Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02337/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02337-5/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

JENNIFER CHANG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, et

al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02337 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers 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.

The Court tentatively DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss and RESERVES

RULING on Defendants’ motion to strike.

Case 3:06-cv-02337-JSW Document 42 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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 parties shall have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Defendants allege that J.C. is not “otherwise qualified” for admission to California

School for the Deaf (CSD), citing the existence of “criteria” under California Education

Code § 59020. In light of the fact that J.C. has been admitted to CSD since the age of 20

months, what specific criteria does she fail to meet indicating that she is unqualified for

admission to CSD? Do the parties agree that but for her autism, J.C. would be qualified

for admission to CSD?

2. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not make out a claim under the Americans with

Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act due primarily to the school’s compliance with

the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. How does

compliance with the IDEA inform the question of whether Defendants discriminated

against Jennifer on the basis of her additional disabilities? See Sullivan v. Vallejo

Unified School District, 731 F. Supp. 947, 950-51 (E.D. Cal. 1990) (noting that a student

may be the subject of discrimination by virtue of his or her handicap even though school

provided the basic educational opportunities pursuant to the IDEA).

3. Does the introduction of the Settlement Agreement have the effect of converting

Defendants’ motion to strike to a motion for summary judgment? If so, what extrinsic

evidence do Plaintiffs intend to introduce to defeat the plain language of the agreement?

4. What is Plaintiffs’ position regarding the impact of the general waiver of all possible

claims in paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement (not the specific waiver of IDEA

claims in paragraph 5)? Should paragraph 8 control here, are the factual claims

underpinning the ADA and RA causes of action in paragraphs 16 through 24 of the

complaint impertinent and subject to being stricken?

5. Is there any indication, either in the language of the Settlement Agreement or in the

extrinsic evidence regarding the parties’ intent, that the general waiver provision (¶ 8) is

ambiguous? See Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that local

law applies to contract interpretation); see also Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W.

Thomas Drayage, 69 Cal. 2d 33, 40 (1968) (California law permits introduction of

parole evidence to establish contract ambiguity).

6. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02337-JSW Document 42 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2