Case: D.J. v. State of California

13-142775 | California state trial court

Filed Date: April 24, 2013

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 24, 2013, the ACLU of Southern California started this case by filing a petition for writ of mandate and complaint in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County, on behalf of public school students identified as English Learners (ELs), their parents, and a former administrator. The plaintiffs sued the state of California and the California Department of Education (CDE) under state constitutional and statutory law and the federal Equal Education Opportunities Act. The plaint…

On April 24, 2013, the ACLU of Southern California started this case by filing a petition for writ of mandate and complaint in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County, on behalf of public school students identified as English Learners (ELs), their parents, and a former administrator. The plaintiffs sued the state of California and the California Department of Education (CDE) under state constitutional and statutory law and the federal Equal Education Opportunities Act. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, alleging that the CDE discriminated against the students on the basis of race and national origin.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that students who identified as ELs were deprived of the fundamental right of an equal opportunity for education. In California, 1 out of every 4 students identifies as an EL and requires special instruction to supplement the school curriculum. Without English proficiency, EL students are unable to master score skills and succeed under the state-mandated curriculum, depriving them of long-term educational benefits. Both state and federal law mandate that all students identified as ELs receive English language instructional programs. However, based on data released by the CDE, 20,000 EL students in 251 school districts did not receive the required English language instruction. The plaintiffs alleged that California and the CDE failed to adequately monitor the school districts, and did not take action to remedy the lack of EL instruction. Furthermore, plaintiffs alleged that, as public money was distributed to the school district for the express purpose of EL instruction, public fund were illegally misused.

Following the ACLU's filing, California modified the language in its census to prevent school districts from affirmatively reporting that they were not providing EL services. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 28, 2014. On July 14, 2014, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division filed formal statement of interest in the case, arguing that under the federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act, states were not authorized to ignore district reports that demonstrated a lack of EL services.

On September 16, 2014, the Superior Court granted a tentative decision on the plaintiff's writ of mandate. The court found that CDE's monitoring program was inadequate and that it had a duty to ensure that every school district provided the appropriate EL programing for its students. The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction that required the CDE to create procedures that ensured the availability of EL services. The court denied the taxpayer relief claim, however. On November 12, 2014, the state and CDE appealed to the Second District California Court of Appeal. Two days later, plaintiffs filed for attorneys' fees and costs (the motion was on January 2, 2015, to await the outcome of the appeal).

On September 11, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement. CDE agreed to withdraw its appeal and the plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the fee motion. CDE also agreed to notify California's 251 districts of their failure to comply with state and federal law; to modify the census language so districts could, again, affirmatively report lack of EL services; and to provide guidance to the districts in implementing the EL programs. CDE additionally agreed to collect and publish data on state EL services and monitor district progress. Finally CDE agreed to pay the plaintiffs $800,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.

The agreement provided that the trial court would maintain jurisdiction for 3 years to enforce the agreement.

Summary Authors

Carolyn Weltman (4/18/2016)

People


Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Azad, Susan S. (California)

Conway, Benjamin T. (California)

Crockett, Robert D. (California)

Hamme, Brendan (California)

Hoq, Laboni Amena (California)

Klosterman, Monica R. (California)

Loy, John David (California)

Ma, Justin (California)

Matthews, Martha (California)

McDonough, Bryn M. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Azad, Susan S. (California)

Conway, Benjamin T. (California)

Crockett, Robert D. (California)

Hamme, Brendan (California)

Hoq, Laboni Amena (California)

Klosterman, Monica R. (California)

Loy, John David (California)

Ma, Justin (California)

Matthews, Martha (California)

McDonough, Bryn M. (California)

Mohammadi, Faraz R. (California)

Ochi, Nicole K. (California)

Park, Yungsuhn (California)

Price, Jessica G. (California)

Rosenbaum, Mark Dale (California)

Sapp, David B. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Crane, Chara L. (California)

Harris, Kamala D. (California)

Kim, Jennifer M. (California)

Murphy, Christine M. (California)

Newman, Tara L. (California)

Plisner, Amanda G. (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Bhargava, Anurima (District of Columbia)

McCarthy, Emily H. (District of Columbia)

Savitsky, Zoe M. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

BS142775

Letter Re: Denial of English Language Services

DJ v. State of California

Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

Findings Letter/Report

BS142775

Opportunity Lost [ACLU of California Report]

DJ v. State of California

Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

BS142775

Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint

DJ v. State of California

April 24, 2013

April 24, 2013

Complaint

BS142775

Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint

DJ v. State of California

May 28, 2014

May 28, 2014

Complaint

BS142775

Petitioners' Amended Opening Brief

DJ v. State of California

June 12, 2014

June 12, 2014

Pleading / Motion / Brief

BS142775

Respondents' Amended Opposition Brief

DJ v. State of California

July 3, 2014

July 3, 2014

Pleading / Motion / Brief

BS142775

Statement of Interest by the United States

DJ v. State of California

July 14, 2014

July 14, 2014

Pleading / Motion / Brief

BS142775

Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate: Granted

DJ v. State of California

Aug. 12, 2014

Aug. 12, 2014

Order/Opinion

BS142775

Settlement Agreement

DJ v. State of California

Sept. 11, 2015

Sept. 11, 2015

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 1, 2022, 3 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Education

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 24, 2013

Closing Date: 2018

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are several school-age children enrolled in California public schools who qualify as "English Learners" (EL) and their parents. One plaintiff is a California public school teacher and taxpayer interested in preventing the illegal and wasteful expenditure of funds.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU of Southern California

Public Counsel

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of California, State

California Department of Education, State

Defendant Type(s):

Elementary/Secondary School

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Conditional Dismissal

Amount Defendant Pays: 800,000.00

Order Duration: 2015 - 2018

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Monitoring

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Student assignment

Issues

General:

Communication skills

Failure to supervise

Language access/needs

Special education

Discrimination-basis:

Language discrimination

National origin discrimination

Race discrimination

Race:

Race, unspecified

Type of Facility:

Government-run