Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-00266/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-00266-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PLANS, INC.,

NO. CIV. S 98-266 FCD EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, TWIN RIDGES SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) brought by

defendant Twin Ridges Elementary School District (“TRESD”).1 By

its motion, TRESD seeks to dismiss the instant action against it

on the ground there is no longer a “case or controversy” for

purposes of Article III of the United States Constitution because

as of June 30, 2007, it ceased chartering any Waldorf methods

public schools. For the reasons set forth below, TRESD’s motion

Case 2:98-cv-00266-FCD-EFB Document 295 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 5
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

is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

In February 1998, plaintiff PLANS, Inc. (“plaintiff” or

“PLANS”) filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief

against Sacramento City Unified School District and TRESD. PLANS

sought to enjoin TRESD from operating schools implementing

Waldorf methods. (Pl.’s Compl., filed Feb. 11, 1998, ¶ 11.) 

From the time the complaint was filed until recently, TRESD

chartered several schools, including the Yuba River Charter

School, that utilized Waldorf methods. (Decl. of Joan Little

[“Little Decl.”], filed Jan. 22, 2008, ¶ 2.) On or about June

30, 2007, TRESD ceased to be the chartering authority for all

such schools. (Little Decl. ¶ 3.) Currently, the Nevada County

Office of Education is the chartering authority for the Yuba

River Charter School. (Little Decl. ¶ 4.)

STANDARD 

“The jurisdiction of federal courts depends on the existence

of a ‘case or controversy’ under Article III of the

Constitution.” GTE California, Inc. v. Federal Communications

Comm’n, 39 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 1994). Generally, a case is

moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the

parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” 

Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (quoting U.S. Parole

Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980)). The court must be

able to grant effective relief, otherwise it lacks jurisdiction. 

GTE California, Inc., 39 F.3d at 945.

However, an otherwise moot case may be heard if it falls

within one or more of the recognized exceptions to the mootness

Case 2:98-cv-00266-FCD-EFB Document 295 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 5
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

doctrine. One such exception, relevant here, is “voluntary

cessation.” A defendant’s voluntary cessation of allegedly

illegal conduct will not deprive the court of jurisdiction

unless:

(1) it can be said with assurance that ‘there is no

reasonable expectation’ that the alleged violation will

recur, and (2) interim relief or events have completely

and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged

violation.

County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)

(internal quotations and citations omitted). The “heavy” burden

of making these showings is on the party asserting mootness. Id.

ANALYSIS

TRESD contends plaintiff’s case against it is now moot

because TRESD has ceased chartering Waldorf methods public

schools. The court agrees. The central inquiry is whether

effective relief can be granted to PLANS. Cantrell v. City of

Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2001). The court cannot

enjoin TRESD from operating schools it no longer operates. 

Accordingly, the issues are no longer “live,” rendering the case

moot.

The only question remaining is whether TRESD’s actions fall

within the exception to the mootness doctrine for voluntary

cessation. The court finds both conditions for applying the

mootness doctrine have been met, and therefore the exception for

voluntary cessation does not apply.

TRESD has met the first condition because there can be no

reasonable expectation it will revive chartering Waldorf methods

public schools. TRESD’s superintendent does not indicate any

intention to restart operating such schools, which would require

Case 2:98-cv-00266-FCD-EFB Document 295 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 5
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

completion of an extensive chartering process under the

California Education Code. See Cal. Educ. Code § 47605 et seq.;

(Little Decl. ¶s 4-6.) Moreover, due to recent amendments to the

law, TRESD is unable to charter any of the subject schools in the

future. See Cal. Educ. Code § 47605(a) (requiring chartered

schools to be located within the geographic boundaries of the

school district). Operation of these school has been taken over

by other entities. PLANS does not dispute these critical facts. 

Rather, PLANS argues TRESD has not provided enough evidence to

ensure there is no reasonable likelihood it will revive

operations. The court finds TRESD has proffered sufficient

evidence to show the allegedly wrongful behavior cannot

reasonably be expected to recur.

TRESD has also met the second condition because TRESD’s

cessation of chartering Waldorf methods public schools has cured

the allegedly injurious effects (i.e. teaching of Waldorf

methods) of which PLANS complains. To the extent PLANS is

concerned about prospective injuries, this case will proceed

against defendant Sacramento City Unified School District. Any

decision the court may make about the illegality of public

entities operating Waldorf methods schools would set a precedent

for preventing such entities from operating Waldorf methods

public schools in the future. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, TRESD’s motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s complaint against it as moot is GRANTED. TRESD is

hereby dismissed as a party to this action. 

Case 2:98-cv-00266-FCD-EFB Document 295 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 5
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

On February 12, 2008, the court issued an order to show

cause (“OSC”) to PLANS’ counsel regarding plaintiff’s failure to

timely file an opposition or non-opposition to TRESD’s motion in

accordance with Local Rule 78-230(c). (Docket #287.) The court

HEREBY DISCHARGES said OSC based on plaintiff’s counsel’s

response (Docket #290), as counsel explains that he is presently

suffering from severe mental illness. In his response to the

OSC, plaintiff’s counsel requests a sixty day stay of the action

in order to permit him time to find substitute counsel for PLANS. 

TRESD and remaining defendant Sacramento City Unified School

District oppose the stay (see Docket #s 291, 292.) Because

counsel’s request is opposed, the court will not stay the action

at this juncture and directs counsel to formally notice a motion

to stay the proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: March 4, 2008. 

Case 2:98-cv-00266-FCD-EFB Document 295 Filed 03/04/08 Page 5 of 5