Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Emma C. v. Eastin

3:96-cv-04179 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Nov. 18, 1996

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 18, 1996, a group of students with disabilities filed this class-action lawsuit against the Ravenswood City School District and the state education department in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The eight named plaintiffs were school-aged children with disabilities who then attended, or had in the past attended, schools in Ravenswood. The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Section 504 of t…

On November 18, 1996, a group of students with disabilities filed this class-action lawsuit against the Ravenswood City School District and the state education department in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The eight named plaintiffs were school-aged children with disabilities who then attended, or had in the past attended, schools in Ravenswood. The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.), and a variety of state law causes of action.

The plaintiffs alleged that Ravenswood failed not only to meet their individual educational needs, but also failed to provide similarly situated children within its jurisdiction a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"), as mandated by various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the state defendants failed to monitor Ravenswood's compliance with state and federal laws that mandate the provision of a FAPE to all children with disabilities, failed to adequately investigate complaints regarding Ravenswood, and failed to enforce the directives generated by state education department investigations. The plaintiffs sought class-action certification for the case and declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief. Attorneys from the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc., the Youth and Education Law Project, and the East Palo Alto Community Law Project represented the plaintiffs, as did private counsel.

On October 17, 1997, District Judge Thelton E. Henderson ruled upon several defense motions seeking to dismiss or limit the plaintiffs' case. The judge, who had earlier (in July) dismissed the school district defendants from the case for the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing a lawsuit under IDEA and then reversed that decision upon reconsideration, refused the state defendants' request to be similarly dismissed from the case, finding that administrative exhaustion would be excused on the facts of this case. Judge Henderson also ruled that (1) compensatory damages were available under the IDEA, and monetary relief was also available in a § 1983 suit aimed at enforcing rights protected by the IDEA; (2) Congress' express abrogations of Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims under the IDEA, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act were enacted pursuant to a valid exercise of power under the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) the state education department was a state agency and thus cloaked by Eleventh Amendment immunity; (4) insofar as the § 1983 claim sought retrospective relief, it could not be maintained against state officials in their official capacities, but could be maintained against state officials in their official capacity for injunctive relief, and plaintiffs could proceed with their § 1983 claims against the state officials in their individual capacities; (5) the Eleventh Amendment barred pendent state law claims against the state education department and state officials named in their official capacities, but had no application to a suit against state officials in their individual capacities; and (6) the complaint satisfied liberal federal pleading requirements, as to allegations of "discrimination" by state defendants, given that the term is defined in relevant federal regulations. Emma C. v. Eastin, 985 F. Supp. 940 (N.D. Cal. 1997).

In November 1997, the district court certified a class comprised of children residing in the Ravenswood Elementary School District who were, are, or will be entitled to free and appropriate public education under federal and state laws.

The lawsuit prompted a state investigation into the allegations, which found them substantiated. State experts confirmed widespread noncompliance with special education requirements. The state thus developed a Ravenswood Corrective Action Plan in 1998. After revisions, the plan was adopted as a consent decree to settle the case in 1999.

The monitor (Mark A. Mlawer) appointed under the plan reported that the district did little to achieve compliance over a year after the decree issued. Deadlines were continually revised and yet noncompliance continued. Reviewing efforts into 2001, the court termed the compliance as "abysmal" and "extremely bleak." The court observed a lack of candor and commitment on the school district's part, characterized by a fraudulent petition of community support for the superintendent that defense counsel filed, then withdrew, evidently upon press stories noting fraudulent aspects of the petition. In a lengthy unpublished order on October 4, 2001, Judge Henderson found the school district defendants in contempt. As a remedy for the contempt, the court considered appointing the state, or an expert it would retain, as a receiver to operate the district. The court felt constrained by case law, however, to allow the district one more chance, particularly in view of district administrative personnel changes, recent retention of an expert consultant to assist the district, and explicit plans for improved compliance efforts. The court allowed for a seven-month period for improvement and expressly warned that it would continue to consider the propriety of a receivership as a contempt sanction.

By March 12, 2003, a detailed 65-page self-improvement plan for the district had been developed and tendered to the court, as part of an amended consent decree noting that the plan also aimed to end litigation over the remedy for the prior finding of contempt. The plan included specific time deadlines to achieve documented goals and provided for monitoring and state education department participation in the remedial process. The court approved the new decree at a hearing on March 31, 2003, and issued an order to that effect on April 3, 2003. The docket sheet for the case shows that by May 2003, the court was again considering contempt sanctions because the district violated the court's order regarding budget matters. We do not have copies of the order or pleadings surrounding this aspect of the dispute. Occasional settlement conferences were held during the remainder of 2003 and into 2004. On May 21, 2004, Judge Henderson issued an order granting plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, according to the docket sheet. While the docket sheet is somewhat cryptic on the point, it notes a June 8, 2004, stipulation that attorneys' fees would be paid by the state and by the school district in amounts of $542,250, $36,150, $36,150, and $104,450 (with the latter three amounts being periodic payments by the district). Further attorneys' fees payment from the district of $14,377 was ordered on April 15, 2005. In August 2006, the state and the school district were ordered to split payment of $32,142 and $15,990 in attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel. Somewhat smaller, but similarly split attorneys' fee payments were ordered by the court through 2011.

Active supervision by the court continued. After the Supreme Court's decision in Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, 132 S.Ct. 1204 (2012), which drew into question the existence of a cause of action under spending clause legislation against a state if a federal entity played an active supervisory role, the state argued that no cause of action existed under IDEA, because the federal Department of Education approves state IDEA plans. Accordingly, the state suggested here, the district court lacked jurisdiction to assess the state's system for monitoring local school districts. On November 26, 2012, Judge Henderson disagreed. Emma C. v. Eastin, 2012 WL 5904750 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2012). He explained that the federal government had not ever assessed whether the state's monitoring system is "capable of ensuring continued compliance with the law and the provision of FAPE to children with disabilities in Ravenswood." Moreover, he said, even if the federal agency had ruled on that precise question, the issue was one of potential deference, not jurisdiction.

For the next two years, the parties filed multiple joint stipulations of dispute resolutions but were at an impasse. On January 9, 2014, the monitor issued an 88-page report and determined that the monitoring system of the California Department of Education (CDE) was inadequate as applied to Ravenswood. The monitor’s report recommended that the court order the monitor to develop a corrective action plan and hire an outside consultant to develop such plan. On April 6, 2014, the state defendants moved to set aside monitor’s report and the plaintiffs subsequently filed an opposition brief against the defendants on May 14, 2014.

On July 2, 2014, Judge Henderson upheld the entirety of the monitor's findings and authorized the monitor to move forward with developing a corrective action plan and reform CDE’s statewide special education monitoring system. CDE was responsible for the costs associated with the development and oversight of the corrective action plan, including the outside consultant’s costs. On July 31, 2014, the state defendants appealed the court’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit and alleged, inter alia, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue such orders. The state defendants also sought to stay the Court’s ruling until the conclusion of the pending appeal, but the court (Judge Henderson) denied the motion to stay on August 25, 2014. On March 29, 2016, the monitor submitted a memorandum regarding CDE’s failure to comply with the fifth joint agreement that had been approved in January 2013. The court originally ordered CDE to show cause but later, on June 23, 2016, discharged that order without finding contempt or imposition of sanctions.

On December 15, 2016, the Ninth Circuit (Judges Thomas, Kozinski, and Friedland) affirmed the district court's order. The Circuit also affirmed that the district court did not exceed its subject matter jurisdiction or the scope of the consent decree in its orders. Although the case originally involved Ravenswood City School District’s IDEA compliance, the lawsuit also challenged the failure of CDE to fulfill its obligation to provide a FAPE. When the district court determined in 2014 that CDE failed to show the efficacy of its preexisting state-level monitoring system and ordered the monitor to develop a corrective action plan, the district court was authorized to order implementation of those recommendations. The defendants sought a panel rehearing regarding the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 2015 but this petition was denied on March 7, 2017.

On January 20, 2017, the district court issued an order regarding CDE’s failure to provide the monitor with information needed to evaluate whether CDE was complying with the consent decree. Judge Henderson noted that this was "simply unacceptable" and asserted that sanctions would be imposed unless CDE turned over the information immediately.

On March 10, 2017, the monitor’s report reported CDE’s key violations to the court. Mainly, the monitor asserted that CDE’s submissions revealed little movement toward the compliance with the corrective action plan and noted that “such a state of affairs, particularly in light of the finding of prior corrective action plan monitoring reports, is not acceptable.” On March 22, 2017, Judge Henderson stated that he was "dismayed by the Monitor’s recent report,” especially because CDE recently stated that it was continuing to work on the corrective action plan. He ordered the parties to appear on April 20, 2017, for a status conference to discuss compliance with the corrective action plan and consent decree.

In August 2017, Judge Henderson assumed inactive status and the case was reassigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The court continued to review the defendants' compliance with the consent decree. On May 18, 2018, after hearing from both parties, Judge Chhabria set forth a four-phase plan for the school district to demonstrate compliance. Assuming the school district fully complied, the consent decree would be lifted in 2020.

On August 17, 2018, Judge Chhabria concluded that the California Department of Education was in "substantial compliance" regarding phase 1 requirements, meaning that the defendant had collected sufficient data to demonstrate compliance.

The court then conducted several hearings to assess compliance of phase 2 objectives, which focused on how the state analyzed data to determine which school districts required intervention and what intervention was called for. On July 15, 2019, Judge Chhabria concluded that there were serious defects in the defendants' processes and ultimately found that the defendants did not satisfy their phase 2 obligations. The court thus ordered that phase 2 proceedings be repeated until the defendants could demonstrate compliance.

As of March 30, 2020, the parties had not yet completed phase 2 proceedings.

Summary Authors

Joshua Arocho (11/2/2012)

MJ Koo (3/31/2017)

Hope Brinn (3/30/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4165276/parties/emma-c-v-thurmond/


Judge(s)

Chhabria, Vince Girdhari (California)

Friedland, Michelle Taryn (California)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Kozinski, Alex (California)

Larson, James L. (California)

Mlawer, Mark (California)

Thomas, Sidney Runyan (Montana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bal, Colleen (California)

Casey, Thomas F. III (California)

Cummings, Larisa M. (California)

Judge(s)

Chhabria, Vince Girdhari (California)

Friedland, Michelle Taryn (California)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Kozinski, Alex (California)

Larson, James L. (California)

Mlawer, Mark (California)

Thomas, Sidney Runyan (Montana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bal, Colleen (California)

Casey, Thomas F. III (California)

Cummings, Larisa M. (California)

Feldman, Robert P. (California)

Giles , David R. (California)

Gupta, Namita (California)

Koski, William Sheldon (California)

Lipton, Diane (California)

Mayerson, Arlene Brynne (California)

Munson, Carly Jean (California)

Pitts, Freya E. K. (California)

Sagy, Rony (California)

Welch, Leecia (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Aguilar, Edmundo (California)

Armsby, Aimee B. (California)

Bedwell, Marsha A. (California)

Castro, Ismael A. (California)

Chambers, Shannon Michelle (California)

Christensen, Andrea Michelle (California)

Eisenberg, Karli Ann (California)

Freifeld, Douglas N. (California)

Gill, Kirin Kaur (California)

Goldberg, Michelle L. (California)

Hernandez, Lisa Soto (California)

Hersher, Michael E. (California)

Holtzman, Jonathan V. (California)

Jones, Urrea C. (California)

Lacy, Paul E. (California)

Ledda, Derek (California)

Marquez, Miguel (California)

Meola, Kathryn Elizabeth (California)

Murphy, Christine M. (California)

Murray, Ann M. (California)

Nibbelin, John D. (California)

Prince, George D. (California)

Reid, Felicia R. (California)

Snell, Karen L. (California)

Spence, Darrell Warren (California)

Tillman, Lisa Anne (California)

Villegas, Fermin (California)

Vivas, Gabriel Cruz (California)

Weatherly, Charles L. (Georgia)

Weng-Gutierrez, Julie (California)

Whitlock, Eugene (California)

Wise, R Matthew (California)

Yajima, Ava Chikako (California)

Zolotar, Barry A. (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Colton, Joseph R. (California)

Magana, Martine (California)

Sexton, Sheila (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Miawer, Mark Ari (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:96-cv-04179

Docket [PACER]

April 7, 2020

April 7, 2020

Docket
94

3:96-cv-04179

Order [Re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss]

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

Order/Opinion
410

3:96-cv-04179

Order of Referral to Magistrate Judge Re: Potential Sanctions

Oct. 4, 2001

Oct. 4, 2001

Order/Opinion
409

3:96-cv-04179

Order Re: Contempt

Oct. 4, 2001

Oct. 4, 2001

Order/Opinion

3:96-cv-04179

Ravenswood Self-Improvement Plan (RSIP)

March 12, 2003

March 12, 2003

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
832

3:96-cv-04179

Order Re: Final Approval of First Amended Consent Decree

April 3, 2003

April 3, 2003

Order/Opinion

3:96-cv-04179

First Amended Consent Decree

April 3, 2003

April 3, 2003

Settlement Agreement
1120

3:96-cv-04179

[Defendants'] Joint Submission of Agreed 2007-2008 RSIP Budget; Stipulation Regarding Allocation of RSIP and Court Monitor Budget and [Proposed] Order Thereon

June 11, 2007

June 11, 2007

Settlement Agreement
1151

3:96-cv-04179

Order re: Directives and CDE Technical Assistance, Oversight, and Monitoring Regarding Ravenswood's Delivery of Services and Related Issues

Dec. 20, 2007

Dec. 20, 2007

Order/Opinion
1169

3:96-cv-04179

Joint Stipulation and Order re: Revisions to RSIP Requirements 6.2.1, 9.2.1 and 9.3.1

Feb. 14, 2008

Feb. 14, 2008

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4165276/emma-c-v-thurmond/

Last updated Sept. 6, 2022, 3:08 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT (no process) Fee status pd entered on 11/18/96 in the amount of $ 120.00 (Receipt No. 124521); jury demand [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/21/1996)

Nov. 18, 1996

Nov. 18, 1996

PACER
2

ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson: Proof of service to be filed by 1/2/97; counsels' case management statement to be filed by 3/17/97; initial case management conference will be held 3:00 3/25/97. (cc: all counsel) (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/21/1996)

Nov. 18, 1996

Nov. 18, 1996

PACER
3

EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff for order permitting named plaintiffs to proceed under fictitious names and seal certain documents and declarations and memorandum of points and authorities [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/21/1996)

Nov. 18, 1996

Nov. 18, 1996

PACER

RECEIVED Proposed Order (submitted by Plaintiffs) re: motion for order permitting named plaintiffs to proceed under fictitious names and seal certain documents and declarations and memorandum of points and authorities [3-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF)

Nov. 18, 1996

Nov. 18, 1996

PACER
4

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting plaintiff's motion for order permitting named plaintiffs to proceed under fictitious names and seal certain documents and declarations and memorandum of points and authorities [3-1] (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/02/1996)

Nov. 22, 1996

Nov. 22, 1996

PACER
5

"FILED UNDER SEAL" ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson (Date Entered: (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (gba, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)

Nov. 22, 1996

Nov. 22, 1996

PACER
6

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson filed UNDER SEAL (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)

Nov. 22, 1996

Nov. 22, 1996

PACER
7

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson filed UNDER SEAL (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)

Nov. 22, 1996

Nov. 22, 1996

PACER
8

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson filed UNDER SEAL (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)

Nov. 22, 1996

Nov. 22, 1996

PACER
9

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson filed UNDER SEAL (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)

Nov. 22, 1996

Nov. 22, 1996

PACER
10

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson filed UNDER SEAL (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)

Nov. 22, 1996

Nov. 22, 1996

PACER
11

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson filed UNDER SEAL (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)

Nov. 22, 1996

Nov. 22, 1996

PACER
12

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson filed UNDER SEAL (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)

Nov. 22, 1996

Nov. 22, 1996

PACER

SUMMONS issued as to all defendants [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF)

Nov. 25, 1996

Nov. 25, 1996

PACER
13

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon State defendants Delaine Eastin, Joseph Carrabino, Marion McDowell, Katheryn Dronenburg, Dorothy Lee, S. William Malkasian, Kenneth Peters, David Romero, Joseph Stein, Gerty Thomas, Paras Mehta, Dept. of Education, Charlie Mae Knight by serving Barry Zolotar, Esq. on 12/3/96 [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/1997)

Dec. 30, 1996

Dec. 30, 1996

PACER
14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson for failure to serve under the provisions of Civil LR 4-2. (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/10/1997)

Jan. 6, 1997

Jan. 6, 1997

PACER
15

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of case management schedule order [2-1], order [4-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/16/1997)

Jan. 15, 1997

Jan. 15, 1997

PACER
16

CERTIFICATION of discussion of ADR options by defendant Ravenswood City School District. [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/18/1997)

March 17, 1997

March 17, 1997

PACER
17

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/18/1997)

March 17, 1997

March 17, 1997

PACER
18

SEPARATE ADDENDUM filed by Plaintiffs to joint case mangement statement [17-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/18/1997)

March 17, 1997

March 17, 1997

PACER
19

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Ravenswood City of statement case mangement [17-1], adr certifcation [16-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/19/1997)

March 18, 1997

March 18, 1997

PACER
20

MINUTES: (C/R not reported) Initial case management conference held 3/25/97. Pre-trial conference will be held 3:00 10/27/97; Jury Trial set for 8:30 11/12/97; Discovery cutoff 8/9/97, referring case for settlement conference to Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/1997)

March 26, 1997

March 26, 1997

PACER
21

ORDER FOR PRETRIAL PREPARATION by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson Jury trial will be held 8:30 11/12/97; Discovery cutoff set for 8/9/97; plaintiff shall designate experts 60 days prior to pretrial conference; defendants shall designate experts 45 days prior to pretrial conference; pretrial conference statement due 9/26/97; Pretrial conference set for 3:00 10/27/97, referring case for settlement to Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Entered: 3/27/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/1997)

March 26, 1997

March 26, 1997

PACER
22

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Ravenswood City of case mangement statement - signature and certification by parties and lead trial counsel [16-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/1997)

March 26, 1997

March 26, 1997

PACER
23

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Ravenswood City of case mangement statement - signature and certification parties and lead trial counsel [16-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/01/1997)

March 27, 1997

March 27, 1997

PACER
24

ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton Settlement conf. (Mag) set for 1:30 5/1/97 (Date Entered: 4/2/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

April 1, 1997

April 1, 1997

PACER
25

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendants Ravenswood City, Charlie Mae Knight to dismiss, and in the alternative for summary judgment with Notice set for 6/9/97 at 10:00 [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/28/1997)

April 28, 1997

April 28, 1997

PACER
26

DECLARATION by Martine Magana on behalf of defendants Ravenwood City, Charlie Mae Knight re motion to dismiss [25-1], re motion for summary judgment [25-2] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/28/1997)

April 28, 1997

April 28, 1997

PACER
27

DECLARATION by Clara Rouse on behalf of defendants Ravenswood City, Charlie Mae Knight re motion to dismiss [25-1], re motion for summary judgment [25-2] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/28/1997)

April 28, 1997

April 28, 1997

PACER

RECEIVED Proposed Order (submitted by defendants) re: motion to dismiss [25-1], re: motion for summary judgment [25-2] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF)

April 28, 1997

April 28, 1997

PACER
28

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE MINUTES: (C/R none) Settlement conference held, Further settlement conf. (Mag) between plaintiff and state defendants set for 1:30 5/16/97; Further settlement conf. (Mag) with all parties set for 1:30 6/26/97 [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/05/1997)

May 1, 1997

May 1, 1997

PACER
29

MINUTES: (C/R none) Telephonic status conference held before Mag. Judge Hamilton re: settlement; defendants agree to a 2 week continuance of hearing on their motion to dismiss [25-1] to 6/23/97; Follow up settlement conf. (Mag) set for 9:30 7/23/97 ; Order to be prepared by Court [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/21/1997)

May 20, 1997

May 20, 1997

PACER
30

ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton Further settlement conf. (Mag) continued to 9:30 7/23/97 (Date Entered: 5/21/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/21/1997)

May 20, 1997

May 20, 1997

PACER
31

MOTION before Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiffs for class certification [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/28/1997)

May 27, 1997

May 27, 1997

PACER
32

DECLARATION by David Giles on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for class certification [31-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/28/1997)

May 27, 1997

May 27, 1997

PACER
33

DECLARATION by Rony Sagy on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for class certification [31-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/28/1997)

May 27, 1997

May 27, 1997

PACER
34

OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to defendant's motion to dismiss [25-1], and in the alternative for summary judgment [25-2] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/03/1997)

June 2, 1997

June 2, 1997

PACER
35

REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendants' Ravenswood City, Charlie Mae Knight in support of motion to dismiss [25-1], motion for summary judgment [25-2] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/10/1997)

June 9, 1997

June 9, 1997

PACER
36

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Clara Rouse on behalf of defendants Ravenswood City, Charlie Mae Knight re motion to dismiss [25-1], re motion for summary judgment [25-2] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/10/1997)

June 9, 1997

June 9, 1997

PACER
37

OPPOSITION by defendants Ravenswood City, Charlie Mae Knight to plaintiffs' motion for class certification [31-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/17/1997)

June 16, 1997

June 16, 1997

PACER
38

DECLARATION by Clara Rouse on behalf of defendants Charlie Mae Knight, Ravenswood City in support of opposition [37-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/17/1997)

June 16, 1997

June 16, 1997

PACER
39

SCHEDULING ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson setting hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification [31-1] 10:00 7/14/97; plaintiff's reply due 6/23/97 (Date Entered: 6/19/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/1997)

June 17, 1997

June 17, 1997

PACER
40

REPLY by Plaintiffs to defendant Ravenswood's opposition to motion for class certification [31-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/24/1997)

June 23, 1997

June 23, 1997

PACER
41

DECLARATION by Stephen A. Rosenbaum on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for class certification [31-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/24/1997)

June 23, 1997

June 23, 1997

PACER
42

DECLARATION by Diane J. Lipton on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for class certification [31-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/24/1997)

June 23, 1997

June 23, 1997

PACER
43

DECLARATION by Diane J. Lipton on behalf of Plaintiff re motion reply [40-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/24/1997)

June 23, 1997

June 23, 1997

PACER
44

MINUTES: (C/R Roberta Rogers) that defendant Ravenswood's motion to dismiss [25-1] is submitted [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/24/1997)

June 23, 1997

June 23, 1997

PACER
45

AMENDED DECLARATION by David Giles on behalf of Plaintiffs in support motion for class certification [31-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/1997)

June 26, 1997

June 26, 1997

PACER
46

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson GRANTING defendant Ravenswood City's motion to dismiss [25-1]; DISMISSING complaint as against Ravenswood City [25-2] ; finding plaintiff's motion for class certification [31-1] MOOT; VACATING hearing set for 7/14/97 (Date Entered: 7/15/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/1997)

July 10, 1997

July 10, 1997

PACER
47

EXPEDITED MOTION before Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff for leave to to file a motion for reconsideration [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)

July 15, 1997

July 15, 1997

PACER
48

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to to file a motion for reconsideration [47-1] (Date Entered: 7/17/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)

July 15, 1997

July 15, 1997

PACER
49

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff for reconsideration with Notice set for 8/25/97 at 10:00 [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
50

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Plaintiffs in support of motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
51

DECLARATION by Rony Sagy on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
52

DECLARATION by Parent of Martin M. on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
53

DECLARATION by Parent of George C. on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
54

DECLARATION by David R. Giles on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
55

DECLARATION by Parent of John Doe on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
56

DECLARATION by Dr. David V. Ragsdale on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
57

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of motion for reconsideration [49-1], declaration [51-1], declaration [52-1], declaration [53-1], declaration [54-1], declaration [55-1], declaration [56-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER

RECEIVED Proposed Order (submitted by Plaintiffs) re: motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF)

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
58

MINUTES: (C/R none) Settlement conference held; Further settlement conf. (Mag) set for 8:30 8/22/97 [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 23, 1997

July 23, 1997

PACER
59

RE-NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiff setting motion for reconsideration [49-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 9/8/97 [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 24, 1997

July 24, 1997

PACER
60

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Plaintiffs in support of motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 24, 1997

July 24, 1997

PACER
61

NOTICE by defendants Ravenswood City, Charlie Mae Knight of change of address [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1997)

July 24, 1997

July 24, 1997

PACER
62

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson by state defendants to dismiss, and, in the alternative for summary judgment with Notice set for 9/22/97 at 10:00 [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/05/1997)

Aug. 4, 1997

Aug. 4, 1997

PACER
63

DECLARATION by Gabe Cortina on behalf of state defendants re motion to dismiss [62-1], re motion for summary judgment [62-2] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/05/1997)

Aug. 4, 1997

Aug. 4, 1997

PACER
64

EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiffs to extend discovery cut-off date [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/11/1997)

Aug. 8, 1997

Aug. 8, 1997

PACER
65

STIPULATION re motion to extend discovery cut-off date [64-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/11/1997)

Aug. 8, 1997

Aug. 8, 1997

PACER
66

PROOF OF SERVICE of motion to extend discovery cut-off date [64-1], stipulation [65-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/11/1997)

Aug. 8, 1997

Aug. 8, 1997

PACER
67

RE-NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiffs setting motion for reconsideration [49-1]; hearing set for 10:00 9/22/97 [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/11/1997)

Aug. 8, 1997

Aug. 8, 1997

PACER
68

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting plaintiff's motion to extend discovery cut-off date [64-1]; Discovery cutoff set for 9/30/97 ; all other dates reflected in the Order for Pretrial Preparation will remain in effect. (Date Entered: 8/14/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/14/1997)

Aug. 12, 1997

Aug. 12, 1997

PACER
69

LETTER dated 8/12/97 from Martine Magana on behalf of defendant Ravenswood re: opposition to motion for reconsideration [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/19/1997)

Aug. 15, 1997

Aug. 15, 1997

PACER
70

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE MINUTES: (C/R not reported) (Hearing Date: 8/22/97) Telephonice settlement conference held [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/1997)

Aug. 22, 1997

Aug. 22, 1997

PACER
71

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff for partial summary judgment with Notice set for 9/22/97 at 10:00 [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/1997)

Aug. 22, 1997

Aug. 22, 1997

PACER
72

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by defendants Ravenswood City, Charlie Mae Knight in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/1997)

Aug. 29, 1997

Aug. 29, 1997

PACER
73

OBJECTIONS by defendants Ravenswood City, Charlie Mae Knight to evidence filed in support to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/1997)

Aug. 29, 1997

Aug. 29, 1997

PACER
74

DECLARATION by Martine Magana on behalf of defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/1997)

Aug. 29, 1997

Aug. 29, 1997

PACER
75

DECLARATION by Joseph Totter on behalf of defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/1997)

Aug. 29, 1997

Aug. 29, 1997

PACER
76

OPPOSITION by state defendants to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment [71-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)

Sept. 2, 1997

Sept. 2, 1997

PACER
77

DECLARATION by Barry A. Zolotar on behalf of state defendants re motion for partial summary judgment [71-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)

Sept. 2, 1997

Sept. 2, 1997

PACER
78

DECLARATION by Gabe Cortina on behalf of state defendants re motion for partial summary judgment [71-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)

Sept. 2, 1997

Sept. 2, 1997

PACER
79

SUPPLMENTAL DECLARATION by Gabe Cortina on behalf of state defendants re motion to dismiss [62-1], re motion for summary judgment [62-2] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/1997)

Sept. 2, 1997

Sept. 2, 1997

PACER
88

OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs to state defendants' motion to dismiss [62-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/1997)

Sept. 3, 1997

Sept. 3, 1997

PACER
80

REPLY by Plaintiffs to defendants' opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [71-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)

Sept. 8, 1997

Sept. 8, 1997

PACER
81

RESPONSE by Plaintiffs re objections [73-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)

Sept. 8, 1997

Sept. 8, 1997

PACER
82

REPLY by Plaintiffs in support of motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)

Sept. 8, 1997

Sept. 8, 1997

PACER
83

SECOND DECLARATION by David R. Giles on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)

Sept. 8, 1997

Sept. 8, 1997

PACER
84

DECLARATION by Rony Sagy on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)

Sept. 8, 1997

Sept. 8, 1997

PACER
85

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs of reply [82-1], response [81-1], declaration [83-1], declaration [84-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)

Sept. 8, 1997

Sept. 8, 1997

PACER
86

REPLY by state defendants' to plaintiff's opposition to motion to dismiss [62-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1997)

Sept. 8, 1997

Sept. 8, 1997

PACER
87

SECOND DECLARATION by David R. Giles on behalf of Plaintiff re motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/10/1997)

Sept. 9, 1997

Sept. 9, 1997

PACER
89

THIRD DECLARATION by Rony Sagy on behalf of Plaintiffs re motion for reconsideration [49-1] [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/1997)

Sept. 19, 1997

Sept. 19, 1997

PACER
90

MINUTES: (C/R Megan Barron) (Hearing Date: 9/22/97) that plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration [49-1] is submitted, that plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment [71-1] is submitted, that state defendants' motion to dismiss [62-1] or motion for summary judgment [62-2] is submitted [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/1997)

Sept. 22, 1997

Sept. 22, 1997

PACER
92

NOTICE by Plaintiffs and motion re pretrial matters [3:96-cv-04179] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/03/1997)

Sept. 30, 1997

Sept. 30, 1997

PACER
91

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying defendants' motion to dismiss [62-1], denying defendants' motion for summary judgment [62-2], granting plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration [49-1] vacating [46-2] order of 7/10/97 (see Order for specifics) ( Date Entered: 10/3/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/03/1997)

Oct. 1, 1997

Oct. 1, 1997

PACER
93

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson that the pretrial conference and trial dates are VACATED; Further status conference set for 3:00 11/12/97 ; see Order for details (Date Entered: 10/15/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/15/1997)

Oct. 14, 1997

Oct. 14, 1997

PACER
94

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson DISMISSING plaintiff's claims in their entirety as against defendant Dept. of Education ; DISMISSING plaintiff's fourth and fifth causes of action against defendants Department of Education, Delaine Eastin, Joseph Carrabino, Marion McDowell, Katheryn Dronenburg, Dorathy Lee, S. William Malkasian, Kenneth Peters, David Romero, Joseph Stein, Gery Thomas, and Paras Mehta; see Order for details. (Date Entered: 10/22/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/22/1997)

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

PACER
95

REQUEST by defendants Ravenswood City, Charlie Mae Knight for consideration of declarations relevant to plaintiffs' motion for class certification [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/22/1997)

Oct. 21, 1997

Oct. 21, 1997

PACER
96

STATEMENT by Plaintiff regarding class certification [3:96-cv-04179] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/28/1997)

Oct. 22, 1997

Oct. 22, 1997

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Education

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 18, 1996

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Children with disabilities who presently attend, or have in the past attended, schools in the Ravenswood City School District.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of California, State

Ravenswood City Elementary School District (Ravenswood), School District

Defendant Type(s):

Elementary/Secondary School

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2000 - None

Content of Injunction:

Reasonable Accommodation

Discrimination Prohibition

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Provide antidiscrimination training

Reporting

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Required disclosure

Issues

General:

Funding

Government services

Individualized planning

Juveniles

Restraints : physical

School/University policies

Special education

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Testing

Test or device

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

disability, unspecified

Integrated setting

Least restrictive environment

Medical/Mental Health:

Mental health care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run