Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00889/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00889-16/pdf.json

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

---

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT STIP. RE: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT; Everett H. et al. v. DCJESD et al.

ORDER THEREON Case No. 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DAD

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

LOZANO SMITH

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640 Sacramento, California 95814

Tel 916- 329-7433 Fax 916-329-9050

Sloan R. Simmons, SBN 233752

Marcella L. Gutierrez, SBN 214224

Jessica Gasbarro, SBN 258100

LOZANO SMITH

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 329-7433

Facsimile: (916) 329-9050

Email: jgasbarro@lozanosmith.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, 

Mark Geyer, Lynn Barbaria, 

Andrew Giannini and Evonne Rogers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETT H., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DRY CREEK JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DAD

JOINT STIPULATION RE: REQUEST 

FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT 

TO RULE 68 WITHOUT DELAY, OR IN 

THE ALTERNATIVE RULE 54(b) OF THE 

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE; ORDER OF JUDGMENT 

THEREON

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 121 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 5
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT STIP. RE: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT; 2 Everett H. et al. v. DCJESD et al.

ORDER THEREON Case No. 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DAD

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

LOZANO SMITH

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640 Sacramento, California 95814

Tel 916- 329-7433 Fax 916-329-9050

Plaintiffs Heath Havey, Rebecca Havey and Everett H. (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Dry Creek 

Joint Elementary School District, Mark Geyer, Lynn Barbaria, Andrew Giannini and Evonne Rogers 

(“District Defendants” and, collectively with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through their respective 

counsel, urgently request the Court to direct the Clerk to enter judgment without delay pursuant to the 

accepted Offer of Judgment filed under Rule 68(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF Docket 

No. 110). If necessary to accommodate immediate entry of judgment, the Parties stipulate and agree for 

the Court to enter final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

disposing of all the claims against the District Defendants and allowing the case to proceed against the 

remaining Defendant California Department of Education. The Parties stipulate as follows:

1. On May 12, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in 

this action; 

2. On November 10, 2015, District Defendants served a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment (“Rule 

68 Offer”) on Plaintiffs; 

3. On November 24, 2015, Plaintiffs accepted District Defendants’ November 10, 2015 

Rule 68 Offer, and Plaintiffs served on District Defendants their Notice of Acceptance of Offer of 

Judgment Under F.R.C.P. Rule 68; 

4. On November 24, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment 

Under F.R.C.P. Rule 68 with the Court (ECF Docket No. 110). A true and correct copy of ECF Docket 

No. 110 and its attachments, which includes District Defendants’ Rule 68 Offer, Plaintiffs’ Notice of 

Acceptance of Offer of Judgment Under F.R.C.P. Rule 68, and Proof of Service of the Notice of 

Acceptance, are attached collectively hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference; 

5. On December 8, 2015, District Defendants’ counsel sent an email to the Courtroom 

Deputy to the Honorable Chief Judge England, Ms. Stephanie Deutsch, inquiring as to the anticipated 

timeline for when Judgment would be entered in this case by the clerk pursuant to the accepted Rule 68 

Offer. Ms. Deutsch responded that “[t]he clerk’s office will only enter one judgment at the conclusion 

of the entire case. I hope this helps.” A true and correct copy of this email exchange is attached hereto 

as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference. 

///

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 121 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 5
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT STIP. RE: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT; 3 Everett H. et al. v. DCJESD et al.

ORDER THEREON Case No. 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DAD

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

LOZANO SMITH

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640 Sacramento, California 95814

Tel 916- 329-7433 Fax 916-329-9050

6. Plaintiffs assert there is no just cause for delay, and contend that they will be prejudiced 

by any delays in entering judgment pursuant to Rule 68. Plaintiffs accepted the Rule 68 Offer, even 

though they contend it does not fully compensate Everett H. for the harms caused consistent with the 

allegations in the SAC, primarily to ensure they will be able to immediately begin providing services, 

therapies, and necessary education to Everett without delay. This was done to ensure that further 

educational and other harms do not continue to accrue and that Everett can close the educational gap as 

much as possible without delay or continuing harm. Plaintiffs contend that waiting until trial or final 

judgment as to the claims against the CDE will compound the harms against Everett that Plaintiffs can 

otherwise begin to remediate now. Plaintiffs believe it is in Everett’s best interest to begin using the 

funding from the Offer of Judgment now, and to supplement that with any future judgment against the 

CDE related to the claims against the CDE.

7. The District Defendants assert that there is no just cause for delay of entry of judgment in 

this matter, and that an entry of judgment at this time is necessary to provide the District Defendants 

with complete and final closure of this case relative to the District Defendants, allow for the final 

payment to Plaintiffs for full satisfaction of this case as it pertains to the claims against the District 

Defendants in the SAC, and to provide certainty as to the cessation of any further incurrence of 

attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter on behalf of the District Defendants. 

8. Based upon the foregoing, and the absence of entry of judgment in this case consistent 

with the accepted Rule 68 Offer to date, the Parties stipulate and agree that, pursuant to Rule 68(a) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court should direct the Clerk to enter judgment against District 

Defendants without delay, pursuant to the Rule 68 Offer and its acceptance by Plaintiffs, as to District 

Defendants and the claims against them in the SAC, including the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and 

Eleventh Claims for Relief, and the Twelfth Claim for Relief to the extent asserted against the individual 

District Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a) (“Making an Offer; Judgment on an Accepted Offer. At 

least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing 

party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after 

being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the 

///

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 121 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 5
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT STIP. RE: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT; 4 Everett H. et al. v. DCJESD et al.

ORDER THEREON Case No. 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DAD

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

LOZANO SMITH

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640 Sacramento, California 95814

Tel 916- 329-7433 Fax 916-329-9050

offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.”) (emphasis 

added);

9. In the alternative, the Parties stipulate and agree that the Court, in its discretion, should 

enter judgment against the District Defendants based upon Plaintiffs’ acceptance of the Rule 68 Offer, 

pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:

When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, 

counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are 

involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but 

fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is 

no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however 

designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of 

fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties 

and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the 

claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.

The Parties stipulate and agree that Plaintiffs’ acceptance of the Rule 68 Offer resolves all claims 

contained in the SAC against District Defendants only. The Parties agree that the accepted Rule 68 

Offer does not dispose of, adjudicate or otherwise resolve the remaining claims of Plaintiffs in the SAC 

against the California Department of Education, and that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of 

judgment in this case consistent with the accepted Rule 68 Offer. See, e.g., Harry & David v. ICG Am. 

Inc., Case no. 08-3106-CL, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135688, *1-5; Griffin v. Archbold Med. Ctr., Inc., 

Case No. 7:08-cv-54(HL), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40718, *1-2 (M.D. Ga. May 14, 2009) (citing 

Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co. v. Southeastern Forge, Inc. (M.D. Ga. 2002) 2009 F.R.D. 697, 699). 

10. The Parties therefore respectfully request the Court direct the Clerk to enter Judgment 

against District Defendants only, in accordance with Rule 68(a), or, in the alternative, the Court enter 

Judgment in its own discretion, pursuant to Rule 54(b), because there is no just reason to delay entry of 

judgment consistent with the accepted Rule 68 Offer.

Dated: December 23, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

LOZANO SMITH

/s/ Sloan R. Simmons

SLOAN R. SIMMONS

MARCELLA L. GUTIERREZ

JESSICA GASBARRO

Attorneys for Defendants

Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, Mark 

Geyer, Lynn Barbaria, Andrew Giannini and 

Evonne Rogers

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 121 Filed 01/25/16 Page 4 of 5
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT STIP. RE: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT; 5 Everett H. et al. v. DCJESD et al.

ORDER THEREON Case No. 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DAD

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

LOZANO SMITH

One Capitol Mall, Suite 640 Sacramento, California 95814

Tel 916- 329-7433 Fax 916-329-9050

Dated: December 23, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Heath A. Havey_____________________

HEATH A. HAVEY

Attorney for Plaintiff Rebecca Havey and Minor

Plaintiff Everett H., as Plaintiff Pro Se and as

Guardian ad Litem for Minor Plaintiff Everett H.

*Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other 

signatories thereto has been obtained.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Stipulation between Plaintiffs Heath Havey, Rebecca Havey and 

Everett H. (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, Mark Geyer, Lynn 

Barbaria, Andrew Giannini and Evonne Rogers (“District Defendants”), and GOOD CAUSE 

APPEARING THEREFORE: 

The Court directs the Clerk, pursuant to Rule 68(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to 

enter Judgment against District Defendants only, consistent with the accepted Rule 68 Offer of 

Judgment (ECF Docket No. 110), notice of acceptance of which was filed with the Court on November 

24, 2015.

The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay in entering judgment against District 

Defendants only, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case remains 

pending against the remaining Defendant, the California Department of Education.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-00889-MCE-DB Document 121 Filed 01/25/16 Page 5 of 5