Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California

September 13, 2010

AREZOU MANSOURIAN, LAUREN MANCUSO, NANCY NIEN-LI CHIANG, AND CHRISTINE WING-SI NG; AND ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr.

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY THE STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

Complaint Filed: December 18, 2003

Trial Date: April 26, 2011

The parties by and through their counsel of record jointly request that the Court modify the Status (Pre-Trial Scheduling) Order entered on June 23, 2010 (Docket # 414) as follows:

a. Move the discovery deadline from September 25, 2010 to October 25, 2010, and the last day to hear dispositive motions from November 5, 2010 to December 6, 2010.

b. Suspend the discovery deadline for financial information from the individual defendants until after the Court rules on the Individual Defendants' anticipated motion for summary judgment.

These requested changes do not affect the trial date or any other deadlines. The parties jointly make this request for the reasons set forth in this Stipulation.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISCOVERY

1. This action was filed in December 2003. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1621 et seq.) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denying them equal opportunity to participate in varsity athletics and to receive varsity athletic scholarships at the University of California, Davis. Defendants deny the allegations.

2. Plaintiffs filed the § 1983 Equal Protection Clause claim against individual Defendants LARRY VANDERHOEF, GREG WARZECKA, PAM GILL-FISHER, ROBERT FRANKS, and LAWRENCE SWANSON.*fn1 The Court previously dismissed the Section 1983 claim, finding that it was precluded by the Title IX claim. As a result, the individual defendants were dismissed from the case entirely.

3. The Supreme Court subsequently found that Title IX does not preclude claims brought under § 1983 to enforce rights under the Equal Protection Clause. (Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009) __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 788.) Therefore, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim. (Docket # 405.) This ruling reinstated VANDERHOEF, WARZECKA, GILL-FISHER, FRANKS, and SWANSON as individual defendants in the case.

4. The individual defendants are preparing Motions for Summary Judgment addressing the § 1983 claim. Because of the early dismissal of the individual defendants, the parties have not previously moved for summary judgment on the § 1983 claim and Plaintiffs believe it may be necessary to depose those Defendants on issues related to this claim. The parties have agreed that Defendants will serve and file their Motions for Summary Judgment after which time Plaintiffs will determine whether depositions on issues related to the § 1983 claim are necessary.

5. Because Defendants have not yet filed their Motions for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to take such depositions or to assess whether they will be necessary. Nor can this be done by the current September 25, 2010 discovery deadline. The current date for the close of discovery is September 25, 2010. The last date for dispositive motions to be heard is November 5, 2010. However, Defendants have contacted the Court and learned that the closest available hearing date is October 22, 2010.

6. Accordingly, the parties have agreed that Defendants will serve the Motions for Summary Judgment by September 15, 2010, and that Plaintiffs will then have until October 25, 2010, to depose the individual defendants. To facilitate this schedule, the parties ask the Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.