D.G. v. Antioch Unified School District ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 D. G., et al., Case No. 19-cv-01576-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR'S 9 v. COMPROMISE 10 ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Re: Dkt. No. 24 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff D.G.’s motion for approval of the compromise, filed 14 by and through his guardians ad litem Michele A. and Daniel G. (“Plaintiffs”). See Dkt. No. 24. 15 For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion for approval of the compromise. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 On July 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a special education due process complaint 18 (“Administrative Claim”) against Defendant Antioch Unified School District. See Dkt. No. 1 19 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”), & Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. 1. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated the 20 Individual with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) by failing to provide D.G., an eight-year-old 21 child, with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) when it did not adequately assess him in 22 all areas of suspected disability. Id. 23 On December 28, 2018, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted Plaintiffs’ requested 24 relief in part (“OAH Decision”). See Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. B. The ALJ concluded that D.G. was 25 eligible for special education; ordered Defendant to convene an Individual Education Program 26 (“IEP”) team meeting; and awarded D.G. 250 hours of academic tutoring. Id. at 27–33, 38–40. 27 However, the ALJ denied Plaintiffs’ other requests for relief. Id. 1 to partially overturn the OAH Decision to the extent that the ALJ did not find that the Defendant’s 2 psychoeducational evaluation was inadequate; did not order an occupational therapy evaluation; 3 and did not find that D.G. required speech and language services. See Compl. ¶¶ 29–50. Plaintiffs 4 also sought attorneys’ fees and costs as a prevailing party in the administrative proceeding, 5 pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). See id. at ¶¶ 51–54. 6 On August 30, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement, in which (1) Defendant 7 will pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees incurred in the administrative proceeding in the amount of 8 $75,000; and in exchange, (2) Plaintiffs will release and discharge Defendant from any and all 9 claims arising from the administrative proceeding or this action; and regarding the FAPE that 10 Defendant offered or provided on or before November 19, 2018. See Dkt. No. 24-2. Defendant 11 has approved the settlement and did not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. See Dkt. No. 25. 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 14 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 15 (9th Cir. 2011); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (providing that district court “must appoint a guardian ad 16 litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is 17 unrepresented in an action”). When there is a proposed settlement in a suit involving a minor 18 plaintiff, this “special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine 19 whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 20 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). As part of this inquiry, the 21 “court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s 22 claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, even if the settlement has been 23 recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” Salmeron v. United 24 States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983). The district court must review “whether the net 25 amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the 26 facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 27 1182. But the court must disregard the “proportion of the total settlement value designated for 1 interests. Id. 2 III. DISCUSSION 3 Based on its review of Plaintiffs’ submissions, the Court finds that the proposed settlement 4 is fair and reasonable and serves the best interests of the minor. The Court first notes that this 5 settlement is atypical in that the entire amount of the settlement will be applied toward the 6 attorneys’ fees that D.G.’s family incurred in pursuing his rights in the Administrative Claim and 7 in this action. See Dkt. No. 24-2. As such, D.G. will not directly receive any of the money. Id. 8 Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel of record will receive $75,000 as attorneys’ fees. Id. Plaintiffs’ 9 counsel, though its fees to date exceed $89,000, has agreed to accept this payment as full 10 compensation, and will not pursue the balance from Plaintiffs. See Dkt. No. 24-3 ¶¶ 3–6, 8. 11 Despite this unusual structure, the Court finds the settlement fair and reasonable given the 12 substantial difficulties and uncertainties in continuing to litigate Plaintiffs’ claims. See Dkt. No. 13 24-3 ¶ 9; cf. Escondido Union Sch. Dist. v. Chandrasekar, No. 18CV02873JLBNLS, 2019 WL 14 3945356, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019) (approving minor’s compromise comprising attorneys’ 15 fees in similar context). If this case had continued, there is no certainty that Plaintiffs would have 16 prevailed on their claims. Moreover, although there is no settlement amount to distribute to the 17 minor, Defendant has complied with the OAH Decision, which directed substantial resources for 18 D.G.’s benefit: Defendant has placed D.G. on an IEP and D.G. is in the process of receiving 250 19 hours of compensatory education in reading, math, and written expression. See Dkt. No. 24 at 2. 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for approval of the compromise of the action 21 and directs the parties to disburse the proceeds of the settlement as detailed in the Final Settlement 22 Agreement, dated August 30, 2019, see Dkt. No. 24-2, Ex. 2. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for compromise. The parties are 3 || DIRECTED to file a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 || 41(a)(1)(A)Gy, which does not require an order of approval from the Court, by October 11, 2019. 5 The Court further VACATES the telephonic conference currently scheduled for October 1, 2019. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: October 1, 2019 Ataspurerd 3. Sb bp HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28