N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT J. C
. , by and through his m

othe r and gua rdia n a d lite m , W .P., a

nd W .P. individually , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AM B R IAN SC HOOL DISTRIC T; FAM M ATRE C HAR T ER ELEM ENTAR

Y SC HOOL; KRISTI SC HW IEB ER T; DEB OR AH B LOW , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15300 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-03513-W HO
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Horsle y

Orric k III, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

17, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, WARD LAW , a

nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s . J.C . a nd his m othe r, W .P., a

ppe a l from

an a d ve rse sum m ary judgm e nt dism issing c la i m s tha

t J.C . wa s wrongfully

de nie d a dm ission to Fa

m m atre C ha

rte r 

# F IL ED
APR 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Ele m e nta

ry Sc h o ol be c a

use of his disa

bility . The distric t c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt to thede fe nda

nt sc hool, sc hool distric t, a nd sc hool e m

ploy e e s on a ll
c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t on J.C .’ s ADA
and R e ha bilita tion Ac t c l a im s be c a

use J.C . ha s fa i le d to ra ise an issue of m ate ria l fa c t on c a usat ion. Unde r the ADA, J.C . is re quire d to show tha t he wa s de nie d
a dm ission “

by re a son of his disa

bility .” 42 U.S.C . § 12132. The R e ha bilita tion Ac t sim ila

rly re quire s J.C . to show tha t he wa s de nie d a dm ission “ sole ly by re a son of . . . his disa

bility .” 29 U.S.C . § 794(a ). J.C . ha s not pre se nte d a dm issible
e vide nc e tha

t ra ise s a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t tha t supports his the ory

tha t the
sc hool’ s a dm ission de c ision wa s m otiva te d by disa

b ility disc rim ination. To the
c ontra ry , the e v ide nc e shows tha t J.C . wa s de nie d a dm ission pursua nt to a va lid
a dm issions policy . R e ga rdle ss of whe the r the sc hool de fe n da nts we re re q

uire d to give pre fe re nc e to e xisting stude nts unde r C a lifornia

Educ ation C o de § 47605(d), Fam m a t re ’ s e nrollm e nt polic y

e xplic itly gave pre fe re nc e to e xisting stude nts. The de finition of “ e xisting stude nts” unde r Fa m

m atre ’ s e nrollm e n t polic y , howe ve r,
re a s ona bly e xc lude d stude nts likeJ.C ., who m ove out of distric t while atte n ding Fam m a t re . Afte r the sc hool distric t de te rm ine d tha

t the se c ond gra de c la ss a

t
2Fam

m a t re wa s at-c a

pa c ity for budge t re a sons, thedistric t’ s de c ision not to a dm it stude nts on thewa iting list, inc luding J.C ., wa s re a sona ble and not ba se d on disc rim ination. J.C .’ s a lle gations of a stra ine d re l ationship be twe e n his m o the r an d the s c hool, isola

te d ne g a tive inte ra c tions be twe e n J.C ., W .P. and sc hool pe rsonne l,
and the proc e ss by

whic h W .P. le arne d tha

t J.C
. would ne e d to a

pply a s a tra nsfe r stude nt, do not substa

ntia te an a lle g ation of disa

bility disc rim ination. B e c a

use J.C
. ha s not ra ise d

an issue of m ate ria l fa c t on the c a u sat ion e le m e nt of his ADA a nd R e ha bilita tion Ac t c la im s, sum

m ary judgm e nt wa s prope rly

grante d. 2. J.C . c onc e de s on a

ppe a l tha t his sta te tort c la im s de pe nd on his ADA a nd R e ha bilita tion Ac t c la im s. B e c a

use sum m ary judgm e nt wa s prope rly

grante d on those c la i m s, we a ffirm

the sum m ary dism issa l of J.C .’ s sta

te tort c la i m s a s we ll. AFFIRM E D.

3JC v C am

bria n Sc hool Dist. No. 14-15300 W ardla w, J., c onc urring in pa

rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt. I c onc ur in the m a

jority ’ s holding a ffirm ing the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of
sum m ary judgm e nt on J.C .’ s sta

te la w c la im s; thosec l a im s a

re ba rre d by the Ele v e n th Am e n dm e nt. Se e Pe nnhurst State Sc h. & Hosp. v . Halde rman , 465 U.S. 89, 117 (1984). And be c a use J.C . c annot sa

tisfy the R e ha bilita t ion Ac t’ s “ s tric t[] ”
c a usa l sta nda rd, K .M. e x re l. Bright v . Tustin Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 725 F.3d 1088, 1099 (9th C ir. 2013), I a lso c o nc ur in tha t portion of the

m a jority ’ s holding. As to J.C .’ s ADA c la im , howe ve r, I re spe c tfully disse nt. The m a jority holds tha t J.C . ha s not ra ise d a

ge nuine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t on the c a usat i on e le m e nt of his ADA c la im , i.e ., whe the r he wa s de n ie d a dm ission to Fa m m atre “ by re a son of his disa

bility .” 42 U.S.C . § 12132. Ac c ording to the
m a jority , the se c o nd-gra d e c l a ss wa s at c a pa c ity for budge ta

ry re a sons, so the de c ision to e x c lude J.C . wa s re a sona ble and non-disc rim i natory . Howe ve r, be c a use the distric t c ourt he l d tha t J.C . wa s not “ o the rwise qua lifie d” to a tte nd Fam m a t re and did not re a c h the c a usation e le m e nt, the a

p propria te c ourse is to
re m and for the distric t c ourt to c onside r this que stion in the first insta nc e . M ore ove r, “ [w] he re a

pa rty ’ s m otive or inte n t is in issue , sum m ary judgm e nt is ra re ly prope r.” Atk

ins v . Union Pac . R. C

o. , 685 F.2d 1146, 1149 (9th C i r. 1982). He re , J.C . ha s provide d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to ra ise a ge nuine issue of fa c t 

# F IL ED
APR 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSa s to whe the r the se c ond-gra de e nrollm e nt c a p wa s m otiva

te d sole ly by le gitim ate budge ta ry c onc e rns or at le a st in pa rt by disc rim inat ory

anim us. It is undispute d that J.C . wa s first on Fa

m m a tre ’ s wa iting list. In othe r words, the e nrollm e n t c a p
na rrowly e xc lude d J.C
. Am ong othe r e vide nc e , J.C . provide d atte nda nc e she e ts showing tha

t Fam m a t re ha d a c c om

m odate d 89 se c ond gra de rs during the 2010–2011 sc hool y e a

r, the n re duc e d the se c o nd-gra d e e nrollm e nt c a p to 87 stude nts for the 2011–2012 sc h ool y e ar. The atte nda nc e she e ts a lso indic ate tha t Fam m a t re c ould ha

ve m ove d one third gra de r out of the se c ond a nd third-gra de
c om bina tion c l a ss, c re a ting spa c e for an a d ditiona l se c ond gra d e r without a dve rse fina nc ia l e ffe c t s. Additionally , J.C .’ s m othe r, W
. P., te stifie d tha t Fam m atre sta ff ofte n re sponde d to J.C .’ s disa bility with frustra

tion: For e xam

p le , W .P. onc e visite d J.C . at sc hool a

nd disc ove re d tha

t he ha d be e n e xc lude d from a c l a ss trip to the l ibra ry . W .P. a l so spoke to J.C .’ s te a c he r a bout a tim e whe n she forc e d J.C
. and a nothe r disa

b le d stude nt to turn the ir de sks a round a n d fa c e the ba c k of the
c la ssroom . The m a

jority dism i sse s the se troubling inc ide nts a s “ isola t e d ne gative inte ra c tions,” but “ [w] he n pla intiffs a l le ge inte ntiona l disc rim i nation unde r the ADA, . . . ‘ any

indic a tion of disc rim inatory m otive m ay

suffic e to ra ise a

que stion that c an only be re solve d by

a fa c tfinde r.’ ” Pac
. Shore

s Prope rtie

s, LLC v . C ity of N e w port Be ac h , 730 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Mc Gine st v . GTE
2Se rv . C

orp. , 360 F.3d 1103, 1124 (9th C ir. 2004)). B a se d on this a

nd othe r e vide nc e , I would find tha t J.C . ha s ra ise d a

ge nuine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t on the c a usation e l e m e nt of his ADA c la im . I would furthe r hold tha

t the ADA c la im

is not ba rre d by Ele ve nth Am e ndm e n t im m unity unde r e xisting la

w, se e Phiffe r

v . C olumbia Rive r C

orr. Inst. , 384 F.3d 791, 792 (9th C ir. 2004), but re m a

nd for furthe r c onside ra t ion in light of Unite d State s v . Ge orgia , 546 U.S. 151 (2006).

3