Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01356/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01356-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

D.S., By and Through Her Mother

Rosalind Solo; and ROSALIND

SOLO,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 15cv1356-WQH-AGS

ORDER

v.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF

UNIVERSITY WOMEN;

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF

UNIVERSITY WOMEN OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.;

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

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). 

I. Background

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 - 15cv1356-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01356-WQH-AGS Document 75 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

American Association of University Women (“AAUW”); American Association of

University Women of the State of California, Inc. (“AAUW - CA”); and, the Regents

of the University of California (“The Regents”). (ECF No. 45). Plaintiffs’ causes of

action arise from allegations that Defendants discriminated against D.S. based on her

disability during a one-week middle school camp hosted by AAUW and AAUW-CA

and held at University of California, San Diego (“UCSD”) in space leased by The

Regents. Id. The Complaint alleges the following claims: (1) violations of the

Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (2) violation of the

California Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) declaratory relief; (4) injunctive relief; (5) false

or reckless reporting of alleged child abuse; (6) negligence and retaliatory reporting;

and, (6) negligence per se. Id. 

On April 11, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendant The Regents filed a joint application

for approval of settlement.1

 (ECF No. 72). The proposed settlement between Plaintiffs

and The Regents provides that Plaintiffs will not receive monetary damages and that

The Regents agree to include certain provisions in future conference contracts with

AAUW-CA or AAUW for the lease of space at UCSD for at least five years following

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). 

1

 Defendants AAUW and AAUW-CA are not a party to this settlement and remain in the suit. Both of the remaining Defendants have motions to dismiss pending before the Court. (ECF Nos. 59, 61). 

- 2 - 15cv1356-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01356-WQH-AGS Document 75 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On May 22, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued 

the Report and Recommendation recommending that the parties joint motion to approve

the settlement be granted and that 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). The Order stated that any objections to the Report and

Recommendation should be filed by June 5, 2017. Id. The docket reflects that no

objections have been filed. 

II. Review of the Report and Recommendation

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a

Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th

Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After a review of the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge correctly found that the settlement between Plaintiffs and The Regents

is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of D.S., the minor plaintiff. Robidoux v.

Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that district courts have a

special duty “to safeguard the interest of litigants who are minors” requiring that courts

conduct an inquiry into whether a proposed settlement is in the best interest of a minor

plaintiff).

///

///

///

- 3 - 15cv1356-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01356-WQH-AGS Document 75 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

74) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and (2) the Joint Application for Approval of

Settlement (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED. 

DATED: June 28, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 15cv1356-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-01356-WQH-AGS Document 75 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4