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.

Demetrio Quintero v. District

May 24, 2012

DEMETRIO QUINTERO,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DISTRICT, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS (Document 14) MARIPOSA COUNTY SCHOOL

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Demetrio Quintero alleges in his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") that the Mariposa County School District and Does 1 through 8 violated his civil rights pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code section 2000d. (See Doc. 9 at 6-11; see also Doc. 11 at 1.) In response, Defendant Mariposa County Unified School District ("MCUSD") seeks an order dismissing Plaintiff's SAC without leave to amend based upon Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 14.) For the foregoing reasons, this Court DENIES MCUSD's motion.

BACKGROUND

Facts

Plaintiff is a Hispanic-Native American man who contends that his sports officiating business, Dan Sports Officials Association, became accredited by the California Interscholastic Federation ("CIF") in May 2008. Thereafter, he sought to obtain officiating work with Defendant, to no avail.

Specifically, Plaintiff initially inquired about submitting a bid for sports officiating service contracts in August 2008, and submitted a business proposal to Dave Naranjo ("Naranjo"), the athletic director. Defendant had no formal Request for Proposal ("RFP") system in place. Despite submitting his business proposal, Plaintiff later learned the 2008 to 2010 sports officiating contacts were awarded to Northern California Officials Association ("NCOA") for winter and fall sports and to Central California Officials Group ("CCOG") for spring sports.

Plaintiff subsequently met and conferred with Defendant's administrators regarding the lack of a fair and equal RFP bidding process, as well as bias and unlawful race discrimination within the existing process.

In May 2010, Plaintiff submitted a bid for officiating in the 2010 to 2011 sports season. The sports officiating services contracts however were awarded to NCOA and CCOG as had occurred in the past.

In August 2010, Plaintiff met with Naranjo early to ensure an opportunity to submit a timely bid proposal for the 2011*fn1 to 2012 season service contracts. On that occasion, Plaintiff was informed that his organization lacked a sufficient number of officials necessary to service such a contract. Plaintiff is informed however that all sports officials are independent contractors and "work[] out of the same pool," inferring therefore that any number of individuals would be available to officiate games were he awarded a contract. Thus, Plaintiff questioned the veracity of Naranjo's statement that his organization lacked a sufficient numbers of officials.

In October 2010, Naranjo informed Plaintiff that both NCOA and CCOG were awarded sports officiating contracts because each was CIF accredited, seeming to infer Plaintiff's business was not similarly accredited.

In March 2011, Plaintiff learned from an official with CCOG that the official had been personally advised by Naranjo that CCOG had been awarded the 2011 spring sports contract (and that NCOA had been awarded the fall and winter sports contract for that same term) during a night time basketball game. When Plaintiff inquired of the official about how the contract could be awarded when CCOG had not even submitted a bid, he was directed to contact Naranjo with questions.

In sum, Plaintiff contends that MCUSD violated federal law and failed to employ an open, fair and legal bidding process in awarding its sports officiating contracts, thereby denying access to qualified minority contractors.

Procedural History

On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed his original complaint and application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs. (Docs. 2-3.)

On June 6, 2011, this Court issued an Order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint ("FAC") on July 11, 2011. (Doc. 6.)

On October 27, 2011, this Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff's FAC and granting him leave to file an amended complaint. More particularly, the Court held that because the school district is an arm of the state, it is "shielded from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment," and thus, Plaintiff was unable to state cognizable claims pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code sections 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986. Further, Plaintiff was advised the school district's board members were similarly protected in their official capacities. (Doc. 8 at 5- 6.) Plaintiff's state law claims were also barred by the Eleventh Amendment. (Doc. 8 at 6-9.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff was afforded a final opportunity to amend his complaint.

On December 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed his SAC, asserting a single cause of action*fn2 pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code section 2000d against MCUSD. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs of suit, and any other relief the court were to deem just and proper. (Doc. 9.)

On February 24, 2012, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss following service of the summons and complaint by the United States Marshal. (Docs. 14, 14-1.) Relatedly thereto, Defendant ...


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.