Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01052/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01052-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and F.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties consented to proceed before a United States

1

Magistrate Judge, and by a May 9, 2006 order, this action was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence J.

O’Neill for all further proceedings.

Defendants are Russ Harding, Jim Hartigan, Trina Smith, Bill Crawford, Carlo Prandini and Karen Sowby 2

and will be referred to collectively as “defendants.” Defendants were associated with Clovis West High School and/or its

football team as coaches, trainers or administrators. 

Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 78-230(c), no opposing party is entitled to oral argument in the absence

3

of timely filed opposition papers.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN GORTHY, et al., CASE NO. CV F 05-1052 LJO

Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

vs. DISMISS

(Doc. 64.)

RUSS HARDING, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

INTRODUCTION

1

Defendants seek to dismiss this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort action on grounds that a nearly

2

identical, parallel state action is a more appropriate forum. Minor plaintiff Jacob Gorthy (“Jacob”) and

plaintiff Susan Gorthy (“Mrs. Gorthy”), Jacob’s mother and guardian ad litem, filed no timely opposition

papers. This Court considered defendants’ motion to dismiss on the record and without oral argument

or the January 19, 2007 hearing, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 78-230(c) and (h). For the reasons 3

discussed below, this Court DISMISSES this action and VACATES all pending dates.

Case 1:05-cv-01052-NEW Document 66 Filed 01/11/07 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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ Claims

Jacob played football at Clovis West High School. Jacob and Mrs. Gorthy (collectively

“plaintiffs”) allege that on August 16, 2004, Jacob suffered serious injuries after he was required to drop

to his hands on asphalt and perform “bear crawls” during extreme heat. Plaintiffs proceed on their

second amended complaint to allege a causes of action for civil rights violations, intentional infliction

of emotional distress, negligent supervision and negligent training.

After filing this action, plaintiffs filed a nearly identical action in Fresno County Superior Court

entitled Gorthy v. Clovis Unified School District, Case No. 05CECG03492 (“state court action”). In the

state court action (but not in this action), Clovis Unified School District (“CUSD”) is a defendant, and

Mrs. Gorthy pursues a negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action. CUSD was dismissed

from this action due to immunities available in federal court.

Attempted Stay And Dismissal Of This Action

In October 2006, the parties filed their stipulation and proposed order to stay this action in favor

of the state court action. This Court denied the requested stay and commented:

The parties fail to address potential dismissal of this action given that the superior court

action includes all applicable parties and claims. Based on what the parties have

presented, this Court prefers dismissal rather than stay of this action.

Plaintiffs’ counsel Robert Ormiston (“Mr. Ormiston”), in his October 20, 2006 e-mail to defense

counsel John Mahan (“Mr. Mahan”), stated: “If you will confirm that defendants will not be asserting

any statute of limitations defense in the State Action, then we can dismiss the Federal Action.” In the

state court action, defendants filed their November 14, 2006 withdrawal of statute of limitations defense.

According to Mr. Mahan, Mr. Ormiston has ignored Mr. Mahan’s attempts to dismiss this action,

including Mr. Mahan’s letters and proposed stipulation to dismiss.

Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss

On December 13, 2006, defendants filed this motion to dismiss under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) on

grounds that this Court is an improper, duplicative forum because:

1. The state court action is “procedurally ahead” of this action in that since August 2006,

all parties have proceeded as if the state court action would proceed, more discovery has

Case 1:05-cv-01052-NEW Document 66 Filed 01/11/07 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

been conducted in the state court action, and the parties have failed to comply with this

action’s scheduled dates and have foregone discovery in this action;

2. Defendants should not need to defend two actions in separate forums;

3. The state court action is identical to this action, except that the state court action includes

CUSD as a defendant and Mrs. Gorthy’s negligent infliction of emotional distress cause

of action;

4. Proceeding in the state court action and this action wastes judicial resources;

5. Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss this action; and

6. Plaintiffs are not prejudiced to proceed in only the state court action which includes all

defendants and causes of action. 

DISCUSSION

Mr. Ormiston has inexplicably failed to cooperate with defense counsel Mr. Mahan to dismiss

this action after agreeing to do so upon defendants’ waiver of the statute of limitations defense in the

state court action. Plaintiffs fail to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss to indicate their acceptance

of dismissal of this action. Continuing this action would appear to further waste this Court’s and

defendants’ resources in that the state court action includes all of plaintiffs’ claims and defendants

subject to the claims. The parties appear to have all but given up on this action.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court:

1. DISMISSES this action;

2. VACATES all pending dates, including the January 19, 2007 hearing on defendants’

motion to dismiss, March 15, 2007 pretrial conference, and May 1, 2007 trial; and

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01052-NEW Document 66 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 3