Black Parallel School Board v. Sacramento City Unified School District

MONA TAWATAO (SBN: 128779) ALEXANDRA SANTA ANA (SBN: 317852) Equal Justice Society 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 818 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (415) 288-8700 Facsimile: (510) 338-3030 Email: [email protected] 6 [email protected] [email protected] MELINDA BIRD (SBN: 102236) Disability Rights California 350 S. Bixel Street, Suite 290 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 213-8000 Facsimile: (213) 213-8001 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS (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 NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION AND JOINT MOTION FOR FURTHER and all others similarly situated, 19 EXTENSION OF STAY OF LITIGATION; AND ORDER 20 Plaintiffs, v. Judge: Hon. Troy L. Nunley Courtroom: 7 SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Action Filed: September 5, 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, MICHAEL MINNICK, LISA MURAWSKI, LETICIA 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.

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 C.S. (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their guardians, and Defendants Sacramento City Unified School District, et al. (the “District”) (collectively with Plaintiffs, “Parties”), through their respective counsel of record, hereby jointly move this Court for a further extension of the stay of this litigation for an additional four months, to February 4, 2022, so that the Parties may engage in agreed-upon structured settlement negotiations, as set forth below.

9 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.

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. (ECF 15 No. 1).

16 2. Plaintiffs served the District with its Complaint on September 10, 2019, and filed the related 17 Proof of Service on October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 7).

18 3. Shortly after Plaintiffs’ service of the Complaint, the Parties engaged in communications to 19 negotiate requesting a stay of this litigation for a designated period of time to allow the 20 Parties to participate in good faith negotiations toward a potential global resolution of this 21 action, thereby 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 24 litigation for the Parties to engage in agreed-upon structured settlement negotiations and 25 sought Court approval of same, which the Court ordered and approved on December 20, 26 2019. (ECF No. 25).

27 5. The Court’s Order required the Parties to submit status reports every 90 days during the 28 period of the stay. (ECF No. 25). The Parties filed the First Joint Status Report in April 1 2020 and the Second Joint Status Report in July 2020. (See ECF Nos. 28, 31). The Parties 2 reported in the First and Second Joint Status Reports that a number of interim measures 3 and/or actions under the Agreement had been completed. (ECF Nos. 28 at 3-5, 31 at 2-4).

4 Additionally, in the Second Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the District had 5 executed contracts to hire three neutral, third-party subject matter experts – Dr. Jeffrey 6 Sprague, Dr. Nancy Dome, and Dr. Jean Gonsier-Gerdin (collectively, “Experts”). (ECF No. 7 31 at 3). The Parties further reported that they were working collaboratively with the Experts 8 to finalize the “Experts’ Evaluation Plan” (“Plan”). (ECF No. 31 at 3). The Plan identified 9 the Experts’ specific steps and work necessary to guide the Experts in their review and 10 analysis of the District under the Agreement. (ECF No. 31 at 3).

11 6. On July 10, 2020, the Parties filed a joint motion to extend the stay for six months to allow 12 the Parties time to complete the activities described in the Agreement, including but not 13 limited to providing time to the Experts to evaluate the District’s programs, policies and 14 services and make recommendations that would inform potential resolution of this matter.

15 (ECF No. 33). The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion on July 14, 2020. (ECF No. 34).

16 7. The Court’s Order required the Parties to submit a status report thirty days from the date of 17 the Court’s Order, a second status report 45 days after the first status report, and a third status 18 report 60 days after the second status report during the extended period of the stay. (ECF 19 No. 34). Accordingly, the Parties filed a Third Joint Status Report on August 13, 2020; a 20 Fourth Joint Status Report on September 28, 2020; and a Fifth Joint Status Report on 21 November 30, 2020. (ECF Nos. 36, 37, and 38).

22 8. On January 6, 2021, the Parties filed another joint motion to extend the stay by an additional 23 five months to enable the Parties to continue to engage in structured settlement negotiations 24 and allow the Experts to complete their assessment of the District. (ECF No. 39). The Court 25 granted the Parties’ joint motion on January 8, 2021 and also ordered the Parties to file a 26 status report 75 days later and every 75 days thereafter during the duration of the extended 27 stay. (ECF No. 40). Accordingly, the Parties filed a Sixth Joint Status Report on March 23, 28 2021 and a Seventh Joint Status Report on June 1, 2021. (ECF Nos. 41 and 43).

1 9. On June 1, 2021, the Parties filed a joint motion to extend the stay an additional four months 2 to allow the Parties to continue to engage in structured settlement negotiations and allow the 3 Experts to complete their report on the District. The Court granted the Parties’ joint motion 4 on June 2, 2021 and ordered the Parties to file a status report no later than 75 days from the 5 date of the order, and every 75 days thereafter for the duration of the extended stay period.

6 Accordingly, the Parties filed an eighth joint status report on August 16, 2021. (ECF No. 46).

7 10.In the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Joint Status Reports, the Parties 8 provided the Court with updates regarding the Parties’ implementation of the Agreement.

9 (See ECF Nos. 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 46). First, the Parties reported that they were working in 10 collaboration with the Experts and Dr. Judy Elliott to finalize the Plan. (See ECF Nos. 36 at 11 2-3, 37 at 3, 38 at 3). In the Fifth Joint Status Report, the Parties reported that the Experts 12 were close to finalizing the Plan and had made an initial request to the District for documents 13 and data sources, including but not limited to specific District policies and procedures, to 14 begin their review of the District. (ECF No. 38 at 3). In the Sixth Joint Status Report, the 15 Parties reported that the Experts had completed and executed the Plan to complete the steps 16 set out in the Scope of Work agreed upon through the Agreement. (See ECF No. 41).

17 Additionally, in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Joint Status Reports, the Parties reported 18 that they had exchanged various proposals regarding additions and/or modifications to 19 interim measures in the Agreement. (ECF Nos. 36 at 3, 37 at 4, 38 at 3).

20 11.The Parties also reported that various factors, including but not limited to the COVID-19 21 pandemic, had delayed the Experts’ commencement and completion of their work under the 22 Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). As a result, the Parties anticipated finalizing 23 and executing a side agreement to extend the date by which the Experts must finalize their 24 work under the Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). The Parties executed this side 25 agreement on March 26, 2021. In the Side Agreement, the Parties agreed for the Experts’ 26 Report to be completed by May 30, 2021. After execution of the Side Agreement, the Experts 27 informed both Parties that additional time was needed to complete the Report. Accordingly, 28 on June 28, 2021, the Parties executed an Addendum to the Side Agreement that extended 1 the deadline for the Experts’ Report to September 10, 2021. In the Seventh Joint Status 2 Report, the Parties reported that the Experts had been conducting interviews with class 3 members and their families, as well as various stakeholder organizations and individuals 4 connected to the District. (ECF No. 43 at 3). As reported in the Parties’ Eighth Joint Status 5 Report, the Experts completed these interviews, as well as a review and analysis of individual 6 student records and documents and data sources related to the District’s policies and 7 procedures. (ECF No. 46 at 3-4). The Experts were in the process of drafting their report.

8 (ECF No. 46 at 4).

9 12.The Experts have informed both Parties that they have completed a summary table of their 10 findings and recommendations and project October 4, 2021 as the completion date for a draft 11 of their report. Additional time is needed to finalize the Experts’ Report after both Parties are 12 able to provide feedback to the Experts.

13 Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties seek this Court’s approval of a further stay of this litigation to afford the Parties additional time to complete the activities described with regard to and in the Agreement including, but not limited to, extending the time for the Experts to incorporate the Parties’ feedback and finalize the Experts’ Report, and allowing the Parties to engage in the agreed- upon structured negotiations informed by the Experts’ Report, with the goal of resolving this matter.

18 GOVERNING LAW 19 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. 21 248) (1936)). In fact, 22 [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 23 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.

25 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55.

26 Correspondingly, as this 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 Indem. Co., 407 F. Supp. 1366, 1368 (C.D. Cal. 1976)).

3 REQUEST FOR STAY 4 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 four more months, to February 4, 2022, so that the Parties may engage in the activities agreed-upon and outlined in the Agreement.

9 Good cause exists to grant the Parties’ joint motion. As noted above, the Experts’ full commencement of work under the Agreement was delayed due to various factors, including but not limited to the COVID-19 pandemic. (See ECF Nos. 37 at 3, 38 at 3). As a result of this delay, the Experts were not able to complete their work under the Agreement by January 2021 and required additional time to complete their work under the Agreement. Now that the Experts’ work is near completion, the Parties request an extension of the stay in order to engage in structured negotiations.

15 Moreover, 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.

23 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.

26 CONCLUSION 27 Based upon the foregoing, the Parties respectfully move the Court to enter an order: 28 (1)Staying this litigation for all purposes for four more months, to February 4, 2022, including 1 temporarily excusing the Parties from complying with this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling 2 Order (ECF No. 4), so that the Parties can focus on and engage in structured settlement 3 negotiations; (2)Extending the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint until 30 days after the 5 stay is lifted upon order of this Court, should negotiations be unsuccessful or terminated by 6 the Parties; and DATED: September 27, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 9 EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY /s/ Mona Tawatao (as authorized on September 24, 2021) 12 MONA TAWATAO Attorneys for Plaintiffs DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 16 /s/ Ramaah Sadasivam (as authorized on September 24, 2021) RAMAAH SADASIVAM 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW /s/ Michael Harris (as authorized on September 24, 22 2021) MICHAEL HARRIS 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY /s/ Antionette Dozier (as authorized on September 24, 26 2021) ANTIONETTE DOZIER Attorneys for Plaintiffs DATED: September 27, 2021 Respectfully submitted, LOZANO SMITH 4 /s/ Sloan Simmons (as authorized on September 24, 2021) SLOAN SIMMONS Attorneys for Defendant ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS (cont’d. from first page) RAMAAH SADASIVAM (SBN: 267156) BRIDGET CLAYCOMB (SBN: 312001) LAUREN LYSTRUP (SBN: 326849) Disability Rights California 1000 Broadway, Suite 395 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 267-1200 Facsimile: (510) 267-1201 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 8 [email protected] MICHAEL HARRIS (SBN: 118234) ATASI UPPAL (SBN: 330716) National Center for Youth Law 1212 Broadway, Suite 600 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 835-8098 Facsimile: (410) 835-8099 Email: [email protected] 14 [email protected] ANTIONETTE 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: [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 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: [email protected] 28 [email protected] 1 ORDER 2 Pursuant to the foregoing Joint Motion of the Parties, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING | THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 (1) This action is temporarily stayed for four months, to February 4, 2022, for all purposes to 5 enable the Parties to 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED. () f /) DATED: S \ } high : September 27, 2021 i \ 13 Troy L. Nunley) ] 14 United States District Judge Not. & Joint Mot. For Further Extension of Stay of Litigation & Order □□□□ Black Parallel School Board et al. v. SC USD et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01768-TLN-KJN