Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01404-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
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 

J.J., by and through his guardian ad 

litem and parent, TYLER A., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROCKLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:19-cv-01404-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

This case initially came before the court on a joint petition for approval of a 

minor’s compromise. ECF No. 1. On August 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a properly noticed motion 

for approval of a minor’s compromise. Mot., ECF No. 7. The motion is unopposed. The court 

submitted the motion without oral argument and resolves it here. ECF No. 10. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff J.J. is an eleven-year-old boy with an intellectual disability, who qualifies 

for special education under the Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et 

seq. Mot. at 3. Plaintiff’s educational rights are held by his parent, Tyler A., who has been 

appointed his guardian ad litem in this case. ECF No. 8. 

Case 2:19-cv-01404-KJM-DB Document 15 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 7
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 

On January 23, 2019 plaintiff filed an administrative claim against defendant 

Rocklin School District (the “District”) before the California Office of Administrative Hearings 

(“OAH”). Id. (citing OAH Case No. 2019010877); Mot., Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-1 (“Administrative 

Claim”). The administrative claim alleged defendant violated the IDEA by “failing to adequately 

assess J.J. in all areas of suspected disability and failing to offer and provide him with a free 

appropriate public education.” Mot. at 3. 

Plaintiff also served the District with two Claims for Damages, dated January 24, 

2019, Mot., Ex. 2, ECF No 7-2, and April 17, 2019, Mot., Ex. 3, ECF No. 7-3. Plaintiff notified 

the District he intended to pursue claims for damages from physical and psychological injuries 

arising out of an incident in plaintiff’s public school classroom on September 17, 2018, in which 

plaintiff reportedly fell over a partition in the classroom, scratching his arm. Mot. at 3–4. That 

night, he suffered a grand mal seizure. Id. The next day, the principal informed plaintiff’s 

guardian “there may have been some physical blocking” by the teacher, causing plaintiff’s fall. 

Id. Three instructional aides present during the incident reported that the teacher restrained 

plaintiff for approximately thirty minutes in an effort to force him to pick up a snack he had 

dropped. Id. The aides reported that plaintiff “became visibly upset, pulled down his pants, and 

attempted to escape through the mats, breaking a PVC pipe [used as a partition in the classroom] 

and scratching his arm.” Id. 

Additionally, the Claims for Damages alleged plaintiff suffered physical and 

emotional injuries caused by the District’s alleged practice of restraining plaintiff using a piece of 

adaptive equipment generally intended to provide postural support for students with low muscle 

tone. Id. Plaintiff alleged the District improperly restrained plaintiff using this equipment to 

control his off-task behaviors in the classroom. Id. at 4. 

Before plaintiff filed a complaint before this court, the parties engaged in 

settlement negotiations. On June 24, 2019, the parties settled plaintiff’s potential IDEA claims 

only (the “IDEA Settlement”), and the settlement was contingent on (1) settlement of plaintiff’s 

non-IDEA claims through June 21, 2019; (2) approval by the District’s governing board; and 

Case 2:19-cv-01404-KJM-DB Document 15 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 7
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 

(3) this court’s approval of the settlement. Mot. at 5; id., Ex. 4, ECF No. 7-4 (IDEA Settlement). 

Two days later, the parties finalized a settlement resolving plaintiff’s non-IDEA claims arising 

out of the acts or omissions alleged in plaintiff’s Claims for Damages (the “Civil Settlement”). 

Mot. at 5; id., Ex. 5, ECF No. 7-5 (Civil Settlement). According to the parties, plaintiff’s 

potential non-IDEA claims included claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

(“Section 504”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Fourth 

Amendment, and California’s Unruh and Bane Acts. Mot. at 3. 

II. THE SETTLEMENT 

 The IDEA Settlement, Ex. 41, provides: 

1. The District will fund independent educational evaluations in the areas of: 

a. Psychoeducation; 

b. Alternative/Augmentative Communication (“AAC”); 

c. Physical therapy; 

d. Speech and language; 

e. Occupational therapy; and 

f. Assistive technology; 

2. The District will amend J.J.’s Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) to indicate that 

he will receive support from a one-to-one trained aide throughout his school day, 

include information from a recent independent functional behavior assessment, 

and increase behavior support; 

3. The District will work with the independent board certified behavior analyst to 

revise J.J.’s IEP goals and behavior intervention plan during the summer of 

2019;2

 

1

 The court notes plaintiff appears to have inadvertently included an additional page 7 of 

Exhibit 4, which is unreadable. See Civil Settlement at 9. The court disregards this unreadable, 

duplicate page. 

2

 Even though this date has passed, the court assumes this condition and all other 

conditions with dates that have passed have been met. 

Case 2:19-cv-01404-KJM-DB Document 15 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 7
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 

4. The District will fund consultation with private providers in the areas of assistive 

technology, alternative/augmentative communication, and behavior during the fall 

of 2019; 

5. The District will fund additional services in the areas of speech and language 

therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and behavior support, through 

October 2019, when the independent educational evaluations specified above 

should be completed and reviewed at an IEP meeting to determine J.J.’s 

prospective needs; 

6. The District will establish a compensatory education fund in the amount of 

$25,000, to be accessible for educationally related services and/or assessments 

through August 31, 2024; 

7. The District will pay plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees incurred in the administrative 

proceeding in “an amount not to exceed” $20,000; 

8. Plaintiff shall release and discharge the District from any and all claims, 

demands, and causes of action arising under the IDEA only, through the date of 

execution of the Agreement, June 24, 2019; 

The Civil Settlement, Ex. 5, provides: 

9. The District agrees to pay $375,000.00 to Plaintiff’s attorney-client trust account at 

Ruderman & Knox, LLP, within thirty days of court approval; and 

10. Plaintiff releases all past and present non-IDEA claims arising from the acts or 

omissions of the District alleged in the Claims for Damages dated January 24, 

2019 and April 17, 2019. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:19-cv-01404-KJM-DB Document 15 Filed 01/22/20 Page 4 of 7
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 

 In sum, plaintiff requests the court approve the distribution of settlement funds as 

follows: 

1. Payment of costs in the amount of $825.97; 

2. Payment of fees to Ruderman & Knox in the amount of $93,543.61; 

3. Funding of a special needs trust created for the benefit of J.J. in the amount of 

$280,630.52; and 

4. Payment of fees from J.J.’s portion of the proceeds, as necessary for an estate 

planning attorney to establish the trust, not to exceed $4,500.3 

Mot. at 9–10. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

District courts have a duty to protect the interests of minor or incompetent 

litigants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2) (requiring court “appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue 

another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an 

action”). This special duty requires a district court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine 

whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 

1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); 

see also E.D. Cal. L. R. 202(b) (“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.”). 

The Ninth Circuit instructs district courts to “limit the scope of their review to the 

question of 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 

 3

 The original settlement submitted to the court did not include a cap on the amount of 

J.J.’s portion of the proceeds that could be used for an estate planning attorney to establish the 

trust. See Mot. at 9. Concerned by this, the court issued an order directing the parties to file a 

further stipulation explaining why no cap is necessary or, if the court determines a cap is required, 

what that cap should be. ECF No. 12. In response, the parties filed a stipulation stating that the 

total legal fees actually incurred by the attorney who prepared a special needs trust for J.J. were 

$3,988.50 pus a $435.00 filing fee. ECF No. 14 at 2. Therefore, the parties stipulated that the 

fees and costs necessary for an estate planning attorney to establish a special needs trust “would 

be reasonably capped at $4,500.” Id. Satisfied with this stipulation, the court includes the cap 

here in its description of the settlement. 

Case 2:19-cv-01404-KJM-DB Document 15 Filed 01/22/20 Page 5 of 7
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 

cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82. This requires the court to “evaluate the fairness of each 

minor 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 1182. 

IV. DISCUSSION 

The court determines that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable to the 

minor plaintiff. Plaintiff’s injuries appear to be primarily emotional and psychological in nature. 

If this matter were to proceed to trial, the minor plaintiff would face the challenge of proving “the 

nature, extent, and causation of the injuries sustained.” Mot. at 8. In light of this obstacle, and 

other issues of proof, this settlement presents a fair and reasonable compromise. 

Further, review of recovery in similar cases confirms the settlement is reasonable. 

See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. For example, in Hugunin v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., 2:15-cv00939-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2018), the court approved settlements ranging from 

$202,677.95 to $1,013,916.85 for autistic students subjected to repeated verbal and physical 

abuse by their teacher. See id. ECF Nos. 1 (Compl.), 59, 160–62 (orders approving settlements). 

Similarly, in Beecham v. Roseville City School District, No. 2:15-cv-01022-KJM-EFB, 2018 WL 

6524267 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2018), this court approved settlement amounts ranging from 

$251,089.76 to $599,490.77 for disabled minors subjected to “severe physical, verbal, and 

emotional abuse” by a teacher over three months, including “hitting, slapping, pinching, pushing, 

yelling and pulling by the hair or ears.” Id. at *1–2. Plaintiff’s net recovery here of $280,630.52 

is within the recovery range of these similar actions, suggesting the settlement is fair and 

reasonable. Moreover, it appears fair and reasonable that plaintiff’s recovery is on the lower end 

of this range, given that the allegations are somewhat less egregious than those in Hugunin and 

Beecham, which each involved repeated instances of physical abuse from teachers. 

Furthermore, the attorneys’ fees rate of 25 percent of the settlement proceeds is in 

line with previous settlements approved in this district. See Mitchell v. Riverstone Residential 

Grp., No. Civ. S-11-2202 LKK/CKD, 2013 WL 1680641, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2013) (“It has 

been the practice in the Eastern District of California to consider 25% of the recovery as the 

Case 2:19-cv-01404-KJM-DB Document 15 Filed 01/22/20 Page 6 of 7
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 

benchmark for attorney fees in contingency cases for minors, subject to a showing of good cause 

to exceed that rate.”); see also Castillo v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. CV 14-07702-BRO (EX), 2017 

WL 5172172, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017) (approving award of 25 percent of settlement 

amount). Accordingly, this element of the settlement is also fair and reasonable. 

V. CONCLUSION 

The court finds the proposed settlement serves the best interests of the minor 

plaintiff. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion to approve the settlement agreements, ECF 

No. 7. The proposed settlement agreements, as they are described in Exhibits 3 and 4 to the 

parties’ motion, are hereby approved, and the distribution of settlement funds shall be as follows: 

1. Payment of costs in the amount of $825.97; 

2. Payment of fees to Ruderman & Knox in the amount of $93,543.61; 

3. Funding of a special needs trust created for the benefit of J.J. in the amount 

of $280,630.52; and 

4. Payment of fees from J.J.’s portion of the proceeds, as necessary for an 

 estate planning attorney to establish the trust, not to exceed $4,500. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 22, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01404-KJM-DB Document 15 Filed 01/22/20 Page 7 of 7