Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06121/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06121-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE COMMITTEE CONCERNING CASE NO. CV-F-04-6121 LJO DLB

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT, et al,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FILE

SURREPLY TO COUNTY’S REPLY TO

Plaintiffs, MOTION RE PARKS

vs.

CITY OF MODESTO, et al,

Defendants.

 /

On August 20, 2007, plaintiffs filed a request to file a surreply to a motion for summary

judgment pending before this Court. (Doc. 398 (Motion), Doc. 429 (Request).) 

The request by plaintiffs for leave to file a surreply to the County’s Reply to Plaintiffs’

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication Regarding Parks has been reviewed and

considered by the Court. The County’s reply was filed on August 14, 2007. (Doc. 425.) Plaintiffs seek

to submit additional evidence on two issues: (1) the relationship between the County Board of

Supervisors and the Stanislaus County Children and Families Commission, and (2) the standing of

plaintiffs Espino and Franco.

The Court has reviewed the request and does not find a surreply warranted. The Court’s order

did not decide the issue of standing, as the Court resolved the issues on the merits. Therefore, further

argument and evidence on this issue is irrelevant. 

Further, evidence of the relationship between the County Board of Supervisors and the Stanislaus

County Children and Families Commission is irrelevant to the Court’s decision. Even if plaintiffs could

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 432 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 2
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

show “control,” plaintiffs do not proffer to introduce evidence that shows the County owns this park or

that the money came from the County. In addition, plaintiffs do not offer evidence to support an

inference of discrimination. Rather, plaintiffs rely on “impact” evidence which this Court has held, in

and of itself, is insufficient to raise an issue of fact on the intentional discrimination claims.

Accordingly, the request to file a surreply is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 432 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2