Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02047/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02047-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLF.’S 

FAC AND/OR, ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Case No. 2:05-CV-02047-FCD-KJM 

Allison M. Dibley (SBN 213104) 

JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

199 Fremont Street, 10th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 394-9400 

Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 

Attorneys for Defendants 

NORTH HIGHLANDS RECREATION & PARK 

DISTRICT; KAY F. DAHILL; JOANNA McVAY; 

DIANE RICHARDS; ROBERT LITTLE; and ALAN 

MATRE 

Randall L. Wiens (SBN 105326) 

LAW OFFICES OF RANDALL L. WIENS 

1007 – 7th Street, Suite 500 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 446-1900 

Facsimile: (916) 446-1919 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

ADAM G. KELLY, by and through his Guardian 

Ad Litem PAULETTE M. GRANDINETTI; and 

RAPHELIA B. GRANDINETTI 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

ADAM G. KELLY, by and through his Guardian 

Ad Litem Paulette M. Grandinetti; RAPHELIA 

B. GRANDINETTI, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NORTH HIGHLANDS RECREATION & 

PARK DISTRICT; CHRISTINE BAGLEY; 

MARY WALL; HEATHER HORNBACK; 

CHUCK BERNARDI; KAY F. DAHILL; 

TRAVIS BILL; JOANNA McVAY; DIANE 

RICHARDS; ROBERT LITTLE; ALAN 

MATRE; and DOES 1-20,

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:05-CV-02047-FCD-KJM 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND/OR, ALTERNATIVELY, 

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 

First Amended Complaint filed: 02/02/06 

Defendants NORTH HIGHLANDS RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT, KAY F. 

DAHILL, JOANNA McVAY, DIANE RICHARDS, ROBERT LITTLE and ALAN MATRE 

(collectively “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs ADAM G. KELLY, by and through his Guardian Ad 

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 30 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 6
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLF.’S 

FAC AND/OR, ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Case No. 2:05-CV-02047-FCD-KJM 

Litem PAULETTE M. GRANDINETTI and RAPHELIA B. GRANDINETTI (collectively 

“Plaintiffs”) (all together “the Parties”) hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 

12101 et seq.), comparable provisions of California state law, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.) against Defendants, claiming violations of Plaintiffs’ rights to be free 

of discrimination on the basis of disability, race, ethnicity, or national origin. 

2. On October 31, 2005, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint (“Defendants’ First Motion”). 

3. By Order dated January 18, 2006, the Court granted in part and denied in part 

Defendants’ First Motion. Memorandum and Order, dated January 18, 2006 (“Order”). The 

Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action for disability discrimination and retaliation, 

with prejudice, to the extent Plaintiffs sued Defendants Joanna McVay (“McVay”), Diane 

Richards (“Richards”), Robert Little (“Little”), Alan Matre (“Matre”), and Kay Dahill 

(“Dahill”) (collectively, the “Board Defendants”) in their personal capacity. Order, p. 13:23-28; 

p. 17:1-6.1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), the Court also dismissed, with 

leave to amend, Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action for race/ethnic/national origin discrimination 

for failure to state the basis for their claims against the Board Defendants. Order, p. 18:3-11. 

4. The Court granted Defendants’ First Motion as to Plaintiffs’ Seventh Cause of 

Action for Negligence, holding that discretionary immunity under California Government Code 

section 820.2 shields the Board Defendants from liability for failure or refusal to terminate or 

otherwise punish or discipline the employee Defendants Christine Bagley (“Bagley”), Mary 

Wall (“Wall”), Heather Hornback (“Hornback”), Chuck Benardi (“Benardi”), and Travis Bill 

(“Bill”) (collectively, the “Employee Defendants”). Order, p. 11:7-12. The Court further held 

that the Board Defendants cannot be held liable for the failure to prevent or stop the June 14, 

2004 incident unless Plaintiff alleges that the Board Defendants “were present during the June 

 

1 Defendant Travis Bill (“Bill”) has not been served with Plaintiffs’ Complaint or 

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and he was not a moving party with respect to Defendants’ 

First Motion. Nonetheless, the Court appears to have inadvertently included Bill in its Order. 

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 30 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 6
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLF.’S 

FAC AND/OR, ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Case No. 2:05-CV-02047-FCD-KJM 

14 incident or in any position to prevent or stop the alleged abuse.” Order, p. 12:8-12. 

5. Regarding Plaintiffs’ Seventh Cause of Action for negligent hiring, training and 

supervision of the Employee Defendants, the Court ruled as follows: 

Plaintiffs’ seventh claims for relief also alleges that board defendants 

were negligent “in the hiring, training, and supervision” of defendants 

involved in the June 14 incident. Specifically, plaintiffs point to board 

defendants’ hiring of Bagley because she “had been terminated from her 

previous job . . . for ‘abuse’ or other improper conduct.” (Compl. at 12). 

A board’s decision to hire a person is a basic policy decision entitled to 

immunity. See Caldwell, 10 Cal.4th at 983. Further, the complaint 

alleges that board defendants were aware that Bagley had been terminated 

from her previous job for “abuse” or other misconduct “prior to and/or 

after hiring” her. (Compl. at 12). A fair reading of this allegation asserts 

that board defendants made a purposeful decision to hire defendant 

Bagley with knowledge of the relevant risks. Therefore, board 

defendants are entitled to immunity pursuant to 820.2. Defendant’s 

motion is GRANTED with prejudice for any state tort claims arising out 

of allegations regarding these decisions. 

Order, p. 11:13 – 12:2. 

6. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on February 2, 2006. In spite of 

the Court’s ruling as described in paragraphs 3 through 5 above, Plaintiffs again assert a cause 

of action for disability discrimination and retaliation against the Board Defendants in their 

official and individual capacities. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), p. 4:4-7; 

p. 8:38 – 10:10. In addition, Plaintiffs again assert a negligence cause of action against the 

Board Defendants for: (a) failure or refusal to terminate or otherwise punish or discipline the 

Employee Defendants; (b) negligent hiring, training, and supervision of the Employee 

Defendants; and (c) failure to prevent or stop the June 14, 2004 incident even though Plaintiffs 

failed to allege that the Board Defendants were present during the June 14 incident or in any 

position to prevent or stop the alleged abuse. Complaint, p. 14:8-12. 

7. Since Plaintiffs continued to assert causes of action in their Complaint that the 

Court specifically dismissed with prejudice in its Order, Defendants filed their Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and/or, Alternatively, Request for Sanctions 

(“Defendants’ Second Motion”) on February 16, 2006. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to 

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 30 Filed 05/12/06 Page 3 of 6
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLF.’S 

FAC AND/OR, ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Case No. 2:05-CV-02047-FCD-KJM 

Defendants’ Second Motion on April 4, 2006. Plaintiffs argue that they are not permitted to 

strike or delete any allegations or causes of action from their amended pleading, even if the 

Court dismissed such allegations or causes of action with prejudice. 

8. After extensive meet and confer efforts, the parties have reached agreement on 

most of the issues raised in Defendants’ Second Motion. The Parties agree that the remaining 

causes of action against Defendants include only the following: (1) Assault; (2) Battery; (3) 

False Imprisonment (inadvertently labeled “Battery”); (4) Disability Discrimination (including 

retaliation) against Defendant North Highlands Recreation & Park District (the “District”) and 

the Board Defendants in their official capacities only; (5) Race/Ethnic/National Origin 

Discrimination against the District and the Board Defendants in their official capacities only; (6) 

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Negligence against the District and the 

Board Defendants with the exception of any state tort claims against the Board Defendants 

arising out of allegations regarding: (a) failure or refusal to terminate or otherwise punish or 

discipline the Employee Defendants; (b) negligent hiring of Bagley; and (c) failure to prevent or 

stop the June 14, 2004 incident. The Parties further agree that no cause of action for punitive 

damages may be stated against the Board Defendants with respect to the Fourth and Fifth 

Causes of Action. 

9. The Parties disagree regarding whether a negligence cause of action may be 

stated against the Board Defendants for the negligent hiring, training, and supervision of the 

Employee Defendants. Plaintiffs interpret the Order as granting Defendants’ First Motion with 

respect to Plaintiffs’ claim against the Board Defendants for negligent hiring of Bagley only. 

Defendants interpret the Order as granting Defendants’ First Motion with respect to Plaintiffs’ 

claim against the Board Defendants for negligent hiring, training, and supervision of the 

Employee Defendants. 

10. Since the Parties have reached agreement regarding the allegations contained in 

Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief that survive Defendants’ First Motion, the Parties 

respectfully request that the Court’s April 6, 2006 Minute Order and the April 20, 2006 

Stipulation and Order for Continuance of Deadlines Set Forth in Court’s April 6, 2006 Minute 

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 30 Filed 05/12/06 Page 4 of 6
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 

5 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLF.’S 

FAC AND/OR, ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Case No. 2:05-CV-02047-FCD-KJM 

Order be vacated. 

11. The Parties also respectfully request that they be permitted to brief and argue the 

one remaining issue from Defendants’ Second Motion that they continue to dispute: Whether 

the Board Members may be held liable for the negligent hiring, training, or supervision of the 

Employee Defendants. 

12. The Parties propose the following briefing and hearing schedule: 

May 26, 2006: Defendants’ Opening Brief 

June 2, 2006: Plaintiffs’ Opposition 

June 9, 2006: Defendants’ Reply 

June 16, 2006: Oral Argument to be heard by the Court at 10:00 a.m. 

Dated: May , 2006 JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

By: 

Allison M. Dibley 

Attorneys for Defendants 

NORTH HIGHLANDS RECREATION & 

PARK DISTRICT, KAY F. DAHILL, 

JOANNA McVAY, DIANE RICHARDS, 

ROBERT LITTLE and ALAN MATRE 

Dated: May , 2006 LAW OFFICES OF RANDALL L. WIENS 

 By 

 Randall L. Wiens 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

ADAM G. KELLY, by and through his 

Guardian Ad Litem PAULETTE M. 

GRANDINETTI and RAPHELIA B. 

GRANDINETTI 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, good cause appearing, that only the following causes of 

action against Defendants remain in this litigation: (1) Assault; (2) Battery; (3) False 

Imprisonment (inadvertently labeled “Battery”); (4) Disability Discrimination (including 

retaliation) against the District and the Board Defendants in their official capacities only; (5) 

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 30 Filed 05/12/06 Page 5 of 6
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 

6 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFS.’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLF.’S 

FAC AND/OR, ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Case No. 2:05-CV-02047-FCD-KJM 

Race/Ethnic/National Origin Discrimination against the District and the Board Defendants in 

their official capacities only; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Negligence 

against the District and the Board Defendants with the exception of any state tort claims against 

the Board Defendants arising out of allegations regarding: (a) failure or refusal to terminate or 

otherwise punish or discipline the Employee Defendants; (b) negligent hiring of Defendant 

Bagley; and (c) failure to prevent or stop the June 14, 2004 incident. In addition, no cause of 

action for punitive damages may be stated against the Individual Defendants with respect to the 

Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s April 6, 2006 Minute Order and the 

April 20, 2006 Stipulation and Order for Continuance of Deadlines Set Forth in Court’s April 6, 

2006 Minute Order are hereby vacated. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties will brief the issue of whether the Board 

Defendants may be held liable for the negligent hiring, training, or supervision of the Employee 

Defendants according to the following schedule: 

May 26, 2006: Defendants’ Opening Brief 

June 2, 2006: Plaintiffs’ Opposition 

June 9, 2006: Defendants’ Reply 

June 16, 2006: Oral Argument to be heard by the Court at 10:00 a.m. 

Dated: May 12, 2006 By: /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 The Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

U.S. District Court Judge 

U.S. District Court, Eastern District 

H:\N\NORTH HIGHLANDS RECREATION-Kelly (CAPRI) [81885]\Kelly, Adam G. (81885)\Pleadings\Stip re Causes of Action Final.doc 

Case 2:05-cv-02047-FCD-KJM Document 30 Filed 05/12/06 Page 6 of 6