Solo et al v. American Association of University Women et al
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Dkt # 74 ) is adopted in its entirety. The Joint Application for Approval of Settlement (Dkt # 72 ) is granted. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 6/28/2017. (mdc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
D.S., By and Through Her Mother
Rosalind Solo; and ROSALIND
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY WOMEN OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.;
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
CASE NO. 15cv1356-WQH-AGS
The matter before the Court is the Joint Application for Approval of Settlement
filed by Plaintiffs D.S. and Rosalind Solo and Defendant Regents of the University of
California (ECF No. 72) and the Report and Recommendation issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler recommending that (1) the parties’ joint motion
to approve the settlement be granted; and, (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. (ECF No. 74).
On June 21, 2016, Plaintiffs Rosalind Solo and D.S., a minor, by and through her
guardian ad litem, Rosalind Solo, filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants
1 American Association of University Women (“AAUW”); American Association of
2 University Women of the State of California, Inc. (“AAUW - CA”); and, the Regents
3 of the University of California (“The Regents”). (ECF No. 45). Plaintiffs’ causes of
4 action arise from allegations that Defendants discriminated against D.S. based on her
5 disability during a one-week middle school camp hosted by AAUW and AAUW-CA
6 and held at University of California, San Diego (“UCSD”) in space leased by The
7 Regents. Id. The Complaint alleges the following claims: (1) violations of the
8 Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (2) violation of the
9 California Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) declaratory relief; (4) injunctive relief; (5) false
10 or reckless reporting of alleged child abuse; (6) negligence and retaliatory reporting;
11 and, (6) negligence per se. Id.
On April 11, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendant The Regents filed a joint application
13 for approval of settlement.1 (ECF No. 72). The proposed settlement between Plaintiffs
14 and The Regents provides that Plaintiffs will not receive monetary damages and that
15 The Regents agree to include certain provisions in future conference contracts with
16 AAUW-CA or AAUW for the lease of space at UCSD for at least five years following
17 the effective date of the settlement agreement. The required provisions are as follows:
(1) The Organization [AAUW or AAUW-CA] is required to comply with
state and federal laws regarding the accommodation of participants and
applicants with disabilities.
(2) The Organization [AAUW or AAUW-CA] 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 Regents agree to consider adding these provisions in other UCSD conference
contracts. Further, The Regents agree to provide Plaintiffs’ counsel, upon written
request, with a copy of any conference contracts for the lease of space at UCSD
between The Regents and AAUW and/or AAUW-CA. (ECF No. 72).
Defendants AAUW and AAUW-CA are not a party to this settlement and
28 remain in the suit. Both of the remaining Defendants have motions to dismiss pending
before the Court. (ECF Nos. 59, 61).
On May 22, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued
2 the Report and Recommendation recommending that the parties joint motion to approve
3 the settlement be granted and that the compromise and settlement of the claims of the
4 minor, D.S., be approved as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor
5 plaintiff. (ECF No. 74). The Order stated that any objections to the Report and
6 Recommendation should be filed by June 5, 2017. Id. The docket reflects that no
7 objections have been filed.
8 II. Review of the Report and Recommendation
The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation
10 of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28
11 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those
12 portions of the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or
13 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”
14 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a
15 Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416
16 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th
17 Cir. 2003) (en banc).
After a review of the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the
19 Magistrate Judge correctly found that the settlement between Plaintiffs and The Regents
20 is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of D.S., the minor plaintiff. Robidoux v.
21 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that district courts have a
22 special duty “to safeguard the interest of litigants who are minors” requiring that courts
23 conduct an inquiry into whether a proposed settlement is in the best interest of a minor
1 III. Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
3 74) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and (2) the Joint Application for Approval of
4 Settlement (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED.
5 DATED: June 28, 2017
WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?