W. v. Turlock Unified School District ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 S.W., Case No. 1:20-cv-00266-DAD-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONERS TO 13 SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN v. SUPPORT OF PETITION TO 14 COMPROMISE TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 15 et al., (ECF No. 24) 16 Defendants. FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE 17 18 On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a joint petition for an incompetent’s compromise. (Pet., 19 ECF No. 24.) The matter is set for hearing on June 15, 2022. (ECF No. 25.) 20 Pursuant to Local Rule 202, a petition for approval of a proposed settlement of an 21 incompetent’s claims must disclose, among other things, the following: 22 the age and sex of the minor or incompetent, the nature of the causes of action to be settled or compromised, the facts and circumstances out of which the causes of 23 action arose, including the time, place and persons involved, the manner in which the compromise amount or other consideration was determined, including such 24 additional information as may be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or compromise, and, if a personal injury claim, the 25 nature and extent of the injury with sufficient particularity to inform the Court whether the injury is temporary or permanent. If reports of physicians or other 26 similar experts have been prepared, such reports shall be provided to the Court. The Court may also require the filing of experts’ reports when none have 27 previously been prepared or additional experts’ reports if appropriate under the circumstances. Reports protected by an evidentiary privilege may be submitted in 1 submission to all parties. 2 L.R. 202(b)(2). 3 While the petition generally names the causes of action and the affirmative defenses 4 asserted (Pet. 2-3), it does not identify “the facts and circumstances out of which the causes of 5 action arose, including the time, place and persons involved.” L.R. 202(b). Relatedly, the 6 petition notes the settlement was reached following a mediation, a fact that the Court typically 7 finds to support the reasonableness of a proposed settlement. The petition also notes that counsel 8 believes the amount allocated to the special needs trust will be sufficient to cover the costs of 9 care for S.W., to provide compensatory services she requires as a result of the incidents, and that 10 Defendant disputes causation of the injuries and damages. However, the Court finds that given 11 the lack of description of the facts and circumstances surrounding the causes of action, the 12 petition does not currently provide sufficient information for the Court to properly consider “the 13 manner in which the compromise amount or other consideration was determined,” and the Court 14 finds the petition currently requires supplementation of information “including such additional 15 information as may be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or 16 compromise.” L.R. 202(b)(2). The supplemental briefing shall provide such information. 17 The Local Rule specifies the following information should be disclosed regarding 18 personal injury claims: “if a personal injury claim, the nature and extent of the injury with 19 sufficient particularity to inform the Court whether the injury is temporary or permanent. If 20 reports of physicians or other similar experts have been prepared, such reports shall be provided 21 to the Court.” L.R. 202(b)(2). While the complaint’s two causes of action are not generally 22 personal injury statutes, within the claims, Plaintiff contends that Defendant acted with deliberate 23 indifference, and Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the denial of proper special education 24 services, during the 2017-2018 school year, Plaintiff was unable to leave her home which caused 25 her to suffer health issues in addition to rotting teeth, conditions that became life threatening the 26 following year. Plaintiff alleges that the teeth rot led to weeks of fevers and pain and she spent 27 the majority of the twelfth grade in extreme oral pain, and if Defendant had provided appropriate support and services, she would have been able to leave her house and go to a doctor. (Compl 6, 1 8.) The prayer for relief includes a request for compensatory damages for injuries, as well as for 2 psychological and emotional distress. (Compl. 12) To the extent Plaintiff S.W. is alleging 3 personal injury, the supplemental briefing shall provide sufficient information for the Court to 4 determine whether the injury is temporary or permanent, any expert reports if those have been 5 prepared, and any other information proper under the Local Rule. 6 While the petition cites Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011), 7 including its guidance for the Court to review the settlement in relation to “recovery in similar 8 cases,” the petition provides no caselaw demonstrating the appropriateness of the settlement 9 amount here. The Petitioner shall provide supporting caselaw demonstrating the net recovery is 10 fair and reasonable in light of the recovery in similar cases. 11 Finally, the Court notes that the proposed settlement includes a term that “because S.W. 12 would technically continue to be a special education student through her twenty-second birthday, 13 the Settlement Agreement releases the Defendant of any legal responsibility to provide an 14 education to S.W. prospectively [and] includes a prospective waiver of special education claims 15 under the Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) and Section 504 of the 16 Rehabilitation Act.” (Pet. 3.) It is unclear whether this waiver may violate public policy laws. 17 See Y.G. v. Riverside Unified Sch. Dist., 774 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1064-65 (C.D. Cal. 2011) 18 (“Defendants argue that plaintiffs fail to state a claim under sections 1668 and 3513 because the 19 Agreement is a private settlement agreement pertaining to an individual student and parent, and 20 not the public at large [and] assert that to find otherwise would potentially render the majority of 21 waivers set forth in settlement agreements entered into by parties in special education matters 22 void on the basis that said agreements are primarily for the public purpose . . . [t]he Court finds 23 that the allegation that a prospective waiver of procedural and substantive rights under the IDEA 24 may be void as against public policy pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 1668 and 3513 is 25 “plausible on its face,” and therefore sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.”).1 Petitioners shall 26 1 The Court notes that it is unclear from a subsequent order in the Central District case whether the Court later considered such waiver to be appropriate or enforceable, though it appears the court did grant a motion to enforce 27 the settlement agreement without discussion of the waiver. See Y.G. v. Riverside Unified Sch. Dist., No. EDCV 10- 1002 CAS OPX, 2012 WL 2153957, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2012). 1 | address whether this prospective waiver may violate public policy laws. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners shall file supplemental briefing 3 | in support of the petition that addresses the issues discussed in this order, within fourteen (14) 4 | days of entry of this order. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ (Se 7 | Dated: _May 25, 2022 __ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28