CB v. SONORA SCHOOL DIST., CV-F-09-285 OWW/DLB.
Citation | 691 F. Supp.2d 1123 |
Decision Date | 22 September 2009 |
Docket Number | No. CV-F-09-285 OWW/DLB.,CV-F-09-285 OWW/DLB. |
Parties | C.B., a minor, Plaintiff, v. SONORA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
John F. Martin, Christine Ann Hopkins, Heather Lyn Holbrooks-Kuratek, Law Offices of John F. Martin, PC, Walnut Creek, CA, for Plaintiff.
Jason M. Sherman, Alesa M. Schachter, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, Sacramento, CA, Cornelius John Callahan, Borton Petrini, LLP, Modesto, CA, for Defendants.
Plaintiff C.B., a minor, has filed a Complaint against Defendants Sonora School District; Karen Sinclair; City of Sonora; Chief of Police Mace McIntosh; Officer Hal Prock; and Does 1-10. As facts common to all causes of action, the Complaint alleges:
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff filed California Tort Claims with the Sonora School District and the City of Sonora and that both claims were rejected. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action:
The Complaint prays for compensatory, incidental, general and special, and punitive damages, for civil penalties, and attorneys' fees.
Defendants Sonora School District and Karen Sinclair (collectively District Defendants) move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the grounds that (1) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) Plaintiff's state law claims are barred by Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the California Code of Regulations; (3) federal law precludes Plaintiff's tort claim against the District Defendants; (4) Plaintiff's tort claim is barred by California Government Code § 820.2; (5) the Complaint fails to plead facts stating any claim for relief; (6) the Complaint fails to plead facts establishing a prima facie case under the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (7) Plaintiff must elect one remedy under either California Civil Code §§ 52 or 54.3; (8) the Complaint fails to plead facts establishing intentional discrimination; (9) the Complaint fails to plead facts establishing a prima facie claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) the Complaint fails to plead facts establishing prima facie claims of violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (11) Defendant Sinclair is entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Alternatively, the District Defendants move for a more definite statement.
The District Defendants also move pursuant to Rule 12(f) to strike the punitive damages allegations and prayer for punitive damages.
Defendants City of Sonora, Chief of Police Mace McIntosh, and Officer Hal Prock (collectively the City Defendants) move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and on the ground of qualified immunity from liability. Alternatively, the City Defendants move for a more definite statement.
In the context of IDEA cases, the Ninth Circuit recognizes the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies as jurisdictional in nature. See Robb v. Bethel Sch. Dist. # 403, 308 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2002), Dreher v. Amphitheater Unif. Sch. Dist., 22 F.3d 228, 231 (9th Cir.1994).
Federal subject matter jurisdiction must exist at the time an action is commenced. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1006, 109 S.Ct. 787, 102 L.Ed.2d 779 (1989). Dismissal is appropriate when the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a claim. Rule 12(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Since subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue which goes to the power of the court to hear a case, a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge should be decided before other grounds for dismissal, because they will become moot if dismissal for lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan
...the complaint presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead essential facts under that theory ." C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist. , 691 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1128 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc ., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984) ) (emphasis added). And this C......
-
Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan
...where the complaint presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead essential facts under that theory." C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist., 691 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1128 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984)) (emphasis added). And this......
-
Miksis ex rel. Miksis v. Evanston Twp. High Sch. Dist. # 202, 12 C 8497
...the IDEA. It is, rather, a request for enforcement of the stipulated order entered in Fortes–Cortes I. "); C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist., 691 F.Supp.2d 1123, 1147 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ("There is no question that the IDEA's exhaustion requirements are limited to claims for violations of federal righ......
-
King v. Export Dev. Can. (In re Zetta Jet USA, Inc.)
...matters of public record were filed or recorded. Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) ; C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist., 691 F. Supp.2d 1123, 1138 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ("The Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record, including duly recorded documents, and court r......