Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00147/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00147-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Review Agency Decision

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J.F., by and through his parents Bradley Feige and Jennifer Feige, seeks to compel Rosedale 

Union School District to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and an award of fees, 

costs, and sanctions. (Doc. 33) The District filed its opposition to the motion on November 15, 2016 

(Doc. 37) to which Plaintiff filed a reply on November 21, 2016 (Doc. 39). The Court found the matter 

suitable for decision without oral arguments, and the matter was taken under submission pursuant to 

Local Rule 230. (Doc. 40)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the District has not failed to comply with the 

terms of the Settlement Agreement or acted in bad faith, and the motion to compel is DENIED.

///

///

ROSEDALE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J.F., a minor buy and through BRADLEY 

FEIGE and JENNIFER FEIGE,

Defendant.

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00147 - JLT

ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO COMPEL 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT

(Doc. 33)

Case 1:16-cv-00147-JLT Document 41 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

I. Background

This action is an appeal of a decision rendered by an administrative law judge under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, addressing the services to be offered by Rosedale Union 

School District to J.F., who was three years old when he began attending school in the District. (Doc. 

1 at 2) J.F. has “cerebral palsy, infantile spasms, complex partial seizures and a visual field defect.” 

(Id. at 2, ¶ 6) In addition, “[h]is cerebral palsy results in right-sided hemiplegia which inhibits his 

ability to use his arm, hand, and leg on his side.” (Id. at 2-3)

On August 31, 2015, J.F. filed a due process hearing request, asserting the District denied him 

“a free appropriate public education because it failed to offer or provide vision therapy for the 2015-

2016 school year” and that the District denied his parents “the opportunity to meaningfully participate 

in the development of [J.F.’s] individualized education program by failing to address [the] concerns 

regarding [J.F.’s] need for vision therapy.” (Doc. 1 at 5, ¶ 15; see also Doc. 16 at 2) An administrative 

law judge (“ALJ”) determined the District did not deny J.F. a free appropriate public education, but that 

the District denied his parents the opportunity to meaningfully participate in developing the IEP. (Id., ¶ 

17) The ALJ determined J.F. should have an independent vision therapy assessment, “administered by 

an optometrist or ophthalmologist with experience treating low vision children with neurological or 

‘back end’ vision disabilities.” (Id., ¶ 18)

On January 29, 2016, the District initiated this action by filing a complaint, appealing the 

decision by the ALJ. (Doc. 1) In the answer, J.F. included a counterclaim, also asserting the ALJ erred 

and seeking review of the decision. (Doc. 7) 

On August 12, 2016, the parties filed a joint application to stay the action, indicating they had 

reached a settlement agreement, pending approval by the District. (Doc. 25) September 16, 2016, the 

District notified the Court the proposed settlement “was approved and ratified by the Board of Trustees 

of the Rosedale Union School District.” (Doc. 30 at 1) 

As part of the settlement agreement, the District agreed to “enter into a contract... with Dr. Carl 

Garbus whereby Dr. Garbus will perform an assessment of [J.F.’s] need for vision therapy as an 

educationally necessary related service, including, but not limited to, [J.F.’s] ‘back end’ vision needs.” 

(Doc. 33-2 at 7) The parties agreed: “If for some reason Dr. Garbus refuses the contract... or if Dr. 

Case 1:16-cv-00147-JLT Document 41 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Garbus becomes incapable of completing his assessment, Student agrees to select a different assessor 

and to inform District of Student’s choice in a timely manner.” (Id.) In addition, the District “agree[d] 

to enter into a contract with Student’s choice of assessor should Dr. Garbus be unavailable or incapable 

of completing the assessment.” (Id.) After Dr. Garbus declined to do the assessment, the child’s 

parents selected Dr. Balliger to perform the visual therapy assessment. (Doc. 33 at 7) J.F. contends the 

District has failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement to enter into a contract with Dr. 

Ballinger and seeks to compel compliance. (Id. at 3) Further, J.F. asserts the District has acted in bad 

faith and seeks an award of monetary sanctions against the District. (Id.; see also Doc. 39)

II. Legal Standard

“An agreement to settle a legal dispute is a contract, and its enforceability is governed by 

familiar principles of contract law.” Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.3d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Miller 

v. Fairchild Indus., 797 F.2d 727, 733 (9th Cir. 1986)). When reviewing a settlement agreement, the 

Court should consider whether “the writing was intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the 

terms of the agreement.” Id. The “plain language” of an agreement must be considered, and the 

“terms are to be given their ordinary meaning.” See County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., 540 

F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining interpretation of contracts).

III. Discussion

J.F. asserts the District has not complied with the term of the agreement requiring the District 

to enter into a contract with Dr. Ballinger, after she was selected by J.F. as a replacement for Dr. 

Garbus. According to Diane Weissburg, counsel for J.F., the District’s prior counsel, Kyle Holmes, 

prepared a contract that Dr. Ballinger completed and signed on October 17, 2016. (Doc. 33 at 7) 

However, after “multiple difficulties” with Mr. Holmes, the District changed counsel on October 17, 

hiring Jennifer Gonzales to replace Mr. Holmes. (Doc. 37-1 at 2, Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 2)

Ms. Gonzalez reports that on October 20, 2016, she received a copy of the contract signed by 

Dr. Ballinger for the first time. (Doc. 37-1 at 2, Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 4) She asserts that the same day, 

“Ms. Weissburg emailed... and demanded that the District sign the IEE contract by the close of 

business the next day.” (Id., ¶ 6) According to Ms. Gonzalez, “If it was not signed and returned by 

the next day, Ms. Weissburg threatened to file a motion to compel compliance, to seek fees, costs, and 

Case 1:16-cv-00147-JLT Document 41 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 5
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

sanctions.” (Id.; see also Doc. 33 at 8) Ms. Gonzalez requested “an extension of time to review and 

discuss the proposed IEE contract with the District, through Wednesday October 25, 2016, as the 

District had not been included in the negotiations or drafting of [the] contract.” (Doc. 37-1 at 3, ¶ 7) 

On October 25, the District declined to sign the contract with Dr. Ballinger, which included incorrect 

dates and a $20,000.00 fee cap. (Id., ¶ 9)

After the motion now pending before the Court was filed, the District negotiated with Dr. 

Ballinger for a reduction in the fee cap. (See Doc. 37-1 at 5-6, Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 16-19) Dr. Ballinger 

“agreed to take $12,000.00, instead of $20,000.00, for the vision therapy IEE.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 19) The 

District provided a contract to Dr. Ballinger with this change on November 4, 2016. (Id., ¶ 18)

According to Ms. Gonzalez, upon hearing of the fee cap change, Ms. Weissburg “became outraged,” 

after which the Ms. Gonzalez offered “to increase the fee cap.” (Id., ¶ 20) Through the filing of its 

opposition to the motion, the District has continued its efforts to negotiate the contract, and offered to 

reimburse the costs for Dr. Ballinger’s review of J.F.’s medical records and two days of visual 

evaluation and testing, which has already occurred. (Id. at 7, ¶ 24)

Significantly, the settlement agreement between J.F. and the District contains no terms 

regarding the timeframe for the District to enter into a contract with Dr. Ballinger. (See Doc. 33-2 at 7)

Similarly, there is no provision governing the cost of the visual therapy assessment. (Id.) Consequently, 

there is no showing that the District was required to enter into a contract with Dr. Ballinger that 

contained any particular fee cap. Likewise, there is no indication that the District was not permitted to 

negotiation with Dr. Ballinger regarding the terms and cost.1 Moreover, because Dr. Ballinger has 

agreed to perform the assessment for a cost up to $12,000.00, it appears the District has attempted to 

enter into the contract and has not failed to comply with the settlement agreement at this time. On the 

other hand, the suggestion that Dr. Ballinger will not perform properly if the contract cap is $12,000 

rather than $20,000 is anticipatory only and does not demonstrate the District has not performed or will 

 

1

J.F.’s arguments concerning the cost and speculation that the reduction will somehow diminish the quality of the 

assessment are unpersuasive (Doc. 39 at 10) in light of the fact that Dr. Garbus was expected to perform the IEE and record 

review for $525.00, though the amount did not include participation in the IEP team meeting. (Doc. 37-1 at 3, Gonzalez 

Decl. ¶ 9) 

Case 1:16-cv-00147-JLT Document 41 Filed 11/28/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

not perform its obligations under the settlement agreement.2 Accordingly, the Court does not find the 

District has breached the agreement or acted in bad faith. 

IV. Conclusion

J.F. fails to show that the District has not complied with the terms of the settlement agreement 

requiring it to enter into a contract with Dr. Ballinger. Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 On the other hand, if it is true that Dr. Ballinger will not properly perform the duties required by the contract because of 

the reduced fee cap, this would raise a concern—not about the District’s compliance with the settlement agreement—but 

with Dr. Ballinger’s ethics.

Case 1:16-cv-00147-JLT Document 41 Filed 11/28/16 Page 5 of 5