The opinion
Sloan R. Simmons, SBN 233752
1
Alyssa R. Bivins, SBN 308331
LOZANO SMITH
2
One Capitol Mall, Suite 640
Sacramento, CA 95814
3
Telephone: (916) 329-7433
Facsimile: (916) 329-9050
4
Attorneys for Defendants
5
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
JORGE A. AGUILAR, CHRISTINE A. BAETA, JESSIE RYAN,
6
DARREL WOO, MICHAEL MINNICK, LISA MURAWSKI,
LETICIA GARCIA, CHRISTINA PRITCHETT, MAI VANG,
7
and BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SACRAMENTO CITY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
8
Additional Attorneys on Final Page
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
BLACK PARALLEL SCHOOL BOARD et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01768-TLN-KJN
13
Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION AND JOINT
14 MOTION FOR STAY OF LITIGATION
vs. PENDING AGREED-UPON STRUCTURED
15 SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS; AND
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL ORDER
16 DISTRICT et al.,
Judge: Hon. Troy L. Nunley
17 Courtroom.: 7
Defendants.
18 Action Filed: September 5, 2019
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION AND JOINT MOTION
2 TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiffs Black Parallel School Board, S.A., K.E., and C.S.
4 (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Sacramento City Unified School District, et al., and all of them (the
5 “District”) (collectively herein, “Parties”), through their respective counsel of record, hereby jointly
6 move this Court for a stay of this litigation for seven months so that the parties may engage in agreed-
7 upon structured settlement negotiations, as set forth below.
8 As the Parties jointly move for the requested stay and agree on the propriety and scope of same,
9 the Parties do not believe argument or appearance is necessary for the Court to consider the requested
10 stay, but are prepared to appear if the Court so orders.
11 STATEMENT OF FACTS
12 The Parties hereby stipulate to the following facts:
13 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and initiated the instant action on September 5, 2019 (ECF
14 No. 1).
15 Plaintiffs served the District with its Complaint on September 10, 2019, and filed the related
16 Proof of Service on October 17, 2019 (ECF No. 7).
17 Shortly after Plaintiffs’ service of the Complaint, the Parties engaged in communications to
18 negotiate a stay of this litigation for a designated period of time to allow the Parties to participate in
19 good faith negotiations toward a potential global resolution of this action, thereby preserving the
20 Parties’ and the Court’s time and resources.
21 On September 24, 2019, as the Parties’ communications described in paragraph 3 continued to
22 make progress and were ongoing, the Parties stipulated to and the Court granted an extension of time for
23 the District to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint to October 22, 2019 (ECF No. 5).
24 On October 21, 2019, as the Parties’ communications described in paragraph 3 continued to
25 make progress and were ongoing, the Parties stipulated to a second extension of time for the District to
26 respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and sought Court-approval of same; the Court granted the extension
27 on October 21, 2019 (ECF Nos. 10, 11).
1 As the Parties’ discussions as described in paragraph 3 continued and were fruitful, on
2 November 15, 2019, the Parties stipulated to a third extension of time for the District to respond to
3 Plaintiffs’ Complaint and sought Court-approval of same, which the Court ordered and approved on
4 November 15, 2019 (ECF Nos. 22, 23).
5 At the time of the Parties’ November 15 stipulation, the Parties anticipated that no further
6 extension of time for the District to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint would be necessary and that by
7 or before December 20, 2019, the Parties would reach an agreement as to the stay of this litigation for a
8 designated period of time to allow the Parties to participate in good faith negotiations to seek global
9 resolution of this action, and thereby efficiently preserve the Parties’ and the Court’s time and resources.
10 The Parties have reached a final Structured Negotiations Agreement, which has been
11 memorialized in writing. A true and correct copy of the Structured Negotiations Agreement is attached
12 hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference.
13 Pursuant to the Structured Negotiations Agreement, the Parties seek this Court’s approval of a
14 stay of this litigation to afford the Parties time to complete the activities described in the Structured
15 Negotiations Agreement including, but not limited to, engaging third-party, neutral experts to evaluate
16 the District’s programs, policies, and services and then meeting to discuss the potential for global
17 resolution of this action.
18 GOVERNING LAW
19 This Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its
20 own docket.” Clinton v. Jones (1997) 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co. (1936) 299
21 U.S. 248). In fact,
22 the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control
the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
23 counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment,
which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.
24
25 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55.
26 Correspondingly, as this very Court has recognized, “[c]ourts have applied their discretionary
27 authority to grant stays because it appeared that settlement discussions between the parties might prove
1 fruitful.” Johnson v. Village, Case No. No. 2:15-cv-02299-TLN-KJN, 2016 WL 1720710, *6 (E.D. Cal.
2 Apr. 29, 2016) (citing EEOC v. Canadian Indemnity Co., 407 F. Supp. 1366, 1368 (C.D. Cal. 1976)).
3 REQUEST FOR STAY
4 As outlined above, the Parties have successfully negotiated over the past several months an
5 agreed-upon structure for settlement discussions between the Parties, in the hope of reaching a global
6 resolution of this matter without the need for protracted litigation. The Parties now jointly move and
7 request that this Court stay this matter for seven months so that the Parties may engage in the activities
8 agreed-upon and outlined in the attached Structured Negotiations Agreement.
9 The Parties believe that a stay is justified because it will: (1) promote judicious use of the
10 Parties’ and Court’s time and resources; and (2) offer the opportunity for speedy resolution and relief
11 without protracted litigation, which is particularly critical where, as here, certain Plaintiffs are children
12 and Defendants are governmental entities or officials. Moreover, given the Parties negotiations to date,
13 the Parties believe that a negotiated global resolution of this matter is viable, if given time to engage in
14 the activities necessary to reach such a resolution. The Parties also agree that these activities would be
15 significantly hindered if the Parties also had to engage in simultaneous motion and discovery practice.
16 This stay will also allow the Court to have continuing oversight over the matter at hand. The
17 Parties agree to keep the Court apprised of their progress by filing joint status reports every 90 days, to
18 be counted from the day the Court grants the requested stay.
19 Pursuant to the terms of the Structured Negotiations Agreement, any Party may withdraw from
20 settlement negotiations with sufficient advance written notice. If that occurs, the Parties will inform the
21 Court so that the Court may lift the stay accordingly.
22 CONCLUSION
23 Based upon the foregoing, the Parties’ respectfully move the Court enter an order:
24 (1) Staying this litigation for all purposes for seven months, including temporarily excusing
25 the Parties from complying with this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 4), so that the
26 Parties can focus on and engage in structured settlement negotiations;
27 ///
1 (2) Extending the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint until 30 days after
2 this stay is lifted upon order of this Court, should negotiations be unsuccessful or terminated by the
3 Parties; and
4 (3) Scheduling a date for the Parties to file a joint status report, or scheduling a status
5 conference, that will permit the Parties to update the Court on the progress of settlement efforts 90 days
6 after the entry of an order granting this joint motion, and then scheduling a further report 90 days after
7 that during the requested stay.
8 Dated: December 19, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,
9
LOZANO SMITH
10
11 /s/ Sloan R. Simmons
SLOAN R. SIMMONS
12 ALYSSA R. BIVINS
Attorneys for Defendants
13 SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, JORGE A. AGUILAR, CHRISTINE
14 A. BAETA, JESSIE RYAN, DARREL WOO,
MICHAEL MINNICK, LISA MURAWSKI,
15 LETICIA GARCIA, CHRISTINA PRITCHETT,
MAI VANG, and BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
16 SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
17
18
Dated: December 19, 2019 Respectfully submitted
19
EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
20 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
21 WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY
22
23
/s/ Mona Tawatao (as authorized on 12/19/19)
24 MONA TAWATAO
Attorney for Plaintiffs
25 BLACK PARALLEL SCHOOL BOARD, S.A., by
and through his Next Friend, AMY A., K.E., by and
26
through his Next Friend, JENNIFER E., and C.S.,
27 by and through his General Guardian, SAMUEL S.
LIST OF ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS:
1
2 EVA PATERSON (SBN: 67081)
MONA TAWATAO (SBN: 128779) CARLY J. MUNSON (SBN: 254598)
3 Equal Justice Society BRIDGET CLAYCOMB (SBN: 312001)
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 818 LAUREN LYSTRUP (SBN: 326849)
4 Oakland, California 94612 Disability Rights California
Telephone: (415) 288-8700 1831 K Street
5 Facsimile: (510) 338-3030 Sacramento, California 95811
Email: mtawatao@equaljusticesociety.org Telephone: (916) 504-5800
6 Facsimile: (916) 504-5801
Email: carly.munson@disabilityrightsca.org
7 bridget.claycomb@disabilityrightsca.org
lauren.lystrup@disabilityrightsca.org
8
9 MICHAEL HARRIS (SBN: 118234) ANTIONETTE DOZIER (SBN: 244437)
National Center for Youth Law RICHARD ROTHSCHILD (SBN: 67356)
10 405 14th Street, Floor 15 Western Center on Law and Poverty
Oakland, California 94612 3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208
11 Telephone: (510) 835-8098 Los Angeles, California 90010
Facsimile: (410) 835-8099 Telephone: (213) 487-7211
12 Email: mharris@youthlaw.org Facsimile: (213) 487-0242
Email: adozier@wclp.org
13
rrothschild@wclp.org
14
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 ORDER
2 Pursuant to the foregoing Joint Motion of the Parties, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING
3 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4 (1) This action is temporarily stayed for seven months for all purposes to enable the Parties
5 to focus on and engage in early settlement efforts;
6 (2) While this stay is in effect, the Parties are excused from complying with this Court’s
7 Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 4);
8 (3) While this stay is in effect, the Defendants are not required to file a responsive pleading
9 until 30 days after any stay in this action is lifted; and
10 (4) The Parties shall file an initial status report no later than (90 days from the date of this
11 order), and file a subsequent status report on (90 days after that) so long as this stay remains in effect
12 unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 Dated: December 20, 2019
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27