This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Equal Protection
Bane Act

S.W. v. Board of Education for Los Angeles Unified School District

Published: Sep. 2, 2022 | Result Date: Jul. 11, 2022 | Filing Date: Mar. 7, 2019 |

Case number: 2:19-cv-01702-ODW (JCx) Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Otis D. Wright II

Mediator

Sidney Kanazawa

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Nashaun L. Neal
(PLC Law Group APC)

Peter L. Carr
(PLC Law Group APC)


Defendant

Patrick J. Balucan
(Los Angeles Unified School District)


Facts

S.W.'s mother, Rashunda Pitts, noticed a cotton field located on the school property where S.W. attended school. The field was part of a project where students could have a real-life experience of what it was like to be a slave picking cotton. Pitts spoke with both the Assistant Principal Brian Wisniewski and Principal Amy Diaz to express her disappointment and request that the project be removed. On March 7, 2019, S.W. filed a complaint against the Board of Education for Los Angeles Unified School District, Diaz, and Christian Villanueva, alleging seven causes of action, including violation of the Equal Protection Clause and several civil rights violations. Pre-trial documents were due on March 15, 2021, but the parties missed the deadline. The court indicated that failure to comply with the deadline may result in dismissal of the action. The parties again failed to file the documents by the extended July 5, 2021 deadline. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the court extended the deadline to April 25, 2022. On that day, S.W. filed two documents with the court. One was a stipulation to continue the trial and pretrial deadlines while the other was a statement regarding the status of settlement negotiations. The next day, the court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution, finding that S.W. had no justification for the failure to file pretrial documents.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that his missed deadline was justified because he was made aware of facts and laws that were not previously present at the time of the April 25 deadline, including additional details about settlement efforts and counsel's course of communication. Moreover, plaintiff asserted that the court would not have dismissed the case if it had been aware of plaintiff's efforts to meet and confer regarding trial continuance and joint trial documents.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied.


#139339

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390