T.V. et al v. Sacramento City Unified School District

Filing 55

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 08/14/18 GRANTING 43 Motion to approve the minors' settlement; APPROVES the proposed settlement and ORDERS as follows: Defendant shall issue a check for $100,000.00 payable to Leigh Law Group client trust account. From that amount, Leigh Law Group shall issue the following checks: (a) $31,700.02, payable to Leigh Law Group, P.C.; (b) $683.00, payable to the guardian of D.S.; (c) $1,366.00, payable to the guardi an of J.S.; (d) $7,513.00, payable to D.S. to be deposited into a federally insured blocked account; (e) $14,684.50, payable to I.S. to be deposited into a federally insured blocked account; (f) $14,684.50, payable to I.S.'s parents; (g) $9,789.66, payable to T.V. to be deposited into a federally insured blocked account; (h) $9,789.66, payable to A.V. to be deposited into a federally insured blocked account; (i) $9,789.66, payable to A.V. and T.V.'s parents. Mr. Jambeck shall file proof of the payments specified within 60 days, along with a stipulated dismissal. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

T.V., et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-0889-KJM-AC

v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.

16
17
18

Six minors, all students of Hispanic heritage, allege they were denied entry to the

19

Sacramento City Unified School District’s Gifted and Talented Education (“GATE”) Program

20

and faced race-based peer harassment as a result. The minors, referred to here as T.V., A.V.,

21

I.M., D.S., J.S. and A.S., are all proceeding through guardians ad litem. Third Am. Compl.

22

(“TAC”), ECF No. 24, ¶ 1. The minors and four parents sue the District for civil rights

23

violations. The parties settled and plaintiffs now jointly move to approve the minors’ portion of

24

the settlement. Mot., ECF No. 43. The court heard the motion on August 10, 2018. H’rg Mins.,

25

ECF No. 54. Guardians ad litem appeared for each minor, either in person or telephonically. See

26

id. As explained below, the motion is GRANTED.

27

////

28
1

1
2
3

I.

BACKGROUND
A. Factual and Procedural background
At all relevant times, the six minors were elementary school students at David

4

Lubin Elementary. TAC ¶ 5. Each minor is of full or mixed Hispanic heritage and alleges he or

5

she was systemically denied consideration for the City’s GATE Program for higher-achieving

6

students, despite being potentially qualified. See id. ¶¶ 5-8. The minors were subjected to

7

racialized peer harassment, with some minors being called “poor,” “dumb,” “beaner” and

8

“ghetto” to their faces, and being referred to as part of the “ghetto class.” See id. ¶¶ 13, 17-21.

9

When I.M.’s parents and siblings A.V. and T.V.’s parents confronted the administration, the

10

parents and their children were retaliated against, treated coldly and ostracized. Id. ¶¶ 22-26.

11

Plaintiffs collectively sued the School District for creating a hostile school

12

environment, for disparate treatment and retaliation, all under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

13

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Id. ¶¶ 28-49. In January 2018, after a mid-litigation status conference,

14

the court referred this case to the court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (VDRP). See

15

ECF No. 40. In April 2018, the parties participated in a full day of mediation before VDRP

16

panelist Carolyn G. Burnette, during which they reached a proposed $100,000.00 settlement. See

17

Min. Order, ECF No. 42 (acknowledging notice of settlement). On May 16, 2018, plaintiffs filed

18

this unopposed motion to approve the settlement as it pertains to the minors’ claims. See Mot.

19

Finding the motion contained insufficient detail and authority, the court ordered supplemental

20

briefing and continued the hearing to August 10, 2018. Order, ECF No. 48. Plaintiffs filed their

21

supplemental briefing on July 28, 2018, and August 8, 2018. See ECF Nos. 49-51, 53.

22
23

B. Proposed Settlement
The proposed $100,000.00 settlement is to be divided among all plaintiffs based

24

on their relative harm as reflected in their deposition testimony. See Mot. at 2; See Exs. A-J,

25

Suppl. Jambeck Decl., ECF No. 50 (deposition excerpts). The settlement agreement also

26

contemplates an attorneys’ fee award totaling $31,700.02, to be deducted pro rata from each

27

plaintiff’s award. Suppl. Br., ECF No. 49, at 3. The net proposed award breaks down as follows:

28
2

1

D.S.1 will receive $683.00; J.S. will receive $1,366.00; D.S. will receive $7,513.00; I.M. will

2

receive $14,684.50; I.M.’s parents will receive $14,684.50; T.V. and A.V. will each receive

3

$9,789.66; and T.V. and A.V.’s parents will jointly receive $9,789.66. Id. The court must assess

4

whether the total net settlement sum, and each proposed division, is in the best interest of each

5

minor.

6

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

7

District courts have a duty to protect the interests of minor or incompetent

8

litigants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2) (requiring a district to “appoint a guardian ad litem—or

9

issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented

10

in an action”). When a case settles, this special duty requires a district court to “conduct its own

11

inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Robidoux v.

12

Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075,

13

1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also E.D. Cal. L. R. 202(b) (“No claim by or against a minor or

14

incompetent person may be settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the

15

settlement or compromise.”). Specifically, district courts must assess whether the “net amount

16

distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of

17

the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-

18

82. As reviewed at hearing, the fairness evaluation focuses only on what the minor plaintiff

19

receives, without regard to what adult plaintiffs and attorneys might receive. Id. at 1182.

20

III.

DISCUSSION

21

Here, based on the record before the court as clarified at hearing, the proposed net

22

settlement sums appear fair and reasonable. In reaching this conclusion, the court has reviewed

23

the record and recovery in cases roughly analogous to this one, while recognizing the paucity of

24

settlements on all fours. See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-82.

25

/////

26
27
28

1

Two of the minors share the initials “D.S.,” but are distinguished here by their different
genders and recovery amounts. At hearing, the court and parties referred to the “first D.S.” and
the “second D.S.,” consistent with the order in which they are presented in this order.
3

1

A. The Record

2
3

The minors’ and parents’ deposition excerpts, which describe the totality of harm
each minor endured, support each minor’s proposed settlement. See Jambeck Decl. Exs. A-J.

4

D.S. receives the lowest net sum, totaling $683.00. See Suppl. Br. at 3. This

5

figure is based on her relatively short time in the hostile environment, which lasted only six

6

months, and her testimony that she did not personally experience any name calling or other

7

harassment. D.S. Dep. (Ex. A) at 35-36. At hearing, D.S.’s guardian ad litem confirmed this sum

8

is fair and reasonable.

9

The next lowest sum, totaling $1,366, goes to J.S. Suppl. Br, at 3. This sum is

10

likewise supported by the record, as J.S. was in the allegedly hostile environment for longer than

11

D.S., though the record provided does not state precisely how long. See generally J.S. Dep. (Ex.

12

B); see also Suppl. Br. at 1-3. J.S. likewise admitted the school environment did not significantly

13

affect him. J.D. Dep. at 29. At hearing, J.S.’s guardian ad litem confirmed this sum is fair and

14

reasonable.

15

D.S. receives a greater amount, $7,513. Suppl. Br. at 3. The figure is based on his

16

testimony that he was directly called names like “ghetto,” and he felt stigmatized based on the

17

school division such that he was unable to socialize with school friends. D.S. Dep. (Ex. C) at 34,

18

73. The award is lower than the three minors discussed next, in part because D.S. testified that he

19

does not suffer lingering effects, as he has since moved on and is working toward his higher

20

education. Id. At hearing, D.S.’s guardian ad litem confirmed this sum is fair and reasonable.

21

Siblings T.V. and A.V. receive the second highest amount of $9,789.66 each.

22

Suppl. Br, at 3. The court has reservations regarding these awards: They are identical despite

23

T.V.’s admitting he was never directly called names, while A.V. testified she was directly called

24

names like “ghetto,” “dumb” and “poor” and part of the “ghetto class” for at least two years, with

25

increasing frequency over those two years. See A.V. Dep. (Ex. H) at 29, 32-33; T.V. Dep. (Ex.

26

G) at 68. Nonetheless, counsel and each guardian ad litem confirmed at hearing that these sums

27

are warranted; as counsel explained, in their views, T.V. was significantly affected including by

28

/////
4

1

his inclusion in what was frequently referred to as the “ghetto class.” See T.V. Dep. at 68. At

2

hearing, T.V. and A.V.’s guardian ad litem confirmed this sum is fair and reasonable.
I.M. receives the highest amount, totaling $14,684.50. Suppl. Br. at 3.2 The court

3
4

reviewed its questions with counsel over the discrepancy between I.M.’s award and the other

5

minors’ awards, but the guardians ad litem for all plaintiffs have confirmed the total is fair. As

6

counsel explained, I.M. testified that he was directly called “ghetto,” “beaner,” “poor” and

7

“dumb,” which caused him more pronounced psychological ramifications than the other minors,

8

including temporary suicidal ideation. See I.M. Dep. (Ex. E) at 32-36, 46.

9

Two groups of parents are to receive payments based on the retaliation they

10

experienced from District employees after confronting the school about the G.A.T.E. program’s

11

disparate treatment of Hispanic students. See Suppl. Br. at 3. A.V. and T.V.’s parents are slated

12

to receive $9,789.66, and I.M.’s parents $14,684.50. Id. Although the court and counsel

13

reviewed these awards at hearing, with the guardians ad litem present, parental awards ultimately

14

are irrelevant to the court’s fairness evaluation as to each minor. See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181.

15

Based on this record and all affirmations from the guardians ad litem at hearing,

16

the court is satisfied the minors’ individual awards are fairly related to and supported by the facts

17

as described in their depositions. See Jambeck Decl. Exs. A-J.

18

B. Recovery in Similar Cases

19
20

In assessing whether the proposed recoveries are fair and reasonable, courts look
recoveries that have been approved in similar cases. See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182.

21

For these comparisons, courts use the net settlement figure for the minors’ claims

22

exclusively, separate from all fees and parental awards. See id. Here, the $100,000.00 settlement

23

contemplates an attorneys’ fee award totaling $31,700.02, to be deducted pro rata from each

24

plaintiff’s award. Suppl. Br. at 3. That deduction results in a net settlement of $68,299.98. Id.

25

Of that net total, two amounts are reserved for the parents of plaintiffs: as noted, I.M.’s parents

26

will receive $14,684.50, and T.V. and A.V.’s parents will receive $9,789.66. Id. With those

27
28

2

As noted at hearing, the supplemental brief contains a typographical error on page 3
where it refers to I.S. and I.S.’s parents instead of I.M. and I.M.’s parents.
5

1

deductions, the net settlement for the minors’ claims totals $43,825.82. The numbers set forth

2

above for each minor reflect the net settlement amount that minor will receive. At hearing,

3

counsel agreed the court has calculated the final figure correctly.

4

Counsel both acknowledged they have struggled to identify factually analogous

5

Title VI cases approving similar recoveries. Plaintiffs identified Santamaria v. Dall. Indep. Sch.

6

Dist., No. 3:06-CV-692-L, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83417 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2006). See Notice

7

of Suppl. Authority, ECF No. 53. Yet that case did not involve a settlement at all, let alone one

8

approved by the court. See Santamaria, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *163-164 (court awarding

9

$100.00 each to three minors of Hispanic descent for claims of segregation under Title VI of the

10

Civil Rights Act of 1964). At hearing, defense counsel identified a 2004 case from the District of

11

Minnesota, which involved allegations that a school district discriminated against two minors

12

based on their national origin and created a hostile school environment. See Fox v. Indep. Sch.

13

Dist. No. 2609, Case No. 01-1701-RHK/RLE, 2004 WL 1243405, *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 12, 2004).

14

Though dated and from another jurisdiction, Fox proves helpful as the court there approved a

15

$25,000.00 settlement, with each minor receiving $10,000.00 and the parents receiving

16

$5,000.00. Id. The $10,000.00 figure is comparable to A.V.’s and T.V.’s awards here, of

17

$9,789.66 each. Suppl. Br. at 3. That figure also represents a rough average of the six minors’

18

awards, which range from $683.00 to $14,684.50. See id. The recoveries in Fox are therefore

19

comparable to the recoveries here.

20

The court has not separately identified case law approving division of a net

21

settlement amount in a manner comparable to the division proposed here, with some minors

22

receiving a substantially lower sum than others. Nonetheless, given the basis for the

23

discrepancies described above, as well as the discussion with counsel and each guardian ad litem

24

at hearing, the court ultimately is persuaded that each minor’s net sum is fair and reasonable.

25

IV.

CONCLUSION

26

The court finds the proposed settlement serves the minors’ best interests.

27

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion; APPROVES the proposed settlement; and

28

ORDERS as follows:
6

1

1.

Defendant shall issue a check in the amount of $100,000.00 payable to Leigh Law

2
3

Group client trust account.
2.

From that amount, Leigh Law Group shall issue the following checks:

4

(a) $31,700.02, payable to Leigh Law Group, P.C.

5

(b) $683.00, payable to the guardian of D.S. for her benefit.

6

(c) $1,366.00, payable to the guardian of J.S. for her benefit.

7

(d) $7,513.00, payable to D.S. to be deposited into a federally insured blocked
account.3

8
9

(e) $14,684.50, payable to I.S. to be deposited into a federally insured blocked

10

account.

11

(f) $14,684.50, payable to I.S.’s parents for their own benefit.

12

(g) $9,789.66, payable to T.V. to be deposited into a federally insured blocked

13

account.

14

(h) $9,789.66, payable to A.V. to be deposited into a federally insured blocked

15

account.

16
17

(i) $9,789.66, payable to A.V. and T.V.’s parents for their own benefit.
3.

As discussed at hearing, Mr. Jambeck shall file proof of the payments specified in 2

18

(a)-(i) within 60 days, along with a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

This resolves ECF No. 43.

22

DATED: August 14, 2018.

23
24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

3

The California Probate Code provides that funds owed to a minor that exceed $5,000.00
must be deposited into a federally insured blocked account, while funds below that threshold may
be given directly to the minor’s guardian. See Cal. Prob. Code §§ 3401(c), 3611(e).
7