Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01791/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01791-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Education
Defendant
Visalia Unified School District
Defendant
R. Y.
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R.Y., a minor by and through No. 2:06-cv-1791-MCE-DAD

his parents, VICTOR YOST

and JODI YOST,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT and CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

In this action, Plaintiff appeals from a decision rendered

by Defendant California Department of Education (“CDE”). In that

decision, CDE determined Defendant Visalia Unified School

District (“District”) to be in compliance with the terms of a

February 22, 2005 Settlement and Reimbursement Agreement as to

the special education and designed instructional services to be

provided to Plaintiff, a child diagnosed with autism, pursuant to

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §

1400, et seq., and pendent state law provisions.

///

Case 2:06-cv-01791-MCE -DAD Document 30 Filed 10/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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

While Defendant CDE claims that the matter was initially 1

filed in the Fresno Division that same day, then transferred to

Sacramento (See Def.’s Opp. To Pl.s’ Request for Continuance,

1:24-28), there is no indication in the docket that the action

was not initially filed in Sacramento. In addition, court

records do not indicate that any other similar lawsuit was ever

instituted in the Fresno Division.

2

The instant action was filed on August 11, 2006 in the

Sacramento Division of this Court. On September 28, 2006, 1

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Change of Intradistrict Venue,

pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(d, on grounds that the case should

have been filed in Fresno because it arose in Tulare County,

which is part of the Fresno Division of the United States Court

for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 3-120(b). 

Pursuant to Rule 3-120(f), whenever the Court finds either on its

own motion, the motion of a party, or stipulation, that an action

has not been commenced in the proper court, it may transfer the

action to another venue within the District.

Plaintiff alleges he resides with his parents within Tulare

County and that the educational services in question should have

been provided in Tulare County by the District, which also is

located in Tulare County. 

///

///

///

///

///

////

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01791-MCE -DAD Document 30 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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

The District has filed a Motion to Strike under Federal 2

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and CDE has filed a Motion to

Dismiss on numerous grounds pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6),

and 19.

3

While both Defendant CDE and the District have filed substantive

motions to be heard before this Court on October 16, 2006,2

Plaintiff filed a Request for Continuance on October 3, 2006, in

accordance with Local Rule 78-230(g), on grounds that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Intradistrict Transfer should be heard in advance of

those motions so as to allow a ruling from this Court regarding

venue prior to addressing the merits.

In opposition to Plaintiff’s continuance request, Defendant

CDE states that it “would be willing to stipulate to a transfer

back to Fresno” after the hearings scheduled for October 16, 2006

are conducted, regardless of whether the motions scheduled at

that time are granted. (Def. CDE’s Opp. to Request for

Continuance, 2:19-23). Counsel for the District have not opposed

either the continuance request or its assertion that all matters

surrounding this action arose in Tulare County.

Under these circumstances, and on its own motion, the Court

finds that Plaintiff’s case should have been instituted in

Fresno. Therefore this action will be transferred to the Fresno

Division of this Court. Plaintiff’s Request for Continuance, as

well as its own Motion for Change of Intradistrict Venue, are

moot given that determination. Plaintiff’s Motion is accordingly

taken off calendar. 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01791-MCE -DAD Document 30 Filed 10/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 3

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

4

In addition, given the propriety of transfer, the Court declines

to consider Defendants’ motions scheduled for October 16, 2006,

as enumerated above, and consequently denies those motions,

without prejudice, at this time pending transfer of the case to

Fresno.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 12, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01791-MCE -DAD Document 30 Filed 10/13/06 Page 4 of 4