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 an extension of the stay of this litigation for an 7 additional four months so that the experts engaged by the District pursuant to the Structured 8 Negotiations Agreement (“Agreement”) may complete their work and the Parties may engage in 9 agreed-upon structured settlement negotiations, as set forth 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. (ECF No. 25). The Parties filed the First Joint Status Report in April 2 2020 and the Second Joint Status Report in July 2020. (See ECF Nos. 28, 31). The Parties 3 reported in the First and Second Joint Status Reports that a number of interim measures 4 and/or actions under the Agreement had been completed. (ECF Nos. 28 at 3-5, 31 at 2-4). 5 Additionally, in the Second Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the District had 6 executed contracts to hire three neutral, third-party subject matter experts – Dr. Jeffrey 7 Sprague, Dr. Nancy Dome, and Dr. Jean Gonsier-Gerdin (collectively, “Experts”). (ECF No. 8 31 at 3). The Parties further reported that they were working collaboratively with the Experts 9 to finalize the “Experts’ Evaluation Plan” (“Plan”). (ECF No. 31 at 3). The Plan identified 10 the Experts’ specific steps and work necessary to guide the Experts in their review and 11 analysis of the District under the Agreement. (ECF No. 31 at 3). 12 6. On July 10, 2020, the Parties filed a joint motion to extend the stay for six months to allow 13 the Parties time to complete the activities described in the Agreement, including but not 14 limited to, providing time to the Experts to evaluate the District’s programs, policies and 15 services and make recommendations that would inform potential resolution of this matter. 16 (ECF No. 33). The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion on July 14, 2020. (ECF No. 34). 17 7. The Court’s Order required the Parties to submit a status report thirty days from the date of 18 the Court’s Order, a second status report 45 days after the first status report, and a third status 19 report 60 days after the second status report during the extended period of the stay. (ECF 20 No. 34). Accordingly, the Parties filed a Third Joint Status Report on August 13, 2020; a 21 Fourth Joint Status Report on September 28, 2020; and a Fifth Joint Status Report on 22 November 30, 2020. (ECF Nos. 36, 37, and 38). 23 8. On January 6, 2021, the Parties filed another joint motion to extend the stay by an additional 24 five months to enable the Parties to continue to engage in structured settlement negotiations 25 and allow the Experts to complete their assessment of the District. (ECF No. 39). The Court 26 granted the Parties’ joint motion on January 8, 2021 and also ordered the Parties to file a 27 status report 75 days later and every 75 days thereafter during the duration of the extended 28 stay. (ECF No. 40). Accordingly, the Parties filed a Sixth Joint Status Report on March 23, 1 2021. The Parties submit a Seventh Joint Status Report herewith. 2 9. In the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Joint Status Reports, along with the Parties’ Seventh 3 Joint Status Report, submitted herewith, the Parties provided the Court with updates 4 regarding the Parties’ implementation of the Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 36, 37, 38). First, 5 the Parties reported that they were working in collaboration with the Experts and Dr. Elliott 6 to finalize the Plan. (See ECF Nos. 36 at 2-3, 37 at 3, 38 at 3). In the Fifth Joint Status 7 Report, the Parties reported that the Experts were close to finalizing the Plan and had made 8 an initial request to the District for documents and data sources, including but not limited to 9 specific District policies and procedures, to begin their review of the District. (ECF No. 38 10 at 3). In the Sixth Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the Experts had completed 11 and executed an Evaluation Plan to complete the steps set out in the Scope of Work. (See 12 ECF No. 41). Additionally, in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Joint Status Reports, the 13 Parties reported that they had exchanged various proposals regarding additions and/or 14 modifications to interim measures in the Agreement. (ECF Nos. 36 at 3, 37 at 4, 38 at 3). 15 The Parties also reported that various factors, including but not limited to the COVID-19 16 pandemic, had delayed the Experts’ commencement and completion of their work under the 17 Agreement.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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 an extension of the stay of this litigation for an 7 additional four months so that the experts engaged by the District pursuant to the Structured 8 Negotiations Agreement (“Agreement”) may complete their work and the Parties may engage in 9 agreed-upon structured settlement negotiations, as set forth 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. (ECF No. 25). The Parties filed the First Joint Status Report in April 2 2020 and the Second Joint Status Report in July 2020. (See ECF Nos. 28, 31). The Parties 3 reported in the First and Second Joint Status Reports that a number of interim measures 4 and/or actions under the Agreement had been completed. (ECF Nos. 28 at 3-5, 31 at 2-4). 5 Additionally, in the Second Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the District had 6 executed contracts to hire three neutral, third-party subject matter experts – Dr. Jeffrey 7 Sprague, Dr. Nancy Dome, and Dr. Jean Gonsier-Gerdin (collectively, “Experts”). (ECF No. 8 31 at 3). The Parties further reported that they were working collaboratively with the Experts 9 to finalize the “Experts’ Evaluation Plan” (“Plan”). (ECF No. 31 at 3). The Plan identified 10 the Experts’ specific steps and work necessary to guide the Experts in their review and 11 analysis of the District under the Agreement. (ECF No. 31 at 3). 12 6. On July 10, 2020, the Parties filed a joint motion to extend the stay for six months to allow 13 the Parties time to complete the activities described in the Agreement, including but not 14 limited to, providing time to the Experts to evaluate the District’s programs, policies and 15 services and make recommendations that would inform potential resolution of this matter. 16 (ECF No. 33). The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion on July 14, 2020. (ECF No. 34). 17 7. The Court’s Order required the Parties to submit a status report thirty days from the date of 18 the Court’s Order, a second status report 45 days after the first status report, and a third status 19 report 60 days after the second status report during the extended period of the stay. (ECF 20 No. 34). Accordingly, the Parties filed a Third Joint Status Report on August 13, 2020; a 21 Fourth Joint Status Report on September 28, 2020; and a Fifth Joint Status Report on 22 November 30, 2020. (ECF Nos. 36, 37, and 38). 23 8. On January 6, 2021, the Parties filed another joint motion to extend the stay by an additional 24 five months to enable the Parties to continue to engage in structured settlement negotiations 25 and allow the Experts to complete their assessment of the District. (ECF No. 39). The Court 26 granted the Parties’ joint motion on January 8, 2021 and also ordered the Parties to file a 27 status report 75 days later and every 75 days thereafter during the duration of the extended 28 stay. (ECF No. 40). Accordingly, the Parties filed a Sixth Joint Status Report on March 23, 1 2021. The Parties submit a Seventh Joint Status Report herewith. 2 9. In the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Joint Status Reports, along with the Parties’ Seventh 3 Joint Status Report, submitted herewith, the Parties provided the Court with updates 4 regarding the Parties’ implementation of the Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 36, 37, 38). First, 5 the Parties reported that they were working in collaboration with the Experts and Dr. Elliott 6 to finalize the Plan. (See ECF Nos. 36 at 2-3, 37 at 3, 38 at 3). In the Fifth Joint Status 7 Report, the Parties reported that the Experts were close to finalizing the Plan and had made 8 an initial request to the District for documents and data sources, including but not limited to 9 specific District policies and procedures, to begin their review of the District. (ECF No. 38 10 at 3). In the Sixth Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the Experts had completed 11 and executed an Evaluation Plan to complete the steps set out in the Scope of Work. (See 12 ECF No. 41). Additionally, in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Joint Status Reports, the 13 Parties reported that they had exchanged various proposals regarding additions and/or 14 modifications to interim measures in the Agreement. (ECF Nos. 36 at 3, 37 at 4, 38 at 3). 15 The Parties also reported that various factors, including but not limited to the COVID-19 16 pandemic, had delayed the Experts’ commencement and completion of their work under the 17 Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). As a result, the Parties anticipated finalizing 18 and executing a side agreement to extend the date by which the Experts must finalize their 19 work under the Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). The Parties executed this side 20 agreement on March 26, 2021. 21 22 As is reported in the Parties’ Seventh Joint Status Report, since the execution of the side 23 agreement, the Experts have informed the Parties that more time is needed to complete their Report. 24 Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties seek this Court’s approval of a further stay of this litigation to 25 afford the Parties additional time to complete the activities described with regard to and in the 26 Agreement including, but not limited to, extending the time for the Experts to finish evaluating the 27 District’s programs, policies, and services and to complete a report with recommendations that will 28 inform potential resolution of this matter. 1 GOVERNING LAW 2 This Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its 3 own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 4 248)(1936)). In fact, 5 [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 6 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. 7 8 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. 9 Correspondingly, as this Court has recognized, “[c]ourts have applied their discretionary 10 authority to grant stays because it appeared that settlement discussions between the parties might 11 prove fruitful.” Johnson v. Village, Case No. 2:15-cv-02299-TLN-KJN, 2016 WL 1720710, at *6 12 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2016) (citing EEOC v. Canadian Indem. Co., 407 F. Supp. 1366, 1368 (C.D. Cal. 13 1976)). 14 REQUEST FOR STAY 15 As outlined above, the Parties have successfully negotiated an agreed-upon structure for 16 settlement discussions between the Parties, in the hope of reaching a global resolution of this matter 17 without the need for protracted litigation. The Parties now jointly move and request that this Court 18 further stay this matter for four more months so that the Parties may engage in the activities agreed- 19 upon and outlined in the Agreement. 20 Good cause exists to grant the Parties’ joint motion. As noted above, the Experts’ full 21 commencement of work under the Agreement was delayed due to various factors, including but not 22 limited to the COVID-19 pandemic. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). As a result of this delay, the 23 Experts were not able to complete their work under the Agreement by January 2021 and need 24 additional time to complete their work under the Agreement. 25 Moreover, the Parties believe that a stay is justified because it will: (1) promote judicious use 26 of the Parties’ and Court’s time and resources; and (2) offer the opportunity for speedy resolution 27 and relief without protracted litigation, which is particularly critical where, as here, certain Plaintiffs 28 are children and Defendants are governmental entities or officials. Given the Parties’ negotiations to 1 date, the Parties believe that a negotiated global resolution of this matter is viable, if given time to 2 engage in the activities necessary to reach such a resolution. The Parties also agree that these 3 activities would be significantly hindered if the Parties also had to engage in simultaneous motion 4 and discovery practice. 5 This stay will also allow the Court to have continuing oversight over the matter at hand. The 6 Parties agree to keep the Court apprised of their progress by filing joint status reports every 75 days, 7 to be counted from the day the Court grants the requested further stay. 8 Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, any Party may withdraw from settlement 9 negotiations with sufficient advance written notice. If that occurs, the Parties will inform the Court 10 so that the Court may lift the stay accordingly. 11 12 CONCLUSION 13 Based upon the foregoing, the Parties respectfully move the Court to enter an order: 14 (1) Staying this litigation for all purposes for four more months, including temporarily excusing 15 the Parties from complying with this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 4), 16 so that the Parties can focus on and engage in structured settlement negotiations; 17 (2) Extending the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint until 30 days after the 18 stay is lifted upon order of this Court, should negotiations be unsuccessful or terminated by 19 the Parties; and 20 (3) Allowing the Parties to file a joint status report that will permit the Parties to update the Court 21 on the progress of settlement efforts 75 days after the entry of an order granting this joint 22 motion, and then scheduling a further report every 75 days thereafter during the requested 23 stay. 24 25 26 27 28 1 DATED: June 1, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 2 EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY 3 4 /s/ Alexandra Santa Ana (as authorized on June 1, 2021) 5 ALEXANDRA SANTA ANA Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 8 9 /s/ Ramaah Sadasivam (as authorized on June 1, 2021) RAMAAH SADASIVAM 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 13 14 /s/ Michael Harris (as authorized on June 1, 2021) MICHAEL HARRIS 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY 17 18 /s/ Antionette Dozier (as authorized on June 1, 2021) 19 ANTIONETTE DOZIER Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 21 22 DATED: June 1, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 23 LOZANO SMITH 24 25 /s/ Sloan Simmons (as authorized on May 28, 2021) SLOAN SIMMONS 26 Attorneys for Defendant 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.com 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 four 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 □□□□□□ 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 75 days from the date of 11 this order, file a second status report 75 days after the first status report), and file a 12 subsequent status report every 75 days thereafter so long as this stay remains in effect 13 unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. AN /) 16 | Dated: June 2, 2021 \ | jf □□ 17 “ oh - ; } tow 18 Nees } HON. TROY L. NUNLEY 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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. SCUSD et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01768-TLN-KIN