Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627281

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAC. F.,

et al.,

Plaintiffs,v.CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOLDISTRICT,

et al.

,Defendants.CASE NO: SACV 07-1434 JVS (ANx)FINAL ORDER RE MOTIONS FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT ORSUMMARY ADJUDICATIONI.BACKGROUNDPlaintiff C.F., by and through his parents Bill Farnan and Teresa Farnan,(collectively, “Farnan”), asserts a claim for relief for violation of his FirstAmendment rights by the Capistrano Unified School District (“District”) and Dr.James C. Corbett (“Corbett”) (collectively, “School Defendants”). On April 28,2008, this Court granted a motion allowing the California Teachers Association

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

The Unions have specified that they are moving for summary adjudicationin the alternative. In addition, despite the School Defendants’ argument, the Courtfinds that Farnan’s motion was filed in a timely manner. (See School Defendants’Opp. p. 5.) Farnan filed the motion on March 9, 2009, which was Farnan’s last dayto file the motion. (Docket No. 47.)

(“CTA”) and Capistrano Unified Education Association (“CUEA”),(collectively, “Unions”), to intervene as defendants in the action. (Docket No. 29.)Farnan asserts that his rights under the Establishment Clause have been violated bya practice and policy hostile toward religion and favoring irreligion over religion.(First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 22, 25.) At the focus of the dispute areremarks made by Corbett in his Advanced Placement European History class. (Id.at ¶¶ 14-15.)Farnan, the School Defendants, and the Unions have filed separate cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

All motions are opposed.II. LEGAL STANDARDSummary judgment is appropriate only where the record, read in the lightmost favorable to the non-moving party, indicates that “there is no genuine issue asto any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).Material facts are those necessary to the proof or defense of a claim, and aredetermined by reference to substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A factual issue is genuine “if the evidence is such that a

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627283

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. In deciding amotion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to bebelieved, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255.The burden initially is on the moving party to demonstrate an absence of agenuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. “However, if thenonmoving party bears the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the moving partyneed not produce affirmative evidence of an absence of fact to satisfy its burden.”In re Brazier Forest Prod., Inc., 921 F.2d 221, 223 (9th Cir. 1990). Rather, it “maysimply point to the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.”Id. If and only if the moving party meets its burden, then the non-moving partymust produce enough evidence to rebut the moving party’s claim and create agenuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. If the non-movingparty meets this burden, then the motion will be denied. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins.Co. v. Fritz Co., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2000).Where the parties have made cross-motions for summary judgment, theCourt must consider each motion on its own merits. Fair Hous. Council v.Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court will consider eachparty’s evidentiary showing, regardless of which motion the evidence was tenderedunder. Id. at 1137.III.DISCUSSIONThe United States Constitution prohibits any law “respecting anestablishment of religion.” U.S. Const. Amend. I. The parties agree that theappropriate test for determining whether Corbett’s statements were permissibleunder the Establishment Clause is found in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602

of 00

SACV_07-1434_SJOrder

FINAL ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT in C. F., et al.,, v. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

Download or Print

350 Reads

Info and Rating

Category:	Government Docs
Rating:
Upload Date:	05/02/2009
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	corbett chad CUSD first amendment Establishment Clause farnan lemon test corbett chad CUSD first amendment Establishment Clause farnan lemon test (fewer)