Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01319-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act

---

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stip. Re: Dismissal Second Claim For Relief J.S. et al. v. CUSD

Case No. 1:16-cv-01319-LJO-BAM

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

LOZANO SMITH

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640 Sacramento, CA 95814

Tel 916-329-7433 Fax 916-329-9050

Sloan R. Simmons, SBN 233752

Nicholas W. Smith, SBN 242726

LOZANO SMITH

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 329-7433

Facsimile: (916) 329-9050

Attorneys for Defendant

CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J.S., a minor, by and with her parents, 

ALBERTO SOLORIO and ALICIA SOLORIO,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01319-LJO-BAM

STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF IN THE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND ORDER

Plaintiffs J.S., a minor, by and with her parents, ALBERTO SOLORIO and ALICIA SOLORIO 

(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“District”) (collectively, the 

“Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows: 

1. On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter, asserting two claims 

for relief. The first claim for relief, entitled “Count One,” was asserted under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., 1415) (“IDEA”), for the review and reversal of

the special education administrative due process decision, rendered by the California Office of 

Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) in OAH Case No. 2016060036. The second claim for relief, entitled 

Case 1:16-cv-01319-LJO-BAM Document 13 Filed 12/20/16 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

Stip. Re: Dismissal Second Claim For Relief J.S. et al. v. CUSD 

Case No. 1:16-cv-01319-LJO-BAM

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

LOZANO SMITH

4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200 Monterey, CA 93940-5758

Tel 831-646-1501 Fax 831-646-1801

“Count Two,” was for the alleged denial of civil rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794).

2. On November 7, 2016, the District filed its Answer to the Complaint.

3. On November 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), in 

which they asserted the same claims for relief as in the Complaint. In addition to the second claim for 

relief under section 504, the FAC also references “Section 504” or “29 U.S.C. § 794” in the caption, 

paragraph 1, and paragraph 37 of the Prayer. The FAC also references in paragraph 42 U.S.C. § 12101, 

a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

4. In advance of the Parties’ December 15, 2016 Scheduling Conference, the Parties met 

and conferred regarding Plaintiffs’ FAC and the second claim for relief, asserted under Section 504. 

Plaintiffs confirmed their intent to no longer proceed on or prosecute the second claim for relief in the 

FAC, and that they intend only to proceed and prosecute the first claim for relief in the FAC, which 

again is asserted under the IDEA for the review and reversal of OAH’s decision in OAH Case No. 

2016060036. The Parties Joint Rule 26(f) Report (ECF Docket No. 8), filed on December 12, 2016, 

memorialized this understanding and agreement. 

5. At the Parties’ December 15, 2016 Scheduling Conference before Honorable Magistrate 

Judge McAuliffe, the Parties confirmed their understanding and agreement as set forth in paragraph 4 

above, as well as the Parties’ desire to stipulate to dismissal of the second claim for relief in the FAC. 

Judge McAuliffe directed the Parties to file a stipulation and proposed order with the Court for such 

purposes. 

6. On December 15, 2016, the District filed its Answer to the FAC. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND REQUESTED by the Parties that:

1. The Court order dismissed pursuant to the agreement, Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief 

in the FAC, asserted under Section 504, at paragraphs 28 through 35, page 6:10 through 7:19; and

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-01319-LJO-BAM Document 13 Filed 12/20/16 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

Stip. Re: Dismissal Second Claim For Relief J.S. et al. v. CUSD 

Case No. 1:16-cv-01319-LJO-BAM

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

LOZANO SMITH

4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200 Monterey, CA 93940-5758

Tel 831-646-1501 Fax 831-646-1801

2. The Court order stricken from the FAC all references to Section 504 and the ADA, 

including the reference to “29 U.S.C. § 794” in the caption and paragraph 1, reference to “42 U.S.C. § 

12010 in paragraph 1, and paragraph 37 within the FAC’s Prayer. 

Dated: December 19, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

STUDENT RIGHTS ATTORNEYS

/s/ Deborah L. Pepaj_____________________

DEBORAH L. PEPAJ

Attorney for Plaintiffs

J.S., a minor, by and with her parents, 

ALBERTO SOLORIO and ALICIA SOLORIO

Dated: December 19, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

LOZANO SMITH

/s/ Sloan R. Simmons 

SLOAN R. SIMMONS

Attorneys for Defendant

CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

*Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other 

signatories thereto has been obtained.

Case 1:16-cv-01319-LJO-BAM Document 13 Filed 12/20/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

Stip. Re: Dismissal Second Claim For Relief J.S. et al. v. CUSD 

Case No. 1:16-cv-01319-LJO-BAM

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

LOZANO SMITH

4 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200 Monterey, CA 93940-5758

Tel 831-646-1501 Fax 831-646-1801

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Stipulation of Plaintiffs J.S., a minor, by and with her parents, 

ALBERTO SOLORIO and ALICIA SOLORIO and Defendant CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, by and through their respective counsel, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE: 

1. The Court dismisses, with prejudice, Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief in the First 

Amended Complaint, asserted at paragraphs 28 through 35, page 6:10 through 7:19 of the FAC. Upon 

said dismissal, the only remaining claim for relief in the First Amended Complaint is that asserted under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., for the review reversal of the 

special education administrative due process decision issued by the California Office of Administrative 

Hearings in OAH Case No. 2016060036

2. Consistent with the Court’s dismissal of the second claim for relief and that the only 

remaining claim for relief is asserted under the IDEA, the Court orders stricken from the First Amended 

Complaint, the following: 

a. Reference to “20 U.S.C. § 794” in the caption;

b. Reference to “29 U.S.C. § 794” in paragraph 1; 

c. Reference to “42 U.S.C. § 12101” in paragraph 1; and 

d. Paragraph 37 in the Prayer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01319-LJO-BAM Document 13 Filed 12/20/16 Page 4 of 4