L.H. et al v. Mill Valley School District

Filing 46

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 45 Motion for Settlement. The court grants the petition to approve the settlement. The court also sets a case-management conference for February 16, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2017)

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

L.H. by and through his parents Mike and
Kelly
Huff;

13
14

Case No. 3:15-cv-05751-HSG-LB
ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE
OF MINOR’S CLAIMS

Plaintiff,
15

Re: ECF No. 45

v.
16
MILL VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,

17

Defendant.

18

INTRODUCTION

19

The plaintiff L.H., by and through his guardians ad litem Mike and Kelly Huff, sued the

20
21

defendant for an alleged failure to provide a free and appropriate public education in relation to his

22

special education needs as a child with Down Syndrome.1 The parties have settled their dispute,

23

and L.H. now asks the court to approve the settlement of his claims.2 The defendant does not

24
25
26
27

Second Amended Compl. – ECF No. 33. Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File
(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
1

2

28

The essential terms of that settlement are discussed below; the full terms appear at ECF No. 45 at 2–
6.
ORDER — No. 3:15-cv-05751-HSG-LB

1

oppose the request.3 For the reasons stated below, the court grants L.H.’s petition and approves the

2

settlement.

3
GOVERNING LAW

4
5

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

6

safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181

7

(9th Cir. 2011). “Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court ‘must appoint a

8

guardian ad litem — or issue another appropriate order — to protect a minor or incompetent

9

person who is unrepresented in an action.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). “In the context of

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court
to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the
minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir.
1978)).
The Ninth Circuit has also made clear that, in cases involving the settlement of federal claims,

14
15
16
17
18
19

district courts should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net amount
distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of
the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases,” and should “evaluate the
fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total
settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel — whose interests the
district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82 (citing Dacanay,

20
573 F.2d at 1078).
21
22

ANALYSIS

23
24

L.H., through Mike and Kelly Huff as guardians ad litem, has agreed to settle his claims.4
Under the settlement defendant will pay $150,000 to L.H. for attorneys’ fees incurred during the

25
26
27

3

Id. at 1.

28

4

Id.

ORDER — No. 3:15-cv-05751-HSG-LB

2

1

due process hearing and present litigation.5 Furthermore, the defendant will fund and contract with

2

an inclusion expert, specifically Dr. Paula Gardner from Sacramento State University.6 Dr.

3

Gardner will conduct an inclusion assessment of L.H, present her findings at an IEP meeting for

4

L.H., and be available for monthly consultation sessions with district staff and/or parents at the

5

request of the district and/or parents for the remainder of the 2016–2017 school year.7 The contract

6

with Dr. Gardner terminates on June 16, 2017. 8 The contract shall state that the total amount to be

7

paid to Dr. Gardner shall not exceed $12,000.9 Other than the terms and conditions set forth

8

herein, the district retains full discretion to negotiate and agree to any and all other terms and

9

conditions with Dr. Gardner.10
As a result of the due process hearing, L.H. was awarded and has already received (1) a

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

doctorate-level Board Certified Behavior Analyst to conduct a functional behavior assessment of
L.H. along with two hours of time paid for by the district for discussion of the findings at an IEP;
(2) development and implementation of a behavior support plan, including the cost for the
behavior analyst to attend up to two hours of any IEP meeting for L.H. convened to discuss the
proposed behavior support plan; (3) 12 hours per month of behavior intervention services by a
master’s level or doctorate level Board Certified Behavior Analyst from a non-public agency and
up to 36 weeks of behavior intervention services as compensatory education for Plaintiff.11
After reviewing the papers submitted, the court finds the settlement to be fair and reasonable.

18
19

The court also finds that the settlement is in L.H.’s best interests. The court accordingly grants
plaintiff’s petition and approves the settlement.

20
21
22
23
5

Id. at 4.

24

6

Id. at 3.

25

7

Id.

8

Id.

9

Id.

26
27

10

Id.

28

11

Id.

ORDER — No. 3:15-cv-05751-HSG-LB

3

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4
5
6

The court grants the petition to approve the settlement. The approved settlement is ordered on
the following terms:
1. The court approves the compromise whereby the defendant will fund and contract with
an inclusion expert (as set forth above).
2. The court approves the award of attorney’s fees of $150,000.

7

To avoid losing track of the case, and to allow the parties to finalize their settlement and

8

submit their stipulated dismissal, the court sets a case-management conference for February 16,

9

2017 at 11:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Dated: January 17, 2017
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER — No. 3:15-cv-05751-HSG-LB

4