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
21 22
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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
21 22
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
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
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27