Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01576/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01576-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

D. G., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01576-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 

APPROVAL OF MINOR'S 

COMPROMISE

Re: Dkt. No. 24

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff D.G.’s motion for approval of the compromise, filed 

by and through his guardians ad litem Michele A. and Daniel G. (“Plaintiffs”). See Dkt. No. 24. 

For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion for approval of the compromise.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a special education due process complaint 

(“Administrative Claim”) against Defendant Antioch Unified School District. See Dkt. No. 1 

(“Complaint” or “Compl.”), & Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. 1. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated the 

Individual with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) by failing to provide D.G., an eight-year-old 

child, with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) when it did not adequately assess him in 

all areas of suspected disability. Id.

On December 28, 2018, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted Plaintiffs’ requested 

relief in part (“OAH Decision”). See Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. B. The ALJ concluded that D.G. was 

eligible for special education; ordered Defendant to convene an Individual Education Program 

(“IEP”) team meeting; and awarded D.G. 250 hours of academic tutoring. Id. at 27–33, 38–40. 

However, the ALJ denied Plaintiffs’ other requests for relief. Id.

On March 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action against Defendant, seeking 

Case 4:19-cv-01576-HSG Document 26 Filed 10/01/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to partially overturn the OAH Decision to the extent that the ALJ did not find that the Defendant’s

psychoeducational evaluation was inadequate; did not order an occupational therapy evaluation;

and did not find that D.G. required speech and language services. See Compl. ¶¶ 29–50. Plaintiffs 

also sought attorneys’ fees and costs as a prevailing party in the administrative proceeding, 

pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). See id. at ¶¶ 51–54.

On August 30, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement, in which (1) Defendant 

will pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees incurred in the administrative proceeding in the amount of 

$75,000; and in exchange, (2) Plaintiffs will release and discharge Defendant from any and all 

claims arising from the administrative proceeding or this action; and regarding the FAPE that 

Defendant offered or provided on or before November 19, 2018. See Dkt. No. 24-2. Defendant 

has approved the settlement and did not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. See Dkt. No. 25.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“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); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (providing that district court “must appoint a guardian ad 

litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is 

unrepresented in an action”). When there is a proposed settlement in a suit involving a minor 

plaintiff, 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, 638 F.3d at 1181 

(quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). As part of this inquiry, the 

“court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s 

claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, even if the settlement has been 

recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” Salmeron v. United 

States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983). The district court must review “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.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 

1182. But the court must disregard the “proportion of the total settlement value designated for 

adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel” because the court has “no special duty to safeguard” their 

Case 4:19-cv-01576-HSG Document 26 Filed 10/01/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

interests. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Based on its review of Plaintiffs’ submissions, the Court finds that the proposed settlement 

is fair and reasonable and serves the best interests of the minor. The Court first notes that this 

settlement is atypical in that the entire amount of the settlement will be applied toward the 

attorneys’ fees that D.G.’s family incurred in pursuing his rights in the Administrative Claim and 

in this action. See Dkt. No. 24-2. As such, D.G. will not directly receive any of the money. Id. 

Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel of record will receive $75,000 as attorneys’ fees. Id. Plaintiffs’ 

counsel, though its fees to date exceed $89,000, has agreed to accept this payment as full 

compensation, and will not pursue the balance from Plaintiffs. See Dkt. No. 24-3 ¶¶ 3–6, 8. 

Despite this unusual structure, the Court finds the settlement fair and reasonable given the 

substantial difficulties and uncertainties in continuing to litigate Plaintiffs’ claims. See Dkt. No. 

24-3 ¶ 9; cf. Escondido Union Sch. Dist. v. Chandrasekar, No. 18CV02873JLBNLS, 2019 WL 

3945356, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019) (approving minor’s compromise comprising attorneys’ 

fees in similar context). If this case had continued, there is no certainty that Plaintiffs would have 

prevailed on their claims. Moreover, although there is no settlement amount to distribute to the 

minor, Defendant has complied with the OAH Decision, which directed substantial resources for 

D.G.’s benefit: Defendant has placed D.G. on an IEP and D.G. is in the process of receiving 250

hours of compensatory education in reading, math, and written expression. See Dkt. No. 24 at 2.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for approval of the compromise of the action 

and directs the parties to disburse the proceeds of the settlement as detailed in the Final Settlement 

Agreement, dated August 30, 2019, see Dkt. No. 24-2, Ex. 2.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:19-cv-01576-HSG Document 26 Filed 10/01/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for compromise. The parties are 

DIRECTED to file a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which does not require an order of approval from the Court, by October 11, 2019. 

The Court further VACATES the telephonic conference currently scheduled for October 1, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-01576-HSG Document 26 Filed 10/01/19 Page 4 of 4