Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00863/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00863-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 

LISA ASHLEY, et al., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 15-863 CW 

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO APPROVE 

MINOR’S COMPROMISE 

 

Minor Plaintiff T.A.-G., through his guardian ad litem Lisa 

Ashley, requests approval of a compromise of his claims against 

San Mateo-Foster City School District (SMFCSD), Telmo Vasquez, 

Sheila Spieller, Varina Williams, Donna Lewis, Cynthia Simms and 

Does 1 through 30. Docket No. 64. The motion is unopposed, and 

the Court finds the motion appropriate for determination without 

oral argument. Civil L.R. 7–1(b). Having considered the papers 

filed by Plaintiff, the Court GRANTS the motion. 

BACKGROUND 

T.A.-G., through his guardian ad litem Ashley and his parents 

Ashley and Elie Goldstein, initiated this lawsuit on February 25, 

2015. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Telmo 

Vasquez, while acting as T.A.-G.’s fourth grade teacher, 

physically, psychologically and verbally abused T.A.-G. on 

multiple occasions in late 2013 and early 2014. Plaintiffs allege 

that Vasquez’ abuse was a result of T.A.-G.’s diagnosed Asperger’s 

Syndrome. Plaintiffs represent that T.A.-G. was diagnosed with 

Case 4:15-cv-00863-CW Document 66 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 2 

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 

post-traumatic stress disorder subsequent to the alleged abuse, 

for which he requires psychological therapy and medication, and 

that his doctors have recommended he attend private school with 

small class sizes. Plaintiffs brought claims against Vasquez and 

SMFCSD officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and against SMFCSD for 

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12131 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 794. 

On May 27, 2015, after SMFCSD agreed to waive its Eleventh 

Amendment immunity, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint 

incorporating state law claims for violation of civil rights, 

battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, 

negligent supervision, violation of mandatory reporting duty, 

violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and discrimination in 

violation of the education code. Docket No. 14. 

In a mediation session on June 27, 2016, the parties reached 

a settlement, conditional on approval by the SMFCSD school board 

and SMFCSD’s Joint Powers Authority. The school board 

subsequently approved the settlement. The parties have not 

informed the Court that the Joint Powers Authority has made its 

decision. Because the Joint Powers Authority’s approval or 

disapproval of the settlement will not affect its fairness or the 

degree to which it is in T.A.-G.’s best interest, the Court need 

not wait for the Joint Powers Authority’s decision before ruling 

on the instant motion. 

The instant motion for approval of a minor’s compromise was 

filed on August 30, 2016. The papers represent that SMFCSD has 

Case 4:15-cv-00863-CW Document 66 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

agreed to pay a total of $437,500 to Plaintiffs to settle their 

claims against all Defendants. Of this amount, $109,375, or 

twenty-five percent, will be paid to Plaintiffs’ attorneys as 

fees, along with an additional $16,958.49 as costs for an expert 

psychologist, mediation fees, filing, postage, copying, travel, 

and legal research. In addition, $43,540 will be paid to T.A.-

G.’s parents as costs for tuition at a private school, a special 

education advocate, psychotherapy, and tutoring, and $3,000 will 

be paid to a separate law firm as fees for drafting T.A.-G.’s 

minor’s trust. Thus, T.A.-G.’s net recovery under the settlement 

will be $264,626.51. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The Ninth Circuit has stated, “District courts have a special 

duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 

safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. 

Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context 

of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this 

special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry 

to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of 

the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 

(9th Cir. 1978)). 

The Ninth Circuit has directed that, in conducting this 

inquiry in cases involving the settlement of a minor’s federal 

claims, district courts should “limit the scope of their review to 

the question 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 minor’s specific claim, and recovery in 

similar cases,” and should “evaluate the fairness of each minor 

Case 4:15-cv-00863-CW Document 66 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 4 

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 

plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the 

total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 

plaintiffs’ counsel — whose interests the district court has no 

special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1181-82 (citing Dacanay, 573 

F.2d at 1078). 

While the Ninth Circuit has not expressed a view as to the 

proper approach for courts to use when approving settlement of a 

minor’s claims arising under state law, see id. at 1179 n.2, and 

T.A.-G. brought claims under both federal and state law, the Court 

applies the same standard to settlement of all of his claims. 

DISCUSSION 

T.A.-G., through his guardian ad litem Ashley, has agreed to 

settle his claims against Defendants in exchange for $264,626.51. 

By providing T.A.-G. with this sum immediately, in the form of a 

blocked account, the settlement will enable T.A.-G. to continue to 

receive medical and psychological treatment and tutoring services, 

and to attend private school. In addition, settlement avoids the 

risk inherent in further litigation and the harm T.A.-G. could 

suffer through the potential stress of discovery procedures or 

testifying at trial. 

In his motion, T.A.-G. identifies several factually similar 

cases involving civil rights or tort claims based on the alleged 

abuse of minor students with disabilities. For example, in Brooks 

v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., No. 1:15-00673 WBS BAM, 2015 WL 

9304862, (E.D. Cal.), the court approved a settlement of the minor 

plaintiff’s claims, for net recovery to the minor plaintiff of 

$303,000, in a case where her elementary school special-needs 

teacher had placed her in a cage-like enclosure for extended 

Case 4:15-cv-00863-CW Document 66 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 5 

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 

periods without justification, resulting in post-traumatic stress 

disorder. Similarly, in Gonzalez v. Antioch Unified School Dist., 

No. 3:15-cv-04820-EDL (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2016), the court approved 

net recovery to the minor plaintiff of $85,779.99 in a case where 

a behavioral therapist for a first-grader with autism allegedly 

physically abused him while forcibly removing him from class. 

T.A.-G.’s net recovery is similar to that of the minor plaintiff 

in Brooks, who was also diagnosed with post-traumatic stress 

disorder, and it exceeds the net amount recovered by the minor 

plaintiff in Gonzalez, who was also allegedly physically abused. 

Upon review of the papers submitted, the Court finds the net 

recovery to T.A.-G. to be reasonable and the settlement to be in 

the best interest of T.A.-G. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for approval of a 

minor’s compromise is GRANTED (Docket No. 64). The Court will 

sign and e-file separately Plaintiffs’ proposed Order Granting 

Plaintiff T.A.-G.’s Motion for Order Approving Settlement of Minor 

Plaintiff T.A.-G.’s Claims. The Clerk shall enter a ninety day 

conditional dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 22, 2016 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00863-CW Document 66 Filed 09/22/16 Page 5 of 5