Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03557/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03557-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Z.A., a minor, by and through her parents, K.A.

and S.A.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ST. HELENA UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-03557 JSW

ORDER REQUIRING

SUBMISSIONS

Now before the Court, in addition to other pending motions, is the motion for judgment

on the pleadings filed by Defendant St. Helena Unified School District (the “District”). In this

motion, the District argues that the purported 10-day offer of settlement, whether or not it was

properly accepted by Plaintiff, could not constitute a binding settlement agreement because it

was never ratified by the Board. (See Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at 7-9; see also See

Santa Monica Unified School District v. Persh, 5 Cal. App. 3d 945, 952 (1970).) Plaintiff does

not dispute the fact that the Board never approved the alleged agreement and argues that the

requirement for Board approval is a mere technicality. 

The only case cited addressing the validity of a proposed 10-day offer with or without

Board approval under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i) is J.C. v. Vacaville Unified School District, 

Case 3:09-cv-03557-JSW Document 42 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

2007 WL 112138, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2007). In that case, as distinct from this, the

agreement specifically noted that it would only be effective after both execution by the parties

as well as “District Governing Board approval.” Id. What is unclear from the state of the

record in this case is whether the original 10-day offer dated February 27, 2009, which makes

no mention of Board approval, was indeed Board-approved and a valid offer when made. It is

likewise unclear whether the mechanism in the education arena is, rather, to make a 10-day

offer under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i) without Board approval, but with the common

understanding that any fully-executed settlement agreement would necessarily require Board

approval. 

Although the authority cited by the District appears to require Board approval for final

and executable settlement agreements, it is unclear whether the 10-day offer, when made, was

valid and whether it was reasonable for Plaintiff to assume that, having made such an offer,

counsel for the District was so empowered by the Board. In the alternative, it is likewise

unclear whether, when the District made its offer, it was understood by all counseled parties

that Board approval was a condition precedent to execution of a binding settlement agreement.

Because the Court finds that resolution of these issues is necessary to the Court’s

analysis on the outstanding motion, the Court HEREBY ORDERS simultaneous briefing on the

issues outlined above. The parties are ORDERED to submit simultaneous briefs of not more

than five pages by no later than February 19, 2010 at noon addressing the Court’s concerns.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-03557-JSW Document 42 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 2