Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01356/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01356-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

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

CASE NO. 15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

D.S., by and through her mother Rosalind 

Solo; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

American Association of University 

Women; et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION THAT 

THE SETTLEMENT MOTION 

[DOC. 72] BE GRANTED

Rosalind Solo, plaintiff and guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiff D.S., seeks 

an order approving a proposed settlement of the minor plaintiff’s claims against 

defendant Regents of the University of California. Because the settlement serves the 

minor’s best interests, the Court recommends that the motion be granted. 

 

BACKGROUND

This suit arises from allegations that D.S. was removed from a one-week middle 

school camp as a result of disability discrimination. That camp, although hosted by 

other defendants, was held on the campus of the University of California, San Diego. 

The University disputes plaintiff’s allegations, and specifically disputes that any 

decision to remove D.S. from the camp or any retaliation thereafter was the fault of 

any University employee. Solo and the University now seek to settle all of D.S.’s 

claims against the University based on a settlement agreement that contains no 

Case 3:15-cv-01356-WQH-AGS Document 74 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

2

CASE NO. 15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS

financial recovery for D.S., but requires the University to include the following 

provisions into any contracts with the other defendants for the next five years:

(1) The Organization is required to comply with state and federal 

laws regarding the accommodation of participants and applicants with 

disabilities.

(2) The Organization shall provide participants with information 

regarding the Organization’s obligation to comply with state and federal 

law regarding the accommodation of participants with disabilities and 

describing a method for participants to raise concerns regarding disability 

accommodations with the Organization.

The University also agrees to consider adding the same provisions to other conference 

contracts. Finally, plaintiffs’ counsel may receive, upon request, a copy of each 

contract between the University and the other defendants for the next five years that

concerns convention space leasing. Despite being provided an opportunity, none of 

the other defendants have opposed this settlement.

DISCUSSION

District courts have “a special duty” to “safeguard the interests of litigants who 

are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the 

settlement context, that duty requires the court to “conduct its own inquiry to 

determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (citations

omitted). The Court is required to limit the scope of its review to “whether the net 

amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in 

light of the facts of the case, the minors’ specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” 

Id. at 1182. 

Having reviewed the first amended complaint, the Court believes that D.S has 

a low chance of victory against the University, particularly in proving that the 

University could be liable for a decision allegedly made by other entities who 

contracted to provide a camp on the University’s property. But the Court recognizes 

Case 3:15-cv-01356-WQH-AGS Document 74 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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

3

CASE NO. 15-cv-1356-WQH-AGS

that litigation is always uncertain and new facts may have come to light during 

discovery that would have changed that position. Moreover, although the settlement 

lacks a financial recovery, D.S. has negotiated and received the benefit of contractual 

provisions that, her advocate believes, lessen the likelihood that similar treatment will 

occur in the future. The settlement of a minor’s claim does not require monetary 

compensation in every instance. See, e.g., Rangel v. United States, No. 14-cv-1273-

BGS, 2015 WL 12699862, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2015). Finally, the Court 

recognizes that the two parties most likely to be found liable are remaining in the suit 

and have no objection to the settlement terms with the University. Balanced against 

the risk of time-consuming and expensive litigation that would likely prove fruitless,

the settlement in this case is reasonable and in the minor’s best interest. 

Thus, this Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. The parties’ joint motion to approve the settlement be GRANTED. 

2. The compromise and settlement of the claims of the minor, D.S., be 

APPROVED as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor 

plaintiff.

Any objections to this R&R are due by June 5, 2017. 

Dated: May 22, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01356-WQH-AGS Document 74 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3