Moreno et al v. Yakima School District No 7 et al, No. 1:2020cv03002 - Document 85 (E.D. Wash. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER granting Defendants' 60 Motion for Summary Judgment and denying as moot Plaintiffs' 81 82 Motions to Continue. The file is closed. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (BF, Paralegal)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Moreno et al v. Yakima School District No 7 et al Case 1:20-cv-03002-TOR Doc. 85 ECF No. 85 filed 12/28/22 PageID.1313 Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 AVIANNA MORENO and ANDREA CANTU, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. NO. 1:20-CV-3002-TOR ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 11 12 YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, JOHN R. IRION, in his individual capacity, CECILIA MAHRE, in her individual capacity, ROBERT STANLEY, in his individual capacity, 13 Defendants. 14 15 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 16 ECF No. 60. Plaintiffs did not file a response. Plaintiffs were granted extensions 17 of time to respond to the motion. ECF Nos. 69, 72, 75, and 80. On December 8, 18 2022, the Court ordered 19 20 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Fifth Motion for Continuance to respond to the motion for summary judgment that has been pending since 9/6/2022. The Court previously vacated the scheduling order in this case because of Plaintiffs' delay. ECF ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-03002-TOR 1 2 3 4 ECF No. 85 filed 12/28/22 PageID.1314 Page 2 of 8 No. 69. Defendants oppose any more continuances. Because Defendants deserve a timely disposition of this case and the Court must maintain and control its docket, this is the last continuance the Court will grant. Plaintiffs' response to the Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 60] is due on or before December 20, 2022. The optional Reply is due by January 6, 2023. 5 ECF No. 80. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed two additional motions for continuance 6 seeking an extension until December 22, 2022 and then seeking an extension until 7 December 27, 2022. ECF Nos. 81 and 82. However, those dates passed and 8 Plaintiffs never filed any response. 9 10 DISCUSSION The Court may grant summary judgment in favor of a moving party who 11 demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the 12 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In ruling 13 on a motion for summary judgment, the court must only consider admissible 14 evidence. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002). The 15 party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the 16 absence of any genuine issues of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 17 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to identify 18 specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Anderson v. 19 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2 Case 1:20-cv-03002-TOR ECF No. 85 filed 12/28/22 PageID.1315 Page 3 of 8 1 of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be 2 evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id. at 252. 3 For purposes of summary judgment, a fact is “material” if it might affect the 4 outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. at 248. Further, a dispute is 5 “genuine” only where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find in 6 favor of the non-moving party. Id. The Court views the facts, and all rational 7 inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. 8 Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). Summary judgment will thus be granted 9 “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of 10 an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the 11 burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. 12 As Plaintiffs failed to present evidence disputing Defendants’ statement of 13 material facts, ECF No. 61, the Court considers these facts undisputed. Fed. R. 14 Civ. P. 56(e)(2). 15 A. Title IX Claim 16 For the Yakima School District to be held liable under Title IX for peer-on- 17 peer harassment, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the school was deliberately 18 indifferent to sexual harassment; (2) of which it had actual knowledge; and (3) the 19 sexual harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be 20 said to have deprived the plaintiff of access to the educational opportunities or ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3 Case 1:20-cv-03002-TOR ECF No. 85 filed 12/28/22 PageID.1316 Page 4 of 8 1 benefits provided by the school. See Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County 2 Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 650 (1999). 3 Plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence to support the elements of 4 this cause of action. Based on the undisputed evidence, Defendants were not 5 deliberately indifferent to any alleged sexual harassment nor did Defendants act or 6 fail to act in a way that caused Plaintiff Moreno’s alleged injuries where the 7 District investigated and responded to every complaint made by Plaintiffs, which 8 involved third-party investigators and disciplinary action against the aggressors. 9 Therefore, this claim is dismissed. 10 B. Title VI, Section 504, and ADA Claims 11 Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting their racial and disability 12 discrimination claims. Based on the undisputed evidence, Defendants did not 13 intentionally discriminate or demonstrate deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ 14 claims based on race and disability. Therefore, these claims are dismissed. 15 C. Washington Law Against Discrimination Claim 16 Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting their allegations based on 17 race, gender, and disability claims under Washington law. Based on the 18 undisputed evidence, Plaintiffs’ state discrimination claims fail for the same reason 19 as the federal claims. Therefore, these claims are dismissed. 20 // ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4 Case 1:20-cv-03002-TOR ECF No. 85 filed 12/28/22 PageID.1317 Page 5 of 8 1 D. Claims 4, 5, and 6 2 Plaintiffs previously agreed to the dismissal of these claims and they were 3 dismissed by the Court. ECF No. 56. 4 E. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim 5 To establish a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, a plaintiff 6 must show (1) the emotional distress is within the scope of foreseeable harm of the 7 negligent conduct, (2) the plaintiff reasonably reacted given the circumstances, and 8 (3) the distress is confirmed by objective symptomatology. Bylsma v. Burger King 9 Corp., 176 Wash. 2d 555, 560 (2013). 10 Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting their allegations of negligent 11 infliction of emotional distress. Based on the undisputed evidence, Defendants did 12 not act negligently in causing the alleged emotional distress nor is any distress 13 shown by objective symptomatology. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. 14 F. Tort of Outrage 15 To establish a tort of outrage claim, a plaintiff must show (1) extreme and 16 outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and 17 (3) severe emotional distress on the part of the plaintiff. Reid v. Pierce Cnty., 136 18 Wash. 2d 195, 202 (1998) (citations omitted). 19 Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting their allegation of outrage. 20 Based on the undisputed evidence, Defendants did not intentionally or recklessly ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 5 Case 1:20-cv-03002-TOR ECF No. 85 filed 12/28/22 PageID.1318 Page 6 of 8 1 engage in extreme or outrageous conduct that caused Plaintiffs severe emotional 2 distress. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. 3 G. Respondeat Superior Claim 4 Plaintiffs claim that the School District is liable for all torts committed by its 5 employees. However, Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting this broad 6 allegation. The School District cannot be held liable where there are no genuine 7 issues of material fact that any torts were committed. Therefore, this claim is 8 dismissed. 9 10 H. Injury to Parent-Child Relationship Claim The elements of a claim for tortious interference with a parent-child 11 relationship are (1) the existence of a family relationship, (2) a wrongful 12 interference with the relationship by a third person, (3) an intention on the part of 13 the third person that such wrongful interference results in a loss of affection or 14 family association, (4) a causal connection between the third person’s conduct and 15 the loss of affection, and (5) that such conduct resulted in damages. Grange Ins. 16 Ass'n v. Roberts, 179 Wash. App. 739, 765 92 (2013) (citations omitted). To prove 17 intent, the plaintiff must prove “malice—that is, an intent that the plaintiff lose the 18 affection of his or her family. See id. 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 6 Case 1:20-cv-03002-TOR 1 ECF No. 85 filed 12/28/22 PageID.1319 Page 7 of 8 Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. Based on the 2 undisputed evidence, Defendants did not intentionally and wrongfully interfere in 3 any familial relationship. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. 4 I. Defamation Claim 5 To establish defamation, a plaintiff must show: (1) a false statement; (2) that 6 was unprivileged; (3) the defendant was at fault, and (4) the statement proximately 7 caused damages. Alpine Indus. Computers, Inc. v. Cowles Pub. Co., 114 Wash. 8 App. 371, 378 (2002). 9 Plaintiffs’ allegations of defamation are based on alleged false statements of 10 former Defendant McKenna at School Board Meetings on September 18, 2018 and 11 October 16, 2018. Defendant McKenna was dismissed from this suit with 12 prejudice. ECF No. 30. Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. 13 Based on the undisputed evidence, Defendants did not publish false statements that 14 caused injury. Additionally, the board meeting minutes are privileged as a public 15 official proceeding record. Alpine, 114 Wash. App. at 385. Therefore, this claim 16 is dismissed. 17 J. Civil Conspiracy Claim 18 Because there are no actionable causes of action, the claim of a civil 19 conspiracy also fails. W.G. Platts, Inc. v. Platts, 73 Wash. 2d 434, 439 (1968). 20 Therefore, this claim is dismissed. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 7 Case 1:20-cv-03002-TOR 1 2 ECF No. 85 filed 12/28/22 PageID.1320 Page 8 of 8 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 60, is 3 GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 4 2. Plaintiffs’ Motions to Continue, ECF Nos. 81 and 82, are DENIED as 5 6 7 8 moot. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and Judgment accordingly, furnish copies to counsel, and CLOSE the file. DATED December 28, 2022. 9 10 THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
