Opinion
1:22-cv-01066-ADA-CDB
12-01-2022
S.G.P., Plaintiff, v. TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE COMPROMISE ON BEHALF OF MINOR PLAINTIFF S.G.P.
(Doc. Nos. 1, 14)
On August 22, 2022, plaintiff S.G.P., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Clarissa Parks, instituted this action by filing a petition for a minor's compromise of “claims arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), and any other known or unknown claims arising out of Plaintiff's educational program.” (Doc. No. 1.) The assigned Magistrate Judge found it appropriate to construe the petition both as a complaint and as a petition for compromise of the minor's settlement. (Doc. No. 9, citing P.R. by & through Rice v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., No. 119CV00220DADBAM, 2019 WL 1651267, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2019).). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
This action was initially assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd, however, on August 24, 2022, was reassigned to District Judge Ana de Alba. (Doc. No. 7.) Although District Judge de Alba's standing order did not sp ecify as to whether a petition for minor's compromise should be set before the District Judge or the Magistrate Judge, Judge Dale A. Drozd's amended standing order in light of ongoing judicial emergency in the Eastern District of California specified such motions should be heard by the assigned Magistrate Judge for the preparation of findings and recommendations. The assigned Magistrate Judge found it appropriate to set such motion before the Magistrate Judge unless there was a further order from the District Judge. (Doc. No. 9.)
On September 23, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's petition for approval of settlement be approved. (Doc. No. 14.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id at 17.) The time in which to file objections has since passed and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 23, 2022 (Doc. No. 14) are ADOPTED in full;
2. The petition to approve settlement of the minor's claims (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED; and
3. The parties are directed to file with the Court a stipulation for dismissal of the action with prejudice, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.