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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 S.G.P., No. 1:22-cv-01066-ADA-CDB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 14 TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL APPROVAL OF THE COMPROMISE ON DISTRICT, BEHALF OF MINOR PLAINTIFF S.G.P. 15 Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 1, 14) 16 17 18 19 On August 22, 2022, plaintiff S.G.P., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem 20 Clarissa Parks, instituted this action by filing a petition for a minor’s compromise of “claims 21 arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), the Americans with 22 Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), and any 23 other known or unknown claims arising out of Plaintiff’s educational program.” (Doc. No. 1.) 24 The assigned Magistrate Judge found it appropriate to construe the petition both as a complaint 25 and as a petition for compromise of the minor’s settlement. (Doc. No. 9, citing P.R. by & through 26 Rice v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., No. 119CV00220DADBAM, 2019 WL 1651267, at *1 (E.D. 27 Cal. Apr. 17, 2019).). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 28 1 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.1 2 On September 23, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 3 recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s petition for approval of settlement be approved. 4 (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 5 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id at 17.) 6 The time in which to file objections has since passed and no objections have been filed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 8 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 9 Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the 10 record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 23, 2022 (Doc. No. 14) 13 are ADOPTED in full; 14 2. The petition to approve settlement of the minor’s claims (Doc. No. 1) 15 is GRANTED; and 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 1 This action was initially assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd, however, on August 24, 2022, was reassigned to 25 District Judge Ana de Alba. (Doc. No. 7.) Although District Judge de Alba’s standing order did not specify as to whether a petition for minor’s compromise should be set before the District Judge or the Magistrate Judge, Judge 26 Dale A. Drozd’s amended standing order in light of 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 27 recommendations. The assigned Magistrate Judge found it appropriate to set such motion before the Magistrate Judge unless there was a further order from the District Judge. (Doc. No. 9.) 28 1 3. The parties are directed to file with the Court a stipulation for dismissal of the 2 action with prejudice, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this 3 order. 4 5 6 | TPIS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: _ December 1, 2022 3 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28