The opinion
MONA TAWATAO (SBN: 128779)
2 ALEXANDRA SANTA ANA (SBN: 317852)
Equal Justice Society
3
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 818
4 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (415) 288-8700
5 Facsimile: (510) 338-3030
Email: epaterson@equaljusticesociety.org
6 mtawatao@equaljusticesociety.org
asantaana@equaljusticesociety.org
7
8 MELINDA BIRD (SBN: 102236)
Disability Rights California
9 350 S. Bixel Street, Suite 290
Los Angeles, California 90017
10
Telephone: (213) 213-8000
11 Facsimile: (213) 213-8001
Email: melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org
12
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
13
(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 NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION AND
JOINT MOTION FOR FURTHER
and all others similarly situated,
19 EXTENSION OF STAY OF
LITIGATION; AND ORDER
20 Plaintiffs,
21 v. Judge: Hon. Troy L. Nunley
Courtroom: 7
22 SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Action Filed: September 5, 2019
JORGE A. AGUILAR, Superintendent for Sacramento
23
City Unified School District; CHRISTINE A. BAETA, NO ARGUMENT OR APPEARANCE
24 Chief Academic Officer for the Sacramento City Unified NECESSARY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
School District; JESSIE RYAN, DARREL WOO, REQUIRED BY COURT
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 MOTION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE STAY
2 TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Plaintiffs Black Parallel School Board as well as S.A., K.E., and
4 C.S. (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their guardians, and Defendants Sacramento City Unified School
5 District, et al. (the “District”) (collectively with Plaintiffs, “Parties”), through their respective
6 counsel of record, hereby jointly move this Court for a further extension of the stay of this litigation
7 for an additional three months, to May 4, 2022, so that the Parties may engage in agreed-upon
8 structured settlement negotiations, as set forth below.
9 As the Parties jointly move for the requested stay and agree on the propriety and scope of
10 same, the Parties do not believe argument or appearance is necessary for the Court to consider the
11 requested further stay, but are prepared to appear if the Court so orders.
12 STATEMENT OF FACTS
13 The Parties hereby stipulate to the following facts:
14 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and initiated the instant action on September 5, 2019. (ECF
15 No. 1).
16 2. Plaintiffs served the District with its Complaint on September 10, 2019, and filed the related
17 Proof of Service on October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 7).
18 3. Shortly after Plaintiffs’ service of the Complaint, the Parties engaged in communications to
19 negotiate requesting a stay of this litigation for a designated period of time to allow the
20 Parties to participate in good faith negotiations toward a potential global resolution of this
21 action, thereby preserving the Parties’ and the Court’s time and resources.
22 4. On December 19, 2019, the Parties entered into a Structured Negotiations Agreement
23 (“Agreement”). (See ECF No. 24 at 9-23). The Parties also filed a joint motion for a stay of
24 litigation for the Parties to engage in agreed-upon structured settlement negotiations and
25 sought Court approval of same, which the Court ordered and approved on December 20,
26 2019. (ECF No. 25).
27 5. The Court’s Order required the Parties to submit status reports every 90 days during the
28 period of the stay. (ECF No. 25). The Parties filed the First Joint Status Report in April
1 2020 and the Second Joint Status Report in July 2020. (See ECF Nos. 28, 31). The Parties
2 reported in the First and Second Joint Status Reports that a number of interim measures
3 and/or actions under the Agreement had been completed. (ECF Nos. 28 at 3-5, 31 at 2-4).
4 Additionally, in the Second Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the District had
5 executed contracts to hire three neutral, third-party subject matter experts – Dr. Jeffrey
6 Sprague, Dr. Nancy Dome, and Dr. Jean Gonsier-Gerdin (collectively, “Experts”). (ECF No.
7 31 at 3). The Parties further reported on an “Experts’ Evaluation Plan” containing specific
8 steps and work necessary to guide the Experts in their review and analysis of the District
9 under the Agreement. (ECF No. 31 at 3).
10 6. On July 10, 2020, the Parties filed a joint motion to extend the stay for six months to allow
11 the Parties time to complete the activities described in the Agreement, including but not
12 limited to providing time to the Experts to evaluate the District’s programs, policies and
13 services and make recommendations that would inform potential resolution of this matter.
14 (ECF No. 33). The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion on July 14, 2020. (ECF No. 34).
15 7. Per the terms of the July 10, 2020 Order, the Parties filed a Third Joint Status Report on
16 August 13, 2020; a Fourth Joint Status Report on September 28, 2020; and a Fifth Joint
17 Status Report on November 30, 2020. (ECF Nos. 36, 37, and 38).
18 8. On January 6, 2021, the Parties filed another joint motion to extend the stay by an additional
19 five months to enable the Parties to continue to engage in structured settlement negotiations
20 and allow the Experts to complete their assessment of the District. (ECF No. 39). The Court
21 granted the Parties’ joint motion on January 8, 2021 and also ordered the Parties to file a
22 status report 75 days later and every 75 days thereafter during the duration of the extended
23 stay. (ECF No. 40). Accordingly, the Parties filed a Sixth Joint Status Report on March 23,
24 2021 and a Seventh Joint Status Report on June 1, 2021. (ECF Nos. 41 and 43).
25 9. On June 1, 2021, the Parties filed a joint motion to extend the stay an additional four months
26 to allow the Parties to continue to engage in structured settlement negotiations and allow the
27 Experts to complete their report on the District. The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion
28 on June 2, 2021 and ordered the Parties to file a status report no later than 75 days from the
1 date of the order, and every 75 days thereafter for the duration of the extended stay period.
2 Accordingly, the Parties filed an eighth joint status report on August 16, 2021. (ECF No.
3 46).
4 10.On September 27, 2021, the Parties filed an additional motion to extend the stay an
5 additional four months to allow the Experts to complete their report and to allow the Parties
6 to engage in structured settlement negotiations. The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion
7 on September 28, 2021.
8 11.In the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Joint Status Reports, the Parties
9 provided the Court with updates regarding the Parties’ implementation of the Agreement.
10 (See ECF Nos. 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 46). First, the Parties reported that they were working in
11 collaboration with the Experts and Dr. Judy Elliott to finalize the Plan. (See ECF Nos. 36 at
12 2-3, 37 at 3, 38 at 3). In the Fifth Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the Experts
13 were close to finalizing the Plan and had made an initial request to the District for documents
14 and data sources, including but not limited to specific District policies and procedures, to
15 begin their review of the District. (ECF No. 38 at 3). In the Sixth Joint Status Report, the
16 Parties reported that the Experts had completed and executed the Plan to complete the steps
17 set out in the Scope of Work agreed upon through the Agreement. (See ECF No. 41).
18 Additionally, in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Joint Status Reports, the Parties reported
19 that they had exchanged various proposals regarding additions and/or modifications to
20 interim measures in the Agreement. (ECF Nos. 36 at 3, 37 at 4, 38 at 3).
21 12.The Parties also reported that various factors, including but not limited to the COVID-19
22 pandemic, had delayed the Experts’ commencement and completion of their work under the
23 Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). As a result, the Parties anticipated finalizing
24 and executing a side agreement to extend the date by which the Experts must finalize their
25 work under the Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). The Parties executed this side
26 agreement on March 26, 2021. In the Side Agreement, the Parties agreed for the Experts’
27 Report to be completed by May 30, 2021. After execution of the Side Agreement, the
28 Experts informed both Parties that additional time was needed to complete the Report.
1 Accordingly, on June 28, 2021, the Parties executed an Addendum to the Side Agreement
2 that extended the deadline for the Experts’ Report to September 10, 2021. In the Seventh
3 Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the Experts had been conducting interviews with
4 class members and their families, as well as various stakeholder organizations and
5 individuals connected to the District. (ECF No. 43 at 3). As reported in the Parties’ Eighth
6 Joint Status Report, the Experts completed these interviews, as well as a review and analysis
7 of individual student records and documents and data sources related to the District’s policies
8 and procedures. (ECF No. 46 at 3-4). At the time of the Eighth Joint Status Report, the
9 Experts were in the process of drafting their report. (ECF No. 46 at 4).
10 13. The Experts completed a draft of their report and provided it to the Parties on October 4,
11 2021. The Parties agreed to provide written comments and questions to the Experts, to which
12 the Experts would review and respond as a prerequisite to creating a final report.
13 14. Plaintiffs provided the Experts with written comments and questions concerning the draft
14 report on October 29, 2021, just over three weeks after receiving the draft report. The
15 Experts responded to these questions and comments with additional materials on November
16 12, 2021.
17 15. As early as mid-October 2021, the Defendants indicated that they would provide comments
18 or questions on the draft report to the Experts by late October 2021, but were unable to do so.
19 On November 30, 2021, the Experts urged the District to provide all comments and questions
20 about the draft report to the Experts before Christmas break. The holidays, COVID-19
21 District needs, and other matters delayed the District’s ability to provide feedback until
22 January 12, 2022. Based upon this timing, there was the need for additional time for the
23 Experts to finalize their report.
24 16.The Experts completed the final report on January 21, 2022. Now that the Parties have
25 received the final report, additional time is needed to commence and pursue settlement
26 negotiations based on the findings in the Experts’ final report.
27 17. To prevent further delays and facilitate settlement, the Parties have agreed to at least three
28 settlement meetings during the period of the requested extended stay: initial meeting to begin
1 the negotiation process will occur no later than February 18, 2022; second meeting no later
2 than March 18, 2022, and a third meeting no later than April 22, 2022.
3 18. Both Parties agree that if the Parties are unable to successfully negotiate a settlement
4 agreement on their own, the Parties may request the assistance of a magistrate judge to
5 facilitate the process.
6 Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties seek this Court’s approval of a further stay of this
7 litigation to afford the Parties additional time to complete the activities described with regard to and
8 in the Agreement including, but not limited to, allowing the Parties to engage in the agreed-upon
9 structured negotiations informed by the Experts’ Report, with the goal of resolving this matter.
10 GOVERNING LAW
11 This Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its
12 own docket.” Clinton v. Jones,520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co.,299 U.S.
13 248)(1936)). In fact,
14 [T]he 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
15 itself, for 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.
16
17 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55.
18 Correspondingly, as this Court has recognized, “[c]ourts have applied their discretionary
19 authority to grant stays because it appeared that settlement discussions between the parties might
20 prove fruitful.” Johnson v. Village, Case No. 2:15-cv-02299-TLN-KJN, 2016 WL 1720710, at *6
21 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2016) (citing EEOC v. Canadian Indem. Co., 407 F. Supp. 1366, 1368 (C.D. Cal.
22 1976)).
23 REQUEST FOR STAY
24 As outlined above, the Parties have successfully negotiated an agreed-upon structure for
25 settlement discussions between the Parties, in the hope of reaching a global resolution of this matter
26 without the need for protracted litigation. The Parties now jointly move and request that this Court
27 further stay this matter for three more months, to May 4, 2022, so that the Parties may engage in the
28 activities agreed-upon and outlined in the Agreement.
1 Good cause exists to grant the Parties’ joint motion. As noted above, the Experts’ full
2 commencement of work under the Agreement was delayed due to various factors, including but not
3 limited to the COVID-19 pandemic. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). As a result of this delay, the
4 Experts were not able to complete their work under the Agreement by January 2021 and required
5 additional time to complete their work under the Agreement. Additional delays in waiting for
6 Defendants’ questions and comments on the Experts’ draft report have also delayed finalization of
7 the report. Now that the Experts’ work is completed, the Parties request an extension of the stay in
8 order to engage in structured negotiations.
9 Moreover, the Parties believe that a stay is justified because it will: (1) promote judicious use
10 of the Parties’ and Court’s time and resources; and (2) offer the opportunity for speedy resolution
11 and relief without protracted litigation, which is particularly critical where, as here, certain Plaintiffs
12 are children and Defendants are governmental entities or officials. Given the Parties’ negotiations to
13 date, the Parties believe that a negotiated global resolution of this matter is viable, if given time to
14 engage in the activities necessary to reach such a resolution. The Parties also agree that these
15 activities would be significantly hindered if the Parties also had to engage in simultaneous motion
16 and discovery practice.
17 Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, any Party may withdraw from settlement
18 negotiations with sufficient advance written notice. If that occurs, the Parties will inform the Court
19 so that the Court may lift the stay accordingly.
20 CONCLUSION
21 Based upon the foregoing, the Parties respectfully move the Court to enter an order:
22 (1) Staying this litigation for all purposes for three more months, to May 4, 2022, including
23 temporarily excusing the Parties from complying with this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling
24 Order (ECF No. 4), so that the Parties can focus on and engage in structured settlement
25 negotiations; and
26 (2) Extending the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint until 30 days after the
27 stay is lifted upon order of this Court, should negotiations be unsuccessful or terminated by
28 the Parties.
1 DATED: January 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
2
EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
3
4
/s/ Mona Tawatao (as authorized on January 27, 2022)
5 MONA TAWATAO
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
8
9 /s/ Ramaah Sadasivam (as authorized on January 27, 2022)
RAMAAH SADASIVAM
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11
12 NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
13
14 /s/ Michael Harris (as authorized on January 27, 2022)
MICHAEL HARRIS
15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY
16
17
/s/ Antionette Dozier (as authorized on January 27, 2022)
18 ANTIONETTE DOZIER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19
20
DATED: January 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
21
22 LOZANO SMITH
23
24 /s/ Sloan Simmons
SLOAN SIMMONS
25 Attorneys for Defendant
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
1000 Broadway, Suite 395
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 ATASI UPPAL (SBN: 330716)
National Center for Youth Law
11 1212 Broadway, Suite 600
Oakland, California 94612
12
Telephone: (510) 835-8098
13 Facsimile: (410) 835-8099
Email: mharris@youthlaw.org
14 auppal@youthlaw.org
15
ANTIONETTE DOZIER (SBN: 244437)
16 RICHARD ROTHSCHILD (SBN: 67356)
Western Center on Law and Poverty
17
3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208
18 Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: (213) 487-7211
19 Facsimile: (213) 487-0242
Email: adozier@wclp.org
20
rrothschild@wclp.org
21
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
22
23 SLOAN R. SIMMONS (SBN: 233752)
ALYSSA R. BIVENS (SBN: 308331)
24 Lozano Smith
One Capital Mall, Suite 640
25
Sacramento, California 94814
26 Telephone: (916) 329-7433
Facsimile: (916) 329-9050
27
Email: ssimmons@lozanosmith.com
28 abivins@lozanosmith.co
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 three months, to May 4, 2022, for all purposes to
5 enable the Parties to 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); and
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.
10 /)
11 IT IS SO ORDERED. “ \ | ff
Mini. 1 Oe □□
12 Dated: January 27, 2022 — □□ Z
3 Troy L. Nunley . }
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not. & Joint Mot. For Further Extension of Stay of Litigation & Proposed Order
Black Parallel School Board et al. v. SC USD et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01768-TLN-KJN