Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4

Georgia A. Staton, Bar #004863 Randall H. Warner, Bar #014695 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 602-263-1700 Attorneys for Defendants

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 8 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56 and the Court's Rule 16 Scheduling Order, Defendants move for leave to file a motion for summary judgment on the lone remaining claim, equal protection. Although Defendants have already moved for summary judgment once, they did not address equal protection because they did not interpret the pleadings as stating such a claim. Under clearly established law, Plaintiffs cannot state an equal protection claim and Defendants will be entitled to judgment as a matter of law at trial. Thus, judicial economy will be served by allowing the viability of that claim to be addressed now. v. Estrella Foothills High School Henry Schmidt, Superintendent of Schools for Estrella Foothills School, Eric Godfrey, Jerry Nunez, Marty Arambel, Phillip Echeverria, Jeannie Guy, Jerry Kerr, and Gary Mayfield, Defendants. Kenneth Lyon & Towanda Lyon, for Taralyn D. Lyon, NO. CIV 03-2306-PHX-JAT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION RE: EQUAL PROTECTION

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 45

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The only allegation in the Complaint that arguably pertains to equal protection states as follows: 11. Upon information and belief other students have had similar offenses and have been treated more leniently. Further, because Plaintiff appealed she was given a much harsher penalty than would have been meeted out even if she had committed the offense. ... 17. unequally. Defendants have treated Tara unfairly and

See Docket 1. Based on these allegations, Defendants believed Plaintiffs were asserting a due process claim, not an equal protection claim. This belief was confirmed by the Joint Proposed Case Management Plan, which listed several specific causes of action and the elements necessary to prove them: false imprisonment, denial of right to counsel, denial of due process, double jeopardy, defamation. See Docket 16. Equal protection is nowhere mentioned in the Joint Proposed Case Management Plan. Thus, when Defendants filed their summary judgment motion, they did not address equal protection because they did not believe Plaintiffs asserted such a claim. In their Response, Plaintiffs listed the following as a cause of action: "Denial of Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to treat Taralyn the same as other student[s] for similar alleged violations of school rules." See Docket 29, at 3. But Plaintiffs made no argument about how the evidence established an equal protection claim. Indeed, the above-quoted sentence is the only reference to equal protection anywhere in the Response. Id. Because Plaintiffs made no argument about equal protection, Defendants did not address equal protection in the Reply.

2 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 45 Filed 09/08/2005 Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Nonetheless, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs did allege an equal protection claim. Defendants therefore request the opportunity to address that claim on the merits. Plaintiffs do not allege discrimination based on a suspect class. Instead, they allege "class of one" discrimination, i.e. that Taralyn was treated differently from other similarly situated students without a rational basis. Squaw Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir. 2004). The standard for such claims is extremely high. Plaintiffs must prove (1) a difference in treatment between Taralyn and other similarly situated students, (2) the difference was intentional, and (3) the difference was without a rational basis. Id. Mere differences in punishment are not enough because "the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal laws, not equal results." McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting Personnel Adm'r v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 273 (1979). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy any of these elements and Defendants will be entitled to judgment as a matter of law at trial. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, they request leave to file a summary judgment motion so the issue can be addressed now. Although this Court generally permits only one summary judgment motion, Defendants' misunderstanding that Plaintiffs were even asserting an equal protection claim justifies permitting a dispositive motion on that issue. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of September, 2005. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

By

/s/ Randall H. Warner Georgia A. Staton Randall H. Warner 2901 North Central Ave., Ste. 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants

3 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 45 Filed 09/08/2005 Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ORIGINAL of the foregoing filed this 7th day of September, 2005 with: Clerk of the U.S. District Court District of Arizona COPY of the foregoing mailed this 7th day of September, 2005, to: Hon. James A. Teilborg United States District Court Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse Suite 523 401 West Washington Street, SPC 51 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2154 Joseph E. Collins, Esq. 10801 North 32nd Street, Suite 3 Phoenix, Arizona 85028 Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ Randall H. Warner

1524513_1

4 Document 45 Filed 09/08/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT