Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02748/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02748-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C.S.T.
Plaintiff
Davis Joint Unified School District
Defendant
J.T.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

LAW OFFICES OF MARGARET M. BROUSSARD 

7909 WALERGA ROAD, SUITE 112 PMB 1157ANTELOPE, CA 95843 

TELEPHONE: 916-722-2370 

FACSIMILE: 916-722-2801 

MARGARET M. BROUSSARD, BAR NO. 219251 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, C.S.T. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

 

C.S.T. , a minor, by and through J.T., his 

PLAINTIFF, 

V. 

DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT , 

DEFENDANT. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

) 

) 

CASE NO. CIV S-04-2748 MCE/GGH 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE; PROPOSED ORDER

JUDGE: HON. M. ENGLAND JR. 

RECITALS

1. On or about September 30, 2004, the California Special Education 

Hearing Office (ASEHO@) issued a decision in the first administrative hearing between 

these parties, which is the first hearing underlying the appeal in this case. 

2. On or about June 1, 2005, SEHO issued a decision in the second 

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 6
2 

administrative hearing between these parties, which is the second hearing underlying 

the appeal in this case. 

3. On or about June 15, 2005, Margaret Broussard, attorney for C.S.T., 

contacted SEHO to inquire about the proper procedure to obtain the administrative 

record needed for this appeal. 

4. SEHO stated that their contract to hear and decide special education 

cases was terminated as of July 1, 2005 and that there was no decision made as of that 

date as to whether the SEHO or the new contract holder, the Office of Administrative 

Hearings (AOAH@), would be responsible for preparing and sending the administrative 

record. 

5. M. Broussard was told to call back after July to get more details.

6. On or about July 11, 2005, M. Broussard called SEHO regarding the 

administrative record. 

7. SEHO stated that there was still no decision made on this matter and 

that the parties were still in negotiation over which entity would provide the 

administrative record.

8. On or about August 8, 2005, M. Broussard called OAH to inquire as to 

the status of administrative records for cases heard by the SEHO and was told that 

SEHO would be responsible to providing the administrative record for all cases heard by 

the SEHO. 

9. On or about August 8, 2005, M. Broussard called the SEHO to confirm 

that they were to provide a copy of the administrative record from the previous hearing. 

SEHO stated that they were not aware of any decision in this matter and that they were 

still not providing any copies of the record. They stated that they were in negotiations 

with the California Department of Education to determine whether they would provide 

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 6
3 

the administrative records, or whether the responsibility would fall to OAH. M. 

Broussard was told that they expected the matter to be conclusively determined by the 

middle of September. 

10. On or about September 12, 2005, when contacted by M. Broussard, 

SEHO stated that they were going to provide parties with copies of the administrative 

record. 

11. On or about September 12, 2005, M. Broussard sent SEHO a letter 

requesting the administrative records for both of the administrative hearings between 

C.S.T. and the Davis Joint Unified School District. The letter was sent by Facsimile and 

US mail. 

12. On or about October 10, 2005, M. Broussard called SEHO to check 

on the availability of the administrative record. SEHO stated that the record was not 

completed and that there was no estimated date for delivery, that the "record would be 

ready when it is ready" and to check back the following month. 

13. On or about November 17, 2005, M. Broussard contacted SEHO to 

ask again about the administrative record. The record was still not ready and there was 

still no estimated date for completion. 

14. On or about January 5, 2006, Defendant received a letter from SEHO 

stating that the transcripts for the second hearing had been provided to Plaintiff. 

15. On or about January 5, 2006, Plaintiff received the transcripts only for 

the second hearing. None of the administrative record has been provided on either 

hearing and the transcripts for the first hearing have not been provided to either party 

for the purposes of these appeals. 

16. The current briefing schedule as ordered by the Court has a deadline 

for dispositive motions of February 6, 2006 and a trial date for April 6, 2005. 

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 6
4 

17. There have been no extensions of time asked for nor granted in this 

case to date. 

STIPULATION 

BASED ON THE ABOVE RECITALS, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and 

between the Plaintiff, C.S.T., by and through his Guardian Ad Litem (AC.S.T.@), through 

his attorneys, Law Offices of Margaret Broussard by Margaret M. Broussard, Esq., and 

Defendant Davis Joint Unified School District (ADistrict@), through its attorneys, Lozano 

Smith by Jan E. Tomsky, Esq., as to the following: 

1. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-144 (E.D. Cal. 1997), the trial date and all 

associated deadlines in the consolidated cases should be continued for a period of 120 

days. 

2. The continuance is necessary due to the failure of the Special Education 

Hearing Office to timely provide the parties with a copy of the transcripts and the 

underlying record from both of the administrative hearings which are the subject of these 

appeals, despite timely and proper request to provide the transcripts and records. 

3. If all of the transcripts and the administrative record have not been provided 

prior to February 7, 2006, the parties intend to ask leave of the court to continue the 

case further. 

Dated: January 12, 2006 

Respectfully Submitted, 

LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET M. 

BROUSSARD 

/s/ Margaret M. Broussard 

By:___________________________________

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 01/23/06 Page 4 of 6
5 

____ 

 MARGARET M. BROUSSARD 

Attorney for Plaintiff C.S.T. 

LOZANO SMITH 

/s/ Jan E. Tomsky 

By: 

______________________________________ 

JAN E. TOMSKY 

Attorney for Defendant Davis Joint 

Unified School District 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 01/23/06 Page 5 of 6
6 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Local Rule 6-144, the Joint 

Stipulation to continue the trial date and associated deadlines is GRANTED and the trial 

date and all associated trial deadlines are hereby continued for 120 days. The final pretrial 

conference of March 6, 2006 is continued to June 19, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. A joint pretrial 

conference statement is shall be filed on or before June 5, 2006. The court trial date of April 5, 

2006 is continued to August 2, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

Dated: January 20, 2006 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 20 Filed 01/23/06 Page 6 of 6