Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00635/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00635-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACIA LANGLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GUIDING HANDS SCHOOL, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK 

ORDER APPROVING MINORS’

COMPROMISE

Plaintiffs brought this action based on allegations that students with disabilities 

enrolled at Defendant Guiding Hands School, Inc. were subject to frequent and 

unnecessary use of restraints. Among the plaintiffs are several minor children 

including Plaintiff M.S. by and through his mother, Melanie Stark1, and Guardian Ad 

Litem, Christopher Stark. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Approve Settlement for 

Minor Plaintiff M.S. (Mot. (ECF No. 296).) This motion is unopposed by any party. 

Plaintiffs have also provided supplemental briefing in support of the motion. (Suppl. 

Mem. (ECF No. 303).) 

1 Plaintiff Stark is also individually a plaintiff in this action and a party to the proposed settlement 

presently at issue.

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 313 Filed 09/27/24 Page 1 of 8
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

For the reasons set forth below, the Court partially lifts the stay of this action for 

the limited purposes of this motion2 and grants Plaintiffs Motion to Approve 

Settlement for Minor Plaintiff M.S.

I. Background

The parties to this proposed partial settlement are Plaintiff M.S., a minor, 

Plaintiff Stark, and Defendants Elk Grove Unified School District, Elk Grove Special 

Education Local Plan Area (“SELPA”), Doug Phillips, and Marilyn Delgado. Defendant 

School District is part of Defendant Elk Grove SELPA. (Mot. at 3.) Defendant Phillips 

was the Director of Special Education for Elk Grove School District and SELPA. (Id. at 

4.) Defendant Delgado was the Program Specialist assigned to Plaintiff M.S. by the 

school district. (Id.) Elk Grove SELPA and Elk Grove Unified School District had a 

contract with GHS to provide special education and related services for students. 

(TAC ¶¶ 242.) 

According to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), at 

nine years old, Plaintiff M.S. was placed at Guiding Hands School (“GHS”) by 

Defendant Delgado, acting as a program specialist for the school district. (Id. ¶ 485.) 

Plaintiff M.S. was restrained on his first day at GHS and a total of 61 times over the next 

nearly two months. (Id. ¶ 253.) These restraints allegedly caused bruises, welts, and 

abrasions to his face and body. (Id.) On several occasions, Plaintiff Stark raised 

concerns about how Plaintiff M.S. was being treated, including how restraints were 

being employed. (Id. ¶¶ 256–57, 262.) A subsequent investigation found multiple 

alleged violations of Plaintiff M.S.’s IEP, failures to document injuries, and failures 

connected with the school district’s decision to place Plaintiff M.S. at GHS. (Id. ¶ 264.) 

As a result of these events, Plaintiff M.S. purportedly suffered physical injuries as well 

as extreme emotional distress. (Id. ¶ 270.) Plaintiff M.S. claims that Defendants 

2 No party objected to the Court lifting the stay of this action for the limited purpose of considering the 

two Motions to Approve Minor Settlement. (See ECF No. 299.) Nothing about this order should be 

construed as applying to the separate Motion to Lift Stay (ECF No. 302) presently set for oral argument 

on October 31, 2024.

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 313 Filed 09/27/24 Page 2 of 8
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

3

Delgado and Phillips failed to take action “to stop the illegal and excessive restraints” 

or to ensure GHS staff were following Plaintiff M.S.’s Behavior Intervention Plan. (Id.

¶ 256.)

II. Legal Standard

No claim by or against a minor or incompetent person may be settled or 

compromised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or compromise. 

E.D. Cal. R. 202(b). The Local Rules require that the motion for approval of a 

proposed minor’s compromise disclose, among other things: (1) the age and sex of 

the minor, (2) the nature of the causes of action to be settled or compromised, (3) the 

facts and circumstances out of which the causes of action arose, including the time, 

place and persons involved, (4) the manner in which the compromise amount or other 

consideration was determined, including such additional information as may be 

required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or 

compromise amount, and (5) if a personal injury claim, the nature and extent of the 

injury with sufficient particularity to inform the Court whether the injury is temporary or 

permanent. See E.D. Cal. R. 202(b)(2). 

Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit held in Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 

1181 (9th Cir. 2011) that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) imposes a “special 

duty” on district courts approving a minor’s compromise. “[T]his special duty requires 

a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves 

the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (citations omitted). However, this “special duty” 

has a limited scope of review, only asking “whether the net recovery of each minor 

plaintiff is fair and reasonable, without regard to the amount received by adult coplaintiffs and what they have agreed to pay plaintiffs’ counsel.” Id. at 1182. “If the net 

recovery of each minor plaintiff under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, 

the district court should approve the settlement as presented . . . .” Id. In making this 

determination, “courts typically consider such information as the relative worth of the 

settlement amount, the circumstances of the settlement, counsel’s explanation of their 

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 313 Filed 09/27/24 Page 3 of 8
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

4

views and experiences in litigating these types of actions, and other similar 

compromises that have been approved by courts.” Rivett v. United States, No. 2:21-

CV-00717-DAD-AC, 2023 WL 4238909, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2023) (collecting 

cases where the procedural posture was considered, the fact that the settlement 

occurred at a court-supervised settlement conference was considered, and other 

compromises were considered).

Plaintiffs bring a variety of state and federal law claims against Defendants. 

Although the Ninth Circuit expressly limited its holding to “cases involving the 

settlement of a minor’s federal claims[,]” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1179 n.2, where, as 

here, a court is exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, courts will 

apply the Robidoux standard to all of the claims, see A.G.A. v. County of Riverside, No. 

19-cv-00077-VAP-SPx, 2019 WL 2871160, at *3 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2019) 

(collecting cases).

III. Proposed Settlement

The proposed settlement would resolve claims brought both by Plaintiff M.S. 

and his mother, Plaintiff Stark, against Defendants Elk Grove School District, Elk Grove 

SELPA, Phillips, and Delgado. (Settlement Agreement (Mot., Ex. B) at 1.) Under the 

terms of the settlement, these Defendants agree to pay $75,000 as a gross settlement 

amount. (Mot. at 17.) Plaintiffs’ counsel requests payment of 33% of the gross 

settlement as an attorney’s fee, as expressly provided by the terms of the AttorneyClient Fee Contract entered into by Plaintiffs M.S. and Stark and their counsel prior to

their entry into this action, as well as $4,018.01 in costs. (Id.; see Attorney-Client Fee 

Contract (Mot., Ex. A) at 2.) Under the agreement, 60% of the total remaining after 

fees and costs is designated for Plaintiff M.S. and 40% is designated for Plaintiff Stark. 

(Mot. at 17.) Plaintiff M.S. would receive a net recovery of $27,739.19. (Id.) Plaintiff 

M.S.’s funds would be “deposit[ed] in a blocked account in an insured financial 

institution is subject to withdrawal only upon the authorization of the Court until the 

minor becomes of age of majority, and then the funds shall be disbursed to Plaintiff 

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 313 Filed 09/27/24 Page 4 of 8
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

5

M.S. upon his 18th birthday.” (Id. at 17.) Plaintiffs M.S. have agreed to release all 

claims against Defendants Elk Grove School District, Elk Grove SELPA, Phillips, and 

Delgado, and a request for dismissal with prejudice their claims against those 

Defendants will be filed upon fulfillment of the settlement terms.3 (Id. at 16.)

IV. Discussion

A. Adequacy of Amount Distributed to Minor Plaintiff M.S.

The Motion provides each of the disclosures required by Local Rule 202(b)(2). 

The Motion indicates the age and sex of the minor (Mot. at 2) as well as the nature of 

the cause of action settled as well as the facts and circumstances surrounding it (id. at 

2–15). The supplemental briefing provided by Plaintiffs also gave information about 

the manner in which the compromise amount was reached. (See Suppl. Mem.) 

Counsel also provides a number of cases involving the use of restraints on children, 

many of these involving incidents at schools. (Id. at 2–4.) Based on the Court’s review 

of these cases, as well an independent review of similar cases and the facts of this 

case, the Court approves the settlement as fair and reasonable.

The settlement would afford Plaintiff M.S. recovery that is roughly 

commensurate with the settlements of other minors who suffered alleged 

unnecessary, repeated, and lengthy usages of restraints while at school. In T.B. v. 

Chico Unified Sch. Dist., No. 2:07-cv-00926-GEB-CMK, 2010 WL 1032669 (E.D. Cal. 

Mar. 19, 2010), the district court approved a settlement that would provide 

$16,500.00 for a minor plaintiff based on use of alleged excessive force by school 

personnel. In R.N. v. United States, No. 3:17-cv-1583-L-BGS, 2019 WL 6724338 (E.D. 

Cal. Dec. 11, 2019), which involved severe physical injuries, the court found a 

settlement with $20,000.00 net recovery for the minor plaintiff to fair and reasonable. 

3 The Motion states that under the terms of the agreement the “entire action” will be dismissed with 

prejudice. (Mot. at 16.) This phrase could be erroneously understood to mean that the agreement 

agrees to the dismissal of the entire Langley v. Guiding Hands School, Inc. action. The clear intent is to 

dismiss, with prejudice, Plaintiffs M.S. and Stark’s claims against Defendants Elk Grove School District, 

Elk Grove SELPA, Phillips, and Delgado. A review of the signed settlement agreement confirms this to 

be the case. (See Settlement Agreement.)

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 313 Filed 09/27/24 Page 5 of 8
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

6

In that case, the minor suffered a broken finger and, less than two months later, a 

broken femur, both allegedly due to the actions or negligence of child development 

center staff. Id. at *1–3. Other broadly similar cases fall within this range, with natural 

deviation given the diversity of cases. See e.g., Colbey T. v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. 

Dist., No. 11-cv-03108-LB, 2012 WL 1595046, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) 

(approving a $28,650.00 net recovery for a minor who was subject to improper 

restraints by school staff and was unprotected from bullying).

The proposed settlement would provide Plaintiff M.S. with a net recovery of 

$27,739.19. This places his recovery under the proposed settlement firmly within the 

realm of what other courts have found to be reasonable under roughly similar facts. 

Notably, this settlement only resolves Plaintiff M.S.’s claims against Defendants Elk 

Grove School District, Elk Grove SELPA, Phillips, and Delgado. The settlement does 

not cover address or resolve Plaintiffs’ claims against other Defendants in this action or

claims that may exist outside this action. This includes Plaintiffs’ claims against GHS —

the school where Plaintiff M.S. was purportedly injured — or GHS staff. Thus, while

settlements of other similar cases may afford minor plaintiff’s greater degree of 

recovery, this settlement only covers a portion of Plaintiff M.S.’s claims while the 

settlements in those other comparison cases cover the totality of those minor plaintiff’s 

claims.

Moreover, as is regularly recognized in the context of settlements, trial presents 

significant risks that can cause uncertainty about a plaintiff’s ability to obtain relief. 

Plaintiffs also openly acknowledge that proving “culpability and the nexus to the 

damages [for the school district and its staff] poses some difficulties factually and 

procedurally, increasing the chance of dismissal.” (Suppl. Mem. at 5.) This settlement 

was also apparently reached with the assistance and advice of an experienced thirdparty mediator as part of a four-day mediation. (Id.)

While Plaintiffs provided information about the requested attorney’s fees, 

litigation costs, and information within the settlement, the Court is bound to only 

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 313 Filed 09/27/24 Page 6 of 8
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

7

consider the net recovery of the minor plaintiff in assessing whether the settlement is 

fair and reasonable. See Robidoux, 638 F.3d 1182. Under that sole consideration, the 

Court finds the net recovery for minor Plaintiff M.S. under the settlement agreement to 

be fair and reasonable.

B. Method of Disbursement

Local Rule 202(e) requires money or property recovered on behalf of a minor to 

be “(1) disbursed to the representative pursuant to state law upon a showing that the 

representative is duly qualified under state law, (2) disbursed otherwise pursuant to 

state law, or (3) disbursed pursuant to such other order as the Court deems proper for 

the protection of the minor . . . .” Under the terms of the settlement, Plaintiff M.S.’s 

portion of the settlement is to be placed in a blocked account subject to withdrawal 

only upon Court approval, until his 18th birthday. (Mot. at 17.) This appears to 

comply with the requirements of California law for settlements involving minor 

parties.4 As such, the method of disbursement of funds to Plaintiff M.S. appears to 

comply with the requirements of state law and thus satisfies of Local Rule 230(e).

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Approval of the Minors’ Compromise (ECF No. 296) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER 

ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is authorized on behalf of minor to compromise his claim as to

Defendants Elk Grove Unified School District , Elk Grove SELPA, Doug 

Phillips, and Marilyn Delgado for a total sum of Seventy-Five Thousand 

Dollars ($75,000.00), and to execute and deliver the necessary release, 

drafts and other documents to effectuate this compromise with Defendants.

4 The Court notes that while the settlement amount exceeds $5,000, as structured, the settlement does 

not fall afoul of Cal. Prob. Code § 3401(c)(2) as the settlement funds are not placed in the possession of 

Plaintiff’s parent or guardian in trust but placed in a blocked account. This is a procedure seemingly 

approved of by Cal. Prob. Code § 3611(b) and other courts, see Williams v. Cnty. of Monterey, No. 19-

CV-01811-BLF, 2020 WL 7342737, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020); see also Martinez v. Nienow, No. 

3:23-cv-02338-RBM-AHG, 2024 WL 1898477, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2024).

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 313 Filed 09/27/24 Page 7 of 8
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

8

2. Petitioner is authorized to dismiss his action with prejudice as to said 

Defendants upon payment of all settlement funds by said Defendants.

3. Petitioner is authorized to reimburse his attorneys’ litigation costs and 

expenses in the amount of $4,018.01 and pay fees of 33% in the amount of 

$24,750.00.

4. That the net settlement funds shall be paid to GAL for deposit in a blocked 

account in an insured financial institution and are subject to withdrawal only 

upon the authorization of the Court until the minor becomes of the age of 

majority, and then the funds shall be disbursed to Plaintiff M.S. upon his 

18th birthday.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DJC1 – LangleySD20cv00635.minors.compromise 

Case 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK Document 313 Filed 09/27/24 Page 8 of 8