Case: Shaw v. Los Angeles Unified School District

Parents and guardians of Los Angeles Unified School District students from low-income communities filed one of the largest education class action lawsuits in California history, challenging distance learning policies during COVID-19 school closures that they alleged violated students' constitutional and statutory rights to education. 

Represented on a pro bono basis by Kirkland & Ellis, plaintiffs filed this class action suit on September 24, 2020 in the Superior Court of the State of California against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). On October 7, 2020, plaintiffs amended the complaint to add United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) as a defendant. The case was originally assigned to Superior Court Judge Kenneth R. Freeman, but was reassigned to Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl on October 20, 2020.

On May 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint, alleging eight causes of action claiming that defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights under the California Constitution and state law. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

UTLA filed an ex parte motion to dismiss, which the court granted on September 14, 2021. The trial court also granted LAUSD’s motion to strike the prayer for relief with leave to amend, and struck the class allegations regarding retrospective relief with leave to amend. Ultimately, although the court had granted plaintiffs leave to amend to cure the defects it perceived in the second amended complaint, they declined to do so. The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 15, 2021. Plaintiffs appealed. At the California court of appeals, plaintiffs challenged only the dismissal of three of their constitutional claims and the striking of their prayer for remedial injunctive relief. Even though the school district had returned to in-person instruction, plaintiffs continued to seek injunctive relief to remedy what they contended were ongoing harms caused by the allegedly unconstitutional policies. The California court of appeals reversed in part and remanded with instructions, holding that plaintiffs’ constitutional claims were not moot. 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 617.

In 2024, a similar lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda, Cayla J. v. State of California (Case No. RG20084386), settled. The Cayla case alleged that students, particularly Black and Latinx students, were harmed because of minimal instructional times and lack of access to connective technology during COVID-19 remote learning. In that case, the State of California agreed to spend at least $2 billion to help students recover from COVID-19-related learning loss.

On January 12, 2024, after the Supreme Court of California denied Defendants’ petition for review, the Court of Appeal remitted the case to this Court. While discovery was stayed pending a status conference, the parties attempted to resolve the dispute through a mediation. While the parties were unable to reach a settlement during that mediation, they continued to engage in settlement talks.

On August 8, 2025, the parties agreed to settle the case. The terms of the settlement involved multiple remedial measures: academic support programs, including small-group tutoring, summer school, and high-dose tutoring services every year through 2028; tutoring and intervention program reporting; mandatory assessments; teacher training; and family and student outreach. Plaintiffs agreed to release all claims and causes of action, and agreed to waive their request for attorneys’ fees.

The court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement on November 4, 2025, and on February 18, 2026, the court granted final approval of the settlement.

As of April 2026, this case is ongoing as the settlement is carried out.