Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00889/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00889-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

1

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE; ORDER THEREON

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

HEATH A. HAVEY (SBN 244087)

801 K St., Ste.2300

Sacramento, CA 95814

E-mail: haveyh@jacksonlewis.com

Tel: 916-341-0404

Fax: 916-341-0141

Attorney for Plaintiff Rebecca Havey and

Minor Plaintiff Everett H.

HEATH A. HAVEY

9450 Courtney Way

Roseville, CA 95747

E-mail: haveyh@jacksonlewis.com

Tel: 916-749-4526

Fax: 916-341-0141

Plaintiff Pro Se and as Guardian ad Litem 

for Minor Plaintiff Everett H.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

EVERETT H., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DRY CREEK JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al. 

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-EFB

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF 

MINOR’S COMPROMISE ; ORDER

APPROVING SAME

DATE : January 21, 2016

TIME : 9:00 a.m.

CTRM : 7

JUDGE : Morrison C. England, Jr.

I. INTRODUCTION

Heath Havey, as attorney and parent guardian under FRCP 17(c)(1)(A) for Plaintiff and minor 

Everett H., submits the following Application for Approval of Minor’s Compromise, seeking this 

Court’s approval of the compromise of the claim of Everett H., pursuant to acceptance of the Offer of 

Judgment (“Offer”) by defendants Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, Mark Geyer, Lynn 

Barbaria, Andrew Giannini, and Evonne Rogers (collectively “District Defendants”). The acceptance of 

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 120 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 7
2

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE; ORDER THEREON

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

the Offer does not affect this action as to the remaining defendant California Department of Education 

(“CDE”). If deemed necessary by the Court, this application also requests that the Court appoint Heath 

Havey as guardian ad litem for Everett H. relating to the proceeds of the Offer.

II. RELEVANT FACTS

A. IDENTITY OF PETITIONER EVERETT H.

Heath Havey, as attorney for Everett H. and his parent guardian under FRCP 17(c)(1)(A), hereby 

applies and petitions the Court to approve acceptance of the Offer made by the District Defendants 

resolving the above-captioned case as to the District Defendants, as described more fully herein and in 

the accompanying Declaration of Heath A. Havey, filed in support hereof.

Pursuant to Local Rule 202(b)(2), plaintiffs disclose that Everett H. is 12 years old and is male.

B. FILED AND CALENDARED

Pursuant to Local Rule 202(b)(2), this Application was filed and calendared for a hearing on 

January 21, 2016. Plaintiffs request a ruling on this Application as soon as possible, and do not oppose a 

ruling on this Motion without argument or appearance by the parties unless specifically requested by the 

Court. In communications, the District Defendants have agreed to file a Notice of Non-Opposition to 

this Application and also do not oppose a ruling on this Motion without argument or appearance. This is 

also reflected in the stipulation previously filed by Plaintiffs and District Defendants. (ECF No. 112.)

This Application is made on shortened time pursuant to the Minute Order issued by this Court on 

January 4, 2016, and after confirming with the District Defendants that they do not oppose shortened 

time, and after confirming the available dates with the Clerk of the Court.

C. IDENTIFY OF COUNSEL FOR THE OPPOSING PARTY

1. Sloan Simmons and Jessi Gasbarro of Lozano Smith (attorneys for District 

Defendants):

a. Address: One Capitol Mall, Suite 640, Sacramento, CA 95814

b. Telephone: 916-329-7433

c. Emails: ssimmons@lozanosmith.com; jgasbarro@lozanosmith.com

2. Len Garfinkel (attorney for CDE/Non-Offering Defendant):

a. Address: 1430 N Street, Room 5319, Sacramento, CA 95814

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 120 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 7
3

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE; ORDER THEREON

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

b. Telephone: 916-319-0860

c. Email: lgarfinkel@cde.ca.gov

D. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CAUSES OF ACTION

Pursuant to Local Rule 202(b)(2), the following sets forth the nature of the causes of action to be 

compromised, and the facts and circumstances out of which the causes of action arose. Defendant CDE 

is not a party to the Offer of Judgment or acceptance, and the case will proceed against the CDE as to 

the claims of Everett H. and his parents.

The facts and circumstances out of which this case arose as to the District Defendants, including 

the individual defendants, are based on allegations that Everett H. suffered educational harms based on 

violations of his right as a disabled student to a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) pursuant 

to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400m 

et seq. (“IDEA”) and various state statutes. Plaintiffs also asserted violations of Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq. (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (“Section 504”), and claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) on 

various grounds related to civil rights violations, discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiffs seek 

compensatory education (an equitable remedy) and reimbursement, compensatory and punitive 

damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs Heath and Rebecca Havey, Everett’s natural parents 

and guardians, also brought individual claims against the District Defendants under Section 504 for 

retaliation based on their rights to advocate for Everett, interfering with their right to advocate for 

Everett, for retaliation against Parents under the ADA, and for civil rights violation, including freedom 

of speech, retaliation, and malicious prosecution, under Section 1983.

The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) makes the following factual allegations: 

At all times relevant to this action, Dry Creek was the local educational agency responsible for 

providing Everett H. with a FAPE under the IDEA and California Education Code. Everett H. is 

currently eligible for special education and receives services through charter school Visions in 

Education, where he has been since parents removed him from Dry Creek in March 2012. Everett H. 

had a last-signed IEP in Dry Creek dated September 9, 2009 (“9/9/09 IEP”) which categorized him as 

mentally retarded. Dry Creek admitted in May 2011 that Everett H. was not mentally retarded, and that 

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 120 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 7
4

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE; ORDER THEREON

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

the previous testing of Dry Creek leading up to the 9/9/09 IEP also would not qualify as mental 

retardation; this was also confirmed by expert Dr. Ann Simun, who did a comprehensive review of 

records and assessment of Everett H. Parents also discovered that Dry Creek had not been providing 

services, including Specialized Academic Instruction (“SAI”) services to Everett H.

When parents began advocating for Everett and bringing the violations to the attention of Dry 

Creek, Dry Creek retaliated against Everett H. and parents. Paragraphs 153 to 170 of the SAC describe 

the types of retaliation, interference, and discrimination against Everett H. and his parents, such as 

depriving Everett of food, refusing to tell his parents when he went sick to the nurse’s office, sending

him home with feces on him and clothes hanging out, ignoring parents’ complaints of bullying, and 

subjecting him to repeated humiliation and physical danger; engaging in malicious prosecution tactics, 

refusing to allow parents to be meaningful participants in the IEP process, creating strategic delays in 

the IEP process, refusing to respond to parents’ suggestions and questions, interfering with an 

independent assessment, refusing to provide documentation to the charter school, threatening retention 

of Everett and to deprive him of STAR testing, refusal to provide parents with documentation and 

destruction and altering of educational records, violating the due process officer’s orders, abusing the 

subpoena process to harass parents, and a number of other facts of discrimination, retaliation, and 

interference with rights.

Parents filed complaints with the CDE using the Complaint Resolution Process (“CRP”) 

beginning on January 6, 2012. The CDE refused to investigate many of the areas complained about, and 

reworded many others in a result-oriented investigation that deprived Plaintiffs of their rights.

This Court denied motions to dismiss filed by the CDE and District Defendants where they 

argued the CRP process did not exhaust administrative remedies, The last day to file dispositive 

motions is January 21, 2016. Prior to acceptance of the Offer, the District Defendants indicated that 

they intended to file a motion for summary judgment.

E. CONSIDERATIONS OF ACCEPTING OFFER OF JUDGMENT

On November 24, 2015, Plaintiffs accepted the Offer of Judgment under Rule 68 served by the 

District Defendants in the amount of $100,000. This acceptance was made after analyzing the following 

factors: (1) the further harm to Everett of delaying compensatory education services and the desire to 

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 120 Filed 01/25/16 Page 4 of 7
5

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE; ORDER THEREON

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

provide him intensive services before he starts high school in 2017; (2) the harm to Everett of delaying 

intensive services an additional year or more until after a trial and judgment, and possibly appeal; (3) the 

potential legal risks involved in continuing litigation against all defendants, including the potential of 

receiving an adverse judgment; (4) the potential recovery of additional damages for Everett from the 

CDE through continuing litigation against the CDE after the District Defendants are dismissed; (5) the 

potential ramifications and costs under Rule 68 if plaintiffs receive a judgment less than the amount in 

the Offer of Judgment; and (6) the costs of continuing this litigation through trial, including the need to 

hire trial counsel and experts. Everett’s attorney concluded it would be in his best interests to accept the 

offer, begin intensive educational treatment immediately, and continue the litigation against the CDE.

F. DISCLOSURE OF ATTORNEY’S INTEREST

Pursuant to Local Rule 202(b)(2), Everett’s attorney is Everett’s natural father and guardian, 

Heath Havey, who has been lawfully married to his natural mother and co-plaintiff Rebecca Havey for 

approximately 23 years. Rebecca Havey and Heath Havey consulted extensively before determining to 

accept the Offer of Judgment, determining that it was in Everett’s best interests to accept the Offer. 

Both parents have advocated extensively for Everett and have his best interests in mind, and also 

understand the risks of continuing litigation. Heath Havey will not seek attorneys’ fees out of the Offer 

of Judgment funds.

Parents believe and attest that they believe they are “representatives” of Everett H. as that term is 

defined in FRCP Rule 17(c)(1)(A) as general guardians of Everett, and therefore no appointment of a 

guardian ad litem is necessary, and also that Heath Havey is a representative attorney of Everett H.

However, to the extent the Court determines it necessary, the proposed order below also includes 

an appointment of attorney Heath Havey as guardian ad litem for Everett H.

III. APPLICABLE LAW AND ARGUMENT

Acceptance of the Offer of Judgment relates to the rights of a minor, i.e., Plaintiff Everett H. As 

a result, California Probate Code §§ 3600 is implicated. See also Local Rule 202. Heath Havey, as 

guardian and attorney for Everett H., recommends acceptance of the Offer of Judgment to the court as 

being fair, reasonable and in the best interest of Everett H., and requests that the court approve 

acceptance of the Offer of Judgment. As guardian and attorney for Everett H., Heath Havey verifies that 

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 120 Filed 01/25/16 Page 5 of 7
6

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE; ORDER THEREON

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

all information having any bearing upon the reasonableness of acceptance of the Offer of Judgment has 

been disclosed. See Local Rule 202; Cal. R. Ct. 3.1384, 7.950. As such, plaintiffs hereby request that 

the Court, by court order, approve the acceptance of Offer of Judgment and direct the Clerk of the Court 

to enter the judgment without delay. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, and on the information contained in the supporting Declaration of 

Heath A. Havey filed concurrently herewith, Heath Havey respectfully requests that the Court approve 

the acceptance of Offer of Judgment served by the District Defendants, and to direct the Clerk of the 

Court to enter judgment without delay.

Dated: January 8, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Heath A. Havey

Heath A. Havey

Attorney for Plaintiffs Rebecca F. Havey and 

Everett H., as Pro Se Plaintiff and Guardian ad 

litem for Minor Everett H.

ORDER

The Court has considered the foregoing Application for Approval of Minor’s Compromise, the 

supporting declaration of Heath Havey, and the District Defendant’s Non-Opposition to said 

Application. The court further conducted a hearing on said Application on January 21, 2016 at which 

both Plaintiff’s counsel and counsel for the District Defendants were present. Following said hearing,

upon full consideration of both counsel’s representation and all the papers submitted, and cause 

appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application for Approval of Minor’s Compromise is 

GRANTED, and the Court approves acceptance of the Offer of Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and 

against only the District Defendants in the amount of $100,000, as a fair and just compromise of 

Plaintiffs’ claims against the District Defendants.

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 120 Filed 01/25/16 Page 6 of 7
7

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE; ORDER THEREON

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter Judgment against the District 

Defendants pursuant to the offer and acceptance without delay.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for good cause appearing, father and attorney Heath Havey, 

as representative for minor Everett H., is appointed as guardian ad litem for Everett H. For the reasons 

set forth in Plaintiffs’ Application, and as discussed on the record during the course of the hearing, the 

proceeds of the Offer of Judgment need not be placed into a special needs trust given Heath Havey’s 

representation that the monies are needed for intensive compensatory education services prior to the 

minor’s entry into high school in the Fall of 2017 and will be spent for that purpose.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 120 Filed 01/25/16 Page 7 of 7