Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07836/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07836-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R.K., a minor, by and through his parents, T.K.

and C.K.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HAYWARD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

et al.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

AND RELATED CROSS COMPLAINT

 /

No. C 06-07836 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

MAY 4, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority.

Case 3:06-cv-07836-JSW Document 78 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court notes that Plaintiff cites to administrative decisions in opposition to the

pending motions to dismiss but only filed a request for judicial notice as to three of them. To

the extent Plaintiff wants the Court to consider the other administrative decisions cited, Plaintiff

is directed to bring copies to the hearing and to file a request for judicial notice attaching such

decisions by no later than May 8, 2007. Plaintiff should also bring to the hearing a copy of the

filings in the Ninth Circuit in the appeal and to file a request for judicial notice of such filings

by no later than May 8, 2007.

Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

(1) What is the status of the pending administrative hearing?

(a) It appears that the California Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) has

issued a Stay Put Order and Esther B.Clark School (“EBC”) has agreed to enroll

Plaintiff pursuant to the Stay Put Order. Is Plaintiff currently in school? If not,

why not?

(b) Does the fact that the OAH has issued a Stay Put Order and it appears that it is

being complied with now render that portion of the action before this Court

seeking to enforce the withdrawn Stay Put Order moot? 

(c) Are the parties proceeding with mediation in the underlying administrative

hearing? If not, would the parties benefit from attending a settlement conference

with a magistrate judge?

(2) If Plaintiff’s claims regarding the withdrawn Stay Put Order are not mooted by

subsequent factual developments, is this Court’s jurisdiction regarding the Stay Put

Order divested by the appeal of this Court’s order denying the temporary restraining

order? 

(a) Does Plaintiff agree with the Hayward Unified School District’s (the “District”)

characterization of her appeal, i.e. that she only appealed the portion of the

Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s request that this Court issue an original Stay

Put Order? If not, what does Plaintiff contend she is appealing?

(b) Does Plaintiff’s appeal divest this Court of jurisdiction of any claims other than

Plaintiff’s Count 1 seeking an injunction? If so what claims or portions of

claims?

(3) What is the District’s response to Plaintiff’s argument that the alleged breach of the

settlement agreement invalidates the releases?

(4) Does the District have any authority indicating that state law governs the resolution of

disputes over settlement agreements alleged to be entered pursuant to the mediation

process under the IDEA?

Case 3:06-cv-07836-JSW Document 78 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(5) The Court must determine whether any of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Eleventh

Amendment sovereign immunity. See In re Jackson, 184 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.

1999). The Ninth Circuit has held that California school districts are considered state

agencies for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment and thus enjoy sovereign immunity. 

Belanger v. Madera Unified School District, 963 F.2d 248, 251 (9th Cir. 1992). Does

the District contend that it is immune from any of Plaintiff’s claims? If so, which

claims?

(6) Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: May 3, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07836-JSW Document 78 Filed 05/03/07 Page 3 of 3