Black Parallel School Board v. Sacramento City Unified School District

Opinion

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

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 BLACK PARALLEL SCHOOL BOARD et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01768-DJC-KJN

14 Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION AND JOINT MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF 15 vs. STAY OF LITIGATION AND REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE NEWMAN FOR 16 SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; AND DISTRICT et al., ORDER 17 Judge: Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta 18 Defendants. Courtroom: 10 Action Filed: September 5, 2019 19

20 NO ARGUMENT OR APPEARANCE NECESSARY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY 21 REQUIRED BY COURT

22 23

27 1 NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION AND MOTION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE STAY AND 2 REFERRAL FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 3 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 4 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Plaintiffs Black Parallel School Board as well as S.A., K.E., and C.S. 5 (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their guardians, and Defendants Sacramento City Unified School District, 6 et al. (the “District”) (collectively with Plaintiffs, “Parties”), through their respective counsel of record, 7 hereby jointly move this Court for a brief extension of the stay of this litigation to July 3, 2023 so that 8 the Parties may finalize settlement negotiations. 9 As the Parties jointly move for the requested stay and agree on the propriety and scope of same, 10 the Parties do not believe argument or appearance is necessary for the Court to consider the requested 11 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. 15 (ECF No. 1). 16 2. Plaintiffs served the District with its Complaint on September 10, 2019, and filed the 17 related Proof of Service on October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 7). 18 3. Shortly after Plaintiffs’ service of the Complaint, the Parties engaged in communications 19 to negotiate requesting a stay of this litigation for a designated period of time to allow the Parties to 20 participate in good faith negotiations toward a potential global resolution of this action, thereby 21 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 litigation 24 for the Parties to engage in agreed-upon structured settlement negotiations and sought Court approval of 25 the same, which the Court ordered and approved on December 20, 2019. (ECF No. 25). 26 5. The Court’s Order required the Parties to submit status reports every 90 days during the 27 period of the stay. (ECF No. 25). The Parties reported in the First and Second Joint Status Reports that 1 at 3-5, 31 at 2-4). Additionally, in the Second Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the District 2 had executed contracts to hire three neutral, third-party subject matter experts – Dr. Jeffrey Sprague, Dr. 3 Nancy Dome, and Dr. Jean Gonsier-Gerdin (collectively, “Experts”). (ECF No. 31 at 3). The Parties 4 further reported on an “Experts’ Evaluation Plan” containing specific steps and work necessary to guide 5 the Experts in their review and analysis of the District under the Agreement. (ECF No. 31 at 3). 6 6. On July 14, 2020, the Court granted the Parties’ joint motion to extend the stay for six 7 months to allow the Parties time to complete the activities described in the Agreement, including but not 8 limited to providing time to the Experts to evaluate the District’s programs, policies and services, and 9 make recommendations that would inform potential resolution of this matter. (ECF No. 33, 34). 10 7. Per the terms of the July 10, 2020 Order, the Parties filed a Third Joint Status Report on 11 August 13, 2020; a Fourth Joint Status Report on September 28, 2020; and a Fifth Joint Status Report on 12 November 30, 2020. (ECF Nos. 36, 37, and 38). 13 8. On January 6, 2021, the Parties filed another joint motion to extend the stay by an 14 additional five months to enable the Parties to continue to engage in structured settlement negotiations 15 and allow the Experts to complete their assessment of the District. (ECF No. 39). The Court granted the 16 Parties’ joint motion on January 8, 2021 and also ordered the Parties to file a status report 75 days later 17 and every 75 days thereafter during the duration of the extended stay. (ECF No. 40). Accordingly, the 18 Parties filed a Sixth Joint Status Report on March 23, 2021 and a Seventh Joint Status Report on June 1, 19 2021. (ECF Nos. 41 and 43). 20 9. On June 1, 2021, the Parties filed a joint motion to extend the stay an additional four 21 months to allow the Parties to continue to engage in structured settlement negotiations and allow the 22 Experts to complete their report on the District. The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion on June 2, 23 2021. Pursuant to that order, the Parties filed an eighth joint status report on August 16, 2021. (ECF 24 No. 46). 25 10. On September 27, 2021, the Parties filed an additional motion to extend the stay an 26 additional four months to allow the Experts to complete their report and to allow the Parties to engage in 27 structured settlement negotiations. The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion on September 28, 2021. 1 11. In the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Joint Status Reports, the Parties 2 provided the Court with updates regarding the Parties’ implementation of the Agreement. (See ECF 3 Nos. 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 46). First, the Parties reported that they were working in collaboration with the 4 Experts and Dr. Judy Elliott to finalize the Plan. (See ECF Nos. 36 at 2-3, 37 at 3, 38 at 3). In the Fifth 5 Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the Experts were close to finalizing the Plan and had made 6 an initial request to the District for documents and data sources, including but not limited to specific 7 District policies and procedures, to begin their review of the District. (ECF No. 38 at 3). In the Sixth 8 Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the Experts had completed and executed the Plan to 9 complete the steps set out in the Scope of Work agreed upon through the Agreement. (See ECF No. 41). 10 Additionally, in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Joint Status Reports, the Parties reported that they 11 had exchanged various proposals regarding additions and/or modifications to interim measures in the 12 Agreement. (ECF Nos. 36 at 3, 37 at 4, 38 at 3). 13 12. The Parties also reported that various factors, including but not limited to the COVID-19 14 pandemic, had delayed the Experts’ commencement and completion of their work under the Agreement. 15 (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). As a result, the Parties anticipated finalizing and executing a side 16 agreement to extend the date by which the Experts must finalize their work under the Agreement. (See 17 ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). The Parties executed this side agreement on March 26, 2021. 18 13. The Parties received the Experts’ confidential final report on January 21, 2022 and 19 thereafter began the settlement negotiations process. 20 14. On January 27, 2022, the Parties filed an additional motion to extend the stay until May 21 4, 2022 to allow the Parties to engage in settlement negotiations informed by the Experts’ Report. The 22 Court granted the Parties’ joint motion on January 27, 2022. 23 15. The Parties agreed that if the Parties are unable to successfully negotiate a settlement 24 agreement on their own, the Parties may request the assistance of a magistrate judge to facilitate the 25 process. 26 16. On April 27, 2022, the Parties filed motion to further extend the stay an additional three 27 months to August 4, 2022. The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion on April 28, 2022. 1 17. As part of the settlement negotiations process, the Parties had multiple meetings and 2 engaged in substantive written exchanges that moved the Parties closer to settlement. 3 18. On July 28, 2022, the Parties filed a motion to further extend the stay to October 3, 2022. 4 The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion on July 28, 2022. 5 19. The Parties sought and received a further extension to stay litigation to November 18, 6 2022. 7 20. The Parties continued to work in good faith to achieve their common goal of reaching a 8 settlement. 9 21. On November 15, 2022, the Parties sought and received a further extension of the stay to 10 January 27, 2023, which was granted by the Court. 11 22. On March 9, 2023, the Parties sought and received a further extension of the stay to April 12 14, 2023. 13 23. Since the last stay order, the Parties have made significant progress in settlement 14 negotiations, however, there is still more work to be done in order to reach agreement on all terms of 15 settlement. 16 24. On April 7, 2023, the Parties sought the engagement of a Magistrate Judge Kendall J. 17 Newman to assist in resolving any remaining unresolved issues in a settlement conference, should it be 18 necessary. Magistrate Judge Newman is currently holding June 2, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. on his calendar for 19 a settlement conference in this matter, should it be necessary. 20 Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties seek this Court’s approval of a further stay of this 21 litigation to afford the Parties additional time to continue to engage in the agreed-upon structured 22 negotiations and participation in a June 2, 2023 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Newman, 23 with the goal of resolving this matter. 24 GOVERNING LAW 25 This Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its 26 own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248) 27 (1936)). In fact, [T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 1 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 2 judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.

3 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. 4 Correspondingly, as this Court has recognized, “[c]ourts have applied their discretionary 5 authority to grant stays because it appeared that settlement discussions between the parties might prove 6 fruitful.” Johnson v. Village, Case No. 2:15-cv-02299-TLN-KJN, 2016 WL 1720710, at *6 (E.D. Cal. 7 Apr. 29, 2016) (citing EEOC v. Canadian Indem. Co., 407 F. Supp. 1366, 1368 (C.D. Cal. 1976).). 8 REQUEST FOR STAY 9 As outlined above, the Parties successfully negotiated an agreed-upon structure for settlement 10 discussions between the Parties, in the hope of reaching a global resolution of this matter without the 11 need for protracted litigation. The Parties now jointly move and request that this Court further stay this 12 matter to July 3, 2023, so that the Parties may continue to engage in the activities agreed-upon and 13 outlined in the Agreement. 14 Good cause exists to grant the Parties’ joint motion. As noted above, the Experts’ full 15 commencement of work under the Agreement was delayed due to various factors, including but not 16 limited to the COVID-19 pandemic. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). As a result of this delay, the 17 Experts were not able to complete their work under the Agreement by January 2021 and required 18 additional time to complete their work under the Agreement. The Experts’ work is now completed and 19 the Parties are actively engaged in settlement negotiations. The Parties believe they are approaching a 20 settlement but need additional time to reach resolution. 21 Moreover, the Parties believe that a stay is justified because it will: (1) promote judicious use of 22 the Parties’ and Court’s time and resources; and (2) offer the opportunity for speedy resolution and relief 23 without protracted litigation, which is particularly critical where, as here, certain Plaintiffs are children 24 and Defendants are governmental entities or officials. Given the Parties’ negotiations to date, the Parties 25 believe that a negotiated global resolution of this matter is viable, if given time to engage in the 26 activities necessary to reach such a resolution. The Parties also agree that these activities would be 27 significantly hindered if the Parties also had to engage in simultaneous motion and discovery practice. 1 Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, any Party may withdraw from settlement 2 negotiations with sufficient advance written notice. If that occurs, the Parties will inform the Court so 3 that the Court may lift the stay accordingly. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Based upon the foregoing, the Parties respectfully move the Court to enter an order: 6 1. Staying this litigation for all purposes to July 3, 2023, including temporarily excusing the 7 Parties from complying with this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 4), so that the 8 Parties can focus on and engage in structured settlement negotiations; 9 2. Extending the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint until 30 days after 10 the stay is lifted upon order of this Court, should negotiations be unsuccessful or terminated by the 11 Parties; and 12 3. Referral of this matter to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman for settlement conference 13 on June 2, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25 of this Court. 14 Dated: May 2, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

15 LOZANO SMITH 16 /s/ Sloan R. Simmons 17 SLOAN R. SIMMONS ALYSSA R. BIVINS 18 Attorneys for Defendants SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED 19 SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.

20 Dated: May 2, 2023 EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY

21 /s/ Mona Tawatao (as authorized via email on 5/1/23) 22 MONA TAWATAO Attorney for Plaintiffs 23 BLACK PARALLEL SCHOOL BOARD et al.

26 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 to July 3, 2023, 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. This action is referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman for settlement conference 11 on June 2, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25 of the above-entitled court. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: May 2, 2023 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta 15 THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27