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.

Tarikh Demekpe v. Board of Trustees of the California State University

October 17, 2011

TARIKH DEMEKPE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dean D. Pregerson

Date: November 21, 2011 Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 3 Judge: Hon. Dean D. Pregerson DEFENDANT CSU'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Date of Filing: February 23, 2011 Trial Date: Not Set

TO PLAINTIFF TARIKH DEMEKPE, IN PRO PER:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 21, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3 of this Court (located at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012), defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University (CSU) will move for summary judgment under FRCP 56.

MSJ: NOTICE/MOTION/POINTS & AUTH. Case No. CV11-1177 DDP (MLG)

This motion is made on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that CSU is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the following reasons:

A. Plaintiff's civil rights claims have no merit as a matter of law and undisputed fact because his grade appeal was denied in good faith under the terms of the University's Student Grade Appeals Policy.

B. Plaintiff's claims for damages against CSU are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The motion is based on the following: this notice of motion and motion, the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the declarations of Ginger Wilson, Dr. Anupama Joshi, Dr. S. Noel Sturm, Dr. William R. Whetstone, Dr. Miguel Dominguez, Dr. Clarence "Gus" Martin, Susan Westover, and Exhibits 1 through 65, the proposed statement of uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law, the proposed order, the proposed judgment, the pleadings and papers filed in this action, the reply to be filed after plaintiff's opposition, and the oral argument and other matters to be presented at the hearing on this motion.

This motion is made following the many conferences of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, the most recent of which took place by telephone on September 6, 2011. CSU's counsel has engaged in extensive discussions with plaintiff, including meeting face-to-face, many telephone calls, and numerous emails, and has exhausted all potential informal resolutions of this matter.

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Susan Westover Attorney for Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... I

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ II

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................... 1

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................... 1

A. THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ........................................... 1

B. THE FACTS .................................................................................................. 2

1. The Grade Appeals Policy and Procedures.........................................2

2. Plaintiff's Academic History .............................................................. 4

3. Plaintiff's Grades in ENG 350 and HUS 460 ..................................... 4

4. Plaintiff's Grade Appeals .................................................................... 4

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................................... 8

IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 9

A. PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS HAVE NO MERIT AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE HIS GRADE APPEAL WAS DENIED IN GOOD FAITH UNDER THE TERMS OF THE UNIVERSITY'S STUDENT GRADE APPEALS POLICY. ......................

B. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST CSU ARE BARRED BY THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT. ................................... 11

V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 13

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Board of Curators of University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 98 S.Ct. 948 (1978) 10 BV Eng'g v. Univ. of California, 898 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................... 12

Disesa v. St. Louis Community College, 79 F.3d 92 (8th Cir. 1996) .............................. 10

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 291 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961) ................... 9

Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab., 131 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 1997) .......................... 12

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) ....................................................................... 11

Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) ............................................................................ 11

Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1982) ...


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.