M.D.

M.D. Ex Rel. Doe v. Newport-Mesa Unified School District

Good Law
840 F.3d 640·2016 WL 6091565·95 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1945·2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18778
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 19, 201614-56443; 14-56459California1,568 words

Opinion

Opinion

We consider whether the district court abused its discretion by denying (1) plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), and (2) the school district’s motion for attorney’s fees under the California Public Records Act.

FACTS

Mary Doe, a fifth-grade student, and her mother, Jane, sued their school district and its employees because Mary allegedly experienced retaliation after Jane complained to the school principal about Mary’s teacher. In their First Amended Complaint (FAC), plaintiffs asserted a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , as well as violations of the California Constitution and California Public Records Act (CPRA).

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the last two claims after the school district filed a motion to dismiss. The district court then dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim without prejudice for failure to state a claim but gave plaintiffs thirty days to amend. Plaintiffs failed to meet the filing deadline, and the school district filed a proposed judgment of dismissal the very next day. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (SAC) the following day. Several days…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.