S.G.P. v. Tehachapi Unified School District ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 S.G.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-01066-ADA-BAK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING HEARING ON 12 PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR MINOR’S v. COMPROMISE FOR SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 13 AT 10:30 A.M. IN COURTROOM 9 TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL 14 DISTRICT, (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendant. 16 17 On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff instituted this action by filing a petition for a minor’s 18 compromise of “claims arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 19 the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 20 (“Section 504”), and any other known or unknown claims arising out of Plaintiff’s educational 21 program.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The Court finds it appropriate to construe the filing as a complaint 22 and as a petition for compromise of the settlement. See P.R. by & through Rice v. Fresno 23 Unified Sch. Dist., No. 119CV00220DADBAM, 2019 WL 1651267, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 24 2019) (“[T]he parties initiated this action by filing a joint petition for approval of minor’s 25 compromise . . . the court issued an order construing the filing as a complaint and requiring 26 further briefing.”). In P.R., the Court discussed the somewhat peculiar nature of the filing: 27 As a threshold matter, legal proceedings have not been commenced in this court regarding the underlying dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 een nn nen een en nn EE IO 1 court.”). The parties nonetheless assert that the court would have jurisdiction over any such complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 2 29 U.S.C. § 794. Ud.) However, the parties have not presented any authority indicating that this court has jurisdiction to approve a 3 settlement of a minor’s claim when that claim and dispute is not actually pending before the court. 4 That said, the parties’ assertion that subject matter jurisdiction 5 would exist is accurate. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims that arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, 6 the parties aver that the claims at issue arise under 42 U.S.C. 8 1983 and 29 U.S.C. § 794. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) In light of the 7 foregoing, the court will construe the parties’ joint filing as both a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 29 U.S.C. § 794 8 and a petition for approval of minor’s compromise. g | (Case No. 1:19-cv-00220-DAD-BAM, ECF No. 5 at 1-2.) 10 On August 24, 2022, Defendant made an appearance in this action. (ECF No. 5.) This 1] | action was initially assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd, however, on August 24, this action 12 | was reassigned to District Judge Ana de Alba. The Court finds it appropriate to set the matter for 13 | hearing before the assigned Magistrate Judge for the preparation of findings and 14 | recommendations. (See L.R. 202(b)(2); L.R. 230(b); L.R. 300; L.R. 302.)! 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiff's petition for 16 | minor’s compromise (ECF No. 1), is SET for September 28, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Af 19 | Dated: _August 24, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |1 Although Judge de Alba’s standing order does not specify as to whether motions for minor’s compromise are to be set before the District Judge or the Magistrate Judge, Judge Dale A. Drozd’s amended standing order in light of 27 ongoing judicial emergency in the Eastern District of California, specified such motions should be heard by the assigned Magistrate Judge for the preparation of findings and recommendations. The Court finds it appropriate to 28 | set such motion before the Magistrate Judge until further order from the Court.