TCOE. See Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 326 ("[D]istrict courts are widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence."). In its conclusion and order below, this Court shall allow Student an opportunity to oppose this Court's entry of summary judgment against him on his first cause of action against TCOE.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons discussed above, this Court:
1. DENIES Student's summary judgment motion on his first claim against TCOE and second claim against California DOE;
2. GRANTS summary judgment in favor of California DOE and against Student on Student's second claim against California DOE;
3. GRANTS in part summary adjudication in favor of Student and against TCOE on Student's third claim for attorneys fees;
4. AWARDS Student $2,791.27 in attorneys' fees and costs for his partially-successful compliance complaint against TCOE; and
5. ORDERS Student to show cause, no later than October 5, 2009, why judgment should not be entered in favor of TCOE and against Student on Student's first cause of action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
E.D.Cal.,2009. S.A. ex rel. L.A. v. Tulare County Office of Educ Slip Copy, 2009 WL 3126322 (E.D.Cal.)
Chapter 1 5 – Student Records, Desert/Mountain SELPA As of 04/11/2014
Page 23
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator