Cebulski v. San Diego Unified School District

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL Case No.: 21-CV-503-CAB-JLB DISTRICT, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 DISMISS COUNTS 2 AND 3 OF THE v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 CATHERINE CEBULSKI and THOMAS 15 [Doc. No. 51] CEBULSKI, Parents, on Behalf of Their 16 Conservatee, K.C., Adult Student, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended 20 Complaint. [Doc. No. 51.] For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. 21 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 22 On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff San Diego Unified School District (“SDUSD”) filed 23 a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Reversal of OAH Decision Dated July 14, 24 2021; (2) Action for Accounting; (3) Declaratory Relief. [Doc. No. 46.] On January 21, 25 2022, Defendants Catherine Cebulski and Thomas Cebulski, on behalf of their 26 Conservatee, K.C., Adult Son (“Cebulskis”) filed a motion to dismiss the second and 27 third causes of action of the FAC. [Doc. No. 51.] On February 11, 2022, SDUSD filed 28 1 an opposition. [Doc. No. 55.] On February18, 2022, the Cebulskis filed a reply. [Doc. 2 No. 58.] 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be granted if plaintiff fails to 5 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. 6 v. Twombly (Twombly), 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Iqbal), 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009); Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011). “A claim has 8 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 9 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 10 556 U.S. at 678; Cook, 637 F.3d at 1004; Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 11 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the plaintiff must provide “more than labels 12 and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 13 do,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. 14 Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he court is not required to accept legal 15 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 16 be drawn from the facts alleged. Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations 17 that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”) 18 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the 19 [complaint] need only give the defendant[s] fair notice of what the ... claim is and the 20 grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 21 (2007) (per curiam) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Twombly, 550 U.S. 22 at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964. 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Accounting. 25 The Cebulski’s argue that the second cause of action for an accounting should be 26 dismissed because the FAC does not sufficiently allege that a debt is owed to SDUSD. 27 Accounting is an independent cause of action in equity. Penney v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 28 2012 WL 2071705, at *13 (C.D.Cal. June 8, 2012) (citing Teselle, 173 Cal.App.4th at 1 180). A cause of action seeking an accounting may be maintained when (1) a relationship 2 exists between a plaintiff and defendant that requires an accounting, and (2) some balance 3 is due to the plaintiff that can only be ascertained by an accounting. Teselle, 173 4 Cal.App.4th at 179 (citing Brea v. McGlashan, 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 460 (1934)); Mendoza 5 v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2009 WL 4706350, at *8 (N.D.Cal. Dec.3, 2009). No 6 fiduciary relationship is required. Teselle, 173 Cal.App.4th at 179. 7 Here, SDUSD has alleged that there is a relationship between the parties, as they 8 were both parties to the OAH decision, as well as to a previous settlement agreement. 9 SDUSD has also alleged that there is confusion over whether invoices the Cebulskis have 10 submitted to SDUSD for reimbursement are under the OAH decision (which SDUSD is 11 appealing) or under a settlement agreement between the parties made in connection with 12 a previous due process claim the Cebulskis filed against SDUSD. The FAC alleges that 13 an accounting is necessary because there may have been an overpayment to the Cebulskis 14 because of manipulation of certain invoices that were submitted for reimbursement under 15 the OAH decision which may in fact pertain to the previous settlement. Thus, the FAC 16 sufficiently alleges a relationship between the parties and the potential that some balance 17 is due to SDUSD if an overpayment can be shown. Therefore, Count 2 sufficiently states 18 a claim for accounting. 19 B. Declaratory Relief. 20 The Cebulskis argue the cause of action for declaratory relief should be dismissed 21 because SDUSD has not sufficiently identified a federal basis for jurisdiction and has 22 failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. To seek declaratory relief, a party must 23 allege an actual controversy regarding a matter within federal court subject matter 24 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §2201(a); MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127- 25 128 (2007). Here, SDUSD has alleged an actual controversy (appeal of administrative 26 decision) within federal subject matter jurisdiction (IDEA). In addition, no exhaustion is 27 required as declaratory relief is a procedural device for granting a remedy, and not a 28 1 substantive cause of action. Harris County Texas v. MERSCORP, 791 F.3d 545, 552 (5th 2 || Cir. 2015). Therefore, Count 3 sufficiently states a request for declaratory relief. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 of SDUSD’s 5 || First Amended Complaint is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: April 1, 2022 € Z 8 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo ? United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28