Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02167/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02167-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Doe
Plaintiff
Mt. Diablo Unified School District
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02167-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

EXCUSE JOHN DOE’S PERSONAL 

APPEARANCE AT SETTLEMENT 

APPROVAL HEARING 

RE: Dkt. No. 58

On August 19, 2015, Plaintiff John Doe, through his guardian ad litem Herb Thomas, 

moved the Court to excuse John Doe’s personal appearance at the settlement approval hearing 

scheduled for September 10, 2015. Dkt. No. 58 (“Mot.”). 

Under California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, a “person with a disability must attend the 

hearing on the compromise of the claim unless the court for good cause dispenses with their 

personal appearance.” Plaintiff’s counsel represents that good cause exists to excuse John Doe’s 

personal appearance on September 10, 2015 because he is “unable to comprehend the matters to 

be discussed” and is “unable to provide competent testimony due to his mental disabilities.” Mot. 

at ¶ 14. Plaintiff’s counsel further represents that John Doe’s grandmother (and former guardian 

ad litem in this case) is his only means of transportation to the courthouse, has “shown a complete 

unwillingness to comply with this Court’s order substituting Herb Thomas as guardian ad litem[,]” 

and is expected to be hostile and disruptive. Id. 

The Court finds that good cause to excuse John Doe’s appearance at the settlement 

approval hearing has not been demonstrated. The motion filed by Plaintiff’s counsel does not 

represent that John Doe has been informed of the approval hearing, let alone told that his 

attendance is required by state law. Neither does the motion discuss whether John Doe is 

Case 4:14-cv-02167-HSG Document 61 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

physically able to attend the hearing now that he is believed to live “in a van somewhere in 

Oregon” with his grandmother. Mot. at ¶ 9. In addition, given that John Doe was deposed in this 

action, the Court is not persuaded by counsel’s bare representation that Plaintiff is so disabled that 

he cannot comprehend or participate in the proceedings in any way. Finally, that John Doe and his 

grandmother appear to dispute the reasonableness of the settlement agreement is not a reason for 

Plaintiff not to attend.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion. Should 

Plaintiff’s counsel wish to renew this motion he must, at a minimum: (1) fully inform John Doe of 

the upcoming settlement approval hearing and the issues to be decided; (2) convey that California 

law requires his attendance barring an order by the Court; (3) invite John Doe to attend; (4) make 

reasonable efforts to arrange for John Doe’s transportation to the courthouse; and, if Plaintiff’s 

counsel continues to believe that the severity of John Doe’s disabilities preclude his participation 

in the settlement approval hearing (5) provide medical evidence supporting that position. In

addition, any future motion to excuse John Doe’s participation must report John Doe’s position as 

to whether he should attend the settlement approval hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

9/1/2015

Case 4:14-cv-02167-HSG Document 61 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2