S.G.P. v. Tehachapi Unified School District

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S.G.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-01066-ADA-BAK Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR MINOR’S v. COMPROMISE FOR SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 AT 10:30 A.M. IN COURTROOM 9 TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, (ECF No. 1)

Defendant.

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff instituted this action by filing a petition for a minor’s compromise of “claims arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), and any other known or unknown claims arising out of Plaintiff’s educational program.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The Court finds it appropriate to construe the filing as a complaint and as a petition for compromise of the settlement. See P.R. by & through Rice v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., No. 119CV00220DADBAM, 2019 WL 1651267, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2019) (“[T]he parties initiated this action by filing a joint petition for approval of minor’s compromise . . . the court issued an order construing the filing as a complaint and requiring further briefing.”). In P.R., the Court discussed the somewhat peculiar nature of the filing: As a threshold matter, legal proceedings have not been commenced in this court regarding the underlying dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 een nn nen een en nn EE IO

court.”). The parties nonetheless assert that the court would have jurisdiction over any such complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 29 U.S.C. § 794. Ud.) However, the parties have not presented any authority indicating that this court has jurisdiction to approve a settlement of a minor’s claim when that claim and dispute is not actually pending before the court. That said, the parties’ assertion that subject matter jurisdiction would exist is accurate. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims that arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, the parties aver that the claims at issue arise under 42 U.S.C. 8 1983 and 29 U.S.C. § 794. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) In light of the foregoing, the court will construe the parties’ joint filing as both a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 29 U.S.C. § 794 and a petition for approval of minor’s compromise. g | (Case No. 1:19-cv-00220-DAD-BAM, ECF No. 5 at 1-2.) On August 24, 2022, Defendant made an appearance in this action. (ECF No. 5.) This 1] action was initially assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd, however, on August 24, this action was reassigned to District Judge Ana de Alba. The Court finds it appropriate to set the matter for hearing before the assigned Magistrate Judge for the preparation of findings and recommendations. (See L.R. 202(b)(2); L.R. 230(b); L.R. 300; L.R. 302.)! Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiff's petition for minor’s compromise (ECF No. 1), is SET for September 28, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9. IT IS SO ORDERED. Af Dated: _August 24, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 Although Judge de Alba’s standing order does not specify as to whether motions for minor’s compromise are to be set before the District Judge or the Magistrate Judge, Judge Dale A. Drozd’s amended standing order in light of ongoing judicial emergency in the Eastern District of California, specified such motions should be heard by the assigned Magistrate Judge for the preparation of findings and recommendations. The Court finds it appropriate to set such motion before the Magistrate Judge until further order from the Court.