Solo et al v. American Association of University Women et al

Filing 74

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION That The Settlement Motion (Dkt # 72 ) Be Granted: Objections to R&R due by 6/5/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 5/22/2017. (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 D.S., by and through her mother Rosalind
Solo; et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
v.
13
American Association of University
14 Women; et al.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION THAT
THE SETTLEMENT MOTION
[DOC. 72] BE GRANTED

Defendants.
Rosalind Solo, plaintiff and guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiff D.S., seeks
an order approving a proposed settlement of the minor plaintiff’s claims against
defendant Regents of the University of California. Because the settlement serves the
minor’s best interests, the Court recommends that the motion be granted.
BACKGROUND
This suit arises from allegations that D.S. was removed from a one-week middle
school camp as a result of disability discrimination. That camp, although hosted by
other defendants, was held on the campus of the University of California, San Diego.
The University disputes plaintiff’s allegations, and specifically disputes that any
decision to remove D.S. from the camp or any retaliation thereafter was the fault of
any University employee. Solo and the University now seek to settle all of D.S.’s
claims against the University based on a settlement agreement that contains no
1
CASE NO. 15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS

1
2

financial recovery for D.S., but requires the University to include the following
provisions into any contracts with the other defendants for the next five years:

3
4
5

(1) The Organization is required to comply with state and federal
laws regarding the accommodation of participants and applicants with
disabilities.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

(2) The Organization shall provide participants with information
regarding the Organization’s obligation to comply with state and federal
law regarding the accommodation of participants with disabilities and
describing a method for participants to raise concerns regarding disability
accommodations with the Organization.
The University also agrees to consider adding the same provisions to other conference
contracts. Finally, plaintiffs’ counsel may receive, upon request, a copy of each
contract between the University and the other defendants for the next five years that
concerns convention space leasing. Despite being provided an opportunity, none of
the other defendants have opposed this settlement.

15

DISCUSSION

16

District courts have “a special duty” to “safeguard the interests of litigants who

17

are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the

18

settlement context, that duty requires the court to “conduct its own inquiry to

19

determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (citations

20

omitted). The Court is required to limit the scope of its review to “whether the net

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in
light of the facts of the case, the minors’ specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.”
Id. at 1182.
Having reviewed the first amended complaint, the Court believes that D.S has
a low chance of victory against the University, particularly in proving that the
University could be liable for a decision allegedly made by other entities who
contracted to provide a camp on the University’s property. But the Court recognizes

28
2
CASE NO. 15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

that litigation is always uncertain and new facts may have come to light during
discovery that would have changed that position. Moreover, although the settlement
lacks a financial recovery, D.S. has negotiated and received the benefit of contractual
provisions that, her advocate believes, lessen the likelihood that similar treatment will
occur in the future. The settlement of a minor’s claim does not require monetary
compensation in every instance. See, e.g., Rangel v. United States, No. 14-cv-1273BGS, 2015 WL 12699862, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2015). Finally, the Court
recognizes that the two parties most likely to be found liable are remaining in the suit
and have no objection to the settlement terms with the University. Balanced against
the risk of time-consuming and expensive litigation that would likely prove fruitless,
the settlement in this case is reasonable and in the minor’s best interest.
Thus, this Court RECOMMENDS that:
1. The parties’ joint motion to approve the settlement be GRANTED.
2. The compromise and settlement of the claims of the minor, D.S., be
APPROVED as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor
plaintiff.

17
18

Any objections to this R&R are due by June 5, 2017.
19 Dated: May 22, 2017
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
CASE NO. 15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS