Moreno v. Yakima School District No 7

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AVIANNA MORENO and ANDREA CANTU, NO. 1:20-CV-3002-TOR Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 MOTION FOR SUMMARY v. JUDGMENT YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, JOHN R. IRION, in his individual capacity, CECILIA MAHRE, in her individual capacity, ROBERT STANLEY, in his individual capacity, Defendants.

15 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

16 ECF No. 60. Plaintiffs did not file a response. Plaintiffs were granted extensions of time to respond to the motion. ECF Nos. 69, 72, 75, and 80. On December 8, 2022, the Court ordered 19 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Fifth Motion for Continuance to respond to the motion for summary judgment that has been 20 pending since 9/6/2022. The Court previously vacated the scheduling order in this case because of Plaintiffs' delay. ECF 1 No. 69. Defendants oppose any more continuances. Because Defendants deserve a timely disposition of this case and the 2 Court must maintain and control its docket, this is the last continuance the Court will grant. Plaintiffs' response to the 3 Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 60] is due on or before December 20, 2022. The optional Reply is due by 4 January 6, 2023.

5 ECF No. 80. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed two additional motions for continuance seeking an extension until December 22, 2022 and then seeking an extension until December 27, 2022. ECF Nos. 81 and 82. However, those dates passed and Plaintiffs never filed any response.

9 DISCUSSION 10 The Court may grant summary judgment in favor of a moving party who demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must only consider admissible evidence. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the 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 specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be 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 outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. at 248. Further, a dispute is “genuine” only where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. Id. The Court views the facts, and all rational inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). Summary judgment will thus be granted “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

12 As Plaintiffs failed to present evidence disputing Defendants’ statement of material facts, ECF No. 61, the Court considers these facts undisputed. Fed. R. 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- peer harassment, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the school was deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment; (2) of which it had actual knowledge; and (3) the sexual harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to have deprived the plaintiff of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school. See Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 650 (1999).

3 Plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence to support the elements of this cause of action. Based on the undisputed evidence, Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to any alleged sexual harassment nor did Defendants act or fail to act in a way that caused Plaintiff Moreno’s alleged injuries where the District investigated and responded to every complaint made by Plaintiffs, which 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 discrimination claims. Based on the undisputed evidence, Defendants did not intentionally discriminate or demonstrate deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ 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 race, gender, and disability claims under Washington law. Based on the undisputed evidence, Plaintiffs’ state discrimination claims fail for the same reason as the federal claims. Therefore, these claims are dismissed.

20 // 1 D. Claims 4, 5, and 6 2 Plaintiffs previously agreed to the dismissal of these claims and they were 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 must show (1) the emotional distress is within the scope of foreseeable harm of the negligent conduct, (2) the plaintiff reasonably reacted given the circumstances, and (3) the distress is confirmed by objective symptomatology. Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., 176 Wash. 2d 555, 560 (2013).

10 Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting their allegations of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Based on the undisputed evidence, Defendants did not act negligently in causing the alleged emotional distress nor is any distress 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 outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and (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 engage in extreme or outrageous conduct that caused Plaintiffs severe emotional 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 employees. However, Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting this broad allegation. The School District cannot be held liable where there are no genuine issues of material fact that any torts were committed. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

9 H. Injury to Parent-Child Relationship Claim 10 The elements of a claim for tortious interference with a parent-child relationship are (1) the existence of a family relationship, (2) a wrongful interference with the relationship by a third person, (3) an intention on the part of the third person that such wrongful interference results in a loss of affection or family association, (4) a causal connection between the third person’s conduct and 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 intent, the plaintiff must prove “malice—that is, an intent that the plaintiff lose the affection of his or her family. See id. 1 Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. Based on the undisputed evidence, Defendants did not intentionally and wrongfully interfere in 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 was unprivileged; (3) the defendant was at fault, and (4) the statement proximately 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 former Defendant McKenna at School Board Meetings on September 18, 2018 and October 16, 2018. Defendant McKenna was dismissed from this suit with 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 caused injury. Additionally, the board meeting minutes are privileged as a public official proceeding record. Alpine, 114 Wash. App. at 385. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

17 J. Civil Conspiracy Claim 18 Because there are no actionable causes of action, the claim of a civil conspiracy also fails. W.G. Platts, Inc. v. Platts, 73 Wash. 2d 434, 439 (1968).

20 Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

1|} ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 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 moot.

6 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and Judgment 7|| accordingly, furnish copies to counsel, and CLOSE the file.

8 DATED December 28, 20272.

9 De Ug Kies ae fia 0 kee 10 THOMAS O. RICE <= United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY