Cebulski v. San Diego Unified School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reconsidered its prior minute order denying the defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion as moot and amended it to explicitly deny the motion as to the dismissed causes of action and the remaining federal claim. The court ordered the defendant to answer the Third Amended Complaint by April 22, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of the Anti-SLAPP motion as to the third through seventh causes of action“Given that the Court has dismissed/striken the third through seventh causes of action pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1), the anti-SLAPP motion as to those causes of action is DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court The court previously dismissed these claims for failure to obtain leave under Rule 15(a)(1). Because the claims no longer exist in the operative complaint, the motion to strike them is moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
Denial of the Anti-SLAPP motion as to the second cause of action (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act)“As to the second cause of action for violation of Section 504 (a federal question claim), the anti-SLAPP motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that California's Anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) applies to state law claims. Applying it to federal question claims in federal court would create a conflict with federal substantive rights. The court relies on Ninth Circuit precedent (Nunag v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd.) to support this exclusion. |
Ordering defendant to answer the Third Amended Complaint“SDUSD shall answer the TAC, as amended by the Court’s order on the motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 64], by April 22, 2022.” | agree with court With the motion to dismiss partially denied (leaving the Section 504 claim) and the Anti-SLAPP motion denied, the case proceeds on the remaining claim. The court sets a deadline for the answer, which is within its case management authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's holding in Nunag that California's Anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to federal claims in federal court. The court also correctly identifies the mootness of the motion regarding the previously dismissed claims. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the legal issue raised by the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 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. 18 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 Anti- 21 SLAPP motion to strike the second through seventh causes of action in the TAC (“Anti- 22 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.] 27 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 22 23 24 25 26 27 28