M.M. et al v. Lafayette School District et al

Filing 171

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 168 Administrative Motion. The court approves the minor's compromise. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

M.M., et al.,

Case No. 10-cv-04223-SI (LB)
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE
OF MINOR'S CLAIMS

v.

14
15

LAFAYETTE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 168

Defendants.

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

This case concerns C.M. and his parents’ claims against the defendants — Lafayette School

19

District and Lafayette Board of Education — for an alleged failure to provide C.M. with a free and

20

appropriate public education in relation to his special education needs as a student with a specific

21

learning disability.1 C.M. is a high-school student with disability-related deficits in reading and

22

processing.2
In 2009, the plaintiffs first initiated administrative proceedings against the defendants under

23
24

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, and the

25

Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.3 The administrative law judge denied all relief and the

26
1

ECF No. 168‒1 at 2.

27

2

Id.

28

3

Id. at 1.

ORDER — No. 10-cv-04223-SI

1

plaintiffs appealed the decision in the United States District Court.4 The district court affirmed the

2

decision; the plaintiffs then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.5 The Ninth Circuit reversed the district

3

court’s order and remanded to the district court.6 The parties disputed the scope of the Ninth

4

Circuit’s mandate, but the district court determined that the plaintiff’s remedy was reimbursement

5

of educational services that the parents funded through June 2009.7 In 2016, the district court

6

awarded the plaintiffs $16,654.02 as full reimbursement for the educational services the parents

7

had funded through June 2009.8 The parties then engaged in court-assisted settlement negotiations

8

and ultimately reached a settlement.9 The plaintiffs now ask the court to approve the settlement of

9

C.M.’s claims.10 The court finds that the proposed settlement is reasonable and in the best interests

10

of C.M. and grants the plaintiffs’ petition for approval of the settlement.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
GOVERNING LAW

12

“District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to

13
14
15
16
17

safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181
(9th Cir. 2011). “Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court ‘must appoint a
guardian ad litem — or issue another appropriate order — to protect a minor or incompetent
person who is unrepresented in an action.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). “In the context of
proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court

18

to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the

19
minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir.
20
1978)).
21
22
23
4

Id. at 3.

24

5

Id.

25

6

Id.

7

Id.

8

Id. at 4.

27

9

Id.

28

10

26

Id. at 1.

ORDER — No. 10-cv-04223-SI

2

The Ninth Circuit has also made clear that, in cases involving the settlement of federal claims,

1
2

district courts should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net amount

3

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

4

the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases,” and should “evaluate the

5

fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total

6

settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel — whose interests the

7

district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-82 (citing Dacanay,

8

573 F.2d at 1078).

9
ANALYSIS

10

Under the settlement, the defendants will pay $385,000, allocated as follows: (1) the plaintiffs

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

will receive $82,500 as reimbursement for educational services they funded for C.M. and litigation
expenses; and (2) attorney Lina Foltz will receive $302,500 for attorney’s fees for this case and all
related cases.11
C.M.’s parents personally funded C.M.’s education through Tilden Preparatory School,

15
16
17

thereby advancing their goal to provide C.M. the special-education services that he needs. The
court finds the settlement reasonable: it reimburses the parents for funding C.M.’s education and
the litigation expenses, and it provides reasonable attorney’s fees.

18
19
CONCLUSION
20
The court approves the minor’s compromise.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: January 24, 2017
24
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28

11

Id. at 4.

ORDER — No. 10-cv-04223-SI

3