Cebulski v. San Diego Unified School District

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 CATHERINE CEBULSKI and THOMAS Case No.: 21-CV-503-CAB-JLB CEBULSKI (PARENTS), ON BEHALF [12] OF THEIR CONSERVATEE, KARL AMENDED ORDER REGARDING 13 CEBULSKI (STUDENT), SDUSD’S SPECIAL ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE SECOND 14 Plaintiffs, THROUGH SEVENTH CAUSES OF 15 v. ACTION OF PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 16 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL 49] DISTRICT, [17] Defendant. [19] On January 20, 2022, SDUSD filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended [20] Complaint (“TAC”). [Doc. No. 48.] On January 21, 2022, SDUSD filed special Anti21 SLAPP motion to strike the second through seventh causes of action in the TAC (“Anti22 SLAPP motion”). [Doc. No. 49.] On April 1, 2022, this Court issued an order which [23] granted the motion to dismiss the third through seventh causes of action for failure to [24] obtain leave of court pursuant to pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), [25] and denied the motion to dismiss the second cause of action for violation of Section 504 [26] of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §794 . [Doc. No. 64.] [28] 1 On April 1, 2022, this Court issued a minute order denying the Anti-SLAPP 2 |}motion as moot. [Doc. No. 65.] 3 At the request of SDUSD, the Court has reconsidered the Anti-SLAPP motion and 4 ||amends it previous minute order [Doc. No. 65] as follows: 5 Given that the Court has dismissed/striken the third through seventh causes of 6 || action pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1), the anti-SLAPP motion as to those causes of action is 7 || DENIED AS MOOT. As to the second cause of action for violation of Section 504 (a 8 || federal question claim), the anti-SLAPP motion is DENIED. Although an anti-SLAPP 9 motion may be brought in federal court, the statute applies only to state law claims, 10 || because applying it to federal question claims in federal court would frustrate substantive 11 federal rights. Nunag v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 711 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th 12 || Cir. 2013) (citing Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 580 F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2009)); see also 13 || Bulletin Displays, LLC vy. Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 1172 , 1181 14 ||(C.D. Cal. 2006) (prohibition of applying anti-SLAPP motions to federal question claims 15 ||in federal court is not limited to claims exclusively within federal jurisdiction). 16 SDUSD shall answer the TAC, as amended by the Court’s order on the motion to 17 dismiss [Doc. No. 64], by April 22, 2022. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: April 8, 2022 (6 [20] Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 21 United States District Judge