; (2) installation of additional bleachers; (3) dragging the

infield; and (4) installation of a game-quality pitching plate. 

3

Plaintiffs raise numerous safety issues related to the Districts’ renovations to the softball field.

For example, Plaintiffs argue that the condition of the dugouts and outfield presents certain safety

hazards. Nothing in this order should be construed as a decision by the Court regarding the validity

of those claims.

- 3 - 07cv0049w

plate and the backstop. Consistent with the District’s earlier representation1,

the backstop fencing shall be replaced and tightly secured. All safety hazards,

such as protruding hardware, exposed wires and jagged edges from bent

fencing and cut bolts shall be eliminated. In order to implement this

renovation, the parties shall meet and confer by April 4, 2008 regarding the

time frame for completion. If the parties cannot agree on a time frame, by

April 9, 2008, the parties shall file a two-page brief proposing deadlines to be

set by the Court. 

2. The District shall provide the girls’ softball team with batting cages that are

the same width, and include the same type of flooring as the boys’ baseball

team. 

3. With regard to the quality of the dugouts, the outfield surface, the condition

of the bullpens and the irrigation, the record demonstrates that they are of

equal quality with the boys’ facilities. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request is denied with

respect to these items.2

 

Plaintiffs’ request to hold Defendants in contempt is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2008

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00049-W-CAB Document 87 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 07cv0049w

Case 3:07-cv-00049-W-CAB Document 87 Filed 03/26/08 Page 4 of 4