Black Parallel School Board v. Sacramento City Unified School District ( 2022 )

MONA TAWATAO (SBN: 128779) 2 ALEXANDRA SANTA ANA (SBN: 317852) Equal Justice Society 3 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 818 4 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (415) 288-8700 5 Facsimile: (510) 338-3030 Email: epaterson@equaljusticesociety.org 6 mtawatao@equaljusticesociety.org asantaana@equaljusticesociety.org 7 8 MELINDA BIRD (SBN: 102236) Disability Rights California 9 350 S. Bixel Street, Suite 290 Los Angeles, California 90017 10 Telephone: (213) 213-8000 11 Facsimile: (213) 213-8001 Email: melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org 12 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 13 (Additional Attorneys Listed on Final Page) 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 BLACK PARALLEL SCHOOL BOARD; S.A., by and Case No. 2:19-cv-01768-TLN-KJN 17 through his Next Friend, AMY A.; K.E., by and through his Next Friend, JENNIFER E.; C.S., by and through his 18 General Guardian, SAMUEL S.; on behalf of themselves NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION AND JOINT MOTION FOR FURTHER and all others similarly situated, 19 EXTENSION OF STAY OF LITIGATION; AND ORDER 20 Plaintiffs, 21 v. Judge: Hon. Troy L. Nunley Courtroom: 7 22 SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Action Filed: September 5, 2019 JORGE A. AGUILAR, Superintendent for Sacramento 23 City Unified School District; CHRISTINE A. BAETA, NO ARGUMENT OR APPEARANCE 24 Chief Academic Officer for the Sacramento City Unified NECESSARY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY School District; JESSIE RYAN, DARREL WOO, REQUIRED BY COURT 25 MICHAEL MINNICK, LISA MURAWSKI, LETICIA GARCIA, CHRISTINA PRITCHETT, and MAI VANG, 26 members of the Sacramento City Unified School District 27 Board of Education; THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 28 Defendants. 1 NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION AND MOTION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE STAY 2 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Plaintiffs Black Parallel School Board as well as S.A., K.E., and 4 C.S. (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their guardians, and Defendants Sacramento City Unified School 5 District, et al. (the “District”) (collectively with Plaintiffs, “Parties”), through their respective 6 counsel of record, hereby jointly move this Court for a further extension of the stay of this litigation 7 for an additional three months, to August 4, 2022, so that the Parties may engage in agreed-upon 8 structured settlement negotiations, as set forth below. 9 As the Parties jointly move for the requested stay and agree on the propriety and scope of 10 same, the Parties do not believe argument or appearance is necessary for the Court to consider the 11 requested further stay, but are prepared to appear if the Court so orders. 12 STATEMENT OF FACTS 13 The Parties hereby stipulate to the following facts: 14 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and initiated the instant action on September 5, 2019. (ECF 15 No. 1). 16 2. Plaintiffs served the District with its Complaint on September 10, 2019, and filed the related 17 Proof of Service on October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 7). 18 3. Shortly after Plaintiffs’ service of the Complaint, the Parties engaged in communications to 19 negotiate requesting a stay of this litigation for a designated period of time to allow the 20 Parties to participate in good faith negotiations toward a potential global resolution of this 21 action, thereby preserving the Parties’ and the Court’s time and resources. 22 4. On December 19, 2019, the Parties entered into a Structured Negotiations Agreement 23 (“Agreement”). (See ECF No. 24 at 9-23). The Parties also filed a joint motion for a stay of 24 litigation for the Parties to engage in agreed-upon structured settlement negotiations and 25 sought Court approval of the same, which the Court ordered and approved on December 20, 26 2019. (ECF No. 25). 27 5. The Court’s Order required the Parties to submit status reports every 90 days during the 28 period of the stay. (ECF No. 25). The Parties reported in the First and Second Joint Status 1 Reports that a number of interim measures and/or actions under the Agreement had been 2 completed. (ECF Nos. 28 at 3-5, 31 at 2-4). Additionally, in the Second Joint Status Report, 3 the Parties reported that the District had executed contracts to hire three neutral, third-party 4 subject matter experts – Dr. Jeffrey Sprague, Dr. Nancy Dome, and Dr. Jean Gonsier-Gerdin 5 (collectively, “Experts”). (ECF No. 31 at 3). The Parties further reported on an “Experts’ 6 Evaluation Plan” containing specific steps and work necessary to guide the Experts in their 7 review and analysis of the District under the Agreement. (ECF No. 31 at 3). 8 6. On July 14, 2020, the Court granted the Parties’ joint motion to extend the stay for six 9 months to allow the Parties time to complete the activities described in the Agreement, 10 including but not limited to providing time to the Experts to evaluate the District’s programs, 11 policies and services, and make recommendations that would inform potential resolution of 12 this matter. (ECF No. 33, 34). 13 7. Per the terms of the July 10, 2020 Order, the Parties filed a Third Joint Status Report on 14 August 13, 2020; a Fourth Joint Status Report on September 28, 2020; and a Fifth Joint 15 Status Report on November 30, 2020. (ECF Nos. 36, 37, and 38). 16 8. On January 6, 2021, the Parties filed another joint motion to extend the stay by an additional 17 five months to enable the Parties to continue to engage in structured settlement negotiations 18 and allow the Experts to complete their assessment of the District. (ECF No. 39). The Court 19 granted the Parties’ joint motion on January 8, 2021 and also ordered the Parties to file a 20 status report 75 days later and every 75 days thereafter during the duration of the extended 21 stay. (ECF No. 40). Accordingly, the Parties filed a Sixth Joint Status Report on March 23, 22 2021 and a Seventh Joint Status Report on June 1, 2021. (ECF Nos. 41 and 43). 23 9. On June 1, 2021, the Parties filed a joint motion to extend the stay an additional four months 24 to allow the Parties to continue to engage in structured settlement negotiations and allow the 25 Experts to complete their report on the District. The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion 26 on June 2, 2021. Pursuant to that order, the Parties filed an eighth joint status report on 27 August 16, 2021. (ECF No. 46). 28 /// 1 10. On September 27, 2021, the Parties filed an additional motion to extend the stay an 2 additional four months to allow the Experts to complete their report and to allow the Parties 3 to engage in structured settlement negotiations. The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion 4 on September 28, 2021. 5 11. In the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Joint Status Reports, the Parties 6 provided the Court with updates regarding the Parties’ implementation of the Agreement. 7 (See ECF Nos. 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 46). First, the Parties reported that they were working in 8 collaboration with the Experts and Dr. Judy Elliott to finalize the Plan. (See ECF Nos. 36 at 9 2-3, 37 at 3, 38 at 3). In the Fifth Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the Experts 10 were close to finalizing the Plan and had made an initial request to the District for documents 11 and data sources, including but not limited to specific District policies and procedures, to 12 begin their review of the District. (ECF No. 38 at 3). In the Sixth Joint Status Report, the 13 Parties reported that the Experts had completed and executed the Plan to complete the steps 14 set out in the Scope of Work agreed upon through the Agreement. (See ECF No. 41). 15 Additionally, in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Joint Status Reports, the Parties reported 16 that they had exchanged various proposals regarding additions and/or modifications to 17 interim measures in the Agreement. (ECF Nos. 36 at 3, 37 at 4, 38 at 3). 18 12. The Parties also reported that various factors, including but not limited to the COVID-19 19 pandemic, had delayed the Experts’ commencement and completion of their work under the 20 Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). As a result, the Parties anticipated finalizing 21 and executing a side agreement to extend the date by which the Experts must finalize their 22 work under the Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). The Parties executed this side 23 agreement on March 26, 2021. 24 13. The Parties received the Experts’ confidential final report on January 21, 2022 and thereafter 25 began the settlement negotiations process. 26 14. On January 27, 2022 the Parties filed an additional motion to extend the stay until May 4, 27 2022 to allow the Parties to engage in settlement negotiations informed by the Experts’ 28 Report. The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion on January 27, 2022. 1 15. To prevent delays and facilitate settlement, the Parties agreed to have at least three settlement 2 meetings. 3 16. The Parties also agreed that if the Parties are unable to successfully negotiate a settlement 4 agreement on their own, the Parties may request the assistance of a magistrate judge to 5 facilitate the process. 6 17. The Parties have begun the settlement negotiations process in earnest and have so far met 7 twice. 8 18. In addition to the two settlement discussion meetings, the Parties have engaged in substantive 9 written exchanges that have furthered the settlement process. 10 19. As the Parties are currently engaged in productive settlement discussions, the Parties jointly 11 seek an additional extension of the stay in order to continue this process. 12 20. In order to facilitate settlement, the Parties agree to hold at least two meetings to discuss or 13 negotiate settlement each month in May, June, and July 2022. In addition, the Parties agree to 14 establish weekly settlement calls at the appropriate juncture to move the settlement process 15 forward. 16 21. Furthermore, to ensure that settlement discussions are productive, the Defendants agree to 17 include key District staff in the relevant planned settlement meetings. 18 19 Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties seek this Court’s approval of a further stay of this 20 litigation to afford the Parties additional time to complete the activities described with regard to and 21 in the Agreement including, but not limited to, allowing the Parties to continue to engage in the 22 agreed-upon structured negotiations with the goal of resolving this matter. 23 GOVERNING LAW 24 This Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its 25 own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 26 248)(1936)). In fact, 27 [T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 28 itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of 1 judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance. 2 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. 3 Correspondingly, as this Court has recognized, “[c]ourts have applied their discretionary 4 authority to grant stays because it appeared that settlement discussions between the parties might 5 prove fruitful.” Johnson v. Village, Case No. 2:15-cv-02299-TLN-KJN, 2016 WL 1720710, at *6 6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2016) (citing EEOC v. Canadian Indem. Co., 407 F. Supp. 1366, 1368 (C.D. Cal. 7 1976)). 8 REQUEST FOR STAY 9 As outlined above, the Parties have successfully negotiated an agreed-upon structure for 10 settlement discussions between the Parties, in the hope of reaching a global resolution of this matter 11 without the need for protracted litigation. The Parties now jointly move and request that this Court 12 further stay this matter for three more months, to August 4, 2022, so that the Parties may continue to 13 engage in the activities agreed-upon and outlined in the Agreement. 14 Good cause exists to grant the Parties’ joint motion. As noted above, the Experts’ full 15 commencement of work under the Agreement was delayed due to various factors, including but not 16 limited to the COVID-19 pandemic. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). As a result of this delay, the 17 Experts were not able to complete their work under the Agreement by January 2021 and required 18 additional time to complete their work under the Agreement. 19 Moreover, the Parties believe that a stay is justified because it will: (1) promote judicious use 20 of the Parties’ and Court’s time and resources; and (2) offer the opportunity for speedy resolution 21 and relief without protracted litigation, which is particularly critical where, as here, certain Plaintiffs 22 are children and Defendants are governmental entities or officials. Given the Parties’ negotiations to 23 date, the Parties believe that a negotiated global resolution of this matter is viable, if given time to 24 engage in the activities necessary to reach such a resolution. The Parties also agree that these 25 activities would be significantly hindered if the Parties also had to engage in simultaneous motion 26 and discovery practice. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, any Party may withdraw from settlement 2 negotiations with sufficient advance written notice. If that occurs, the Parties will inform the Court 3 so that the Court may lift the stay accordingly. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Based upon the foregoing, the Parties respectfully move the Court to enter an order: 6 (1) Staying this litigation for all purposes for three more months, to August 4, 2022, including 7 temporarily excusing the Parties from complying with this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling 8 Order (ECF No. 4), so that the Parties can focus on and engage in structured settlement 9 negotiations; and 10 (2) Extending the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint until 30 days after the 11 stay is lifted upon order of this Court, should negotiations be unsuccessful or terminated by 12 the Parties. 13 14 DATED: April 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 15 EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY 16 17 /s/ Mona Tawatao (as authorized on April 27, 2022) 18 MONA TAWATAO Attorneys for Plaintiffs 19 20 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 21 22 /s/ Ramaah Sadasivam (as authorized on April 27, 2022) RAMAAH SADASIVAM 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 24 25 NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 26 27 /s/ Michael Harris (as authorized on April 27, 2022) MICHAEL HARRIS 28 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1 WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY 2 3 /s/ Antionette Dozier (as authorized on April 27, 2022) 4 ANTIONETTE DOZIER Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5 6 7 DATED: April 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 8 9 LOZANO SMITH 10 11 /s/ Sloan Simmons (as authorized on April 27, 2022) SLOAN SIMMONS 12 Attorneys for Defendant 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS (cont’d. from first page) 2 RAMAAH SADASIVAM (SBN: 267156) 3 BRIDGET CLAYCOMB (SBN: 312001) Disability Rights California 4 1000 Broadway, Suite 395 Oakland, California 94612 5 Telephone: (510) 267-1200 Facsimile: (510) 267-1201 6 Email: ramaah.sadasivam@disabilityrightsca.org 7 bridget.claycomb@disabilityrightsca.org 8 MICHAEL HARRIS (SBN: 118234) 9 ATASI UPPAL (SBN: 330716) 10 National Center for Youth Law 1212 Broadway, Suite 600 11 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 835-8098 12 Facsimile: (410) 835-8099 13 Email: mharris@youthlaw.org auppal@youthlaw.org 14 15 ANTIONETTE DOZIER (SBN: 244437) RICHARD ROTHSCHILD (SBN: 67356) 16 Western Center on Law and Poverty 3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208 17 Los Angeles, California 90010 18 Telephone: (213) 487-7211 Facsimile: (213) 487-0242 19 Email: adozier@wclp.org 20 rrothschild@wclp.org 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Pursuant to the foregoing Joint Motion of the Parties, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING 3 | THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 (1) This action is temporarily stayed for three months, to August 4, 2022, for all purposes to 5 enable the Parties to focus on and engage in settlement efforts; 6 (2) While this stay is in effect, the Parties are excused from complying with this Court’s 7 Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 4); and 8 (3) While this stay is in effect, the Defendants are not required to file a responsive pleading 9 until 30 days after any stay in this action is lifted. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. () jf □□ 12 . “ } hohay Dated: April 28, 2022 —_— a 13 Troy L. Nunley } 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Not. & Joint Mot. For Further Extension of Stay of Litigation & Order □□□□ Black Parallel School Board et al. v. SCUSD et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01768-TLN-KJN