The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRIS QUATRO, Cause No. 1:16-cv-01213-DWM
Plaintiff,
vs. ORDER
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Chris Quatro is entitled to $177,144.25 in fees and $2,988.70 in
costs pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”).
Defendant Tehachapi Unified School District has yet to pay. As a result, on
February 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the payment of attorneys’
fees and costs consistent with the May 11, 2017 judgment entered in this case.
(Doc. 72.) On March 4, 2020, Defendant Tehachapi Unified School District
(“Tehachapi”) filed a brief in opposition. (Doc. 77.) On March 11, Plaintiff filed a
reply. (Doc. 79.) A hearing was held via teleconference on March 18.
BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2016, the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”)
decided the case of R.Q. v. Tehachapi Unified School District, Case No:
2015120968. (Doc. 72-1.) The OAH determined that R.Q. was a prevailing party
pursuant to the IDEA, which entitled R.Q. to attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed this action to recover those fees and costs on August 16, 2016. (Doc.
1); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). On May 11, 2017, following a bench trial, Plaintiff
was awarded $135,876.75 in fees and $2,805.00 in costs. (See Doc. 52.) Judgment
was entered that same date. (Id.) On June 8, 2017, Tehachapi appealed. (Doc.
60.) The Ninth Circuit affirmed the fee award on November 19, 2018, (Doc. 66),
and issued its mandate on December 11, 2018, which included a cost award of
$183.70, (Doc. 68). On January 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit awarded Plaintiff an
additional $41,267.50 in fees. (Doc. 69.) Since that date, Plaintiff has
unsuccessfully sought to recover the monies owed, and Tehachapi has literally
done nothing but stall, ignoring its obligations under state and federal law, as well
as the Court’s judgment and mandate.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enforcement of
the judgment in this case must proceed according to California law. Because
Tehachapi is a local public entity, its payment of the judgment is governed by the
California Government Code, §§ 970.1−971.2. Barkley v. City of Blue Lake, 18
Cal. App. 4th 1745, 1750 (1993). Section 970.4 directs the local public entity to
pay the money judgment in the year it becomes final to the extent that funds are
available. But, if the funds are not available, the entity must pay the judgment in
the next fiscal year, § 970.5, or, with permission from the Court, in installments
over the next ten years, § 970.6. The local public entity must include in its budget
a provision to repay all judgments. See § 970.8. In sum, California law expressly
and specifically requires a local public entity to promptly pay the full amount of
any judgment, with interest. Section 970.2 provides that “[a] writ of mandate is an
appropriate remedy to compel” such compliance. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion
to enforce is construed as a request for issuance of a writ of mandate.
ANALYSIS
A. Payment of Judgments
This Court’s judgment on the fees award became final on December 11,
2018, when the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate. (See Doc. 68.) Both that
judgment and the Ninth Circuit’s January 8, 2019 fee award, (see Doc. 69),
therefore became final in the 2018/2019 fiscal year. Accordingly, Tehachapi was
required to pay the judgment by June 30, 2019. Cal. Gov. Code § 970.4. It did not
do so. Even assuming the funds were not available that year or that some delay
can be attributed to an unsuccessful settlement attempt (neither assumption,
however, is well-deserved), Tehachapi is required to pay the judgment by June 30,
2020. See Cal. Gov. Code § 970.5.
Tehachapi’s arguments regarding the reasonableness of any delay are
rejected as unpersuasive and not credible. For example, the Court is troubled that
Tehachapi explicitly indicated that the payment of these judgments would be
addressed at the March 10 board meeting, (see Doc. 77 at 2), but then stated at the
March 18 hearing that the Board was merely told the payments were still
unresolved. It is therefore unclear whether the Board has directly addressed the
payment at issue in this case. While exhibits submitted by Plaintiff indicate that
the Board held closed sessions related to this case, the Board’s designated
representative at the March 18 conference indicated she was not privy to those
sessions. The Court therefore remains unconvinced that Tehachapi is fulfilling its
legal obligations in good faith. Whether the Board is relying on sound and
accurate legal advice is an unanswered issue. A writ of mandate is therefore
necessary. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1085(a).
B. Prejudgment Interest
Plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest. (Doc. 72 at 12−13.) Because
prejudgment interest was not originally awarded in the May 11, 2017 judgment, it
will not be awarded now.
C. Post-judgment Interest
Plaintiff further seeks post-judgment interest. (Doc. 72 at 13−15.) Post-
judgment interest on district court judgments is mandatory, Air Separation, Inc. v.
Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 45 F.3d 288, 290 (9th Cir. 1995), including for
fee awards under the IDEA, Gera v. Paramount Unified Sch. Dist., 173 F.3d 860,
*2 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 1999) (unpublished). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to
interest on attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 accruing from May 11, 2017—
the date this Court entered judgment on the award of fees and costs—through the
date payment is made. It is therefore worth noting that everyday that Tehachapi
fails to pay the judgments owed under the law costs taxpayers and their children
unnecessary money.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Tehachapi shall pay the awarded attorneys’ fees and costs, including
post-judgment interest, no later than June 30, 2020, as required by Cal. Gov. Code
§ 970.5;
(2) Plaintiff shall submit a proposed daily interest calculation on or before
March 20, 2020. Tehachapi may file objections to the method of calculation, if
any, on or before March 27, 2020. Such objections must include alternative
calculations.
(3) A writ of mandate requiring full payment is ISSUED but held in
abeyance until July 1, 2020.
The failure to comply will result in an order to show cause why the
individual board members should not be held in contempt.
DATED this 19th day of March, 2020.
i W. J Hoy. a Judge /
United States District Court □
□