Markham v. Tehachapi Unified School District
Filing
24
ORDER adopting 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant the Minor's Compromise signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/11/2019. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
K.M.,
Case No.: 1:17-cv-01431 LJO JLT
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT THE
MINOR’S COMPROMISE
(Doc. 47)
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
_____________________________________
17
BRENDA MARKHAM,
18
Case No.: 1:15-cv-01835 LJO JLT
Plaintiff,
19
(Doc. 69)
v.
20
21
22
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
23
BRENDA MARKHAM,
24
Case No.: 1:18-cv-00303 LJO JLT
Plaintiff,
25
(Doc. 22)
v.
26
27
28
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
1
1
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
2
Plaintiff,
3
4
5
Case No.: 1:16-cv-01942 LJO JLT
(Doc. 53)
v.
K.M.,
Defendant.
6
7
In the first-captioned action listed above, K.M., through her guardian ad litem/mother seek
8
damages from under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities
9
Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Unruh Act for being denied a free appropriate public education. In
10
addition, the parties also have been in litigation in other cases, including, Markham v. Tehachapi
11
Unified School District, Case No.: 1:15-cv-01835 LJO JLT, Markham v. Tehachapi Unified School
12
District, Case No.: 1:18-cv-00303 LJO JLT and Markham v. Tehachapi Unified School District v.
13
Markham, Case No.: 1:16-cv-01942 LJO JLT.1 The parties have settled all of these actions, pending
14
approval of this Court of the minor’s compromise.
15
On February 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered findings and
16
recommendations (“F&Rs”), recommending that the global settlement/minor’s compromise be
17
approved, reasoning that the settlement provides the child significant benefit and services that seem to
18
best serve her needs. Doc. 47.
19
20
All parties in all cases listed above were provided an opportunity to file objections to the F&Rs
within 14 days. Id. at 8; Local Rule 304. No objections were filed.
21
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court
22
has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds
23
the F&Rs to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
24
25
Accordingly, the petition to approve settlement of the minor’s claims is GRANTED and the
settlement is APPROVED IN FULL.
26
27
1
28
As was the practice employed in the F&Rs themselves, for ease of drafting, the docket references in this order
are only to K.M. v. Tehachapi Unified School District, Case No.: 1;17-cv-01431 LJO JLT, the case in which the original
petition for approval of the minor’s compromise was filed.
2
1
2
The Parties are DIRECTED to file with the Court a stipulation for dismissal of the action with
prejudice, and lodge a separate order, pursuant to the schedule set forth in the F&Rs.
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
April 11, 2019
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?