Concerned Jewish Parents of Sequoia Union High School District et al v. et Sequoia Union High School District

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court	
Northern District of California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CONCERNED JEWISH PARENTS OF
SEQUOIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SEQUOIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-08015-MMC
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is defendants’ motion, filed October 15, 2025 “to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.” Plaintiffs have filed opposition, to which the defendants
have replied. The matter came on regularly for hearing on February 20, 2026. Ryan H.
Weinstein and Elana M. Stern of Ropes & Gray LLP appeared on behalf of plaintiffs.
William B. Tunick and Suvarna R. Bhopale of Dannis Woliver Kelley appeared on behalf
of the defendants.
Having considered the parties’ respective written submissions and the arguments
of counsel at the hearing, the Court, for the reasons stated in detail on the record at the
hearing, finds:
1. Plaintiffs S.B. and W.K. have sufficiently pleaded their Title VI claim (First
Claim for Relief) against Sequoia Union High School District (“SUHSD”);
2. S.B. has sufficiently pleaded her Equal Protection claim (Second Claim for
Relief)1 against SUHSD and against the following individuals in their personal
1 Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection and Free Exercise claims are brought under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Case 3:24-cv-08015-MMC Document 146 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court	
Northern
 District of California
capacity: Principal Karen Van Putten, Vice Principal Wendy Porter, Vice
Principal Charles Velschow, and teacher Abdulhadi Kaddoura;
3. S.B. has sufficiently pleaded her Free Exercise claim (Third Claim for Relief)
against SUHSD and against Vice Principal Velschow in his personal capacity;
and
4. W.K. has sufficiently pleaded his Equal Protection claim (Second Claim for
Relief) against SUHSD and against Principal Karl Losekoot in his personal
capacity.2 3
Accordingly, defendants’ motion is hereby DENIED with respect to the above listed
claims, and in all other respects is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than March 18, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2026
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
2 At plaintiffs’ counsel’s request and without objection by defendants’ counsel, the
Court adjourned the hearing before setting forth its findings with respect to plaintiffs’ Free
Exercise claims (Third Claim for Relief). Although S.B. has pleaded she stopped wearing
her Star of David necklace in response to alleged antisemitic harassment, which could
constitute a substantial burden on her religious beliefs, see Chalifoux v. New Caney
Indep. Sch. Dist., 976 F. Supp. 659, 670 (S.D. Tex. 1997), W.K. has not pleaded a similar
burden on his religious beliefs.
3 By making the above findings, the Court has not necessarily relied on all of the
incidents plaintiffs characterize as antisemitic, nor is it the Court’s intention to preclude
defendants from challenging the sufficiency of any claims alleged in the forthcoming
Second Amended Complaint.
Case 3:24-cv-08015-MMC Document 146 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2