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