Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00028/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00028-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 20:1400 IDEA: Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (short title)

---

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 - 08cv28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

T.B., a minor, by and through his Guardian

ad Litem, ALLISON BRENNEISE, and

ROBERT BRENNEISE,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 08CV28-MMA (WMc)

[Consolidated Action]

vs. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION

[Doc. No. 198]

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

BRENNEISE, et al.,

Defendants.

On October 7, 2011, Defendant San Diego Unified School District (“Defendant” or

“District”) filed an ex parte application to: (1) refile its motion for judgment on the pleadings, which

the Court denied without prejudice on May 4, 2011; and (2) increase the page limitations on the

District’s anticipated motion for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims. [Doc. No.

198.] Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s ex parte request. [Doc. No. 199.] For the reasons set forth

below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s ex parte application.

Case 3:08-cv-00028-MMA-JMA Document 201 Filed 10/18/11 PageID.<pageID> 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 - 08cv28

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 14, 2011, Defendant filed two dispositive motions, including: (1) a motion for

partial judgment on the pleadings “with respect to the Plaintiffs’ claims of forced relocation to

Minnesota and the alleged damages connected with the move” [Doc. No. 131]; and (2) a motion for

summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ fifth and seventh claims for relief [Doc. No. 132]. Approximately

two weeks later, on May 2, 2011, Magistrate Judge McCurine issued an order intended to streamline

and expedite the litigation of this case by setting specific guidelines and limitations on the parties’

dispositive motion practice. [Doc. No. 142.] Specifically, Judge McCurine instructed each side to

“file a single motion for summary judgment regarding the remaining administrative claims in this

consolidated action,” if any, by June 13, 2011. [Id. ¶1.] Judge McCurine further advised the

parties, that “any challenges to the relevant administrative proceedings, including the OAH Decision

and the issues related to the compliance investigation by the California Department of Education,

shall be deemed waived if not addressed by the parties’ June 13 cross-motions for summary

judgment.” [Id. (emphasis in original).] 

Judge McCurine’s May 2 order further held that if the parties intended to file motions for

summary judgment regarding the section 504 and ADA claims, they were required to do so within

30 days of the Court’s ruling on the administrative claims; the Court limited each side to a single

summary judgment motion on the section 504 and ADA claims. [Id. ¶4.] The parties were advised

“the Court will not entertain additional dispositive motions outside the scope of the motions

outlined in this order.” [Id. at p.2 (bold in original).] Accordingly, consistent with Judge

McCurine’s May 2 Order, on May 4, 2011, the Court denied Defendant’s two dispositive motions

filed on April 14, “without prejudice to the District’s ability to refile its motions in a manner

consistent with the Court’s May 2, 2011 Scheduling Order.” [Doc. No. 143 (caps omitted).]

On June 13, 2011—the deadline to file dispositive motions on the administrative

claims—each party filed a “Notice of Non-Filing of Motion” for summary judgment. [Doc. Nos.

152, 153.] Plaintiffs also sought guidance regarding whether they should promptly file their motion

for attorneys’ fees associated with their third claim for relief and the Court’s denial of the District’s

appeal of the OAH Decision. [Doc. No. 153, p.2.] On June 22, 2011, the Court instructed Plaintiffs

Case 3:08-cv-00028-MMA-JMA Document 201 Filed 10/18/11 PageID.<pageID> 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 - 08cv28

to file their attorneys’ fee motion associated with the administrative claims by July 25, 2011. [Doc.

No. 154.] The Court also amended its May 2 Order with respect to the remaining claims, and

ordered each party to file its motion for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims, if

any, within 30 days of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees. [Id.] 

Less than one month later, on July 21, 2011, Judge McCurine issued a Scheduling Order

which requires, among other things, that all pretrial motions be filed on or before November 28,

2011. [Doc. No. 158.] Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees is currently under submission. [Doc.

No. 191.] Defendant notes that Judge McCurine’s July 21 Scheduling Order does not reference the

Court’s prior orders governing the parties’ dispositive motion practice (i.e. Doc. Nos. 142, 154). 

[Doc. No. 198, p.3.]

II. DISCUSSION

(A) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Defendant asserts it intends to refile its motion for partial judgment on the pleadings to

address Plaintiffs’ claims of forced relocation to Minnesota and damages purportedly related to the

move. [Doc. No. 198.] Defendant contends refiling its motion for judgment on the pleadings is

consistent with the Court’s orders on this matter. Specifically, Defendant asserts the Court 

previously dismissed the motion without prejudice to the District’s ability to refile, and the Court did

not expressly mention the motion for judgment on the pleadings in its scheduling orders. [Id. at p.2.] 

The Court, however, finds that the record unambiguously prohibits Defendant from filing a separate

motion for judgment on the pleadings at this stage of the litigation.

First, Judge McCurine’s May 2 Order explicitly advises the parties that “the Court will not

entertain additional dispositive motions outside the scope of the motions outlined in this order.” 

[Doc. No. 142, p.2.] The Order expressly permits each side to first file a motion for summary

judgment on the administrative issues, and subsequently, to file a second motion for summary

judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims. [See generally, id.] Second, after Judge McCurine

issued his May 2 Order, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings

“without prejudice to the District’s ability to refile its motion[] in a manner consistent with the

Court’s May 2, 2011 Scheduling Order.” [Doc. No. 143 (italics added).] Accordingly, consistent

Case 3:08-cv-00028-MMA-JMA Document 201 Filed 10/18/11 PageID.<pageID> 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 - 08cv28

with the May 2 Order, Defendant may raise the arguments made in its earlier motion for judgment

on the pleadings within its upcoming summary judgment motion on the section 504 and ADA

claims. However, to the extent Defendant desires to file a separate, stand-alone motion for judgment

on the pleadings, in addition to the anticipated motion for summary judgment, it is not permitted to

do so. 

The relevant Court orders have consistently limited each side to a single dispositive motion

on the administrative claims, and a single dispositive motion on the section 504 and ADA claims. 

Although the orders refer only to motions for summary judgment, the clear intent behind the orders

is to focus the progression of this action and limit the number of dispositive motions filed by the

parties to ensure an efficient resolution to this consolidated action. Accordingly, Defendant’s ex

parte application is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent Defendant desires to raise arguments

regarding Plaintiffs’ ability to recover damages associated with their alleged forced relocation to

Minnesota, within its motion for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims. 

Defendant’s ex parte application is DENIED IN PART, however, to the extent Defendant intends to

file a separate motion for judgment on the pleadings, in addition to the contemplated motion for

summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims. The Court declines to modify its existing

scheduling orders that do not contemplate, nor allow, Defendant to file more than one dispositive

motion on the section 504 and ADA issues. 

(B) Page Limitations

Defendant also moves the Court to expand the page limitations for its anticipated summary

judgment motion on the section 504 and ADA claims. Defendant originally requested the Court to

increase the page limitation on its opening brief from 25 pages to 50 pages, and the limitation on its

reply brief from 10 pages to 25 pages. [Doc. No. 198.] In its reply, Defendant indicates 45 pages

for its opening brief and 20 pages for its reply would be sufficient, given Plaintiffs’ representation

that they intend to dismiss their sixth claim for relief. [Doc. No. 200.] Upon due consideration, and

in light of the issues that will be addressed in the summary judgment motion, the Court finds

Defendant’s original request for a 50-page opening brief and 25-page reply is warranted. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s ex parte application is GRANTED IN PART as it applies to the page

Case 3:08-cv-00028-MMA-JMA Document 201 Filed 10/18/11 PageID.<pageID> 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 - 08cv28

limitations. In addition, the page limitation for Plaintiffs’ opposition brief to Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is hereby increased from 25 pages to 50 pages. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Defendant’s ex parte application. [Doc. No. 198.] The Court DENIES Defendant’s application to

the extent Defendant desires to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in addition to its

anticipated motion for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims. The Court

GRANTS Defendant’s application to the extent it intends to include the arguments raised in its prior

motion for judgment on the pleadings within its summary judgment motion. Lastly, the Court

GRANTS Defendant’s request to increase the page limitation on its upcoming summary judgment

motion, and hereby increases the page limitation on Defendant’s opening brief from 25 pages to 50

pages, and increases the limitation on Defendant’s reply brief from 10 pages to 25 pages. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that the page limitation for Plaintiffs’ opposition brief to Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment is increased from 25 pages to 50 pages.

Consistent with the Court’s most recent scheduling order of July 21, 2011, the parties shall

file their respective motions for summary judgment on the section 504 and ADA claims within 30

days of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, but in no event, later than

November 28, 2011—the pretrial motion cut-off. [See Doc. No. 158, ¶5.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 18, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:08-cv-00028-MMA-JMA Document 201 Filed 10/18/11 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5