High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERNDISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISION
GRACIELA SERNA MCKAY,§§Plaintiff,§§v.§CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06-CV2325-L§ECFDALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL§DISTRICT, et al.,§§Defendants.§
DEFENDANT DR. MICHAEL HINOJOSA’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
G
ODWIN
R
ONQUILLO
PC
MARCOS G. RONQUILLO (
attorney in charge
)State Bar No. 17226000JOSE L. GONZALEZState Bar No. 08129100KATHRYN E. LONGState Bar No. 24041679RAMONA SOTOState Bar No. 24051756mronquillo@godwinronquillo.com jgonzalez@godwinronquillo.comklong@godwinronquillo.comrsoto@godwinronquillo.com1201 Elm Street, Suite 1700Dallas, Texas 75270-2084(214) 939-4400 (Telephone)(214) 760-7332 (Telecopier)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
Case 3:06-cv-02325-O Document 86 Filed 12/08/2008 Page 1 of 31
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.Summaryofthe Argument..............................................................................................1II.SummaryJudgment Standard..........................................................................................3III.SummaryJudgment is Proper on McKay’s Breach of Contract Claim.............................4A.McKay’s breach of contract allegations against Hinojosa....................................4B.Texas law regarding McKay’s breach of contract claim.......................................4C.As a non-partyto the Contract, Hinojosa is not liable as a matter of law..............5IV.SummaryJudgment is Proper on McKay’s Due Process Liberty Claim...........................6A.McKay’s due process liberty interest claim fails as a matter of law......................6B.McKay’s allegations of violations of her due process liberty interests..................7C.Legal standard for violations of due process liberty interest in a name-clearinghearing................................................................................................................8D.McKayhas no evidence to sustain her claim for violations of her due processlibertyinterests..................................................................................................101)McKayhas no evidence that Hinojosa made false, public, stigmatizingcharges against her in connection with her contract non-renewal............102)Hinojosa presents competent summary judgment evidence that he did notmake any false, stigmatizing charges against McKay.............................143)McKayhad sufficient notice of the charges againsther..........................184)Hinojosa did not denyMcKay a name-clearing hearing..........................195)McKayvoluntarilyabandoned the process to obtain a name-clearinghearing...................................................................................................21V.DeclaratoryAction and Injunctive Relief......................................................................23A.McKay’s declaratoryjudgment action is improper.............................................23B.Injunctive Relief................................................................................................24C.Declaratoryaction or injunctive relief against Hinojosa relating to allegedTitle VI violations is improper as a matter of law...............................................25
Case 3:06-cv-02325-O Document 86 Filed 12/08/2008 Page 2 of 31
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESC
ASES
Bd. of Regents for State Coll. v. Roth
,408 U.S. 564 (1972)...........................................................................................................8-9
Blackburn v. City of Marshall
,42 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1995)....................................................................................8-9, 13, 17
Bledsoe v. City of Horn Lake
,449 F.3d 650 (5th Cir. 2006)..............................................................................................8-9
Boy Scouts of Am. v. Responsive Terminal Sys., Inc.
,790 S.W.2d 738 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 1990, writ granted).....................................................5
Burnley v. Thompson
,524 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1975)...............................................................................................9
Cabrol v. Town of Youngsville
,106 F.3d 101 (5th Cir. 1997).................................................................................................8
Celotex v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317 (1986)..............................................................................................................3
Connelly v. Comptroller of the Currency
,876 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1989).........................................................................................9, 17
Dennis v. S&S Consol. Rural High Sch. Dist.
,577 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1978)...........................................................................................9, 18
Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.,
153 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1998).................................................................................................3
Employers’ Liab. Assur. Corp. v. Mitchell
,211 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1954)...............................................................................................23
Formosa Plastics Corp. v. Presidio Eng’rs &Contrs.
,960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998)...................................................................................................5
Huffstutler v. Bergland
,607 F.2d 1090 (5th Cir. 1979).........................................................................................9, 17
Hughes v. City of Garland
,204 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2000)......................................................................................8, 13-14
Humana Ins. Co. v. LeBlanc
, No. 07-532, 2007 WL 3237094 (M.D.La Oct. 31, 2007) (slip opinion)...............................23
Case 3:06-cv-02325-O Document 86 Filed 12/08/2008 Page 3 of 31
Add a Comment