D.G. v. Antioch Unified School District

Background

D.G., through guardians ad litem Michele A. and Daniel G., sought approval of a compromise with Antioch Unified School District. The dispute arose from a special-education due-process complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Plaintiffs alleged that the District failed to provide D.G., who was eight years old at the time, with a free appropriate public education because it did not adequately assess him in all areas of suspected disability.

An administrative law judge granted some of Plaintiffs’ requested relief. The judge found D.G. eligible for special education, ordered the District to convene an Individualized Education Program team meeting, and awarded D.G. 250 hours of academic tutoring. The judge denied other requested relief. Plaintiffs then sought to partially overturn that decision regarding the adequacy of the District’s psychoeducational evaluation, an occupational-therapy evaluation, and speech-and-language services. Plaintiffs also sought attorneys’ fees and costs from the administrative proceeding.

Settlement

On August 30, 2019, the parties signed a settlement agreement. The District agreed to pay $75,000 in attorneys’ fees incurred in the administrative proceeding and this action. In return, Plaintiffs agreed to release and discharge the District from claims arising from the administrative proceeding or this action and from the free appropriate public education the District offered or provided on or before November 19, 2018. The District approved the settlement and did not oppose the motion.

The settlement amount would be paid entirely to Plaintiffs’ counsel. D.G. would not directly receive any money. Counsel’s fees exceeded $89,000 but counsel agreed to accept $75,000 as full compensation and not seek the balance from Plaintiffs.

Court’s Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), a court must protect a minor’s interests and independently review a proposed settlement involving the minor. The court must consider whether the amount distributed to the minor is fair and reasonable in light of the facts, the minor’s claims, and similar cases.

The court found the proposed compromise fair and reasonable and in D.G.’s best interests despite its unusual structure. The court cited the substantial difficulties and uncertainties of continuing the litigation and noted that the District had complied with the administrative decision. Specifically, the District had placed D.G. on an Individualized Education Program, and D.G. was receiving 250 hours of compensatory education in reading, math, and written expression.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the motion for approval of the compromise and directed the parties to disburse the settlement proceeds as provided in the final settlement agreement. The court directed the parties to file a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) by October 11, 2019, and vacated the telephonic conference scheduled for October 1, 2019.