# Jayaraman v. Oakland Unified School District

> District Court, N.D. California · November 12, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065792

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** November 12, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065792

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065792. Public record. Not legal advice.