Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179-222/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EMMA C., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DELAINE EASTIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 96-cv-04179-TEH 

REVISED ORDER ON FY 2015-2016 

BUDGET 

 

It has come to the Court’s attention that the Monitor’s budget was incorrectly 

allocated in the Court’s recent Budget Order (Docket No. 2064). Consistent with the longstanding principle that State Defendants should share a portion (20% this year) of the costs 

for District-related expenses, the appropriate allocation of the Monitor’s budget should be 

as follows: 

Budget Items    CDE District

      Allocation Amount Allocation   Amount

Office   $86,767 60.00% $52,060.20 40.00% $34,706.80

Consultants   $108,000 40.00% $43,200 60.00% $64,800

Parent Advocacy1    $74,000 20.00% $14,800 80.00% $59,200

Monitor’s Salary   $140,000 60.00% $84,000 40.00% $56,000

Budget Totals $408,767 47.47% $194,060.20 52.53% $214,706.80

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/18/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

 

1

 The budget item for “Parent Advocacy” remains unchanged as it was correctly allocated 

at 20%/80% in the previous Order. 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2065 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 1