C.F., et al v. San Lorenzo Unified School District

Filing 29

ORDER APPROVING MINOR'S COMPROMISE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

C.F., et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-01852-RS
Plaintiffs,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER APPROVING MINOR'S
COMPROMISE

12
13

SAN LORENZO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.

14
15

I.

16
17

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Catrina Childs-Fong, individually, and as the guardian ad litem of her minor son,

18

C.F., has filed a petition to approve compromise of the claims. Childs-Fong initiated claims

19

arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

20

after defendant San Lorenzo Unified School District (“the District”) deemed C.F. ineligible to

21

receive special education services and support. Since initiating this action, the parties have

22

engaged in settlement negotiations and reached an agreement to resolve the plaintiffs’ claims.

23

This court has a duty to ensure the terms of the compromise serve C.F.’s best interest and are fair

24

and reasonable. Because the parties’ compromise is fair and reasonable, the petition of approval

25

will be granted.

26
27
28

II.

BACKGROUND

Doctors have diagnosed seven-year-old C.F. with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder, Dyslexia, and Specific Learning Disability. Before entering pre-school, the District

1

tested C.F. and concluded he had certain deficits, which required placing him in a restrictive

2

special class setting. While he was in the program, teachers noted C.F.’s lack of attention and

3

focus.

4

Before C.F. entered kindergarten, Childs-Fong asked the District to perform special

5

education testing. Although the District complied, at the end of the assessment, it concluded C.F.

6

was ineligible to receive special education services. Plaintiffs contend the District’s assessments

7

were inadequate for a variety of reasons and therefore requested independent psychoeducational

8

and academic evaluations and a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge. The ALJ affirmed the

9

District’s conclusion that C.F. was ineligible for special education services, and plaintiffs timely

10

filed this action.
In May 2016, while this action was pending, the District reevaluated C.F. and concluded

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

he is eligible to receive special education services. In the meantime, plaintiffs and the District

13

engaged in informal settlement negotiations which ultimately bore fruit: the parties reached a

14

global settlement agreement and proposed release.
III.

15

LEGAL STANDARD

16

Federal Rule of Procedure 17(c) requires district courts to take special care to safeguard the

17

interests of minor litigants.1 Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). To that

18

end, Rule 17(c) obliges district courts to conduct an independent “inquiry to determine whether

19

the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

20

Accordingly, when evaluating a proposed settlement of minors’ claims, district courts “must

21

consider whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as to each minor plaintiff.”
IV.

22

DISCUSSION

23
24
25
26
27

1

In the petition for approval, plaintiffs refer to California Rule of Order 7.950; however, Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) governs how district courts must evaluate compromises of minor’s
federal claims. See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 n.2, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting
district courts had often applied state and local rules when evaluating minor’s compromises, but
that district courts must instead follow the federal rules when evaluating the reasonableness of an
agreement resolving minors’ federal claims).
ORDER APPROVING MINOR’S COMPROMISE
CASE NO. 16-cv-01852-RS

28
2

1

In exchange for dismissal of the action, the District has agreed to pay $65,000 into a trust

2

account administered by ADAMS ESQ. for C.F.’s benefit to provide educationally related

3

services, to compensate him for lost educational benefit, and to pay attorney fees and costs.

4

$10,000 of the total fund will go to provide C.F. with educational services. Plaintiffs and their

5

counsel entered into a written fee agreement and agreed the attorneys will receive $55,000 of the

6

$65,000 fund. Although counsel’s fees to date exceed $55,000, plaintiff’s attorneys have agreed

7

to waive any fees and costs in excess of this amount.

8
9

As C.F.’s guardian ad litem, Childs-Fong believes the settlement agreement and allocation
of attorney fees is fair and reasonable. From the outset, the primary goal of this action was to
ensure C.F. received the special education services he needs. The District has agreed to provide

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

those services and to compensate C.F. for any educational opportunities he lost while this

12

litigation was ongoing. The settlement reflects a fair and reasonable compromise intended for

13

C.F.’s benefit, and therefore the compromise will be approved.
V.

14
15

CONCLUSION

The minor’s compromise is fair and reasonable, and therefore the petition for approval is

16

granted.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: August 29, 2016
______________________________________
___
____________________________________
__
__
____
RICHARD SEEBORG
ICHARD
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER APPROVING MINOR’S COMPROMISE
CASE NO. 16-cv-01852-RS

28
3