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

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

Document Text:

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

899 NORTHGATE TDEL RIV415-459-3008 E,LOZA SUITNO E 200SMIT S AN FHAX RAFA415-456-3826 EL, CA 94903-3666

-1-

Jan E. Tomsky, SBN 173131 (Exempt from filing fees pursuant

Sloan R. Simmons, SBN 233752 to Government Code section 6103)

LOZANO SMITH

899 NORTHGATE DRIVE, SUITE 200

SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903-3666

TEL (415) 459-3008

FAX (415) 456-3826

Attorneys for Defendant

DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Guardian Ad Litem, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:04-cv-2748-MCE-GGH

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE AND TO BRIEFING SCHEDULE;

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Plaintiff C.S.T., by and through J.T., his

Guardian Ad Litem (“Plaintiff”), through his attorney, Margaret M. Broussard, Esq., and Defendant

Davis Joint Unified School District (“District”), through its attorneys, Lozano Smith by Sloan R.

Simmons, Esq., as to the following: 

1. The claims that Plaintiff maintains against the District in this case are based on the federal 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and related state law for the review of two Special

Education Hearing Office (“SEHO”) decisions rendered on September 30, 2004 and June 2, 2005,

respectively. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 24 Filed 06/14/06 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

899 NORTHGATE TDEL RIV415-459-3008 E,LOZA SUITNO E 200SMIT S AN FHAX RAFA415-456-3826 EL, CA 94903-3666

-2-

2. Plaintiff’s two related actions appealing SEHO’s above-noted due process administrative 

hearing decisions, C.S.T., a minor, by and through J.T., his Guardian Ad Litem v. Davis Joint Unified

School District, Case No. CIV-S-04-2748 MCE/GGH and C.S.T., a minor, by and through J.T., his

Guardian Ad Litem v. Davis Joint Unified School District, Case No. CIV-S-05–1759 MCE/GGH, were

consolidated pursuant to the Court’s order of December 16, 2005. 

3. Pursuant to the Court’s January 20, 2006 Order granting the parties’ request for a

continuance of the trial date in the consolidated actions because of the unavailability of the necessary

administrative records, currently, the last date for Plaintiff and the District to file their joint pretrial

statement is June 5, 2006; the final pretrial conference is scheduled for June 19, 2006; and trial is set for

August 2, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. To date, this is the only request for an extension of time made by the

parties to the Court in this case. 

4. In the parties’ January 12, 2006 Stipulation to Continue Trial Date; Proposed Order, the

parties indicated in paragraph 3 of the Stipulation that “[i]f all of the transcripts and the administrative

records have not been provided prior to February 7, 2006, the parties intend to ask leave of court to

continue the case further.”

5. The California Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) did not provide the District the

requested administrative records and transcripts from the above-referenced administrative due process

hearings noted in paragraph 2, until April 26, 2006. As of the date of drafting this Stipulation, OAH

has yet to provide Plaintiff with a full set of the requested transcripts and/or administrative records from

the above-referenced administrative due process hearings noted in paragraph 2. This is the case despite

continuing phone calls and/or other communications with OAH by both Plaintiff’s and District’s

counsel. 

6. Because OAH’s continuing failure to promptly provide each of the parties with the 

transcripts and/or administrative records from the relevant administrative due process hearings,

consistent with the parties’ January 12, 2006 Stipulation, as referenced in paragraph 4, and pursuant to

Local Rule 6-144 (E.D. Cal. 1997), the parties agree that the trial date in this case should be continued to

October 12, 2006. 

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 24 Filed 06/14/06 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

899 NORTHGATE TDEL RIV415-459-3008 E,LOZA SUITNO E 200SMIT S AN FHAX RAFA415-456-3826 EL, CA 94903-3666

-3-

7. Because Plaintiff’s claims in this case are for the review, under the IDEA, of SEHO’s 

September 30, 2004 and June 2, 2005 due process decisions, which is based on the administrative

records developed in the underlying due process hearings, and no live testimony is anticipated by either

party, the parties stipulate to a briefing schedule where: 1) Plaintiff will file an Opening Brief sixty (60)

days in advance of the trial date; 2) the District will file its Opposition to said Opening Brief thirty (30)

days in advance of the trial date; and 3) Plaintiff will file his Reply to said Opposition by sixteen (16)

days in advance of the trial date.

8. The parties agree that the Court’s scheduled deadline for filing a joint pretrial statement 

and the scheduled pretrial conference should be vacated. 

9. The parties agree that the continued trial date of October 12, 2006, should remain on 

calendar. However, the parties agree that the scheduled trial date should serve as a date to conduct oral

arguments before the Court based on the submitted briefing and a submission of the underlying

administrative records, unless a party successfully moves to supplement the underlying administrative

records with additional evidence through a timely and appropriately noticed motion under Eastern

District Local Rule 78-230. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 24 Filed 06/14/06 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

899 NORTHGATE TDEL RIV415-459-3008 E,LOZA SUITNO E 200SMIT S AN FHAX RAFA415-456-3826 EL, CA 94903-3666

-4-

10. The parties agree that, because of the unique nature of an appeal of a special education 

administrative due process hearing in federal court, such dispositive briefing based on the administrative

records below, followed by oral argument, will not be akin to a motion brought under rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that a separate statement of undisputed facts and evidence is not

required by Plaintiff nor in an opposition or response to such a statement required by the District. 

Dated: June 5, 2006 Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET

BROUSSARD

/s/ Margaret M. Broussard 

MARGARET M. BROUSSARD

Attorneys for Plaintiff

C.S.T.

Dated: June 5, 2006 Respectfully submitted,

LOZANO SMITH 

/s/ Sloan R. Simmons 

SLOAN R. SIMMONS

Attorneys for Defendant

DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 24 Filed 06/14/06 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

899 NORTHGATE TDEL RIV415-459-3008 E,LOZA SUITNO E 200SMIT S AN FHAX RAFA415-456-3826 EL, CA 94903-3666

-5-

ORDER

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

Continue/Vacate Trial Date is GRANTED. The trial date of August 2, 2006 is vacated and a tentative

date for a hearing (if required by the Court) is set for October 12, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Briefing Schedule is

GRANTED. The parties will submit to the following briefing schedule for the Plaintiff’s claims: 

1) Plaintiff C.S.T. will file the Opening Brief sixty (60) days in advance of the hearing date; 2) the

Defendant District will file the Opposition to said Opening Brief thirty (30) days in advance of the

hearing date; and 3) Plaintiff will file the Reply to said Opposition sixteen (16) days in advance of the

hearing date. Any party seeking to supplement the underlying administrative records must make a

timely and appropriately noticed motion under Eastern District Local Rule 78-230. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduled pretrial conference and pretrial conference

statement dates and deadlines are HEREBY VACATED. 

 DATED: June 14, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02748-MCE -GGH Document 24 Filed 06/14/06 Page 5 of 5