Snell et al v. North Thurston School District et al, No. 3:2013cv05786 - Document 40 (W.D. Wash. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER denying 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Snell et al v. North Thurston School District et al Doc. 40 1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 WENDY SNELL, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. C13-5786 RBL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. NORTH THURSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., DKT. #22 Defendants. 15 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 18 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Wendy Snell’s motion for partial 19 summary judgment on liability [Dkt. #22]. Snell is suing the North Thurston School District and 20 Dr. Marilyn de Give, the school district’s Executive Director of Student Support Services, on her 21 own behalf, and on behalf of S.Y., her minor daughter. S.Y. is an insulin-dependent brittle 22 diabetic with developmental delays, kidney disease, and profound hearing loss in her right ear. 23 Snell alleges that the school district and Dr. de Give discriminated against S.Y. by not 24 accommodating her disabilities. She brings discrimination claims under Section 504 of the 25 26 Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Washington Law 27 Against Discrimination. 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Snell has already prevailed on her IDEA claim in a different proceeding. In 2013, an administrative law judge determined that the school district had failed to provide S.Y. with a free 3 appropriate public education (“FAPE”) as required by the IDEA and awarded her compensatory 4 education. Specifically, the ALJ found that S.Y. did not receive a FAPE because the school 5 6 district had failed to provide her with a qualified person to monitor her blood sugar while at 7 school, a functioning voice amplifier, or an appropriate behavior intervention plan. After holding 8 a hearing, this Court affirmed the ALJ’s decision in April of 2014. See Snell v. North Thurston 9 School District, 3:13-cv-05488-RBL. 10 Snell contends that the doctrine of res judicata prohibits the defendants from re-litigating 11 liability in this separate lawsuit for damages. The school district and Dr. de Give argue that the 12 ALJ’s decision should have no preclusive effect on this lawsuit. They argue that claim preclusion 13 14 does not apply because there is no identity of claims , and that issue preclusion does not apply 15 because many of the facts that Snell relies on were not actually litigated or necessarily 16 determined in the prior action. 17 18 II. DISCUSSION Snell contends that she is entitled to summary judgment on liability because all of her 19 claims have already been fully litigated. Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the 20 21 facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact 22 which would preclude summary judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party has 23 satisfied its burden, it is entitled to summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to present, 24 by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file, “specific facts 25 showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 26 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party’s 27 28 DKT. #22 - 2 1 position is not sufficient.” Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 2 1995). Factual disputes whose resolution would not affect the outcome of the suit are irrelevant 3 to the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 4 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In other words, “summary judgment should be granted where the 5 6 7 nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from which a reasonable [fact finder] could return a [decision] in its favor.” Triton Energy, 68 F.3d at 1220. 8 A. 9 The broad term res judicata refers to the preclusive effect of prior judgments. When used 10 11 The Doctrines of Res Judicata generally in this manner, res judicata encompasses two similar, but distinct, doctrines—the doctrine of claim preclusion and the doctrine of issue preclusion. Confusion can result because 12 res judicata is sometimes used to refer only to the doctrine of claim preclusion. 13 14 The doctrine of claim preclusion, or “true res judicata,” provides that a final judgment 15 establishes the full measure of relief that a plaintiff is entitled to for his or her claims or causes of 16 action. Wright and Miller, Terminology of Res Judicata, Federal Practice and Procedure vol. 18 17 § 4402 (2d ed.) (quoting Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Engr'g & Mach., Inc., 575 F.2d 530, 18 535–536 (5th Cir. 1978). When a final judgment is rendered, the claims that the plaintiff has 19 brought or could have brought are merged into the judgment. After the claims are merged into 20 the judgment, the plaintiff may not seek further relief on those claims in a separate action. Id. 21 22 The doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, has a narrower scope than claim 23 preclusion. Collateral estoppel prohibits re-litigating issues that were actually adjudicated and 24 necessarily decided in a prior litigation between the same parties. Id. Collateral estoppel treats 25 contested questions of fact or law as already established if they were essential to the outcome of 26 the previous judgment. Id. 27 28 DKT. #22 - 3 1 In her motion, Snell uses res judicata in the broad sense and does not specifically state 2 whether she is relying on the doctrine of claim preclusion or issue preclusion. Her arguments, 3 and the authority that she cites to support her arguments, however, focus on claim preclusion. As 4 such, this order primarily addresses the applicability of the doctrine of claim preclusion. 5 6 7 B. The doctrine of claim preclusion does not entitle Snell to judgment as a matter of law on liability. Claim preclusion applies when there is 1) a previous final judgment on the merits; 2) 8 identity of claims; and 3) privity between the parties. United States v. Liquidators of European 9 10 Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1150 (9th Cir. 2011). The parties agree that there is a previous 11 final judgment on the merits and privity between them, but they do not agree whether the claims 12 are identical. Although Snell strongly argues that the claims are identical, she misapprehends the 13 effect that conclusion would have on her current lawsuit. She contends that if the claims are 14 identical, then the defendants cannot challenge liability and she is entitled to judgment as a 15 matter of law. But, in fact, if the claims are identical, then they are merged into the previous 16 judgment and she would not be able to seek additional damages in this second lawsuit. In other 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 words, the defendants, not Snell, would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Snell would have already received all of the relief that she is entitled to. In any event, claim preclusion does not apply because the claims are not identical. To determine whether there is identity of claims, the following factors must be considered: 1) Whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; 2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; 3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and 4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. 25 26 27 Here, not only will the rights established in the prior proceeding be unaffected by the prosecution of this action, but the two suits do not involve infringement of the same right. The ADA, § 504 28 DKT. #22 - 4 1 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the WLAD all provide relief from discrimination. S.L. ex rel. Mary 2 L. v. Downey Unified Sch. Dist., 2014 WL 934942, at 5 (C.D. Cal. 2014). The IDEA, on the 3 other hand, establishes procedural safeguards for parents and students to ensure that children 4 receive a free appropriate public education. K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 725 5 6 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 2013). To prevail on her claim for damages, Snell will have to prove 7 elements that she did not have to prove during the IDEA litigation, including discrimination. 8 Because the claims are not identical, claim preclusion does not apply. 9 10 11 C. The ALJ’s finding that the school district violated the IDEA does not necessarily mean that it also violated the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation act, or the WLAD. Although not explicitly argued under collateral estoppel, Snell does contend that the 12 ALJ’s determination that the school district did not provide S.Y. with a FAPE as required by the 13 14 IDEA compels a finding that it also violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Like the 15 IDEA, § 504 entitles students to a free appropriate education. Although the FAPE requirements 16 in the IDEA and § 504 are similar, they are not identical. Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 17 933 (9th Cir. 2008). Adopting a valid IDEA Individualized Educational Program is sufficient to 18 satisfy the § 504 FAPE requirements, but it is not necessary. Id. (citing 34 C.F.R. § 19 104.33(b)(2)). Consequently, plaintiffs cannot obtain damages under § 504 simply by proving 20 that the IDEA FAPE requirements were not met. Id. Thus, the ALJ’s determination that the 21 22 23 24 25 26 school district violated the IDEA does not mean that Snell is entitled to damages under § 504 as a matter of law. III. CONCLUSION The ALJ’s determination that S.Y. did not receive a FAPE under the IDEA does not entitle her to judgment as a matter of law on liability in this suit for damages. The claims 27 asserted in this lawsuit are distinct from the claims previously adjudicated. To prevail on her 28 DKT. #22 - 5 1 claim for damages, Snell will have to prove elements that she did not have to prove to prevail on 2 her IDEA claim. Additionally, defenses may be available to the defendants in this lawsuit that 3 were not available to them in the previous litigation. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary 4 judgment is denied. 5 6 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 21st day of August, 2015. A Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DKT. #22 - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
