Joint Clarification in Response to Order of Dec. 15, 2020, Oakley v. DeVos, No. 20-cv-03215-YGR (N.D. Cal.)

Summary

In Oakley v. DeVos, No. 20-cv-03215-YGR, the Parties submit a joint clarification, filed December 16, 2020, in response to the Court's Order of December 15, 2020 [ECF 57]. The Parties agree that the Amended Complaint, filed November 6, 2020 [ECF 55], is currently the operative complaint. The Parties contemplate that Defendants will merge any arguments that would have been asserted in a motion to dismiss into the initial motion for summary judgment, and they propose that Defendants' obligation to answer be stayed pending the cross-motions. The proposed briefing schedule runs from Defendants' motion for summary judgment on January 19, 2021 to Plaintiffs' reply on April 2, 2021.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 4:20-cv-03215-YGR Document 58 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1of5

XAVIER BECERRA

Attorney General of California

CHERYL FEINER

MICHAEL NEWMAN

Senior Assistant Attorneys General

CHRISTINE CHUANG

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

JULIA HARUMI MASS

LEE I. SHERMAN

SHUBHRA SHIVPURI

JOSHUA SONDHEIMER

JASLEEN K. SINGH (SBN 316596)

Deputy Attorneys General

300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Telephone: (213) 269-6622

Fax: (213) 897-7605

E-mail: Jasleen.Singh.@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Eloy Ortiz Oakley and Board
of Governors of the California Community Colleges

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION
ELOY ORTIZ OAKLEY, in his official Case No. 20-cv-03215-YGR
capacity as Chancellor of California
Community Colleges et al., JOINT CLARIFICATION IN RESPONSE

TO COURT’S ORDER OF DECEMBER
Plaintiffs, | 15, 2020

Judge: Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez
BETSY DEVOS, in her official capacity as Rogers

the United States Secretary of Education; Trial Date: = None Set

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Action Filed: May 11, 2020

Defendants.

Joint Clarification in Response to Court’s Dec. 15 Order (20-cv-03215-YGR)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 4:20-cv-03215-YGR Document 58 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 5

In response to the Court’s Order of December 15, 2020 [ECF 57], the Parties respectfully
submit this joint clarification in regard to the joint proposed briefing schedule and proposed order
filed on December 14, 2020 [ECF 56].

The Parties agree that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, filed as a matter of course pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) on November 6, 2020 [ECF 55], is currently the operative
complaint in this case. The Court may address the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment
before the defendant files an answer. See Gifford v. Travelers Ass’n of America, 153 F.2d 209,
210 (9th Cir. 1943); see also Marquez v. Cable One, Inc., 463 F.3d 1118, 1120 (10th Cir. 2006)
(holding that federal rules permit consideration of summary judgment before an answer). An
answer is also unlikely to play any role in the issues before the Court in this case because the
constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act claims raised in the Amended Complaint can be
resolved on undisputed facts available through the administrative record or judicial notice, and

Here, the Parties contemplate that in the interest of judicial economy, Defendants will
merge any arguments that they would have asserted in a motion to dismiss in response to the
Amended Complaint into their initial motion for summary judgment. By so doing, the Parties
may avoid the briefing and resolution of a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and,
should that motion be denied, undergoing another round of briefing on the parties’ cross-motions
for summary judgment.

Given the posture of the case and lack of factual dispute, the Parties propose a schedule
for cross-motions for summary judgment that would be based on the Amended Complaint as the
operative complaint, and further propose that Defendants’ obligation to file an answer be stayed
pending the Court’s resolution of the Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

The Parties thus respectfully request that the Court enter an order for the following

' Plaintiffs reserve the right to submit material outside the administrative record in support
of their cross-motion for summary judgment in accordance with applicable law. See, e.g., Lands
Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005) (describing exceptions to general rule that
review of agency action is limited to administrative record). Defendants, in turn, reserve the right
to contest Plaintiffs’ submission of extra-record material. The Parties nevertheless agree that an
answer is not likely to play a role in the Court’s resolution of any such dispute.

Joint Clarification in Response to Court’s Dec. 15 Order (20-cv-03215-YGR)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 4:20-cv-03215-YGR Document 58 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 5

proposed briefing schedule on the merits, and stay Defendants’ December 21 deadline to respond

to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pending resolution of the Parties’ dispositive motions:

January 19, 2021: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, not to exceed 40
pages.

February 26, 2021: Plaintiffs’ combined opposition to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment, not to exceed 45
pages.

March 19, 2021: Defendants’ combined opposition to Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for
summary judgment and reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, not to exceed 35 pages.

April 2, 2021: Plaintiffs’ reply to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ cross-
motion for summary judgment, not to exceed 30 pages.

In accordance with Local Rule 7-2(a), the Parties request an oral hearing on
April 20, 2020, or at the Court’s convenience.

If the issues in this case remain pending after the Court’s decision on the cross-
motions for summary judgment, the Parties agree to meet and confer within 14
days of the Court’s ruling on the motions to discuss a schedule for further

proceedings.

Should the Court reject the Parties’ request to stay Defendants’ deadline to respond to

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and instead require Defendants to file an answer prior to cross-

motions for summary judgment, the Parties propose that the answer be due on January 10, 2021,

prior to the commencement of the briefing schedule set forth above.

Joint Clarification in Response to Court’s Dec. 15 Order (20-cv-03215-YGR)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 4:20-cv-03215-YGR Document 58 Filed 12/16/20 Page 4 of 5

Dated: December 16, 2020

JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK

Acting Assistant Attorneys General

MARCIA BERMAN

Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch

/s/ Kathryn L. Wyer

KATHRYN L. WYER (Utah Bar No. 9846)

M. ANDREW ZEE (California Bar No. 272510)
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
1100 L. Street, N.W., Room 12014

Tel. (202) 616-8475
kathryn.wyer@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

Respectfully submitted,

XAVIER BECERRA

Attorney General of California
CHERYL FEINER

MICHAEL NEWMAN

Senior Assistant Attorneys General
CHRISTINE CHUANG

Supervising Deputy Attorney General
JULIA HARUMI MASS

LEE I. SHERMAN

SHUBHRA SHIVPURI

JOSHUA SONDHEIMER

/s/ Jasleen K. Singh

JASLEEN K. SINGH

Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Eloy Ortiz Oakley
and Board of Governors of the California
Community Colleges

Joint Clarification in Response to Court’s Dec. 15 Order (20-cv-03215-YGR)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 4:20-cv-03215-YGR Document 58 Filed 12/16/20 Page 5of5

ATTESTATION OF SIGNATURES

I, Jasleen K. Singh, hereby attest, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5-1(1)(3) of the Northern
District of California that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each

signatory hereto.

/s/ Jasleen K. Singh

JASLEEN K. SINGH

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Plaintiffs Eloy Ortiz
Oakley and Board of Governors of
the California Community Colleges

Joint Clarification in Response to Court’s Dec. 15 Order (20-cv-03215-YGR)


File and source

File

58-stipulation-without-proposed-order.pdf

Size

143,983 bytes

SHA-256

4b003169f456bda05b273dde402e3210cd63e4111cb815542a846f1d3492767b

Our copy

58-stipulation-without-proposed-order.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com