# Black Parallel School Board v. Sacramento City Unified School District

> District Court, E.D. California · July 14, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020496

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** July 14, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020496

## Opinion text

MONA TAWATAO (SBN: 128779)
2 Equal Justice Society
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 818
3
Oakland, California 94612
4 Telephone: (415) 288-8700
Facsimile: (510) 338-3030
5 Email: epaterson@equaljusticesociety.org
mtawatao@equaljusticesociety.org
6
MELINDA BIRD (SBN: 102236)
7
CARLY MUNSON (SBN: 254598)
8 Disability Rights California
350 S. Bixel St., Suite 290
9 Los Angeles, California 90017
10 Telephone: (213) 213-8000
Facsimile: (213) 213-8001
11 Email: melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org
carly.munson@disabilityrightsca.org
12
13 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
(Additional Attorneys Listed on Final Page)
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
BLACK PARALLEL SCHOOL BOARD; S.A., by and Case No. 2:19-cv-01768-TLN-KJN
17 through his Next Friend, AMY A.; K.E., by and through
his Next Friend, JENNIFER E.; C.S., by and through his
18 General Guardian, SAMUEL S.; on behalf of themselves JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF STAY OF LITIGATION; AND
19 and all others similarly situated, ORDER
20 Plaintiffs,
21 v. Judge: Hon. Troy L. Nunley
Courtroom: 7
22
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Action Filed: September 15, 2019
23 JORGE A. AGUILAR, Superintendent for Sacramento
City Unified School District; CHRISTINE A. BAETA,
24 Chief Academic Officer for the Sacramento City Unified
School District; JESSIE RYAN, DARREL WOO,
25 MICHAEL MINNICK, LISA MURAWSKI, LETICIA
GARCIA, CHRISTINA PRITCHETT, and MAI VANG,
26
members of the Sacramento City Unified School District
27 Board of Education; THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
28
Defendants.
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 an extension of the stay of this litigation for an additional six months so that the
7 experts engaged by the District pursuant to the Structured Negotiations Agreement may complete
8 their work and the Parties may engage in agreed-upon structured settlement negotiations, as set forth
9 below.
10 As the Parties jointly move for the requested stay and agree on the propriety and scope of
11 same, the Parties do not believe argument or appearance is necessary for the Court to consider the
12 requested further stay, but are prepared to appear if the Court so orders.
13 STATEMENT OF FACTS
14 The Parties hereby stipulate to the following facts:
15 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and initiated the instant action on September 5, 2019. (ECF
16 No. 1).
17 2. Plaintiffs served the District with its Complaint on September 10, 2019, and filed the related
18 Proof of Service on October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 7).
19 3. Shortly after Plaintiffs’ service of the Complaint, the Parties engaged in communications to
20 negotiate requesting a stay of this litigation for a designated period of time to allow the
21 Parties to participate in good faith negotiations toward a potential global resolution of this
22 action, thereby preserving the Parties’ and the Court’s time and resources.
23 4. On December 19, 2019, the Parties entered into a Structured Negotiations Agreement
24 (“Agreement”). (See ECF No. 24 at 9-23). The Parties also filed a joint motion for a stay of
25 litigation for the Parties to engage in agreed-upon structured settlement negotiations and
26 sought Court approval of same, which the Court ordered and approved on December 20,
27 2019. (ECF No. 25).
28 5. The Court’s Order required the Parties to submit status reports every 90 days during the
1 period of the stay. To date, the Parties have filed two Joint Status Reports. (See ECF Nos.
2 28, 31). As reported in the Parties’ First Joint Status Report, a number of interim measures
3 and/or actions under the Agreement had been completed as of the filing of the Parties’ First
4 Joint Status Report. (See ECF No. 28 at 3-5). As of the filing of the Second Joint Status
5 Report, the District had completed two remaining interim measures: revising the District’s
6 notice of suspension and executing service contracts with three subject matter experts. (See
7 ECF No. 31 at 2-4).
8 Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties seek this Court’s approval of a further stay of this
9 litigation to afford the Parties time to complete the activities described in the Agreement including,
10 but not limited to, providing time to the subject matter experts to evaluate the District’s programs,
11 policies, and services and make recommendations that will inform potential resolution of this matter.
12 GOVERNING LAW
13 This Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its
14 own docket.” Clinton v. Jones 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co. 299 U.S.
15 248)(1936)). In fact,
16 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 counsel,
17 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.
18
19 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55.
20 Correspondingly, as this very Court has recognized, “[c]ourts have applied their discretionary
21 authority to grant stays because it appeared that settlement discussions between the parties might
22 prove fruitful.” Johnson v. Village, Case No. 2:15-cv-02299-TLN-KJN, 2016 WL 1720710, at *6
23 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2016) (citing EEOC v. Canadian Indemnity Co., 407 F.Supp. 1366, 1368 (C.D.
24 Cal. 1976)).
25 REQUEST FOR STAY
26 As outlined above, the Parties have successfully negotiated an agreed-upon structure for
27 settlement discussions between the Parties, in the hope of reaching a global resolution of this matter
28 without the need for protracted litigation. The Parties now jointly move and request that this Court
1 further stay this matter for six months so that the Parties may engage in the activities agreed-upon
2 and outlined in the Agreement.
3 The Parties believe that a stay is justified because it will: (1) promote judicious use of the
4 Parties’ and Court’s time and resources; and (2) offer the opportunity for speedy resolution and relief
5 without protracted litigation, which is particularly critical where, as here, certain Plaintiffs are
6 children and Defendants are governmental entities or officials. Given the Parties’ negotiations to
7 date, the Parties believe that a negotiated global resolution of this matter is viable, if given time to
8 engage in the activities necessary to reach such a resolution. The Parties also agree that these
9 activities would be significantly hindered if the Parties also had to engage in simultaneous motion
10 and discovery practice.
11 This stay will also allow the Court to have continuing oversight over the matter at hand. The
12 Parties agree to keep the Court apprised of their progress by filing joint status reports. The Parties
13 agree that the first status report will be presented to the Court 30 days after the date on which this
14 stay is ordered. In that report, the Parties will update the Court on any amendments to the interim
15 measures within the Agreement which the Parties have agreed to by that time; Plaintiffs have
16 proposed certain additional and/or modified interim measures which the Parties are discussing and
17 will continue to discuss. The Parties agree that a second status report which will include, as
18 applicable, a further update to the Court regarding any amendments to the interim measures, will be
19 presented to the Court 45 days after the date on which the first status report is filed, and the third
20 status report will be presented 60 days after the second status report is filed.
21 Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, any Party may withdraw from settlement
22 negotiations with sufficient advance written notice. If that occurs, the Parties will inform the Court
23 so that the Court may lift the stay accordingly.
24 CONCLUSION
25 Based upon the foregoing, the Parties respectfully move the Court to enter an order:
26 (1) Staying this litigation for all purposes for six months, including temporarily excusing the
27 Parties from complying with this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 4), so that the
28 Parties can focus on and engage in structured settlement negotiations;
1 (2) Extending the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint until 30 days after the
2 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 that will permit the Parties to
5 update the Court on the progress of settlement efforts 30 days after the entry of an order granting this
6 joint motion, and then scheduling two additional status reports after that, at 45-day and 60-day
7 intervals, respectively, during the requested stay.
8 DATED: July 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
9
EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
10
11
/s/ Mona Tawatao (as authorized on July 10, 2020)
12 MONA TAWATAO
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13
14
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
15
16 /s/ Melinda Bird (as authorized on July 10, 2020)
MELINDA BIRD
17
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18
19 NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
20
21 /s/ Michael Harris (as authorized on July 10, 2020)
MICHAEL HARRIS
22 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
23
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY
24
25
/s/Antionette Dozier (as authorized on July 10, 2020
26 ANTIONETTE DOZIER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
27
28
1
2
3 DATED: July 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted
4 LOZANO SMITH
5
6 /s/ Sloan Simmons (as authorized on July 10, 2020)
SLOAN SIMMONS
7 Attorneys for Defendants
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS (cont’d. from first page)
2
RAMAAH SADASIVAM (SBN: 267156)
3 BRIDGET CLAYCOMB (SBN: 312001)
LAUREN LYSTRUP (SBN: 326849)
4 Disability Rights California
1330 Broadway, #500
5 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 267-1200
6
Facsimile: (510) 267-1201
7 Email: ramaah.sadasivam@disabilityrightsca.org
bridget.claycomb@disabilityrightsca.org
8 lauren.lystrup@disabilityrightsca.org
9
MICHAEL HARRIS (SBN: 118234)
10 National Center for Youth Law
405 14th Street, Floor 15
11 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 835-8098
12
Facsimile: (410) 835-8099
13 Email: mharris@youthlaw.org
14 ANTOINETTE DOZIER (SBN: 244437)
15 RICHARD ROTHSCHILD (SBN: 67356)
Western Center on Law and Poverty
16 3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208
Los Angeles, California 90010
17
Telephone: (213) 487-7211
18 Facsimile: (213) 487-0242
Email: adozier@wclp.org
19 rrothschild@wclp.org
20
21 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
22
SLOAN R. SIMMONS (SBN: 233752)
23 ALYSSA R. BIVENS (SBN: 308331)
Lozano Smith
24 One Capital Mall, Suite 640
Sacramento, California 94814
25
Telephone: (916) 329-7433
26 Facsimile: (916) 329-9050
Email: ssimmons@lozanosmith.com
27
abivins@lozanosmith.com
28
1
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 six months for all purposes to enable the Parties to
5 focus on and engage in 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 a status report no later than thirty (30) days from the date of
11 this order, file a second status report forty-five (45) days after the first status report, and file a third
12 status report sixty (60) days after the second status report, so long as this stay remains in effect unless
otherwise ordered by the Court.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated: July 14, 2020
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020496. Public record. Not legal advice.