Opinion

Jayaraman v. Oakland Unified School District

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Nov 12, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN YOUNG, et al., Case No. 20-cv-00685-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. STRIKE REQUEST FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 46

Defendants.

The School District’s motion to strike the request for injunctive relief is granted because

the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief. “To have standing to assert a

claim for prospective injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate ‘that he is realistically

threatened by a repetition of [the violation].’” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir.

2012) (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983)). The plaintiffs allege that

they are parents and educators of students who attend schools in the District; that they

participated in and spoke out at school board meetings to oppose school closures before the

incident on October 23, 2019; and that, after the incident, they attended at least one meeting,

during which the school board denied them participation by cutting the microphone. But these

allegations are not enough. The plaintiffs have not, for example, alleged that they plan to attend,

and engage in civil disobedience at, school board meetings in the future. Nor do their allegations

give rise to a concern that the District will respond in a similar fashion if they do attend future

meetings and engage in civil disobedience. See Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149,

158 (2014); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S.

167, 190 (2000); Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010).

The request for injunctive relief is stricken without prejudice to seeking leave to add such

a claim if legitimate discovery on the existing claims reveals a basis for it. The defendants’

request for judicial notice is denied as moot because a ruling in the defendants’ favor did not

require examination of the materials subject to the request. The motion for judgment on the

pleadings with respect to the claim for injunctive relief is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2020

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.