J.M.B. et al v. Red Bluff Joint Union High School District

Filing 38

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/29/2021 DISMISSING this Action with Prejudice, Constituting a Final Dismissal of this Action. CASE CLOSED.(Becknal, R)

1 Sloan R. Simmons, SBN 233752
LOZANO SMITH
2 One Capitol Mall, Suite 640
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
4
Attorneys for Defendant
5 RED BLUFF JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOZANO SMITH
One Capitol Mall, Suite 640, Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

10
11 T.S., by and through their next friend JERAMIE
STRUTHERS; J.M.B. and J.E.B., by and through
12 their next fried JAMES BRANDT; E.A., by and
through her next friend HAZEL BRANDT; C.K.
13 by and through her next friend TERESA HILL;
and G.K. by and through her next friend
14 LESLIANN JONES and all others similarly
situated,
15
Plaintiffs,
16
vs.
17
RED BLUFF JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL
18 DISTRICT,
19

Case No. 2:17-CV-00489-TLN-EFB
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
MONITORING PERIOD; AND ORDER RE:
FINAL DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Judge:
Courtroom:
Action Filed:

Hon. Troy L. Nunley
7
March 7, 2017

Defendant.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not. of Completion of Settlement Monitoring Period;
& Order Re: Final Dismissal With Prejudice

T.S., et al v. Red Bluff JUHSD, et al.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00489-TLN-EFB

1
2
3

TO THE HONORABLE COURT, PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD
HEREIN:
Defendant RED BLUFF JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (“District”) hereby

4

requests that you PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING and correspondingly requests the

5

Court enter a Final Dismissal with Prejudice in this action:

6

1.

This action was initiated on March 7, 2017. ECF DOC. NO. 1.

7

2.

On November 14, 2017, the Parties jointly moved the Court for an order “concerning the

8

Parties’ settlement of the . . . Action . . . , which, if entered, conditionally dismisses the Action, without

9

prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41 (a)(2), with this Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the

LOZANO SMITH
One Capitol Mall, Suite 640, Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

10

settlement.” ECF DOC. NO. 31 at 2. The joint motion also sought the Court to retain jurisdiction and, at

11

a later date, enter a final dismissal with prejudice in the action, following certain conditions having been

12

met. ECF DOC. NO. 31 at 2. Attached to said request and motion as Exhibit A was the proposed order

13

on the motion, and attached as Exhibit B was an endorsed copy of the parties’ subject settlement

14

agreement. See ECF DOC. NO. 31 at 3-53.

15

3.

On November 16, 2017, the Court entered an order which served to enter the Parties’

16

settlement agreement, conditionally dismissing the action without prejudice, with the Court retaining

17

jurisdiction. ECF DOC. NO. 33. Among other provisions, the Court’s November 16, 2017 Order

18

provided: “that the Court shall issue a final judgment with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54

19

and subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, on occurrence of one of the events representing fulfillment of the

20

Settlement Agreement as provided in Section F.7 of the Agreement[.]” ECF DOC. NO. 33 at 2. The

21

Court’s order also provided “that for all other purposes, this civil action is to be placed on the inactive

22

docket, subject to recall to the active docket, should enforcement of the Agreement be necessary.”

23

ECF DOC. NO. 33 at 2.

24

4.

Consistent with the November 14, 2017 motion, and the Court’s November 16, 2017

25

order, Paragraph F.7 of the parties’ settlement agreement provides as follows, in relevant part: “If the

26

Court grants the parties’ motion for a conditional dismissal, then a conditional dismissal will be

27

followed by a final dismissal with prejudice either on performance of the terms of the Agreement

28
Not. of Completion of Settlement Monitoring Period;
& Order Re: Final Dismissal With Prejudice

-2-

T.S., et al v. Red Bluff JUHSD, et al.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00489-TLN-EFB

1

at the end of the three year term, or as stipulated to by the parties unless Plaintiffs successfully

2

petition to extend the term of the agreement.” ECF DOC. NO. 31 at 12 (emphasis added).

3

5.

The terms which the District was obligated to complete under the settlement agreement

4

are set forth at pages 8 through 19 of the agreement, all of which were subject to monitoring for

5

compliance by an Independent Title IX Consultant, as set forth at pages 17 and 18 of the settlement

6

agreement. See ECF DOC. NO. 31 at 16-27.

7

6.

The term of the Court’s continuing jurisdiction, overlapping with the settlement

8

agreement monitoring period of the Independent Title IX Consultant, was three years, and that three

9

year period concluded in the fall of 2020. See ECF DOC. NO. 31 at 26.

LOZANO SMITH
One Capitol Mall, Suite 640, Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

10

7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference is the October 30, 2017

11

letter to the District from the Independent Title IX Consultant, in which the Independent Title IX

12

Consultant confirms the District’s successful completion and satisfaction of the settlement agreement

13

during the three-year monitoring period, and otherwise successful implementation of the District’s

14

obligations under the settlement agreement terms. See EX. A at 3.

15

8.

Based upon the District’s successful satisfaction of the settlement agreement’s terms as

16

memorialized by the Independent Title IX Consultant in Exhibit A, pursuant to this Court’s November

17

16, 2017 Order and paragraph F.7 of the Parties’ settlement agreement, the Court must now enter a

18

“final dismissal with prejudice . . . on performance of the terms of the agreement at the end of the three

19

year term . . . .” See ECF DOC. NO. 31 at 12.

20

Dated: January 28, 2021

21

Respectfully Submitted,
LOZANO SMITH

22
/s/ Sloan R. Simmons
SLOAN R. SIMMONS
Attorney for Defendant
RED BLUFF JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT

23
24
25
26
27
28
Not. of Completion of Settlement Monitoring Period;
& Order Re: Final Dismissal With Prejudice

-3-

T.S., et al v. Red Bluff JUHSD, et al.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00489-TLN-EFB

1

ORDER

2

Pursuant to the foregoing Notice, the Court’s November 16, 2017 Order, and the Parties’

3

Settlement Agreement entered by this Court on November 6, 2017, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

4

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

The District having successfully completed satisfaction of the terms of the Parties’ Settlement

6

Agreement over the designated three-year monitoring period, this Action is Dismissed with Prejudice,

7

constituting a final dismissal of this Action, and this Action is hereby closed.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2021

LOZANO SMITH
One Capitol Mall, Suite 640, Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

10

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not. of Completion of Settlement Monitoring Period;
& Order Re: Final Dismissal With Prejudice

-4-

T.S., et al v. Red Bluff JUHSD, et al.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00489-TLN-EFB