1 SHAWNA PARKS (CA BAR NO. 208301) (sparks@dralegal.org ) 


MARY-LEE K. SMITH (CA BAR NO. 239086) (msmith@dralegal.org ) 


2 REBECCA WILLIFORD (CA BAR NO. 269977) (rwilliford@dralegal.org ) 


KARA JANSSEN (CA BAR NO. 274762) (kjanssen@dralegal.org ) 3 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES



ANC)

2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor 4 Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
Telephone: (510) 665-8644

t,90)4-P.. &6' .C/ e,,90 N o, <,),

5 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

6 HERNAN VERA (CA BAR NO. 175149) (hvera@publiccounsel.org ) LAURA FAER (CA BAR NO. 223846) (Ifaer@publiccounsel.org )
7 PUBLIC COUNSEL
2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor 8 Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
Telephone: (510) 529-3419 9 Facsimile: (213) 385-9089

o 9/C>0V1
/ic

10 GRACE A. CARTER (CA BAR NO. 101610) (gracecarter@paulhastings.com ) GINA COOK (CA BAR NO. 245611) (ginacook@paulhastings.com )
11 PAUL HASTINGS LLP 55 Second Street, Twenty-Fourth Floor
12 San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Telephone: (415) 856-7000
13 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16

17

G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.; W.B., by and through his guardian ad

18

litem, CiCi C.; Q.G., by and through his guardian ad litem, Barbara C.; and on behalf of

19

themselves and a class of those similarly situated,

Case No.
CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

20

Plaintiffs,

21 v.

22 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; CONTRA

23

COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION; PHILIP KADER, in his official

24

capacity, Chief County Probation Officer; BRUCE PELLE, in his official capacity,

25

Superintendent of Juvenile Hall; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF

26

EDUCATION; JOSEPH A. OVICK, in his official capacity as Superintendent, Contra

27

Costa County Office of Education; LYNN MACKEY, in her official capacity, Director of

28 Contra Costa County Court Schools.

Defendants.

Plaintiffs G.F., W.B., and Q.G. 1 (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), by and through their counsel, Disability Rights Advocates, Public Counsel and Paul Hastings LLP, bring this Complaint against Defendants Contra Costa County; Contra Costa County Department of Probation; Philip Kader, in his official capacity as Chief County Probation Officer; Bruce Pelle, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall; Contra Costa County Office of Education; Joseph Ovick, in his official capacity as Superintendent, Contra Costa County Office of Education; and Lynn Mackey, in her official capacity as Director of Contra Costa County Court Schools (collectively, the "Defendants").2
INTRODUCTION 1. Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, like all juvenile halls in the State, exists "solely for the purpose of rehabilitation and not punishment" 3 for young people who have gotten off track. Indeed, juvenile hall "shall not be deemed to be, nor be treated as, a penal institution. It shall be a safe and supportive homelike environment." Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 851. Instead of following these statutory mandates, Defendants (1) are subjecting youth with disabilities to unconscionable conditions of solitary confinement based on their disability-related behavior — sometimes for weeks or months at a time — while watching them deteriorate mentally; (2) are denying youth with disabilities education and special education and related services when they are in solitary confinement, and (3) are failing to provide youth with disabilities the required special education and related services even when they are not in solitary confinement, all in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. 2. Young people with disabilities become trapped in a cruel cycle of discrimination: Defendants fail to provide them with critical special educational and related services to which

Plaintiffs are redacting plaintiffs' names pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) ("in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains . . . the name of an individual known to be a minor, . . . a party or nonparty making the filing may include only: (3) the minor's initials[.]") Plaintiffs are concurrently filing under a separate cover a motion to proceed under fictitious names and motion to seal for the guardians ad litem for named plaintiffs.
2 Defendants sued in their official capacity are sued for prospective relief to enjoin them from continuing to deny Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, the rights guaranteed to them under various federal and state laws.
3 People v. Olivas, 17 Cal. 3d 236, 254 (1976).

G.F., et aL v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1

they are entitled under federal and state laws and, lacking such supports, the youth are punished for a variety of infractions and are locked away in solitary confinement where their conditions only deteriorate and they fall further behind in their education because they are denied schooling, making it more likely that they will commit further infractions upon their release from solitary confinement.
3. Specifically, Defendants fail to provide the legally-required special education and related services, including mental health services, to youth with disabilities such that they cannot meaningfully access education while in Juvenile Hall. Defendants also deny youth with disabilities the opportunity to equally, effectively and meaningfully participate in and benefit from the educational and rehabilitative services and programs offered by Defendants in Juvenile Hall.
4. When youth with disabilities commit infractions in Juvenile Hall that result in their being locked in solitary confinement, Defendants fail to inquire into whether the youth has a disability and fail to make the legally mandated determination of whether the infraction was disability-related.
5. Indeed, regardless of whether their behavior was on account of their disability, youth are thrown into solitary confinement and spend up to 23 hours a day in their cells. Defendants fail to make reasonable modifications to the policies, procedures and practices of Juvenile Hall to avoid this discrimination against youth with disabilities.
6. While locked in the two higher levels of solitary confinement, students with disabilities are denied all education and special education, which are legally mandated. In the lowest level of solitary confinement, they have only limited access to general education and are denied all special education.
7. Accordingly, when youth with disabilities are released from solitary confinement, they have fallen further behind in their education and their mental health has deteriorated, perpetuating the cycle of discrimination.
8. In Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, youth are frequently placed on "Program," "Risk" or "Max" — three levels of solitary confinement. On Program, youth are generally kept in

G.E, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et aL, Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

2

their cells 22-1/2 hours a day, and on Risk and Max, youth are in their cells for 23 hours a day. 9. While education should be the "foundation for programming in most juvenile
institutions,"4 in Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, youth in solitary confinement cannot attend school. While on "Risk" and "Max," youth with disabilities are outright denied both general and special education entirely.
10. Even while on "Program," the County's policies illegally permit Probation to withhold education as a punishment or for no reason at all. If "educational services" are provided, generally it is a tutor that visits only sporadically (not every day) and for approximately five to 30 minutes each time.
11. California law provides that the County Board of Education shall provide for the administration and operation of juvenile court schools in conjunction with the county's chief probation officer, or a designee. Defendants Contra Costa County Office of Education ("Office of Education"), and Ovick and Mackey, as officers of the Office of Education, are therefore responsible, together with Defendants County of Contra Costa and the County's Department of Probation (collectively "Probation Department") and Kader and Pelle, as officers of the Probation Department, for ensuring detained youth in Contra Costa County receive an education that complies with the applicable federal and state laws.
12. Detained youth with disabilities are legally entitled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the California Education and Government Codes to receive a free appropriate public education, which includes special education and related services, and shall not be discriminated against or otherwise denied meaningful access to education.
13. Youth with disabilities are also legally entitled under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Government Code Section 11135 to equal, effective and meaningful participation in and benefit from Defendants' educational and rehabilitative services and programs. To satisfy this legal mandate, Defendants

4 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities 129 (1994),

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

3

must make reasonable modifications to policies, practices and procedures in order to meet the specific needs of youth with disabilities.
14. Nonetheless, Defendants have abdicated their core responsibility of providing education and rehabilitation, not punishment, to youth with disabilities who are detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall. The violations of detained youth's rights and illegal deprivations of educational and rehabilitative services at Juvenile Hall are rampant and widespread, yet Defendants have allowed them to persist.
15. Specifically, Defendants have violated the rights of detained young people with disabilities as follows:
a) Defendants fail to provide meaningful access to the education they offer, because: 1) Defendants fail to provide the full continuum of educational placements, such as special day classes, non-public schools and residential treatment options, instead offering the general education setting (i.e., a regular classroom) as the only placement option to youth with disabilities; 2) Defendants develop wholly inappropriate "cookie-cutter" Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for youth with disabilities that are virtually the same for every youth and, thus, do not meet their unique disability-related educational needs; 3) Defendants routinely deny the special education and related services (specifically specialized academic instruction) that they are obligated to provide, often denying the services required by the deficient IEPs that Defendants themselves develop; 4) Before they develop a child's new IEP, Defendants fail to provide students who enter Juvenile Hall with comparable services to their prior IEPs; 5) Defendants also fail to affirmatively identify, locate, and evaluate students who enter Juvenile Hall and need special education but have not previously been identified as needing special education;

G.F., at al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 


4

b) When youth with disabilities commit infractions resulting in their being removed from school and locked in solitary confinement, Defendants fail to hold legally required manifestation determinations to evaluate whether the infraction was a result of their disability;
c) Just as they do not conduct manifestation determinations, Defendants do not complete functional behavior or analysis assessments (prior to July 2013), do not put in place systems of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports to assist youth with disabilities, and do not develop legally required Behavioral Intervention Plans;
d) Regardless of whether an infraction was due to disability, Defendants remove the student from school and place him or her in solitary confinement for days, weeks or even months and fail to make reasonable modifications to policies, procedures and practices in Juvenile Hall to avoid such placement;
e) Defendants knowingly place youth with disabilities, such as mental illness, cognitive impairments and ADHD, in solitary confinement, which leads to the deterioration of these disabilities;
0 Defendants outright deny education, including special education and related services, to youth with disabilities who are placed on the Risk or Max levels of solitary confinement;
g) Defendants' policies illegally peiinit Probation supervisors to withhold education for punishment. When "educational services" are provided on the Program level, it is generally a tutor who visits only sporadically (not every day) and for approximately five to 30 minutes each time.
16. In sum, Defendants have systematically discriminated against youth with disabilities and deprived them of the most basic access to education in violation of federal and state laws. Defendants' conduct, acts and omissions are ongoing.
17. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated youth ("Plaintiff Class") in the form of an order finding Defendants

G.E, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

5

out of compliance with relevant laws and directing Defendants to comply with all relevant laws by, inter alia, providing: (1) meaningful access to education for all students with disabilities and compliance with all special education laws that protect such students; (2) general education and special education and related services to all youth with disabilities in solitary confinement in any of its forms for any amount of time; (3) compensatory education to youth with disabilities who have served and are currently serving time in Juvenile Hall; (4) reasonable modifications to policies, practices and procedures to ensure that youth with disabilities do not suffer discrimination based on their disability, including through placement in solitary confinement; (5) an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under applicable law; and (6) any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
18. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Defendants' ongoing refusal to meet the needs of youth with disabilities in the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, and all will continue to suffer further irreparable harm unless and until the Court grants declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants to remedy the ongoing illegal treatment of and discrimination against youth with disabilities at the Juvenile Hall, and to ensure that the rights of youth with disabilities are not violated.
JURISDICTION 19. This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' federal claims that arise under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ("IDEA"), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504") and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked (1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because those claims arise under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), because those claims seek to redress deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons, and (2) under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4), because those claims seek to secure equitable relief under an Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights. 20. Through the same acts and omissions that form the basis for Plaintiffs' federal claims, Defendants have also violated Plaintiffs' rights under state law, over which this Court has

G.E, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

6

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 21. Pursuant to the Court's jurisdiction over this matter, Plaintiffs G.F., by and
through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.; W.B., by and through his guardian ad litem, CiCi C.; and Q.G., by and through his guardian ad litem, Barbara C., bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated.
22. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57(d) and 65. This Court also has authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3) under IDEA, 42 U.S.C. § 12205 under the ADA, and 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) under Section 504 to award Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
VENUE 23. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants are located in this District and all of the acts and/or omissions complained of herein have occurred, are occurring, or will occur in the District.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
24. Plaintiff G.F. is a 14-year-old citizen of the United States and a resident of Contra Costa County, California. G.F. has been detained at Juvenile Hall in Martinez since the summer of 2012, when she was 13. She is a part of the Girls in Motion Program which is housed at Juvenile Hall. G.F.'s guardian is contemporaneously filing a petition under seal with this Court to act as her guardian ad litem.
25. Plaintiff W.B. is a 17-year-old citizen of the United States and resident of Contra Costa County, California. W.B. has been detained in Juvenile Hall since May 2012. W.B. has been declared incompetent by the Juvenile Court. W.B.'s parent is contemporaneously filing a petition under seal with this Court to act as his guardian ad litem.
26. Plaintiff Q.G. is a 17-year-old citizen of the United States and resident of Contra Costa County, California. Q.G. has been detained in Juvenile Hall since November of 2010. He is currently a part of the Youthful Offender Treatment Program which is housed at Juvenile Hall.
G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 
 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF �
 7

Q.G.'s parent is contemporaneously filing a petition under seal with this Court to act as his guardian ad litem.
Defendants Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Probation Department, Kader and 
 Pelle 

27. Defendant Contra Costa County is responsible for providing and maintaining the juvenile facilities in Contra Costa County and for meeting minimum standards promulgated by the California Board of Corrections for these facilities. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1310. The County is also responsible for providing oversight to the Probation Department and Chief County Probation Officer Kader.
28. Contra Costa County Probation Department is responsible for the care of youth detained in the Juvenile Hall. California law provides that each county probation department shall manage and control that county's juvenile hall. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 852. However, California law is clear: "the juvenile hall shall not be in, or connected with, any jail or prison, and shall not be deemed to be, nor be treated as, a penal institution. It shall be a safe and supportive homelike environment." Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 851.
29. The Chief Probation Officer, in conjunction with the Contra Costa Office of Education, is legally required to provide for the administration and operation of juvenile court schools. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1370(a). Together, the County Office of Education and the Probation Department must "develop written policy and procedures to ensure communication and coordination between educators and probation staff." Id.
30. Among other things, the Juvenile Hall school programs must provide a quality educational program that includes instructional strategies designed to respond to the different learning styles and abilities of students. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1370(b). This means that "education instruction shall be provided to minors restricted to high security or other special units" and that "state and federal laws shall be observed for individuals with special education needs." 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1370(d). Moreover, "expulsion/suspension from school shall follow the appropriate due process safeguards...including the rights of students with special needs." 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1370(c)(3). Disciplinary actions taken at juvenile detention

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

8

facilities must not deprive a youth of education. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1390(j). Indeed, any disciplinary actions must follow clear due process procedures including right to a hearing and to present evidence. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1391.
31. In short, the Probation Department must ensure that youth detained at the Juvenile Hall have access to legally adequate and appropriate educational services (which the Contra Costa County Office of Education is obligated to provide) during the youth's term of commitment and must ensure that detained youth receive reasonable modifications to policies, practices and procedures to ensure that youth with disabilities are not discriminated against based on their disability.
32. In addition, the Probation Department is also responsible for the violations of the Contra Costa County Office of Education in that by allowing its discrimination to continue unchecked, the Probation Department both aids and perpetuates discrimination against youth with disabilities at Juvenile Hall.
33. As a "political subdivision[] of the State that [is] responsible for providing education to children with disabilities," the County is a public agency for purposes of IDEA. 34 C.F.R. § 300.33. The County's Probation Department is also a public agency as it is considered a subdivision of the State that is "involved in the education of children with disabilities." 34 C.F.R. § 300.2. "Having administrative control and direction" over the juvenile court schools, the Probation Department also qualifies as an educational services agency under IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(5)(b); 34 C.F.R. § 300.12(b)
34. As a local government, the County, and its Probation Department, is a "public entity" as defined by Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.0 § 12131(1)(B).
35. As a public entity receiving federal funds, the County, and its Probation Department, may not discriminate against people with disabilities in violation of Section 504.
36. Philip Kader is the Chief Probation Officer for the County. He is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Kader's official duties as Chief Probation Officer include direct responsibility for working with the County Office of Education to provide for the administration and operation of juvenile court schools and to ensure communication and coordination between

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

9

educators and probation staff. He is also charged with creating and implementing Juvenile Hall policies.
37. Bruce Pelle is the Superintendent of Juvenile Hall for the County. He is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Pelle's official duties as Superintendent of Juvenile Hall include overseeing the implementation of all policies at Juvenile Hall. He is also charged with making final determinations as to any grievances coming from the youth detained in Juvenile Hall.
Defendants Contra Costa County Office of Education, Ovick and Mackey 38. Contra Costa County Office of Education ("Office of Education") is one of the State of California's County Offices of Education. County Offices of Education are charged with providing for the administration and operation of juvenile court schools. Cal. Educ. Code § 48645.2. The Office of Education operates the court school at Juvenile Hall, Mt. McKinley School. 39. The Office of Education receives federal financial assistance under IDEA. It is therefore responsible for providing all school-eligible persons with disabilities who reside in the County with special education programs administered in compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. 20 U.S.C. § 1413(a). 40. The Office of Education must ensure that youth detained at the Juvenile Hall have access to legally adequate and appropriate educational services as well as receive reasonable modifications to policies, practices and procedures to ensure that youth with disabilities are not discriminated against based on their disability. 41. In addition, the Office of Education is also responsible for the violations of the Contra Costa County Probation Department in that by allowing its discrimination to continue unchecked, the Office of Education both aids and perpetuates discrimination against youth with disabilities at Juvenile Hall. 42. As a "political subdivision[] of the State that [is] responsible for providing education to children with disabilities," the County Office of Education is a public agency for purposes of IDEA. 34 C.F.R. § 300.33. As a "public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perfotm a service function for, public
G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 
 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF �
 10

elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State," Defendant Office of Education is a local education agency ("LEA") as defined by IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(19); 34 C.F.R. 300.328(a).
43. As a department or agency of a local government, the Office of Education is a "public entity" as defined by Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.0 § 12131(1)(B).
44. As a public entity receiving federal funds, the Office of Education may not violate Section 504 by discriminating against people with disabilities.
45. Defendant Joseph A. Ovick is the Superintendent of the Office of Education. He is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Ovick's official duties as the Office of Education Superintendent include direct supervisory responsibilities over the juvenile court schools run by the Office of Education.
46. Defendant Ovick is required to, inter alia, "[v]isit and examine each school in his or her county at reasonable intervals to observe its operation and to learn of its problems" and "[e]nforce the course of study." Cal. Educ. Code §§ 1240, (c)(1) and (h), respectively.
47. Defendant Lynn Mackey is the Director for Contra Costa County Court Schools, and her duties include the operation and supervision of such schools. She is sued in her official capacity.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 48. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). 49. The class consists of all youth with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, who are currently detained or who will be detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall. 50. The compensatory education class consists of all youth who are or were detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall and are or were eligible for special education during the two years prior to filing of this Complaint. 51. Class action status for this litigation is proper because:
G.E, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 
 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF �
 11

(a) The class of students is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Plaintiffs maintain that the class of persons consists of hundreds if not thousands of youth. For instance, from January 2013 to April 2013, approximately 32.7% of the student population at Mt. McKinley School had disabilities. Given that approximately 1,300 students pass through Mt. McKinley each year, in a single year, approximately 425 students who have a disability that requires either an IEP or 504 Plan pass through Mt. McKinley. Moreover, the juvenile population within Juvenile Hall changes constantly and not all class members can be specifically identified. In addition, many detained youth who have a disability are not identified as such, because of Defendants' failure to fulfill their obligations under federal and state laws to locate, identify and assess youth suspected of having a disability.
(b) There are questions of law and fact common to the class. (c) The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs are
being and were denied their legal entitlement to special education, related services, and reasonable modifications to Defendants' policies and practices. (d) Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as there is no conflict between Plaintiffs and the other class members and Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in class action litigation relating to education, special education, and the civil rights of persons with disabilities. (e) Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall 52. Defendant Probation Department operates the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall in Martinez, California. Juvenile Hall is a 290-bed, maximum-security detention facility, for youth up to age 18.

G.E, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

12

53. Juvenile Hall is generally not the final sentencing disposition for youth, except for those young people in the Youthful Offender Treatment Program and for the Girls in Motion Program. Generally, Juvenile Hall provides temporary detention for pre-adjudicated youth awaiting hearings or sentencing, and adjudicated youth who are sentenced to a treatment or rehabilitation program that has a waiting list. No treatment or rehabilitative programs are offered at the Juvenile Hall for those awaiting hearings, sentencing, or placement.
54. In addition, those youth found to be incompetent under the law also remain at Juvenile Hall and receive competency training until they either become competent or are released. Such detentions can last for years.
55. The Youthful Offender Treatment Program ("YOTP") is a 30-bed boys' program located inside Juvenile Hall. YOTP is designed for youth generally between 16 and 19 years of age. There are four phases to YOTP plus an orientation, and the length of the placement in YOTP is determined by the successful completion of each phase. On average, YOTP can be completed in approximately fourteen months.
56. Juvenile Hall has one girls' housing unit. Within that unit, in 2010, Juvenile Hall staff developed the Girls in Motion Program. The Court has the option of ordering female offenders into Girls in Motion. There are four phases to Girls in Motion, and the length of placement in Girls in Motion is determined by the successful completion of each phase. On average, Girls in Motion can be completed in approximately four months.
Solitary Confinement in the Juvenile Hall 57. Cells in Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall are prison-like. They are extremely small without even enough room to exercise. There is a toilet, sink and bed. The bed is a cement block with a pad on it. The cell does not have bars but rather a solid door with a small window in it. The window is about as wide as a hand and long as an arm. Youth who look out their window while in their cell are subject to discipline by the probation staff. 58. Much like the cells, the solitary confinement policies of Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall are like that from an adult detention facility. There are various levels of solitary confinement known as "Security Programs." According to the Probation Department, these are

C.F., et aL v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

13

used as "a disciplinary measure for those residents who have violated Major Rules, demonstrate a pattern of repetitious Minor Rule violations, or who present an immediate physical threat to another person." There are three basic levels: maximum security, security risk and special program.
59. Maximum security or "Max" is the most restrictive program at Juvenile Hall. On Max, a youth is confined to his/her cell, and is prohibited from participating in any unit activity with the group. Youth on Max are allowed out of their cell for only one hour per 24-hour period, i.e., 30 minutes on the morning shift and 30 minutes on the afternoon/evening shift. During these times, they cannot leave their unit. Visits with the Juvenile Hall chaplain, mental health therapists or Probation Officers are peimitted only with supervisory approval. Such visits are conducted in the youth's cell or in the unit's interview room. If the visit takes place in the youth's cell, the door to the cell must remain open with three probation counselors present on the unit. Whenever the cell door is opened for a youth on Max, or when the youth is out of his or her cell, a minimum of three Probation Counselors must be on the housing unit.
60. Juvenile Hall's policy lacks any mention of the provision of educational services for young people on Max and, indeed, youth are outright denied general education or special education services while on Max.
61. "Security risk" or "Risk" is only slightly less restrictive than Max. Youth on Risk are confined to their cells and are prohibited from participating in any unit activity with the group. Young people on Risk are allowed out of their cell for one hour during a 24-hour period, 30 minutes on the morning shift and 30 minutes on the afternoon/evening shift. The visitation policy for the Juvenile Hall chaplain, mental health therapists or Probation Officers when on Risk is the same as when on Max except that only two probation counselors are needed. A minimum of two Probation Counselors must be on the housing unit whenever the youth's cell door is opened, or when he or she is out of the cell.
62. Juvenile Hall's policy lacks any mention of the provision of educational services for young people on Risk and, indeed, youth are outright denied general education or special education services while on Risk.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 


14

63. Special Program or "Program" is generally assigned as a reduction from Risk status but is also "used when a resident is habitually violating minor rule infractions." On Program, the supervisor can determine "the amount of exercise time the resident will be allotted, number of meal trays, . . . contact with the group, and other limitations." However, generally, while on Program, youth are allowed out of their cells for 45 minutes in the morning shift and 45 minutes in the afternoon/evening shift during a 24-hour period.
64. Furthermore, even though the law mandates that youth be provided with education, the Probation Department's written policy gives supervisors the authority to impose "restrictions on school attendance" as punishment.
65. While students are on Program, a "tutor" may visit youth for anywhere from five to 30 minutes to provide school work on some days but only if the Probation Department authorizes it. Tutors rarely provide actual instruction; rather, they bring worksheets to complete.
66. There are other security restrictions such as "Security Suspect," or "Suspect." Youth may be placed on Suspect when it is believed that they could be a serious threat to the community, or exhibit bizarre or suspicious behaviors which would lead one to believe that they may be a danger to themselves or others. On Suspect, a youth is not allowed to attend any offunit activity in the assessment center, overflow classroom, or other location where the youth may come into contact with youth from other housing units. Whenever the unit is engaged in one of these off-unit activities in which the Suspect youth is prohibited from participating, the youth may be confined to his/her cell.
67. There is also a disciplinary measure that may be employed by the County's Office of Education teachers, known euphemistically as "room time." If a teacher believes that a student has not completed sufficient work while in the classroom or has committed some other infraction, the teacher may request that the student be placed on "room time." At the teacher's discretion, the discipline may occur during school, in which case the student is sent to his/her cell instead of attending school. It may also occur when a student might normally be allowed of out of his/her cell (e.g., after dinner). Instead, the student must stay confined in his/her cell.

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

15

Regardless of when this punishment occurs, the student is not given any school work to complete.
68. Youth are never given any guidance, written or verbal, as to what infractions will result in their being locked in solitary confinement. Indeed, under the County's practice, placement in solitary confinement is highly subjective. Youth can be locked in solitary confinement for anything, including disability-related behavior.
69. When a youth is locked in solitary confinement there should be an "incident report." However, the youth do not get to see it. Rather, they are given a "due process" form which says that they are being put on Program, Risk or Max but, does not explain why. The youth is given no choice but to sign it. While there is a place to write down the youth's side of the story and a staff member is supposed to meet with the youth to discuss, this rarely occurs, and the process never results in any outcome other than solitary confinement. Moreover, the due process form is not always provided to the youth and, thus, they never have an opportunity to tell their side of the story.
70. When youth are locked in solitary confinement, there is no inquiry into whether the behavior leading to solitary confinement was related to the youth's disability or even as to whether the youth has a disability at all.
School in Juvenile Hall 71. Defendant Office of Education operates, in conjunction with Defendant Probation Department, a public school onsite that provides educational services to the youth held at the Juvenile Hall. The school is called Mt. McKinley. 72. Mt. McKinley School was built in 2005. The school has eight classrooms, a library, computer lab, athletic gym and field. 73. While on all school sites, students are under direct supervision from probation personnel. 74. Each classroom consists of all the students on that unit of varying ages and grade levels. Everyone in the classroom, regardless of level, is taught the same lessons regardless of whether they learned the material already or not. For instance, the 18-year-olds are taught the

C.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

16

same subjects as the 15-year-olds. 75. Each classroom has the same teacher for all subjects: Math, Science, English,
History and P.E. There is one teacher for the entire class. There is also a teacher's aide who is in the classroom at various points during the day.
Special Education Required for Youth with Disabilities Detained at Juvenile Hall 76. Together, IDEA, Section 504 5 , the ADA, California Education Code section 56000 et seq., and California Government Code section 11135 et seq. prescribe very specific requirements for the provision of special education and related services for students with disabilities and students suspected of having a disability. All students with disabilities are entitled to receive a free appropriate public education appropriate to meet their individual needs, also known as "FAPE." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.101; Cal. Educ. Code § 56040(a); 45 C.F.R. § 84.33. FAPE is intended to enable students with disabilities to receive educational benefit and to have meaningful access to public education.6 77. Title II of the ADA, Section 504, and Government Code Section 11135 7 prohibit a public entity from excluding persons with disabilities from participation in the programs of that public entity or denying such persons the benefits of those programs. This prohibition is intended to ensure that persons with disabilities have "meaningful access" to all the benefits a

5 The regulations promulgated under Section 504 generally conform to the standards established by the IDEA. They use substantially the same language regarding a school district's obligation to evaluate each disabled child, create an IEP with parental input, and provide each disabled child with an appropriate education. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33, 104.35, 104.36. Moreover, Title II of the ADA adopts the substantive standards of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.103(a) ("Except as otherwise provided in this part, this part shall not be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ... or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to that title."). Thus, courts analyze ADA claims addressing education by reference to Section 504's standards. In addition, a violation of the ADA is also considered a violation of Government Code Section 11135. Cal. Gov't Code § 11135(b).
6 Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist., Westchester County v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
7 California Government Code section 11135 frames this slightly differently as requiring "full and equal access" to the benefits of a public entity's programs or activities. Cal. Gov't. Code § 11135(a). However, a violation of the ADA is also considered a violation of both the Rehabilitation Act and Government Code section 11135. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(b) and Cal. Gov't Code § 11135(b).

G.E, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et aL, Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

17

public entity offers.8 78. To ensure the provision of FAPE, a local education agency ("LEA") has what are
called "Child Find" obligations which means it must have procedures to identify, locate and evaluate lain children with disabilities...who are in need of special education and related services[.]" 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); Cal. Educ. Code § 56301(a); see also 45 C.F.R. § 84.32(a). When a LEA identifies a student suspected of having a disability, an initial assessment must be conducted by qualified persons in all areas of suspected disability. Cal. Educ. Code § 56320.
79. The initial assessment detetmines whether a student is eligible for special education and related services. Eligibility is based on having been diagnosed with one of the following conditions: "mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance . . ., orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities" which, by reason thereof, requires special education and related services. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3).
80. Students receive an individual education program ("IEP") if they are considered "eligible." An IEP is a document developed by an IEP team which includes the parents, a general education teacher, a special education teacher, a representative from the LEA and someone to interpret the results of the assessment. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B); Cal. Educ. Code § 56341(c). This team must meet at least once annually, and a new assessment of the student must be conducted every three years. 20 U.S.0 § 1414(d)(4)(A)(i); 20 U.S.C.§ 1414(a)(2)(B)(ii); Cal. Educ. Code § 56043(j), (k).
81. Providing FAPE also requires providing "related services" that a child with a disability may need in order to benefit from his or her education. The term "related services" means "transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services,
8 Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985).
G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 
 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF �
 18

psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, social work services, school nurse services designed to enable a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education as described in the individualized education program of the child, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only)[.]" 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A).
82. Once a student is deemed eligible for special education under the IDEA, Defendants are charged with assembling an IEP team to determine what combination of instruction, services, and placement are needed to meet that child's unique needs.
83. Each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. The continuum must include options ranging from instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions. 34 C.F.R. 300.115; Cal. Educ. Code § 56360.
84. Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are supposed to be, as the name suggests, specifically tailored to meet the unique needs of each disabled student. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A). IEPs must be "designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of non-handicapped persons are met." 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(b).
85. Once an IEP has been developed, it must be implemented fully. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(A); Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(c).
86. In addition, when students with IEPs enter a new school district they must be provided with "comparable" services to their previous IEPs for the next 30 days, at which point, the new school district must either adopt the prior IEP or develop, adopt and implement a new IEP. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(c); 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e); Cal. Educ. Code § 56043(m)(1).
87. Federal and state laws require that if behavior leads to removal from school for more than 10 days, or if the child is removed for less than 10 days but the removal is based on behavior that constitutes a pattern, it is a change of placement. When there is a change in placement, a child must "continue to receive educational services... so as to enable the child to

G.F., et aL v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 


19

continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child's IEP." 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(d)(1)(i).
88. In addition, if behavior leads to removal from school for more than 10 days or to removal for less than 10 days based on behavior that constitutes a pattern, an immediate IEP meeting is required. During this meeting (also known as a "manifestation determination"), the IEP team must determine if the behavior is a manifestation of the student's disability. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e); 34 C.F.R. § 300.536(a)(2); 20 USC § 1415(k); Cal. Educ. Code § 48915.5.
89. If the behavior was a manifestation of disability, the school must (1) conduct a functional behavior/analysis assessment (the latter before July 2013) and implement a behavioral intervention plan; or (2) review and modify the existing behavioral intervention plan; and (3) return student to the placement from which he or she was removed, unless it involved weapons, drug possession, or serious bodily injury (at which time the student would be placed in an interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days). 20 USC § 1415(k); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)&(g).
90. If, on the other hand, the behavior was not a manifestation of disability, the student is subject to the regular disciplinary process but is entitled to receive FAPE and services no later than the 11th cumulative day of removal. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(c); Cal. Educ. Code § 48915.5.
91. Separate from the manifestation determination and the requirements it triggers, when behavior impedes learning, public agencies must consider implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports to counter behavior that impedes learning. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(c)(5)(F). They must also, pursuant to the ADA, Section 504 and Government Code section 11135, make "reasonable modifications" to their policies and practices to ensure that disabilityrelated behavior is not punished. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).
92. Defendants must meet all of the above special education requirements for students
with disabilities, even when students are locked in solitary confinement. See 15 Cal. Code Regs.
§ 1370(d).

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

20

1

93. Nonetheless, Defendants consistently fail to meet these requirements for youth

2 with disabilities held at Juvenile Hall.

3

94. According to Defendant Office of Education, from July 2011 to June 2012,

4 approximately 23% of the student population at Mt. McKinley had a disability that required

5 either an IEP or 504 Plan. From January 2013 to April 2013, approximately 32.7% of the

6 student population at Mt. McKinley School had a disability that required either an IEP or 504

7 Plan.

8

95. These figures are actually quite low, given that estimates of the percentage of

9 youth in juvenile detention facilities who require either an IEP or 504 Plan can be as high as

10 70%. 9 Indeed, the figures are low because Defendants fail to identify students with disabilities

11 who enter Mt. McKinley School but may not yet have been identified as having a disability, as is

12 required by federal and state law. In fact, Defendants have no actual policies specific to Juvenile

13 Hall to identify students who may have a disability (i.e. "Child Find" policies). Rather

14 Defendants' policy is to offer special education only to those students already identified.

15

96. When a student is identified for the first time as having a possible disability, the

16 school must conduct an assessment. However, from September 2012 to April 2013, Defendants

17 conducted only one initial IEP assessment. This again indicates that Defendants do not identify

18 students with disabilities who have not previously been identified as having disabilities.

19

97. Defendants also fail to provide the continuum of placements at Juvenile Hall. In

20 fact, there is only one placement option for students with disabilities in Juvenile Hall: general

21 education classroom setting (i.e. the regular classroom). There is, for instance, no special day

22 class that would provide full-time (or even part-time) special education instruction. Rather,

23 Defendants have adopted an across-the-board policy to justify their illegal practice, which

24 provides that special day classes and resource specialist programs are to be considered "services"

25 and not "placements." Under this policy, Defendants unlawfully replace special day classes and

26

27 9 Leone, Peter E., Zaremba, Barbara A., Chapin, Michelle S., Understanding the 28 Overrepresentation of Youths with Disabilities in Juvenile Detention, The District of Columbia
Law Review Vol. 3, No. 389 (1995).

G.E. et aL v. Contra Costa County, et aL, Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

21

resource specialize programs, where 100% of the time (roughly 240 minutes per day) is spent receiving instruction from a special education teacher in a class with other disabled peers, with "specialized academic instruction" for 45 to 90 minutes in the general education classroom setting. Specialized academic instruction, however, is a delivery method for special education and not a program, such as a special day class or resource specialist, so it cannot replace such programs. Moreover, consistent with the failure to provide a continuum of placements, Defendants have also admitted to a practice of never providing or authorizing non-public school or residential treatment center placements as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(b)(1), regardless of need or Court Order.
98. While IEPs are required to be individualized, Defendants have an established policy of simply disregarding those requirements. The IEPs that Defendants develop are strikingly similar regardless of the student's varying disabilities, needs, and previous IEPs. These "cookie-cutter" IEPs are not individualized to meet an individual student's unique needs. Indeed, all IEPs place students in a general education setting, and most offer the same instructional services, namely 45 to 90 minutes of "specialized academic instruction" three to five times a week.
99. The specialized academic instruction provided by Defendants is not designed to meet the unique needs of the students. Students with disabilities who come from special day classes or non-public schools that provide full-time special education instruction and related services usually receive approximately 300 minutes of specialized academic instruction. However, when they arrive at Juvenile Hall, Defendants offer anywhere between 45 to 90 minutes per day.
100. Once Defendants have assigned a disabled student the standard "cookie-cutter" IEP, Defendants then compound the violation by failing to provide the "specialized academic instruction" required by the "cookie-cutter" IEP. Specialized academic instruction is a term of art that describes a form of instruction that adapts the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of an individual student's disability. 34 C.F.R.300.39(b)(3). However, Defendants (1) are not providing specialized academic instruction

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et aL, Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

22

for the required amount of time and (2) are not providing specialized academic instruction by qualified individuals.
101. Plaintiffs have not received the amount of specialized academic instruction called for in their IEPs. Staff members at Mt. McKinley often are not in the classroom for sufficient time to provide individualized instruction to each child with a disability and routinely do not assist disabled students. At most, the staff will assist with a specific question or issue a student with a disability may have. In fact, Defendants have no records to establish that they are complying with their legal obligations. Defendants do not track whether the required minutes are provided to each student who is entitled to specialized academic instruction.
102. Defendants' logs also do not record who provided the specialized academic instruction. Indeed, Defendants admit that most of the staff members providing specialized academic instruction are aides and not qualified special education teachers. Aides cannot provide specialized academic instruction unless they are "paraprofessionals".
103. Even if these aides are "paraprofessionals," 10 there are legal requirements for allowing paraprofessionals to provide such instruction. If a paraprofessional provides such
instruction he or she must be under direct supervision of a special education teacher. 20 U.S.C.
§ 6319(g)(3)(a). Moreover, a paraprofessional may only provide one-on-one tutoring if the tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a qualified teacher. 20 U.S.C. § 6319(g)(2)(a). At Mt. McKinley aides usually are in the classrooms alone, without special education teachers to directly supervise them. Moreover, Mt. McKinley uses a "push-in model," meaning specialized academic instruction is provided in the general education classroom (not in a separate class). As such, only special education teachers would be allowed to provide instruction simultaneously when a general education teacher is teaching the entire class. However, Mt. McKinley admits that special education teachers do not always provide the specialized academic instruction required by the cookie-cutter IEPs.
104. The IEPs developed by Defendants also do little to consider disability-related

10 To be a paraprofessional requires a high school diploma and two years of college or an A.A. degree or passing an assessment of knowledge and skills in assisting in instruction.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

23

behaviors that may impact education. Indeed, Defendants seldom include mental health services

2 in a student's IEP, even though mental health services are considered a related service to which

3 students may be entitled if it would assist in their education. Even when mental health

4 counseling is provided in an IEP, it is usually for an amount of time which is insufficient for the

5 serious nature of the psychological and/or psychiatric disabilities that some youth have (e.g.,

6 bipolar, schizophrenia). This may be in part due to the fact that mental health services in

7 Juvenile Hall are generally inadequate. Indeed, the Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice

8 Commission, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 229, found that, "[m]ental Health

9 services continue to be inadequate again .... Many minors in custody have a history of physical,

10 sexual or mental abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, gang involvement, prostitution, truancy and

11 neglect." In addition, Defendants rarely rely on positive behavioral interventions and supports to

12 counter behavior that impedes learning.

13

105. Defendants also fail to provide comparable services before the cookie cutter IEP

14 is developed and implemented. Because of the lack of placements at Juvenile Hall, no student

15 coming from a non-general education setting can possibly receive comparable services because

16 putting a student in a general education setting after they were previously placed in a non-public

17 school with full-time special education instruction is not "comparable."

18

106. In addition, Defendants wholly fail to conduct manifestation determinations when

19 behavior leads to removal from school and placement in solitary confinement for more than 10

20 days or for behavior that constitutes a pattern. Indeed, Defendants admit that there were no

21 manifestation determinations held at Mt. McKinley School from July 2012 to June 2013. Thus,

22 Defendants never inquire into whether the behavior that led to the removal from school was

23 disability-related. As a result, students whose behavior was disability-related and who should be

24 allowed to return to school are denied that opportunity. Instead students, regardless of whether

25 the behavior was disability-related, are instead locked in solitary confinement consistent with

26 Defendants' policies which either deny all education or allow the Probation Department to

27 determine whether education will be provided at all.

28

107. Defendants also fail to develop behavioral intervention plans as they are required

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et aL, Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

24

to do for students with behavior that impedes learning and, in particular, after a manifestation determination finds that behavior leading to removal from school was disability-related. Defendants explicitly admit that there were no Behavior Intervention Plans developed at Mt. McKinley School from July 2012 to June 2013.
General Education for Youth Detained at Juvenile Hall 108. The California Legislature has set forth basic minimum requirements for education for all students, regardless of disability or circumstances. These requirements include: 240 minutes of instruction minimum for each school day (Cal. Educ. Code § 48645.3); 400 minutes of physical education each 10 school days for an average of 40 minutes of physical education per day (Cal Educ. Code §§ 51220(d) and 51222); and provision of state approved textbooks and instructional materials so that each student has a textbook or instructional material to use in class and to take home (Cal. Educ. Code § 35186(f)(1)). Moreover, any removal from school (e.g., suspension or expulsion) requires due process including providing notice to parents, ensuring the student is informed of the reason for the disciplinary action and the evidence against him or her, and providing the opportunity for the student to present his or her version and evidence in his or her defense. Cal. Educ. Code § 48911(b), (d). 109. Defendants must meet these basic minimum requirements for education for all students, regardless of disability, even when students are in Juvenile Hall or locked in solitary confinement. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1370(d). 110. Nonetheless, Defendants fail to meet these basic minimum requirements for education. 111. Youth in Juvenile Hall do not get physical education every day. Physical education is treated as a privilege that can be taken away as punishment. 112. Youth in Juvenile Hall cannot take textbooks or instructional materials to their cells. 113. Use of the library, computer lab, and courtyard are privileges which can be taken away by the Probation Department for no explicitly defined reason.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

25

114. When youth are in solitary confinement, Defendants do not provide the legally required 240 minutes of instruction.
115. In solitary confinement, a student may not attend school and does not receive tutoring, homework, or school work, unless the Probation Department permits it when a student is on "Program."
116. Similarly, in solitary confinement, there is no physical education. Rather, youth are restricted to 30 to 45 minutes outside their small cells twice a day.
117. Instructional materials, including textbooks, similarly are denied to youth in solitary confinement.
118. The computer lab, library and gym are "off unit," so students on Suspect, Program, Risk or Max cannot access these facilities.
119. Indeed, administrators at the Office of Education admit that they have "difficulty providing appropriate educational access to students on special program."
120. Moreover, Defendants remove students from school and instruction without any due process, separate from the special education requirements for a manifestation determination. For instance, Juvenile Hall does not contact the parents or guardians of students who are removed from class.
PLAINTIFFS' INDIVIDUAL ALLEGATIONS G.F.
121. Plaintiff G.F. is 14 years old and first arrived in Juvenile Hall when she was just 13. She has been in Juvenile Hall for over a year now. She is in the Girls in Motion program that requires making progress through four motions before being released. G.F. has been diagnosed with ADHD and bipolar affective disorder. As a result of her bipolar affective disorder, G.F. has experienced suicidal ideation and has been involuntarily committed to a hospital to receive psychiatric care on at least three occasions. G.F. is on medication for her psychiatric disability.
122. G.F. came to Juvenile Hall with an IEP that made her eligible for special education and related services under the category of "emotional disturbance." G.F.'s IEP (1)

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

26

provided for full-time special education instruction and placed her in a non-public school so she could receive intensive behavioral and mental health interventions and support, and (2) had a Behavioral Support Plan, because it was determined that her behavior impeded her learning.
123. When G.F. entered Juvenile Hall, however, Defendants changed her eligibility to the category of "other health impairment," decreased her special education instruction from 314 minutes per day (100% of the time) to 45 minutes a day, placed her in a general education setting (because they provide no other placement option), eliminated all mental health-related services, and also eliminated her Behavioral Support Plan. In short, Defendants made G.F.'s IEP look almost the same as every other IEP at Mt. McKinley School.
124. Even the implementation of G.F.'s wholly deficient IEP is problematic. Though she is supposed to receive specialized instruction for 45 minutes a day, G.F. does not receive it. Generally there is an aide, or sometimes a special education teacher, in the room, but he or she does not seek out G.F. to provide instruction as required by her IEP. Instead he or she remains in the room only to answer specific questions that any student, regardless of disability, may have. No one proactively seeks out G.F. to provide instruction.
125. Given the lack of any behavioral supports and mental health services, G.F. has been frequently locked in solitary confinement. Since coming to Juvenile Hall, G.F. has been in solitary confinement for over 100 days.
126. Defendants have never inquired into whether the behavior leading to her placement in solitary confinement was disability-related, though they are required to do so through a manifestation determination and as a reasonable modification to their policies and procedures.
127. Also, Defendants have not considered whether they should modify their policies, practices and procedures to ensure that G.F. is not discriminated against based on her disability. In addition, Defendants have failed to consider other punishment options to avoid the known psychiatric effects of solitary confinement on G.F.'s mental health.
128. While locked in solitary confinement, G.F. is not allowed to attend school. As such, the school counts each of the days G.F. is locked away as an unexcused absence. As a

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et aL, Case No. 


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 


27

result, G.F. receives partial credit for the classes she is taking and will not progress from grade to grade on schedule.
129. While locked in solitary confinement, G.F. has received no education at all, except when she was on special program. Even then, she did not even receive the minimal levels of special education required by the inadequate IEP that Defendants developed for her; all she received was a tutor showing up some days but not others for about 10 to 15 minutes to give her some worksheets (sometimes ones she had already completed).
130. While locked in solitary, G.F.'s progress in the Girls in Motion program is "on pause," meaning the time served does not count toward her sentence. Because of these "pauses," it took G.F. five months to get through orientation when it is supposed to take two weeks, lengthening her amount of detention time.
W.B. 131. Plaintiff W. B. is 17 years old. W.B. has been in Juvenile Hall for over a year now. The Juvenile Court found him incompetent to participate in his own defense because of his severe mental health disability. W.B. was recently diagnosed with psychosis and possible schizophrenia (notably, after Defendants had locked W.B. in solitary confinement for approximately 60 days from February to May). At the time that Defendants locked him away, W.B. was spitting, hearing voices, and talking to himself, and he believed his medications and food were being used to poison him. Finally, after W.B. had a complete psychotic break, Defendants involuntarily committed him to an inpatient psychiatric hospital where he remained for three weeks. 132. W.B. did not have an IEP before coming to Juvenile Hall. Even though W.B. had a 504 Plan before coming to Juvenile Hall, the Juvenile Court had found W.B. incompetent, W.B.'s mental health assessment recommended a highly structured environment, the Probation Department itself suggested a non-public school placement and W.B. was routinely and frequently placed in solitary confinement, Defendants never inquired into whether he might need special education and related services. Only after W.B. had been in Juvenile Hall for six months and only because W.B.'s mother formally requested that he be assessed for special education did

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

28

Defendants take any action. 133. Defendants found W.B. eligible for special education under the category of
"emotional disturbance." In accordance with their standard practice, Defendants offered W.B. only a minimal amount of "specialized academic instruction" per day (90 minutes) in the general education classroom (again their only placement) and 30 minutes of mental health counseling once a week. Defendants did not provide a Behavioral Intervention Plan. In sum, W.B. received an IEP similar to other young people with disabilities at Mt. McKinley.1'
134. The implementation of W.B.'s wholly deficient IEP is also problematic. For instance, although he is supposed to receive specialized instruction for 90 minutes a day, W.B. does not receive it. The special education teachers in the room do not seek out W.B. to provide instruction as required by his IEP but instead only occasionally help him with logistical things like finding the right place on the page.
135. Defendants admit in W.B.'s IEP that he has deteriorated since coming to Juvenile Hall, but they offered only minimal services and a general education placement. Not surprisingly, as a result of Defendants' failure to provide the requisite supports and services, W.B. has frequently been placed in solitary confinement. Since coming to Juvenile Hall, W.B. has spent approximately 90 days in solitary confinement.
136. Defendants have never inquired into whether the behavior leading to W.B.'s placement in solitary confinement was disability-related, though they are required to do so through a manifestation determination and as a reasonable modification to their policies and procedures.
137. Also, Defendants have not considered whether they should modify their policies, practices and procedures to ensure that W.B. is not discriminated against based on his disability. In addition, Defendants have failed to consider other punishment options to avoid the known psychiatric effects of solitary confinement on W.B.'s mental health.

At the request of W.B.'s mother, W.B.'s IEP was recently revisited by Defendants. However, even after the psychiatric hospitalization, Defendants amended his IEP by providing 30 additional minutes of mental health counseling per week and by adding a behavior support plan that itself admits that W.B. does not do well in the general education setting.

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 


29

138. While locked in solitary confinement, W.B. is not allowed to attend school. As such, the school counts each of the days W.B. is locked away as an unexcused absence. As a result, W.B. receives partial credit for the classes he is taking and will not progress from grade to grade on schedule.
139. While locked in solitary confinement, W.B. has received no education at all (except when he was on special program) and, even then, he did not even receive the minimal levels of special education required by the inadequate IEP that Defendants developed for him; all he received was a tutor showing up some days but not others.
Q.G. 140. Plaintiff Q.G. is 17 years old. Q.G. was first detained at Juvenile Hall on November 23, 2010. He has since been in and out of Juvenile Hall at several group home placements. He is now in the YOTP program which requires completion of four phases to YOTP plus an orientation before he can be released. 141. Q.G. has been eligible for special education since he was in the third grade and has been diagnosed with oppositional defiance disorder and ADHD. 142. Q.G. came to Juvenile Hall with an IEP that placed him outside the general education classroom for 37% of the school day. Q.G. additionally received 150 minutes per day of specialized academic instruction, 60 minutes per week of psychological services, 20 minutes per month of individual counseling, 10 minutes per day of behavior intervention services, and a behavioral support plan. Upon arriving at Mt. McKinley, Defendants placed Q.G. into the general education classroom 100% of the school day, reduced his specialized academic instruction to 90 minutes per week, and eliminated his mental health services and behavioral support plan. Defendants made these changes without re-assessment and without explanation in the IEP. 143. During the last year in Juvenile Hall, Q.G. had more than 30 unexcused absences resulting from being placed in solitary confinement; for the prior year, Q.G. had many, many more and believes he has been placed in solitary for as much as 200 days since his arrival in Juvenile Hall. Defendants have never inquired into whether the behavior leading to his

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

30

placement in solitary confinement was disability-related, though they are required to do so through a manifestation determination and as a reasonable modification to their policies and procedures, and have not considered whether they should modify their policies, practices and procedures to ensure that Q.G. is not discriminated against based on his disability. In addition, Defendants have failed to consider other punishment options to avoid the known psychiatric effects of solitary confinement on Q.G.'s mental health. While in solitary confinement, Q.G. is denied the opportunity to go to school and receives zero credits for the time he has missed. Q.G. has only earned an average of 9 credits per quarter and is on track to graduate after three more years, meaning it will take a total of seven years for him to complete high school.
CAUSES OF ACTION 
 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 
 Violation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 

Against All Defendants 
 (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.) 144. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 145. Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students with disabilities are entitled to receive a free appropriate public education also known as "FAPE." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(a). 146. IDEA defines a child with a disability as a child "with mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance . . ., orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities" "who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services." 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3). 147. As a local educational agency, Contra Costa County Office of Education has the duty to provide a FAPE to all students with disabilities, including those who have been suspended or expelled from school. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(1), 1413(a). This duty extends to

G.F., et aL v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

31

school-eligible persons with disabilities who are incarcerated in juvenile and adult correctional facilities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(iv).
148. Similarly, as a public agency and an educational services agency with administrative control and direction over a school, the Probation Department has the same duties as the Office of Education. 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)
149. IDEA requires Defendants to meet certain obligations including, but not limited to:
a) Identifying, locating and evaluating "[al children with disabilities residing in the State...who are in need of special education and related services" (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A)) and having in effect policies and procedures to ensure this happens (34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a));
b) Upon identification, conducting a full and individual initial evaluation before the initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a disability in all areas of suspected disability and thereafter a re-evaluation every three years (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(A), (2)(B)) or whenever educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, if the child warrants a reevaluation (34 C.F.R. § 300.303(a));
c) Developing and implementing an appropriate Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each child with a disability, defined as a written statement that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with 210 U.S.C. § 1414(d), which must include, but is not limited to including: i. a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)), ii. a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(ii)),

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

32

iii. a description of the measurement of the annual goals and the reporting of these goals (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(III)),
iv. for children over 16 years of age, annually updated appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(VIII)(aa)); and
v. in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others, consideration of the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior (20 USC § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i)).
d) Holding an IEP team meeting at least annually (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(A)(i)); e) When students with an IEP enter a new school district, providing "comparable"
services to their previous IEP for the next 30 days at which point, either adopting the prior IEP or developing, adopting and implementing a new IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e)); f) If behavior leads to removal from school for more than 10 days or to removal for less than 10 days but that is based on behavior that constitutes a pattern, continuing to provide educational services so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(d)); g) If behavior leads to removal from school for more than ten days or to removal for less than 10 days but that is based on behavior that constitutes a pattern, convening an immediate IEP meeting to determine if the behavior is a manifestation of the student's disability (20 USC § 1415(k); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e); 34 C.F.R. § 300.536(a)(2); Cal. Educ. Code § 48915.5); h) If the behavior is a manifestation of disability, (1) conducting a functional behavior/analysis assessment (the latter prior to July 2013) and implement a behavioral intervention plan; or (2) reviewing and modify existing behavioral

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

33

1

intervention plan; and (3) returning student to placement from which he or she

2

was removed, unless it involved weapons, drug possession, or serious bodily

3

injury (at which time student would be placed in an interim alternative

4

educational setting for not more than 45 school days) (20 USC § 1415(k); 34

5

C.F.R. § 300.530(0&(g));

6

i) If, on the other hand, the behavior was not a manifestation of disability,

7

providing FAPE and services to the student no later than the 11th cumulative

8

day of removal (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(c)); and

9

j) Implementing procedural safeguards for children with disabilities, consisting,

10

at a minimum, of notice to parents or guardians of their procedural rights

11

regarding the identification, evaluation, or education placement of their child

12

or the provision of a FAPE to their child, and the right to present complaints

13

and to an impartial due process hearing on such complaints (20 U.S.C. §§

14

1412(a)(6), 1415).

15

150. By failing to identify, evaluate, recommend, and then provide a FAPE (including

16 appropriate IEPs, special education, and related services to eligible students in Juvenile Hall),

17 and by failing to provide procedural safeguards specified in the statute implementing the IDEA

18 (including manifestation determinations), Defendants have impeded students' rights to a free

19 appropriate public education, have significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate

20 in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to

21 their students, and/or have deprived students of educational benefits. In so doing, Defendants
22 have violated and continue to violate rights secured by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., and its 23 implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300 et seq.

24

151. Because Defendants' discriminatory and wrongful conduct is ongoing,

25 declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of

26 Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are suffering irreparable harm and lost

27 education opportunities and therefore speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.

28

152. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et aL, Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

34

attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3). SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of Americans with Disabilities Act 
 Against All Defendants Except Office of Education 

(42 U.S.C. 5C 12101, et. seq.) 153. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein. 154. Title II of the ADA states, in pertinent part:
[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 155. In providing any aid, benefit, or service, a public entity "may not ... [d]eny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or service," "[a]fford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others," "[p]rovide a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity ... as that provided to others," or "[o]therwise limit a qualified individual with a disability in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others[.]" 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (vii). 156. A public entity "shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability[.]" 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) (emphasis added). 157. Nor may a public entity (1) "impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary[,]" 28 C.F.R.§ 35.130(b)(8); or (2) "utilize criteria or methods of administration ... that have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability ... or the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing

C.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

35

accomplishment of the objectives of the public entity's program with respect to individuals with disabilities[.]" 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i)(ii).
158. A public entity is also prohibited from aiding and perpetuating discrimination against persons with disabilities in the programs, services or activities it provides. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(v).
159. Defendants were, at all times relevant to this action, and are currently "public entities" within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and provided and provide a "program, service or activity" including educational and rehabilitative 12 programs, services and activities in the Juvenile Hall.
160. Defendants have violated the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class secured by Title II of the ADA and its implementing regulations.
161. Defendants exclude from participation in and deny the benefits of Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs, services and activities for Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class due to their disabilities by, inter alia, failing to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class with the special education and related services that they require due to their disabilities thereby denying them the benefits of Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs, services and activities and locking Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class in solitary confinement due to their disabilities thereby excluding them from Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs, services and activities.
162. Defendants also deny Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class the opportunity to equally, effectively and meaningfully participate in and benefit from Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs, services and activities by, inter alia, failing to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class with the special education and related services that they require due to their disabilities, thereby denying them the benefits of Defendants' educational programs, services and activities and locking Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff

12 Rehabilitative programs, services and activities involve, among other things, counseling, vocational training and individual mental health treatment and anything else which is geared towards helping juveniles correct their conduct.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

36

class in solitary confinement due to their disabilities thereby, excluding them from Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs, services and activities.
163. Furthermore, Defendants fail to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures when such modifications are necessary to avoid discriminating against Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class by, inter alia, not providing additional educational and rehabilitative programs, services or activities when youth with disabilities are in solitary confinement, not inquiring into whether a young person has a disability and/or whether his or her conduct is disability-related before placing him or her in solitary confinement and not prohibiting the use of solitary confinement for youth with disabilities.
164. Defendants additionally impose and apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class from fully and equally enjoying any of Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs, services or activities by, inter alia, adopting and implementing policies and practices with regard to solitary confinement that have a disparate impact on youth with disabilities.
165. Defendants further utilize methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class to discrimination on the basis of disability and the purpose and effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishments of the objectives of Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities with respect to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class by, inter alia, denying educational and rehabilitative programs, services and activities while youth with disabilities are locked in solitary confinement, failing to inquire into whether a young person has a disability and/or whether his or her conduct is disability-related before placing him or her in solitary confinement and using solitary confinement for youth with disabilities.
166. Defendants are also aiding and perpetuating discrimination against persons with disabilities in Defendants' programs, services or activities by, inter alia, maintaining policies and practices that allow for discrimination and allowing for the discrimination of each co-defendant to continue unchecked.
167. Defendants are otherwise subjecting youth with disabilities detained in Juvenile

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et aL, Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

37

1 Hall to discrimination. 168. Because Defendants' discriminatory and wrongful conduct is ongoing,
declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are suffering irreparable harm and lost education opportunity and therefore speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.
169. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action under 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 
 Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

Against All Defendants 
 (29 U.S.C. § 794, et. seq.)
170. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein.
171. Section 504 provides, in pertinent part: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance[.] 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
172. In providing any aid, benefit, or service, a recipient of federal financial assistance "may not ... [d]eny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or service," "[a]fford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others," "[p]rovide a qualified handicapped person with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity ... as that provided to others," or loltherwise limit a qualified handicapped person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others[.]" 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(i), (ii), (iii), and (vii).
173. A recipient of federal financial assistance shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination

G.E. et aL v. Contra Costa County, et aL, Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

38

on the basis of disability. 174. Nor may a recipient of federal financial assistance "utilize criteria or methods of
administration (i) that have the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of handicap and/or (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient's program or activity with respect to handicapped persons..." 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(4)(i), (ii);
175. A recipient of federal financial assistance is also prohibited from aiding and perpetuating discrimination against a qualified handicapped person by providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of handicap. 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(v).
176. Each Defendant was, at all times relevant to this action, and is currently a recipient of federal financial assistance within the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and provided and provides a "program or activity" where "program or activity" is described as "all the operations of the recipient which includes the educational and rehabilitative programs and activities in Juvenile Hall. 29 U.S.C. § 794(b).
177. Defendants have violated the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class secured by Section 504 and its implementing regulations.
178. Defendants exclude from participation in and deny the benefits of Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs and activities for Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class by reason of their disabilities by, inter alia, failing to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class with the special education and related services that they require due to their disabilities, thereby denying them the benefits of Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs and activities and locking Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class in solitary confinement due to their disabilities, thereby excluding them from Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs and activities.
179. Defendants also deny Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class the opportunity to equally, effectively and meaningfully participate in and benefit from Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs and activities by, inter alia, failing to provide Plaintiffs

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

39

and members of the Plaintiff Class with the special education and related services that they require due to their disabilities, thereby denying them the benefits of Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs and activities and locking Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class in solitary confinement due to their disabilities, thereby excluding them from Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs and activities.
180. Furthermore, Defendants fail to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures when such modifications are necessary to avoid discriminating against Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class by, inter alia, not providing additional educational and rehabilitative programs or activities when youth with disabilities are in solitary confinement, not inquiring into whether a young person has a disability and/or whether his or her conduct is disability-related before placing him or her in solitary confinement and not prohibiting the use of solitary confinement for youth with disabilities.
181. Defendants further utilize methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class to discrimination on the basis of disability and the purpose and effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishments of the objectives of Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs and activities with respect to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class by, inter alia, denying educational and rehabilitative programs and activities while youth with disabilities are locked in solitary confinement, failing to inquire into whether a young person has a disability and/or whether his or her conduct is disability-related before placing him or her in solitary confinement and using of solitary confinement for youth with disabilities.
182. Defendants are also aiding and perpetuating discrimination against persons with disabilities in Defendants' programs, services or activities by, inter alia, maintaining policies and practices that allow for discrimination and allowing for discrimination of each co-defendant to continue unchecked.
183. Defendants are otherwise subjecting youth with disabilities detained in Juvenile Hall to discrimination.
184. In addition, Defendants have violated rights of Plaintiffs and members of the

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

40

Plaintiff Class secured by Section 504's regulations by inter alia:
a) Failing to provide a free appropriate public education to each qualified
handicapped person who is in Defendants' jurisdiction (45 C.F.R. § 84.33(a));
b) Failing to provide special education and related aids and services that are
designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as
adequately as the needs of non-handicapped persons are met (45 C.F.R. §
84.33(b)). 185. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory relief and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of Defendants' actions,
Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are suffering irreparable harm and lost educational
opportunities, and therefore, speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.
186. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794a, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive
relief and to recover from Defendants the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
bringing this action.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of California Government Code § 11135 

Against All Defendants 

(Cal. Gov't Code § 11135 et seq.)
187. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein. 188. California Government Code section 11135 sets forth a nondiscrimination policy
for state programs. It provides that in pertinent part:
[n]o person in the State of California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic information or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state. Cal. Gov't Code § 11135(a).

G.F., et aL v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 


41

189. It is a discriminatory practice for a recipient of state financial assistance, in carrying out any program or activity, on the basis of disability, (a) to deny a person the opportunity to participate in, or benefit from an aid, benefit or service; (b) to afford a person the opportunity to participate in or benefit from an aid, benefit or service that is not equal to that afforded others; (c) to provide a person with an aid, benefit or service that is not as effective in affording an equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others . . . (g) to otherwise limit a person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving any aid, benefit or service resulting from the program or activity." 22 Cal. Code Regs. § 98101 (a), (b), (c), (g).
190. It is also discrimination for a recipient of state financial assistance to utilize criteria or methods of administration that: (1) have the purpose or effect of subjecting a person to discrimination on the basis of disability; (2) have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient's program with respect to a person with a disability. . ." 22 Cal. Code Regs. § 98101(i).
191. Each Defendant was, at all times relevant to this action, and is currently operating or administering a program or activity that receives state financial assistance, within the meaning of Section 11135 including educational and rehabilitative programs and activities in the Juvenile Hall.
192. Defendants have violated the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class secured by Section 11135 et seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 22 Cal. Code Regs. § 98100, et seq.
193. Defendants deny full and equal access for Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class to the benefits of Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs and activities by, inter alia, failing to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class with the special education and related services that they require due to their disabilities to fully and equally access educational and rehabilitative programs and activities and locking Plaintiffs and members

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

42

of the Plaintiff class in solitary confinement due to their disabilities, thereby denying them full and equal access to educational and rehabilitative programs and activities.
194. Defendants deny Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class the opportunity to equally, effectively and meaningfully participate in and benefit from Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs and activities by, inter alia, failing to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class with the special education and related services that they require due to their disabilities, thereby denying them the benefits of Defendants' educational programs and activities and locking Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class in solitary confinement due to their disabilities thereby excluding them from Defendants' educational programs and activities.
195. Defendants further utilize methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class to discrimination on the basis of disability and the purpose and effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishments of the objectives of Defendants' educational and rehabilitative programs and activities with respect to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class by, inter alia, denying educational programs and activities while youth with disabilities are locked in solitary confinement, failing to inquire into whether a young person has a disability and/or whether his or her conduct is disability-related before placing him or her in solitary confinement and using of solitary confinement for youth with disabilities.
196. California Government Code section 11135 further requires that the programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the state "shall meet the protections and prohibitions contained in Section 202 of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act . . . except that if the laws of this state prescribe stronger protections and prohibitions, the programs and activities subject to subdivision (a) shall be subject to the stronger protections and prohibitions." Cal. Gov't Code § 11135(b). Here because Defendants are violating Title II of the ADA, they also are violating California Government Code section 11135.
197. Because Defendants' discriminatory and wrongful conduct is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

43

Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are suffering irreparable harm and lost education opportunities and therefore speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.
198. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 526(a) and 1021.5, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 
 Violation of California Education Code for Special Education Requirements 

Against All Defendants 
 (Cal. Educ. Code §§ 56000, et seq.) 199. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein. 200. Individuals with exceptional needs are entitled to receive a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") in accordance with IDEA and its implementing regulations. Cal. Educ. Code § 56040. 201. A student may qualify as an individual with exceptional needs under one of the following: Hearing Impairment, Hearing and Visual Impairment, Language or Speech Disorder, Visual Impairment, Severe Orthopedic Impairment, Other Health Impairments, Autistic-Like Behaviors, Mental Retardation, Serious Emotional Disturbance, Specific Learning Disability. 5 Cal. Code Regs. § 3030. 202. Under California Education Code section 56000 et seq., Defendants are required to meet certain conditions, including, but not limited to: a) Identifying, locating and assessing all children with disabilities, who are in need of special education and related services, and establishing written policies and procedures to do so (Cal. Educ. Code § 56301(a), (d)(1)); b) Conducting individual assessments by qualified persons knowledgeable about the suspected disability before an initial placement in special education and related services (Cal. Educ. Code § 56320) and conducting reassessments every three years (Cal Educ. Code § 56381(a)(2));

G.E, et aL v. Contra Costa County, et aL, Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

44

c) When a student transfers, providing FAPE, including services comparable to

previous IEP, for a time not to exceed 30 days by which time the new

placement shall adopt the previous IEP or develop, adopt and implement a new

IEP (Cal. Educ. Code § 56043(m)(1) and Cal. Educ. Code § 56325);

d) For each student with a disability, developing and implementing an appropriate

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), defined as a written statement that

is developed, reviewed, and revised which must include, but is not limited to

including:

(i) Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (Cal.

Educ. Code § 56345(a)(1));

(ii) Measurable annual goals (Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(a)(2));

(iii) Criteria for determining whether annual goals are being achieved (Cal.

Educ. Code § 56345(a)(3));

(iv) Specific special educational instruction, related services, supplementary

aids and services to be provided, based on peer-reviewed research to the

extent possible (Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(a)(4));

(v) Explanation of extent, if any, to which pupil will not participate with non-

disabled pupils in their regular class and activities (Cal. Educ. Code §

56345(a)(5));

(vi)Individual appropriate accommodations in the administration of state-wide

or district-wide assessments (Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(a)(6)); and

(vii)

Projected date for the beginning of services and modifications, and

anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and

accommodations (Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(a)(7))

e) Implementing the IEP and related services (Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(c); f) Holding annual IEP team meetings to review the student's progress and
create/revise IEP document (Cal. Educ. Code § 56043(j));

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

45

g) If the IEP team finds that instructional/behavioral approaches specified in the student's IEP have been ineffective, conducting a functional analysis assessment (FAA) and developing a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) (5 Cal.Code Regs. § 3052(b), (c));
h) If behavior leads to removal from school for more than ten days, conducting a manifestation determination IEP meeting to determine if the behavior is a manifestation of the student's disability (Cal. Educ. Code § 48915.5);
i) Implementing procedural safeguards for children with disabilities, consisting, at a minimum, of notice to parents or guardians of their procedural rights regarding the identification, evaluation, or education placement of a child or the provision of a FAPE to a child, and the right to present complaints and to an impartial due process hearing on such complaints (Cal. Educ. Code § 56301(d)(2)).
203. By failing to identify, locate, assess and then provide a FAPE (including appropriate IEPs, special education, and related services to eligible students within the custody of the Probation Department), and by failing to provide procedural safeguards specified in the statute implementing the IDEA (including manifestation determinations), Defendants have violated and continue to violate rights secured by California Education Code sections 56000 et seq., and its implementing regulations.
204. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class have suffered, and continue to suffer irreparable harm and lost educational opportunity in their education, based on their disabilities.
205. Because Defendants' discriminatory and wrongful conduct is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are suffering irreparable harm and lost education opportunities and therefore speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.
206. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 526(a) and 1021.5, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

46

costs incurred in bringing this action. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of California Education Code for General Education Requirements 
 Against All Defendants 

207. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein.
208. Pursuant to California law, students are entitled to 240 minutes of instruction minimum for each school day (Cal. Educ. Code § 48645.3); 400 minutes of physical education each 10 school days for an average of 40 minutes of physical education per day (Cal. Educ. Code §§ 51220(d) and 51222); and, provision of state approved textbooks and instructional materials so that each student has a textbook or instructional material to use in class and to take home (Cal. Educ. Code § 35186(0(1)). Moreover, suspension of a student requires certain due process protections including notice to the student and parents and an opportunity to respond. Cal. Educ. Code § 48911(b), (d). Furthermore, suspending students in excess of five consecutive schooldays and/or allowing students to be suspended for more than 20 schooldays within a school year is prohibited. Cal. Educ. Code § 48911 and Cal. Educ. Code § 48903 respectively.
209. Defendants, who are charged with providing 240 minutes of instruction each school day, have failed to provide and continue to fail to provide such instruction time to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class in solitary confinement.
210. Defendants, who are charged with providing on average 40 minutes of physical education per day, have failed to provide and continue to fail to provide such physical education to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class, particularly those in solitary confinement.
211. Defendants, who are charged with providing educational services to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class, have failed to provide and continue to fail to provide Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class with state approved textbooks and instructional materials so that each student has a textbook or instructional materials, or both, to use in class and to take into their cells.
212. Defendants, who are charged with providing educational services to Plaintiffs and

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

47

members of the Plaintiff Class, have suspended and continue to suspend Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class without due process protections.
213. Defendants, who are charged with providing educational services to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class, have allowed and continue to allow Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class to be suspended from school for more than 20 schooldays within a school year.
214. Because Defendants' discriminatory and wrongful conduct is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are suffering irreparable harm and lost education opportunities and therefore speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.
215. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 526(a), 1021.5.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 1. Order that Plaintiffs may maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. Order and declare that the Defendants' conduct as alleged herein has violated, and continues to violate, IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., and accompanying regulations, the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and accompanying regulations, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and accompanying regulations, California Education Code section 56000 et seq., and accompanying regulations, and California Government Code sections 11135, et seq. and accompanying regulations. 3. Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants from violating IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., and accompanying regulations, the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and accompanying regulations, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and accompanying regulations, California Education Code section 56000 et seq., and accompanying regulations, and California Government Code sections 11135, et seq. and accompanying regulations.

G.E. et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

48

4. Order Defendants to provide Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class: a. meaningful access to education provided by Defendants in compliance with federal and state special education laws; b. general education and special education and related services to all youth with disabilities in solitary confinement in any of its forms; c. reasonable modifications to policies, practices and procedures to ensure that youth with disabilities do not suffer discrimination based on their disability, including by means of placement in solitary confinement; d. compensatory education to youth with disabilities who have served and are currently serving time in Juvenile Hall;
5. Order the appointment of a special master to oversee the implementation of the above-listed systems, processes, and mechanisms and grant the special master legal authority to administer specific programs and activities of Defendants as may be necessary to ensure the provision of special education services to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class;
6. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have complied with the orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in the future, absent continuing jurisdiction;
7. Award Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, as provided by statute; and 8. Any such other relief as the Court finds just and proper.

DATED: August 8, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
SHAWNA PARKS MARY-LEE K. SMITH REBECCA WILLIFORD KARA JANSSEN DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

Mary-Lee K. Smith Attorneys for Plaintiffs

G.F., et aL v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

49

1 


HERNAN VERA

LAURA FAER

2 


PUBLIC COUNSEL

3 


4 


Laura Faer

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6 


GRACE A. CARTER

7 


GINA GUARIENTI COOK

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

8 


9 


/s/

10

Grace A. Carter

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11 


12 


13 


14 


15

16 


17 


18 


19 


20

21 


22 


23 


24 


25

26 


27 


28 


G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

50

 </s> Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page1 of 62

1 MARY-LEE K. SMITH (CA BAR NO. 239086) (msmith@dralegal.org) REBECCA WILLIFORD (CA BAR NO. 269977) (rwilliford@dralegal.org)
2 KARA JANSSEN (CA BAR NO. 274762) (kjanssen@dralegal.org) DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
3 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
4 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
5
HERNAN VERA (CA BAR NO. 175149) (hvera@publiccounsel.org) 6 LAURA FAER (CA BAR NO. 223846) (lfaer@publiccounsel.org)
PUBLIC COUNSEL 7 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 8 Telephone: (510) 529-3419
Facsimile: (213) 385-9089 9
GRACE A. CARTER (CA BAR NO. 101610) (gracecarter@paulhastings.com) 10 GINA COOK (CA BAR NO. 245611 ) (ginacook@paulhastings.com)
PAUL HASTINGS LLP 11 55 Second Street, Twenty-Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 12 Telephone: (415) 856-7000
Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem,

Case No. C 13-3667-SBA

17

Gail F.; W.B., by and through his guardian ad litem, CiCi C.; Q.G., by and through his

CLASS ACTION

18

guardian ad litem, Barbara C.; and on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION

19 situated,

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

20

Plaintiffs,

21 v.

22

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF

23 EDUCATION.

24

Defendants.

25

26

27

28

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page2 of 62

1

Plaintiffs G.F., W.B., and Q.G.1 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel,

2 Disability Rights Advocates, Public Counsel and Paul Hastings LLP, bring this First Amended

3 Complaint against Defendants Contra Costa County and Contra Costa County Office of

4 Education (collectively, the “Defendants”).

5

INTRODUCTION

6

1. Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, like all juvenile halls in the State, exists

7 “solely for the purpose of rehabilitation and not punishment”2 for young people who have gotten

8 off track. Indeed, juvenile hall “shall not be deemed to be, nor be treated as, a penal institution.

9 It shall be a safe and supportive homelike environment.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 851. Instead

10 of following these statutory mandates, Defendants (1) are subjecting youth with disabilities to

11 unconscionable conditions of solitary confinement based on their disability-related behavior—

12 sometimes for weeks or months at a time—while watching them deteriorate mentally because of

13 their disabilities; (2) are denying youth with disabilities educational and rehabilitative services

14 when they are in solitary confinement; and (3) are failing to provide youth with disabilities the

15 required special education and related services even when they are not in solitary confinement,

16 all in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

17

2. At Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall (“Juvenile Hall”), young people with

18 disabilities become trapped in a cruel cycle of discrimination: Defendants fail to provide

19 disabled youth with critical special educational and related services to which they are entitled

20 under federal and state laws. Lacking such supports, the youth are punished for a variety of

21 infractions and are locked away in solitary confinement. In solitary confinement, they are denied

22 educational and rehabilitative services and, because of their disabilities, their mental health

23 worsens, they are not effectively deterred from future misconduct, and they fall further behind in

24 their education and rehabilitation. It is thus more likely that they will commit further infractions

25

26

1 Plaintiffs are redacting plaintiffs’ names pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) (“in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains . . . the name of an individual known to

27

be a minor, . . . a party or nonparty making the filing may include only: (3) the minor's initials[.]”) Plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed under fictitious names and motion to seal for the

28

guardians ad litem for named plaintiffs. The Court granted the motion. 2 People v. Olivas, 17 Cal. 3d 236, 254 (1976).

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 1

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page3 of 62

1 upon their release from solitary confinement and will once again be placed in solitary

2 confinement and subject to further exclusions from and denials of education and rehabilitation,

3 perpetuating the cycle of discrimination.

4

3. Specifically, due to their illegal and deficient systemic policies and practices,

5 Defendants fail to provide the legally-required special education and related services to youth

6 with disabilities such that they are denied a free appropriate public education, also known as

7 “FAPE,” while in Juvenile Hall. Defendants also deny youth with disabilities, because of their

8 disabilities, the opportunity to equally, effectively and meaningfully participate in and benefit

9 from the educational and rehabilitative services and programs offered by Defendants in Juvenile

10 Hall.

11

4. When youth with disabilities commit infractions in Juvenile Hall that result in

12 their being locked in solitary confinement, Defendants fail to inquire into whether the youth have

13 disabilities and fail to make the legally mandated determination or inquiry as to whether the

14 infractions were disability-related, disciplining them regardless.

15

5. Instead of addressing the youths’ disabilities and making reasonable

16 modifications and accommodations, Defendants classify them as “dangerous” and lock them in

17 solitary confinement, where they deny them educational and rehabilitative services.

18

6. As a result, youth with disabilities are frequently placed on “Program,” “Risk” or

19 “Max” – three levels of solitary confinement. On Program, youth are generally kept in their cells

20 for 22-1/2 hours a day, and on Risk and Max, youth are in their cells for 23 hours a day.

21

7. Youth in solitary confinement cannot attend school. While on “Risk” and “Max,”

22 youth are outright denied both general and special education entirely. Even while on “Program,”

23 Juvenile Hall policies illegally permit Defendants to withhold education as a punishment or for

24 no reason at all. If “educational services” are provided on Program, generally it is an aide that

25 visits only sporadically (not every day) and for approximately five to 30 minutes each time.

26

8. Youth with disabilities who are locked in solitary confinement are also excluded

27 from and denied participation in rehabilitative services—such as counseling, vocational training,

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 2

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page4 of 62

1 and mental health treatment—offered at the Juvenile Hall. They are not permitted to attend

2 classes such as anger management or group counseling sessions.

3

9. Denial of education and rehabilitation as a form of punishment disproportionately

4 burdens youth with disabilities who, because of their disabilities, require additional assistance to

5 access the general education curriculum and rehabilitative programs. Without such assistance,

6 youth with disabilities fall even further behind in education and rehabilitation than their non-

7 disabled peers.

8

10. Youth with disabilities are further disproportionately burdened because of their

9 disabilities when locked in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement severely exacerbates

10 previously existing mental conditions (including attention deficit disorder, personality and

11 cognitive disorders and other mental and emotional vulnerabilities). Moreover, solitary

12 confinement is not an effective deterrent for future misconduct. As such, with their conditions

13 worsened and no deterrent effect realized, youth with disabilities are more likely to be locked in

14 solitary confinement again and effectively further excluded from and denied Defendants’

15 educational and rehabilitative services at Juvenile Hall. That is, for youth with disabilities,

16 solitary confinement makes further solitary confinement more likely—such that youth with

17 disabilities are denied educational and rehabilitative services as a disciplinary measure more than

18 their non-disabled peers.

19

11. This cycle of discrimination could be stopped if Defendants provided the legally-

20 mandated special education and related services in the classroom, before youth with disabilities

21 even end up in solitary confinement, and if Defendants made reasonable modifications to their

22 policies, procedures, and practices such that youth with disabilities could receive the

23 accommodations—both in and out of the classroom—to which they are legally entitled.

24

12. Detained youth with disabilities are legally entitled under the Individuals with

25 Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq. (“IDEA”), Title II of the Americans with

26 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29

27 U.S.C. et. seq. (“Section 504”) and the California Education and Government Codes, Cal. Educ.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 3

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page5 of 62

1 Code § 5600 et. seq. and Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135 et. seq., to receive a free appropriate public

2 education, which includes special education and related services.

3

13. Youth with disabilities are also legally entitled under Title II of the ADA, Section

4 504, and Government Code sections 11135 et seq. to equally, effectively and meaningfully

5 participate in and benefit from Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative services and programs.

6 To satisfy this legal mandate, Defendants must make reasonable modifications to policies,

7 practices and procedures in order to meet the specific needs of youth with disabilities.

8

14. Despite these obligations, Defendants have abdicated their core responsibility of

9 providing education and rehabilitation—not punishment—to youth with disabilities who are

10 detained at Juvenile Hall. The violations of detained youth’s rights and illegal deprivations of

11 educational and rehabilitative services at Juvenile Hall are rampant and widespread, yet

12 Defendants have allowed these violations to persist.

13

15. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a

14 class of similarly situated youth (“Plaintiff Class”) in the form of an order finding Defendants

15 out of compliance with relevant laws and directing Defendants to comply with all relevant laws

16 by, inter alia, providing: (1) a free appropriate public education and meaningful access to

17 education for all students with disabilities and compliance with all special education laws that

18 protect such students; (2) educational and rehabilitative services to all youth with disabilities

19 who are subject to disciplinary measures for any amount of time; (3) compensatory education to

20 youth with disabilities who have served and are currently serving time in Juvenile Hall; (4)

21 reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that youth with

22 disabilities do not suffer discrimination because of their disability, including through placement

23 in solitary confinement; (5) an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under applicable

24 law; and (6) any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

25

16. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of

26 Defendants’ ongoing refusal to meet the needs of youth with disabilities in the Contra Costa

27 County Juvenile Hall, and will continue to suffer further irreparable harm unless and until the

28 Court grants declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants to remedy the ongoing illegal

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 4

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page6 of 62

1 treatment of and discrimination against youth with disabilities at Juvenile Hall, and to ensure

2 that the rights of youth with disabilities are not violated.

3

JURISDICTION

4

17. This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims that arise under the

5 IDEA, Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the regulations

6 promulgated thereunder. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked (1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

7 1331, because Plaintiffs’ and the Plaintiff Class’ claims arise under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), in

8 that those claims seek to redress deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights, privileges

9 and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and any Act of Congress providing for

10 equal rights of citizens or of all persons; and (2) under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4), because

11 Plaintiffs’ and the Plaintiff Class’ claims seek to secure equitable relief under an Act of Congress

12 providing for the protection of civil rights.

13

18. Through the same acts and omissions that form the basis for Plaintiffs’ federal

14 claims, Defendants have also violated Plaintiffs’ rights under state law, over which this Court has

15 supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

16

19. Pursuant to the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter, Plaintiffs G.F., by and

17 through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.; W.B., by and through his guardian ad litem, CiCi C.; and

18 Q.G., by and through his guardian ad litem, Barbara C., bring this action on behalf of themselves

19 and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated.

20

20. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive

21 relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57(d) and 65. This

22 Court also has authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3) under IDEA, 42 U.S.C. § 12205

23 under the ADA, and 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) under Section 504 to award Plaintiffs’ reasonable

24 attorneys’ fees and costs.

25

VENUE

26

21. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

27 because Defendants are located in this District and all of the acts and/or omissions complained of

28 herein have occurred, are occurring, or will occur in the District.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 5

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page7 of 62

1

PARTIES

2

Plaintiffs

3

22. Plaintiff G.F. is a 15-year-old citizen of the United States and a resident of Contra

4 Costa County, California.

5

23. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint on August 8, 2013 (the

6 “original Complaint”), G.F. had been detained at Juvenile Hall in Martinez since the summer of

7 2012 (at which time she was 13). At the time of the filing of the original Complaint, she was a

8 part of the Girls in Motion Program, which is housed at Juvenile Hall. G.F. was released from

9 Juvenile Hall on October 16, 2013. G.F. returned to Juvenile Hall on December 13, 2013 and

10 remains at Juvenile Hall currently.

11

24. G.F. has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, bipolar

12 affective disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder. These impairments substantially limit

13 one or more major life activities of G.F., making her an individual with a disability. At the time

14 of the filing of the original Complaint, she was a resident of Juvenile Hall and, as such, was

15 qualified to participate in the programs, services and activities of Juvenile Hall.

16

25. G.F.’s guardian filed a petition under seal with this Court to act as her guardian ad

17 litem, which the Court granted.

18

26. Plaintiff W.B. is an 18-year-old citizen of the United States and resident of Contra

19 Costa County, California.

20

27. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint, W.B. had been detained in

21 Juvenile Hall since May 2012. W.B. was declared incompetent by the Juvenile Court and was

22 detained in Juvenile Hall for competency training and possible placement. W.B. was released

23 from Juvenile Hall on August 9, 2013.

24

28. W.B. has been diagnosed with psychosis and schizophrenia. These impairments

25 substantially limit one or more major life activities of W.B., making him an individual with a

26 disability. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint, he was a resident of Juvenile Hall

27 and, as such, was qualified to participate in the programs, services and activities of Juvenile Hall.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 6

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page8 of 62

1

29. W.B.’s parent filed a petition under seal with this Court to act as his guardian ad

2 litem, which the Court granted.

3

30. Plaintiff Q.G. is a 17-year-old citizen of the United States and resident of Contra

4 Costa County, California.

5

31. Q.G. has been detained in Juvenile Hall since November of 2010. He is currently

6 a part of the Youthful Offender Treatment Program, which is housed at Juvenile Hall.

7

32. Q.G. has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder and

8 oppositional defiance disorder. These impairments substantially limit one or more major life

9 activities of Q.G., making him an individual with a disability. He is a resident of Juvenile Hall

10 and, as such, is qualified to participate in the programs, services and activities of Juvenile Hall.

11

33. Q.G.’s parent filed a petition under seal with this Court to act as his guardian ad

12 litem, which this Court granted.

13

Defendant Contra Costa County

14

34. Defendant Contra Costa County (the “County”) is responsible for providing and

15 maintaining the juvenile facilities in Contra Costa County and for meeting minimum standards

16 promulgated by the California Board of Corrections for these facilities. 15 Cal. Code Regs. §

17 1310.

18

35. The County, through its Probation Department, is responsible for the care of

19 youth detained in the Juvenile Hall. California law provides that each county probation

20 department shall manage and control that county’s juvenile hall. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 852.

21 However, California law is clear: “the juvenile hall shall not be in, or connected with, any jail or

22 prison, and shall not be deemed to be, nor be treated as, a penal institution. It shall be a safe and

23 supportive homelike environment.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 851.

24

36. The Chief Probation Officer is also legally required to work with Contra Costa

25 Office of Education to provide for the administration and operation of juvenile court schools. 15

26 Cal. Code Regs. § 1370(a). Together, the County Office of Education and the Probation

27 Department must “develop written policy and procedures to ensure communication and

28 coordination between educators and probation staff.” Id.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 7

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page9 of 62

1

37. Among other things, the Juvenile Hall school programs must provide a quality

2 educational program that includes instructional strategies designed to respond to the different

3 learning styles and abilities of students. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1370(b). This means that

4 “education instruction shall be provided to minors restricted to high security or other special

5 units” and that “state and federal laws shall be observed for individuals with special education

6 needs.” 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1370(d). Moreover, “expulsion/suspension from school shall

7 follow the appropriate due process safeguards . . . including the rights of students with special

8 needs.” 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1370(c)(3). Disciplinary actions taken at juvenile detention

9 facilities must not deprive a youth of education. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1390(j) (emphasis added).

10 Indeed, any disciplinary actions must follow clear due process procedures including right to a

11 hearing and to present evidence. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1391.

12

38. In short, the Probation Department and thus, the County, must ensure that youth

13 detained at the Juvenile Hall have access to legally adequate and appropriate educational services

14 during the youth’s term of commitment.

15

39. In addition, the County must ensure that detained youth have access to the

16 educational and rehabilitative services offered at Juvenile Hall and that, if necessary, youth with

17 disabilities receive reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that

18 they are not discriminated against based on their disabilities.

19

40. Furthermore, the Probation Department, and thus, the County, is also responsible

20 for ensuring that the Contra Costa County Office of Education does not discriminate against

21 youth. By allowing Contra Costa County Office of Education’s discrimination to continue

22 unchecked, the Probation Department both aids and perpetuates discrimination against youth

23 with disabilities at Juvenile Hall. For instance, the County allows the Office of Education to

24 defer all disciplinary matters to the Probation Department and to ignore all required procedural

25 safeguards in disciplining Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.

26

41. Because it is “involved in any decisions regarding a pupil,” the Probation

27 Department, and thus, the County is “a responsible public agency” (Cal. Educ. Code § 56501(a))

28 and subject to the California Education Code. For instance, the Probation Department, and thus,

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 8

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page10 of 62

1 the County can change disabled students’ educational placements by removing them from school

2 and placing them in solitary confinement. When the student is in solitary confinement, Juvenile

3 Hall policies provide that it is the Probation Department that decides whether or not to provide

4 FAPE to that student.

5

42. The Probation Department, and thus, the County, is a public agency, pursuant to

6 federal regulations and subject to IDEA, because it runs a correctional facility “involved in the

7 education of children with disabilities.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b). For example, Probation has the

8 authority to deny students with disabilities any access to education, to impact the continuum of

9 placements offered at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, and to identify youth with

10 disabilities who require special education and related services.

11

43. The Probation Department, and thus, the County, is also a public agency, pursuant

12 to federal regulations and subject to IDEA, because it is an educational services agency with

13 “administrative control and direction” over Mt. McKinley School. 34 C.F.R. § 300.33. The

14 Probation Department has such control and direction, given that it establishes and enforces

15 system-wide policies that affect all students with disabilities at Mt. McKinley, in the ways

16 described above.

17

44. Further, the Probation Department, and thus, the County, is a public agency,

18 pursuant to federal regulations and subject to IDEA, because it is a “political subdivision[] of the

19 State that [is] responsible for providing education to children with disabilities.” 34 C.F.R. §

20 300.33. Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations demonstrates that the Probation

21 Department is responsible for providing education to children with disabilities and also that the

22 Probation Department is bound by state regulation to do so as a public agency. See 20 U.S.C.

23 § 1412(a)(12)(C).

24

45. As a local government, the County, and its Probation Department, is a “public

25 entity” as defined by the ADA. 42 U.S.C § 12131(1)(B).

26

46. As a public entity receiving federal funds, the County, and its Probation

27 Department, is subject to Section 504 and may not discriminate against people with disabilities

28 in violation of Section 504.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 9

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page11 of 62

1

Defendant Contra Costa County Office of Education

2

47. Contra Costa County Office of Education (the “Office of Education”) is one of

3 the State of California’s County Offices of Education. County Offices of Education are charged

4 with providing for the administration and operation of juvenile court schools. Cal. Educ. Code §

5 48645.2. The Office of Education operates the court school at Juvenile Hall, Mt. McKinley

6 School.

7

48. The Office of Education receives federal financial assistance under IDEA. It is

8 therefore responsible for providing all school-eligible persons with disabilities who reside in the

9 County with special education programs administered in compliance with federal and state laws

10 and regulations. 20 U.S.C. § 1413(a).

11

49. The Office of Education must ensure that youth detained at the Juvenile Hall

12 receive a free appropriate public education and have meaningful access to educational services.

13

50. The Office of Education is also responsible for ensuring that youth with

14 disabilities receive reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that

15 they are not discriminated against based on their disabilities.

16

51. In addition, the Office of Education is also responsible for the violations

17 committed by the County in that, by allowing the County’s discrimination to continue

18 unchecked, the Office of Education both aids and perpetuates discrimination against youth with

19 disabilities at Juvenile Hall. For instance, the Office of Education allows the County to prohibit

20 FAPE while Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are in solitary confinement.

21

52. Because it is “involved in any decisions regarding a pupil,” the Office of

22 Education is “a responsible public agency” (Cal. Educ. Code § 56501(a)) and subject to the

23 California Education Code. For instance, the Office of Education is involved in the decisions

24 that affect the development and revision of IEPs for individual students.

25

53. Moreover, the Office of Education is a public agency pursuant to federal

26 regulations and subject to IDEA because it is a “political subdivision[] of the State that [is]

27 responsible for providing education to children with disabilities.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.33.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF10

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page12 of 62

1

54. The Office of Education is also a public agency pursuant to federal regulations

2 and subject to IDEA because it is a local education agency (“LEA”), which is defined as a

3 “public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction

4 of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city,

5 county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State.” 20 U.S.C. §

6 1401(19); 34 C.F.R. § 300.328(a). The California Education Code charges the Office of

7 Education with providing for the administration and operation of juvenile court schools, making

8 it an LEA and giving it responsibility for providing education to children with disabilities. Cal.

9 Educ. Code § 48645.2.

10

55. As a department or agency of a local government, the Office of Education is a

11 “public entity” as defined by the ADA. 42 U.S.C § 12131(1)(B).

12

56. As a public entity receiving federal funds, the Office of Education is subject to

13 Section 504 and may not violate Section 504 by discriminating against people with disabilities.

14

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

15

57. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly

16 situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).

17

58. The class consists of all youth with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with

18 Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, who are currently detained or who

19 will be detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall.

20

59. The compensatory education class consists of all youth who are or were detained

21 at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall and are or were eligible for special education since

22 August 8, 2011—two years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this action.

23

60. Class action status for this litigation is proper because:

24

(a) The class of students is so numerous that joinder of all members is

25

impractical. Plaintiffs maintain that the class of persons consists of hundreds

26

if not thousands of youth. For instance, from January 2013 to April 2013,

27

approximately 32.7% of the student population at Mt. McKinley School had a

28

disability that required an IEP or a 504 plan. Given that approximately 1,300

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF11

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page13 of 62

1

students pass through Mt. McKinley each year, in a single year, approximately

2

425 students who have a disability that requires either an IEP or 504 Plan pass

3

through Mt. McKinley. Moreover, the juvenile population within Juvenile

4

Hall changes constantly, and not all class members can be specifically

5

identified. In addition, many detained youth who have a disability are not

6

identified as such because of Defendants’ failure to fulfill their obligations

7

under federal and state laws to locate, identify, and assess youth suspected of

8

having a disability.

9

(b) There are questions of law and fact common to the class.

10

(c) The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs are

11

being and were denied their legal entitlement to a free appropriate public

12

education and meaningful access to educational services and were denied their

13

right to be free from discrimination because of their disabilities and to receive

14

reasonable modifications to Defendants’ policies and practices to

15

accommodate their disabilities.

16

(d) Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as there is

17

no conflict between Plaintiffs and the other class members and Plaintiffs have

18

retained counsel experienced in class action litigation relating to education,

19

special education, and the civil rights of persons with disabilities.

20

(e) Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable

21

to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief

22

with respect to the class as a whole.

23

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

24

Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall

25

61. Defendant Contra Costa County, through its Probation Department, operates the

26 Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall in Martinez, California. Juvenile Hall is a 290-bed,

27 maximum-security detention facility, for youth up to age 18.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF12

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page14 of 62

1

62. Juvenile Hall is generally not the final sentencing disposition for youth, except for

2 those young people in the Youthful Offender Treatment Program and for the Girls in Motion

3 Program. Generally, Juvenile Hall provides temporary detention for pre-adjudicated youth

4 awaiting hearings or sentencing, and adjudicated youth who are sentenced to a treatment or

5 rehabilitation program that has a waiting list. No treatment or rehabilitative programs are offered

6 at the Juvenile Hall for those awaiting hearings, sentencing, or placement.

7

63. In addition, those youth found to be incompetent under the law also remain at

8 Juvenile Hall and are supposed to receive competency training until they either become

9 competent or are released. Such detentions can last for years.

10

64. The Youthful Offender Treatment Program (“YOTP”) is a 30-bed boys’ program

11 located inside Juvenile Hall. YOTP is designed for youth generally between 16 and 19 years of

12 age. There are four phases to YOTP plus an orientation, and the length of the placement in

13 YOTP is determined by the successful completion of each phase. On average, YOTP can be

14 completed in approximately fourteen months.

15

65. Juvenile Hall has one girls’ housing unit. Within that unit, in 2010, Juvenile Hall

16 staff developed the Girls in Motion Program. The Court has the option of ordering female

17 offenders into Girls in Motion. There are four phases to Girls in Motion, and the length of

18 placement in Girls in Motion is determined by the successful completion of each phase. On

19 average, Girls in Motion can be completed in approximately four months.

20

Solitary Confinement Policies and Practices in Juvenile Hall

21

66. Cells in Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall are prison-like. They are extremely

22 small without even enough room to exercise. There is a toilet, sink, and bed. The bed is a

23 cement block with a pad on it. The cell does not have bars but rather a solid door with a small

24 window in it. The window is about as wide as a hand and long as an arm.

25

67. Youth who look out their window while in their cell are subject to discipline by

26 the probation staff.

27

68. Much like the cells, the solitary confinement policies of Contra Costa County

28 Juvenile Hall are like those of an adult detention facility.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF13

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page15 of 62

1

69. There are various levels of solitary confinement known as “Security Programs.”

2 According to the Probation Department, these are used as “a disciplinary measure for those

3 residents who have violated Major Rules, demonstrate a pattern of repetitious Minor Rule

4 violations, or who present an immediate physical threat to another person.”

5

70. There are three basic levels of solitary confinement: maximum security, security

6 risk and special program.

7

71. Maximum security or “Max” is the most restrictive program at Juvenile Hall. On

8 Max, a youth is confined to his/her cell, and is prohibited from participating in any unit activity

9 with the group. Youth on Max are allowed out of their cell for only one hour per 24-hour period,

10 i.e., 30 minutes on the morning shift and 30 minutes on the afternoon/evening shift. During

11 these times, they cannot leave their unit.

12

72. When a youth is on Max, visits with the Juvenile Hall chaplain, mental health

13 therapists, or Probation Officers are permitted only with supervisory approval. Such visits are

14 conducted in the youth’s cell or in the unit’s interview room. If the visit takes place in the

15 youth’s cell, the door to the cell must remain open with three probation counselors present on the

16 unit.

17

73. Whenever the cell door is opened for a youth on Max, or when the youth is out of

18 his or her cell, a minimum of three Probation Counselors must be on the housing unit.

19

74. Juvenile Hall’s policy lacks any mention of the provision of educational services

20 for young people on Max and, indeed, youth are prohibited from attending school and are

21 outright denied general education or special education services while on Max.

22

75. Youth on Max are also not permitted to participate in Juvenile Hall’s

23 rehabilitative programs such as anger management classes or group counseling sessions.

24

76. “Security risk” or “Risk” is only slightly less restrictive than Max. Youth on Risk

25 are confined to their cells and are prohibited from participating in any unit activity with the

26 group. Young people on Risk are allowed out of their cell for one hour during a 24-hour period,

27 30 minutes on the morning shift and 30 minutes on the afternoon/evening shift.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF14

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page16 of 62

1

77. The visitation policy for the Juvenile Hall chaplain, mental health therapists, or

2 Probation Officers when on Risk is the same as when on Max except that only two probation

3 counselors are needed.

4

78. When a youth is on Risk, a minimum of two Probation Counselors must be on the

5 housing unit whenever the youth’s cell door is opened, or when he or she is out of the cell.

6

79. Juvenile Hall’s policy lacks any mention of the provision of educational services

7 for young people on Risk and, indeed, youth are prohibited from attending school and are

8 outright denied general education or special education services while on Risk.

9

80. Youth on Risk are also not permitted to participate in Juvenile Hall’s

10 rehabilitative programs such as anger management classes or group counseling sessions.

11

81. Special Program or “Program” is generally assigned as a reduction from Risk

12 status but is also “used when a resident is habitually violating minor rule infractions.” On

13 Program, the supervisor can determine “the amount of exercise time the resident will be allotted,

14 number of meal trays, . . . contact with the group, and other limitations.” Generally, while on

15 Program, youth are allowed out of their cells for 45 minutes in the morning shift and 45 minutes

16 in the afternoon/evening shift during a 24-hour period.

17

82. Furthermore, the Probation Department’s written policy gives supervisors the

18 authority to impose “restrictions on school attendance” when the youth is on Program.

19

83. While students are on Program, a “tutor” may visit youth for anywhere from five

20 to 30 minutes to provide school work on some days, but only if the Probation Department

21 authorizes it. Tutors rarely provide actual instruction; rather, they bring worksheets for the youth

22 to complete.

23

84. While youth are on Program, they are also not permitted to participate in Juvenile

24 Hall’s rehabilitative programs, such as anger management classes or group counseling sessions.

25

85. There are other security restrictions that subject youth to more time in their cells

26 than usual such as “Security Suspect,” or “Suspect.” Youth may be placed on Suspect when it is

27 believed that they could be a serious threat to the community, or when they exhibit bizarre or

28 suspicious behaviors which would lead one to believe that they may be a danger to themselves or

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF15

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page17 of 62

1 others. On Suspect, a youth is not allowed to attend any off-unit activity in the assessment

2 center, overflow classroom, or other location where the youth may come into contact with youth

3 from other housing units. Whenever the unit is engaged in one of these off-unit activities in

4 which the youth on Suspect is prohibited from participating, the youth may be confined to his/her

5 cell.

6

86. There is also a disciplinary measure that is employed by the Office of Education

7 teachers, known euphemistically as “room time,” which results in youth spending more time in

8 their cell that would otherwise be required. If a teacher believes that a student has not completed

9 sufficient work while in the classroom or has committed some other infraction, the teacher may

10 request that the student be placed on “room time” and confined to their cell. At the teacher’s

11 discretion, this “room time” discipline may occur during school hours, in which case the student

12 is sent to his/her cell instead of attending school. It may also occur when a student might

13 normally be allowed of out of his/her cell (e.g., after dinner). Regardless of when this

14 punishment occurs, the student is not given any school work to complete and is confined to his or

15 her cell.

16

87. With the exception of “room time,” the Office of Education chooses to defer all

17 discipline for misconduct during school hours to the Probation Department. This means that

18 teachers call the Probation Department when a student engages in misconduct in the classroom,

19 and then leave the decision as to the appropriate disciplinary measures for that student to the

20 Probation Department. Thus, the Office of Education chooses to abdicate all its responsibility

21 for procedural safeguards required for school discipline—including but not limited to

22 manifestation determinations and due process for suspensions—and its discretion to determine a

23 fitting punishment. The Office of Education is fully aware that the punishment that Probation

24 imposes may be solitary confinement without special education and related services. By

25 knowingly allowing Probation to impose such punishment, the Office of Education aids and

26 perpetuates the Probation Department in carrying out that punishment.

27

88. Youth are never given any guidance, written or verbal, as to what infractions will

28 result in their being locked in solitary confinement or put on “room time.” Indeed, under the

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF16

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page18 of 62

1 County’s practice, placement in solitary confinement is highly subjective. Youth can be locked

2 in solitary confinement for anything, including behavior caused by their disabilities.

3

89. When a youth is locked in solitary confinement, there should be an “incident

4 report.” However, the youth do not get to see it. Rather, they are given a “due process” form

5 which says that they are being put on Program, Risk or Max, but does not explain why. The

6 youth is given no choice but to sign it.

7

90. While there is a place on the due process form to write down the youth’s side of

8 the story and a staff member is supposed to meet with the youth to discuss, this rarely occurs,

9 and the process never results in any outcome other than solitary confinement. Moreover, the due

10 process form is not always provided to the youth and, thus, they do not have an opportunity to

11 tell their side of the story.

12

The Illegality of Juvenile Hall’s Solitary Confinement Policies and Practices

13

91. Juvenile Hall’s solitary confinement policies and practices violate education laws

14 and anti-discrimination laws in numerous ways.

15

92. Pursuant to IDEA, Title II of the ADA, Section 504, California Education Code

16 sections 56000 et seq. and California Government Code sections 11135 et seq., all students with

17 disabilities are entitled to receive a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) tailored to meet

18 their individual needs. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.101; Cal. Educ. Code §

19 56040(a); 45 C.F.R. § 84.33. There is no exception to the requirement that a FAPE be provided,

20 even when students are removed from school for disciplinary reasons.

21

93. Federal and state laws require that if behavior leads to removal from school for

22 more than 10 days, or if the child is removed for less than 10 days but the removal is based on

23 behavior that constitutes a pattern, a child must “continue to receive educational services…so as

24 to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in

25 another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child’s IEP.” 34 C.F.R. §

26 300.530(d)(1)(i).

27

94. However, Defendants fail to ensure educational services when students with

28 disabilities are locked in solitary confinement.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF17

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page19 of 62

1

95. On Max and Risk, youth with disabilities, pursuant to Juvenile Hall policies and

2 practices, receive no educational services at all, regardless if they are removed from school for

3 more than 10 days or are removed based on behavior that constitutes a pattern.

4

96. On Program, youth with disabilities, pursuant to Juvenile Hall policies and

5 practices, may receive tutoring only if the Probation Department permits it.

6

97. Tutoring provided to youths on Program lasts 5 to 30 minutes per day and consists

7 mostly of worksheets. Such tutoring is not sufficient to enable the youth to continue to

8 participate in the general education curriculum and to progress toward meeting the goals set out

9 in the youth’s IEP.

10

98. In addition, if behavior leads to removal from school for more than 10 days or to

11 removal for less than 10 days based on behavior that constitutes a pattern, an immediate IEP

12 meeting is required. During this meeting (also known as a “manifestation determination”), the

13 IEP team must determine if the behavior is a manifestation of the student’s disability. 34 C.F.R.

14 § 300.530(e); 34 C.F.R. § 300.536(a)(2); 20 USC § 1415(k); Cal. Educ. Code § 48915.5.

15

99. Defendants fail to conduct manifestation determinations when behavior leads to

16 removal from school and placement in solitary confinement for more than 10 days or for

17 behavior that constitutes a pattern. Indeed, Defendants held no manifestation determinations at

18 Mt. McKinley School from July 2012 to June 2013.

19

100. Because they fail to hold manifestation determinations, Defendants never inquire

20 into whether the behavior that leads to these students’ removal from school is disability-related.

21 As a result, students whose behavior was disability-related and who should be allowed to return

22 to school are denied that opportunity.

23

101. Instead, regardless of whether the behavior is disability-related, students are

24 locked in solitary confinement and, pursuant to Defendants’ policies, can be denied all education.

25

102. If the behavior was a manifestation of disability, there must be (1) a functional

26 behavior/analysis assessment and a behavioral intervention plan; or (2) if there is an existing

27 behavioral intervention plan, it must be reviewed and modified; and (3) the student must be

28 returned to the placement from which he or she was removed, unless it involved weapons, drug

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF18

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page20 of 62

1 possession, or serious bodily injury (at which time the student is required to be placed in an

2 interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days). 20 USC § 1415(k); 34

3 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)&(g).

4

103. Defendants fail to develop behavioral intervention plans as they are required to do

5 for students engaging in behavior that impedes learning. In particular, from July 2012 to June

6 2013, Defendants developed no Behavior Intervention Plans at Mt. McKinley School.

7

104. Positive behavioral interventions and supports to counter behavior that impedes

8 learning must also be considered, separate from the manifestation determination and the

9 requirements it triggers, when behavior impedes learning. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(c)(5)(F).

10

105. Juvenile Hall has no such policies in place pertaining to the implementation of

11 positive behavioral interventions and supports. Rather, Defendants rely on disciplinary measures

12 such as solitary confinement to counter behavior that impedes learning.

13

106. If, on the other hand, the behavior was not a manifestation of disability, the

14 student is subject to the regular disciplinary process but is entitled to receive FAPE and services

15 no later than the 11th cumulative day of removal. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C); 34 C.F.R. §

16 300.530(c); Cal. Educ. Code § 48915.5.

17

107. Defendants fail to provide FAPE to students in solitary confinement.

18

108. On Max and Risk, Defendants provide no educational services to students.

19

109. On Program, the tutoring provided does not meet the standards for FAPE.

20

110. Juvenile Hall’s solitary confinement policies and practices also independently

21 violate Title II of the ADA, Section 504, and California Government Code sections 11135 et seq.

22

111. Defendants permit youth with disabilities to be locked in solitary confinement for

23 misconduct that is a direct result of their disability.

24

112. Defendants also lock away youth with disabilities in solitary confinement for

25 days, weeks, or even months and, in so doing, deny educational and rehabilitative services to

26 youth with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a); 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); 28 C.F.R.

27 § 39.130(a); Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135(a).

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF19

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page21 of 62

1

113. Specifically, solitary confinement for youth with disabilities only worsens these

2 youths’ disabilities and does not to provide an effective deterrent because of their disabilities. As

3 a result, youth with disabilities often end up in solitary confinement more frequently because of

4 their disabilities, resulting in far greater exclusions and denials of educational and rehabilitative

5 services than their non-disabled peers.

6

114. When Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are locked in solitary

7 confinement, Defendants’ policies and practices deny them equal opportunity to benefit from

8 Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities and/or provide

9 Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class with a benefit that is not as effective in affording

10 equal opportunity. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(ii)-(iii). This denial leaves youth with disabilities,

11 because of their disabilities, further behind in their education and rehabilitation than their non-

12 disabled peers.

13

115. Specifically, Defendants’ solitary confinement policies and practices use

14 deprivation of education and rehabilitation as a form of punishment. This deprivation mean that

15 youth with disabilities who, because of their disabilities, require additional assistance to access

16 the general education curriculum and rehabilitative programs, fall even further behind in

17 education and rehabilitation than their non-disabled peers.

18

116. Furthermore, Defendants fail to provide reasonable modifications to policies,

19 procedures and practices in Juvenile Hall as they are legally required to do. 28 C.F.R. §

20 35.130(b)(7).

21

117. For example, Defendants fail to identify and track all youth with disabilities and

22 the accommodations they require.

23

118. For instance, Defendants also fail to inquire into whether misconduct is caused by

24 disability before disciplining youth with disabilities.

25

119. For example, Defendants fail to modify school disciplinary policies and practices

26 to ensure that school officials are responsible for disciplinary decisions such that procedural

27 safeguards for youth with disabilities are met and a fitting punishment implemented.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF20

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page22 of 62

1

120. For instance, Defendants fail to modify solitary confinement policies and

2 practices to ensure youth with disabilities are not disproportionately burdened because of their

3 disability.

4

121. By virtue of the fact that Defendants do not have any of these or other reasonable

5 modifications in place at Juvenile Hall, youth with disabilities are discriminated against because

6 of their disabilities.

7

School in Juvenile Hall

8

122. Defendant Office of Education operates, in conjunction with Defendant Probation

9 Department, a public school onsite that provides educational services to the youth held at the

10 Juvenile Hall. The school is called Mt. McKinley.

11

123. Mt. McKinley School was built in 2005. The school has eight classrooms, a

12 library, computer lab, athletic gym and field.

13

124. While on all school sites, students are under direct supervision from probation

14 personnel.

15

125. Each classroom consists of all the students on that unit of varying ages and grade

16 levels. Everyone in the classroom, regardless of level, is taught the same lessons regardless of

17 whether they learned the material already or not. For instance, the 18-year-olds are taught the

18 same subjects as the 15-year-olds.

19

126. Each classroom has the same teacher for all subjects: Math, Science, English,

20 History and P.E. There is one teacher for the entire class. There is also a teacher’s aide who is

21 in the classroom at various points during the day.

22

Special Education Required for Youth with Disabilities Detained at Juvenile Hall

23

127. Together, IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, California Education Code section 56000

24 et seq., and California Government Code section 11135 et seq. entitle all students with

25 disabilities to receive a free appropriate public education appropriate to meet their individual

26 needs. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.101; Cal. Educ. Code § 56040(a); 45 C.F.R.

27 § 84.33; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.103(a).

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF21

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page23 of 62

1

128. To ensure the provision of FAPE, a local education agency (“LEA”) has what are

2 called “Child Find” obligations, which means it must have procedures to identify, locate and

3 evaluate “[a]ll children with disabilities…who are in need of special education and related

4 services[.]” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); Cal. Educ. Code § 56301(a); see also 45 C.F.R. §

5 84.32(a). When a LEA identifies a student suspected of having a disability, an initial assessment

6 must be conducted by qualified persons in all areas of suspected disability. Cal. Educ. Code §

7 56320.

8

129. The initial assessment determines whether a student is eligible for special

9 education and related services. Eligibility is based on having been diagnosed with one of the

10 following conditions: “mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or

11 language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance .

12 . ., orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific

13 learning disabilities” which, by reason thereof, requires special education and related services. 20

14 U.S.C. § 1401(3).

15

130. Students receive an individualized education program, or IEP, if they are

16 considered “eligible.” An IEP is a document developed by an IEP team which includes the

17 parents, a general education teacher, a special education teacher, a representative from the LEA

18 and someone to interpret the results of the assessment. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B); Cal. Educ.

19 Code § 56341(c). This team must meet at least once annually, and a new assessment of the

20 student must be conducted every three years. 20 U.S.C § 1414(d)(4)(A)(i); 20 U.S.C.§

21 1414(a)(2)(B)(ii); Cal. Educ. Code § 56043(j), (k).

22

131. Providing FAPE also requires providing “related services” that a child with a

23 disability may need in order to benefit from his or her education. The term “related services”

24 means “transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services

25 (including speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services,

26 psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic

27 recreation, social work services, school nurse services designed to enable a child with a disability

28 to receive a free appropriate public education as described in the individualized education

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF22

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page24 of 62

1 program of the child, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and

2 mobility services, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic

3 and evaluation purposes only)[.]” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A).

4

132. Once a student is deemed eligible for special education under the IDEA,

5 Defendants are charged with assembling an IEP team to determine what combination of

6 instruction, services, and placement is needed to meet that child’s unique needs.

7

133. Each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is

8 available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related

9 services. The continuum must include options ranging from instruction in regular classes,

10 special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions. 34

11 C.F.R. § 300.115; Cal. Educ. Code § 56360.

12

134. Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are supposed to be, as the name

13 suggests, specifically tailored to meet the unique needs of each disabled student. 20 U.S.C. §

14 1414(d)(1)(A). IEPs must be “designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped

15 persons as adequately as the needs of non-handicapped persons are met.” 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(b).

16

135. Once an IEP has been developed, it must be implemented fully. 20 U.S.C. §

17 1414(d)(2)(A); Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(c).

18

136. In addition, when students with IEPs enter a new school district, they must be

19 provided with “comparable” services to their previous IEPs for the next 30 days, at which point,

20 the new school district must either adopt the prior IEP or develop, adopt, and implement a new

21 IEP. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(c); 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e); Cal. Educ. Code § 56043(m)(1).

22

137. Defendants must meet all of the above special education requirements for students

23 with disabilities, even when students are locked in solitary confinement. See 15 Cal. Code Regs.

24 § 1370(d).

25

138. In addition, Title II of the ADA, Section 504, and Government Code sections

26 11135 et seq., require more than the FAPE requirements discussed above. These laws require

27 “meaningful access” to education. The relevant regulations interpreting Title II are used in

28 considering Title II’s “meaningful access” requirement.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF23

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page25 of 62

1

139. Under these regulations, a public entity may not “[a]fford a qualified individual

2 with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is

3 not equal to that afforded others. . .” (28 C.F.R. § 35. 130(b)(ii)) and may not “[p]rovide a

4 qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in

5 affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the

6 same level of achievement as that provided to others. . .” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(iii)

7

The Illegality of Juvenile Hall’s Educational Policies and Practices.

8

140. According to Defendant Office of Education, from July 2011 to June 2012,

9 approximately 23% of the student population at Mt. McKinley had a disability that required

10 either an IEP or 504 Plan. From January 2013 to April 2013, approximately 32.7% of the

11 student population at Mt. McKinley School had a disability that required either an IEP or 504

12 Plan.

13

141. Mt. McKinley’s disabled student population figures are actually quite low, given

14 that estimates of the percentage of youth in juvenile detention facilities who require either an IEP

15 or 504 Plan can be as high as 70%.

16

142. Mt. McKinley’s figures are low because Defendants fail to identify students with

17 disabilities who enter Mt. McKinley School but may not yet have been identified as having a

18 disability, as is required by federal and state law.

19

143. Defendants have no actual policies specific to Juvenile Hall to identify students

20 who may have a disability (i.e. “Child Find” policies). Rather Defendants’ policy is to offer

21 special education only to those students already identified as having a disability.

22

144. When a student is identified for the first time as having a possible disability, the

23 school must conduct an assessment. However, from September 2012 to April 2013, Defendants

24 conducted only one initial IEP assessment. This again indicates that Defendants fail to identify

25 students as having disabilities where those students have not been identified as having

26 disabilities before coming to Juvenile Hall.

27

145. Defendants also fail to provide the continuum of placements at Juvenile Hall.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF24

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page26 of 62

1

146. There is only one placement option for students with disabilities in Juvenile Hall:

2 the general education classroom setting (i.e., the regular classroom).

3

147. There is no special day class that would provide full-time (or even part-time)

4 special education instruction.

5

148. Defendants have an across-the-board policy to justify their practice, which

6 provides that special day classes and resource specialist programs are to be considered “services”

7 and not “placements.” Under this policy, Defendants replace special day classes and resource

8 specialist programs—where 100% of the time (roughly 240 minutes per day) is spent receiving

9 instruction from a special education teacher in a class with other disabled peers—with

10 “specialized academic instruction” for 45 to 90 minutes in the general education classroom

11 setting. Specialized academic instruction, however, is a delivery method for special education

12 and not a program—such as a special day class or resource specialist—so, it cannot replace such

13 programs.

14

149. Consistent with the failure to provide a continuum of placements, Defendants

15 have a practice of never providing non-public school or residential treatment center placements

16 as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(b)(1), regardless of need or court order.

17

150. While IEPs are required to be individualized, Defendants have an established

18 policy of simply disregarding those requirements. Because there is no continuum of placements,

19 the IEPs in Juvenile Hall are strikingly similar regardless of the students’ varying disabilities,

20 needs, and previous IEPs.

21

151. These “cookie-cutter” IEPs are not individualized to meet an individual student’s

22 unique needs.

23

152. All IEPs place students in a general education setting, and most offer the same

24 instructional services—namely, 45 to 90 minutes of “specialized academic instruction” three to

25 five times a week.

26

153. The specialized academic instruction provided by Defendants is not designed to

27 meet the unique needs of the students. Students with disabilities who come from special day

28 classes or non-public schools that provide full-time special education instruction and related

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF25

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page27 of 62

1 services usually have been receiving approximately 300 minutes of specialized academic

2 instruction in those settings. However, when they arrive at Juvenile Hall, Defendants offer

3 anywhere between 45 to 90 minutes per day of such instruction.

4

154. Once Defendants have assigned a disabled student the standard “cookie-cutter”

5 IEP, Defendants then compound the violation by failing to provide even the “specialized

6 academic instruction” required by the “cookie-cutter” IEP.

7

155. Defendants are not providing specialized academic instruction to the Plaintiffs

8 and other disabled students at Mt. McKinley for the required amount of time called for in those

9 students’ IEPs.

10

156. Staff members at Mt. McKinley often are not in the classroom for sufficient time

11 to provide individualized instruction to each child with a disability and routinely do not assist

12 disabled students. At most, the staff will assist with a specific question or issue a student with a

13 disability may have.

14

157. Defendants have no records to establish that they are complying with their legal

15 obligations. Defendants do not track whether the required minutes are provided to each student

16 who is entitled to specialized academic instruction.

17

158. Defendants’ logs do not record who provided the specialized academic

18 instruction.

19

159. Most of the staff members providing specialized academic instruction are aides

20 and not qualified special education teachers. Aides cannot provide specialized academic

21 instruction unless they are “paraprofessionals.” To be a paraprofessional, an individual must

22 have a high school diploma and two years of college or must have an A.A. degree or pass an

23 assessment of knowledge and skills in assisting in instruction.

24

160. Even if these aides are “paraprofessionals,” there are legal requirements for

25 allowing paraprofessionals to provide such instruction. If a paraprofessional provides such

26 instruction, he or she must be under direct supervision of a special education teacher. 20 U.S.C.

27 § 6319(g)(3)(a). Moreover, a paraprofessional may only provide one-on-one tutoring if the

28 tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF26

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page28 of 62

1 qualified teacher. 20 U.S.C. § 6319(g)(2)(a).

2

161. At Mt. McKinley, aides usually are in the classrooms alone, without special

3 education teachers to directly supervise them.

4

162. Mt. McKinley uses a “push-in model,” meaning specialized academic instruction

5 is provided in the general education classroom (not in a separate class). As such, only special

6 education teachers would be allowed to provide instruction simultaneously when a general

7 education teacher is teaching the entire class. However, Mt. McKinley admits that special

8 education teachers do not always provide the specialized academic instruction required by the

9 cookie-cutter IEPs.

10

163. As discussed above, Defendants also fail to provide the required specialized

11 academic instruction when students with disabilities are in solitary confinement.

12

164. Defendants deny students with disabilities on Risk and Max any education, let

13 alone specialized academic instruction.

14

165. Any “tutoring” that Defendants provide and allow for students with disabilities on

15 Program does not constitute specialized academic instruction, as it is not consistent with the

16 students’ IEP goals and does not allow disabled students to continue to participate in the general

17 education curriculum.

18

166. The IEPs in Juvenile Hall also do not consider disability-related behaviors that

19 may impact education.

20

167. Mental health services are rarely included in a student’s IEP, even though mental

21 health services are considered a related service to which students may be entitled if it would

22 assist in their education.

23

168. Even when mental health counseling is provided in an IEP, it is usually for an

24 amount of time which is insufficient for the serious nature of the psychological and/or

25 psychiatric disabilities that some youth have (e.g., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia).

26

169. Defendants do not rely on positive behavioral interventions and supports to

27 counter behavior that impedes learning.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF27

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page29 of 62

1

170. Defendants also fail to provide comparable services before the cookie-cutter IEP

2 is developed and implemented. Because of the lack of placements at Juvenile Hall, students

3 coming from a non-general education setting cannot possibly receive comparable services,

4 because putting such a student in a general education setting after he or she was previously

5 placed in a non-public school with full-time special education instruction is not “comparable.”

6

171. Under Title II of the ADA, Section 504, and Government Code Section 11135—

7 and independent from IDEA and California Education Code sections 56000 et seq.—Defendants

8 fail to provide “meaningful access” to education.

9

172. Defendants fail to provide youth with disabilities the special education and related

10 services they require, because of their disabilities, to equally access education in Juvenile Hall.

11 28 C.F.R. § 35. 130(b)(ii).

12

173. For instance, Defendants not only fail to meet the minimum FAPE standards

13 which require the provision of FAPE on the 11th day of a student’s removal from school for

14 behavioral reasons, but also fail to meet the meaningful access standards which require the

15 provision of equal access to education in Juvenile Hall at all times.

16

174. Defendants fail to provide disabled youth with the educational services that they

17 require, because of their disabilities, that are as effective in affording youth with disabilities

18 equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, and to reach the same level

19 of achievement as their non-disabled peers. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(iii).

20

175. For instance, Defendants not only fail to meet the FAPE standards—which

21 require the provision of educational services consistent with a student’s IEP when the student is

22 in solitary confinement—but also fail to meet the meaningful access standards—which require

23 educational services that will provide equal opportunity to education for youth with disabilities

24 in solitary confinement.

25

General Education for Youth Detained at Juvenile Hall

26

176. The California Legislature has set forth basic minimum requirements for

27 education for all students, regardless of disability or circumstances. These requirements include:

28 240 minutes of instruction minimum for each school day (Cal. Educ. Code § 48645.3); 400

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF28

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page30 of 62

1 minutes of physical education each 10 school days for an average of 40 minutes of physical

2 education per day (Cal Educ. Code §§ 51220(d) and 51222); and provision of state-approved

3 textbooks and instructional materials so that each student has a textbook or instructional material

4 to use in class and to take home (Cal. Educ. Code § 35186(f)(1)). Moreover, any removal from

5 school (e.g., suspension or expulsion) requires due process including providing notice to parents,

6 ensuring the student is informed of the reason for the disciplinary action and the evidence against

7 him or her, and providing the opportunity for the student to present his or her version and

8 evidence in his or her defense. Cal. Educ. Code § 48911(b), (d).

9

177. Defendants must meet these basic minimum requirements for education for all

10 students, regardless of disability, even when students are in Juvenile Hall or locked in solitary

11 confinement. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1370(d).

12

178. Nonetheless, Defendants fail to meet these basic minimum requirements for

13 education.

14

179. Youth in Juvenile Hall do not get physical education every day. Physical

15 education is treated as a privilege that can be taken away as punishment.

16

180. Youth in Juvenile Hall cannot take textbooks or instructional materials to their

17 cells.

18

181. Use of the library, computer lab, and courtyard are privileges which can be taken

19 away by Defendants for no explicitly defined reason.

20

182. When youth are in solitary confinement, Defendants do not provide the legally

21 required 240 minutes of instruction.

22

183. In solitary confinement, a student may not attend school and does not receive

23 tutoring, homework, or school work, unless the Probation Department permits it when a student

24 is on “Program.”

25

184. Similarly, in solitary confinement, youth receive no physical education. Rather,

26 youth are restricted to 30 to 45 minutes outside their small cells twice a day.

27

185. Instructional materials, including textbooks, are denied to youth in solitary

28 confinement.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF29

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page31 of 62

1

186. The computer lab, library and gym are “off unit,” so students on Suspect,

2 Program, Risk or Max cannot access these facilities.

3

187. Administrators at the Office of Education admit that they have “difficulty

4 providing appropriate educational access to students on special program.”

5

188. Defendants remove students from school and instruction without any due process

6 procedures, which are in addition to the special education requirements for a manifestation

7 determination. For instance, Juvenile Hall does not contact the parents or guardians of students

8 who are removed from class.

9

PLAINTIFFS’ INDIVIDUAL ALLEGATIONS

10

G.F.

11

189. Plaintiff G.F. is 15 years old and first arrived in Juvenile Hall in 2012 when she

12 was just 13. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint, she had been in Juvenile Hall for

13 over a year. At that time, she was in the Girls in Motion program that requires making progress

14 through four “motions” before being released.

15

190. G.F. returned to Juvenile Hall on December 13, 2013 and remains in Juvenile Hall

16 currently. She is subject to the Defendants’ same policies and practices that are discussed herein.

17

191. G.F. has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, bipolar

18 affective disorder and intermittent explosive disorder. As a result of her bipolar affective

19 disorder, G.F. has experienced suicidal ideation and has been involuntarily committed to a

20 hospital to receive psychiatric care on at least three occasions. G.F. is on medication for her

21 psychiatric disability. G.F. has received special education and related services since 2011.

22

192. G.F. is an individual with a disability as she has an impairment that substantially

23 limits one or more major life activities, including learning.

24

193. G.F. is a resident of Juvenile Hall and, as such, is qualified to participate in the

25 programs, services and activities of Juvenile Hall.

26

194. G.F. arrived at Juvenile Hall in 2012 with an IEP that made her eligible for

27 special education and related services under the category of “emotional disturbance.”

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF30

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page32 of 62

1

195. G.F.’s IEP prior to her arrival at Juvenile Hall in 2012 (1) provided for full-time

2 special education instruction and placed her in a non-public school so she could receive intensive

3 behavioral and mental health interventions and support, and (2) had a Behavioral Support Plan,

4 because it was determined that her behavior impeded her learning.

5

196. When G.F. entered Juvenile Hall in 2012, Defendants changed her eligibility to

6 the category of “other health impairment,” decreased her special education instruction from 314

7 minutes per day (100% of the time) to 45 minutes a day, placed her in a general education setting

8 (because they provide no other placement option), eliminated all mental health-related services,

9 and also eliminated her Behavioral Support Plan. In short, Defendants made G.F.’s IEP look

10 almost the same as every other IEP at Mt. McKinley School.

11

197. Even the implementation of G.F.’s wholly deficient IEP was problematic.

12 Although, at the time of the filing of the original Complaint, she was supposed to receive

13 specialized instruction for 45 minutes a day, G.F. did not receive it. Generally there was an aide,

14 or sometimes a special education teacher, in the room, but the aide did not seek out G.F. to

15 provide instruction as required by G.F.’s IEP. Instead the aide remained in the room only to

16 answer specific questions that any student, regardless of disability, may have had. No one

17 proactively sought out G.F. to provide instruction.

18

198. At the time of filing the original Complaint, G.F. had been frequently locked in

19 solitary confinement. Indeed, G.F. had been in solitary confinement for over 100 days in the

20 year she had been in Juvenile Hall.

21

199. G.F. was disciplined and locked in solitary confinement due to her disabilities.

22 Her bipolar disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and explosive intermittent

23 disorder caused her to violate certain of Juvenile Hall’s rules and thus be subject to discipline.

24

200. Defendants, however, never attempted or made reasonable accommodations for

25 G.F. Defendants did not attempt accommodations such as a cooling-down period outside of

26 G.F.’s cell, increased mental health counseling, or the legal requirements under IDEA—

27 including but not limited to a behavioral improvement plan, a functional analysis assessment, or

28 positive behavioral intervention and supports.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF31

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page33 of 62

1

201. G.F. is not allowed to attend school while locked in solitary confinement.

2

202. As of the time of the filing of the original Complaint, the school had counted each

3 of the days G.F. was locked away as an unexcused absence. As a result, G.F. received partial

4 credit for the classes she was taking and failed to progress from grade to grade on schedule due

5 to an academic credit deficiency.

6

203. Academic tests indicate G.F. is performing well below grade level in all subjects.

7

204. As of the time of the filing of the original Complaint, while she was locked in

8 solitary confinement, G.F. had received no educational services at all, except when she was on

9 Program. Even then, she did not even receive the minimal levels of special education required

10 by the inadequate IEP that Defendants developed for her; all she received was a tutor showing up

11 some days but not others for about 5 to 30 minutes to give her some worksheets (sometimes ones

12 she had already completed).

13

205. As of the time of the filing of the original Complaint, while locked in solitary

14 confinement, G.F.’s progress in the Girls in Motion program had been placed “on pause,”

15 meaning the time served did not count toward her sentence. Because of these “pauses,” it took

16 G.F. five months to get through orientation when it is supposed to take two weeks, lengthening

17 her amount of detention time.

18

206. Solitary confinement worsened G.F.’s disabilities, made her fall further behind in

19 her education and Girls in Motion program, and was not an effective deterrent against further

20 misconduct. As a result, as of the time of the filing of the original Complaint, G.F. had been

21 frequently returned to solitary confinement. While in solitary confinement, G.F. was—because

22 of her disabilities—further excluded from and denied educational and rehabilitative services.

23

207. Despite G.F.’s frequent placements on solitary confinement, Defendants did not

24 make any reasonable modifications to their policies, and they never once inquired into whether

25 her misconduct was disability-related.

26

208. Defendants also failed to modify school disciplinary policies and practices to

27 ensure that school officials, not Probation officers, were responsible for disciplinary decisions

28 related to G.F.’s behavior in school.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF32

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page34 of 62

1

209. Defendants failed to modify solitary confinement policies and practices to avoid

2 any disproportionate burden on G.F. because of her disabilities.

3

W.B.

4

210. Plaintiff W. B. was 17 years old at the time the original Complaint was filed. By

5 that time, W.B. had been in Juvenile Hall for over a year. The Juvenile Court had found him

6 incompetent to participate in his own defense because of his severe mental health disability.

7

211. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint, W.B. had recently been

8 diagnosed with psychosis and possible schizophrenia (notably, after Defendants had locked W.B.

9 in solitary confinement for approximately 60 days from February to May). W.B. has since been

10 formally diagnosed with schizophrenia.

11

212. At the time that Defendants locked him away in solitary confinement, W.B. was

12 spitting, hearing voices, and talking to himself, and he believed his medications and food were

13 being used to poison him.

14

213. Finally, after W.B. had a complete psychotic break, Defendants involuntarily

15 committed him to an inpatient psychiatric hospital where he remained for three weeks.

16

214. W.B. is an individual with a disability as he has an impairment that substantially

17 limits one or more major life activities, including learning.

18

215. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint, W.B. was a resident of

19 Juvenile Hall and, as such, was qualified to participate in the programs, services and activities of

20 Juvenile Hall.

21

216. W.B. did not have an IEP before coming to Juvenile Hall, but he had a 504 Plan

22 before arriving at Juvenile Hall. Even though W.B. had a 504 Plan before coming to Juvenile

23 Hall, the Juvenile Court had found W.B. incompetent, W.B.’s mental health assessment

24 recommended a highly structured environment, the Probation Department itself suggested a non-

25 public school placement, and W.B. was routinely and frequently placed in solitary confinement,

26 Defendants never inquired into whether he might need special education and related services.

27

217. Only after W.B. had been in Juvenile Hall for eight months and only because

28 W.B.’s mother formally requested that he be assessed for special education did Defendants take

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF33

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page35 of 62

1 any action.

2

218. Defendants found W.B. eligible for special education under the category of

3 “emotional disturbance.” In accordance with their standard practice, Defendants offered W.B.

4 only a minimal amount of “specialized academic instruction” per day (90 minutes) in the general

5 education classroom (again their only placement) and 30 minutes of mental health counseling

6 once a week. Defendants did not provide a Behavioral Intervention Plan. In sum, W.B. received

7 an IEP similar to other young people with disabilities at Mt. McKinley.

8

219. At the request of W.B.’s mother, W.B.’s IEP was revisited by Defendants in July

9 of 2013. However, even after the psychiatric hospitalization, Defendants made only minor

10 amendments to W.B.’s IEP. Specifically, Defendants amended W.B.’s IEP to provide an 30

11 additional minutes of mental health counseling per week and to add a behavior support plan that

12 itself admits that W.B. does not do well in the general education setting.

13

220. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint, the implementation of W.B.’s

14 wholly deficient IEP was also problematic. For instance, although he was supposed to receive

15 specialized instruction for 90 minutes a day, W.B. did not receive it. The special education

16 teachers in the room did not seek out W.B. to provide instruction as required by his IEP but

17 instead only occasionally helped him with logistical things like finding the right place on the

18 page.

19

221. W.B.’s IEP states that he had “deteriorated” since coming to Juvenile Hall, but

20 Defendants offered only minimal services and a general education placement and still denied

21 him education while locked in solitary confinement.

22

222. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint, W.B. had frequently been

23 placed in solitary confinement. Indeed, W.B. spent approximately 90 days in solitary

24 confinement.

25

223. W.B. was disciplined and locked in solitary confinement due to his disabilities.

26 His psychosis and ADHD caused him to violate certain of Juvenile Hall’s rules and thus be

27 subject to discipline.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF34

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page36 of 62

1

224. Defendants, however, never attempted or made reasonable accommodations for

2 W.B. Defendants did not attempt accommodations such as a cooling-down period outside of

3 W.B.’s cell, increased mental health counseling, earlier psychiatric hospitalization instead of

4 solitary confinement, or the legal requirements under IDEA—including but not limited to a

5 behavioral improvement plan, a functional analysis assessment, or positive behavioral

6 intervention and supports.

7

225. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint, while locked in solitary

8 confinement, W.B. was not allowed to attend school. The school counted each of the days W.B.

9 was locked away as an unexcused absence. As a result, W.B. received only partial credit for the

10 classes he was taking and failed to progress from grade to grade on schedule due to an academic

11 credit deficiency.

12

226. Academic tests indicate W.B. is performing well-below grade level in all subjects.

13

227. At the time of the filing of the original Complaint, while locked in solitary

14 confinement, W.B. received no educational services at all, except when he was on Program.

15 Even then, he did not even receive the minimal levels of special education required by the

16 inadequate IEP that Defendants developed for him. All he received was a tutor showing up some

17 days but not others.

18

228. Solitary confinement worsened W.B.’s disabilities, made him fall further behind

19 in his education, and was not an effective deterrent against further misconduct. As a result, W.B.

20 was frequently returned to solitary confinement because of his disabilities to the further

21 exclusion and denial of educational services.

22

229. Despite W.B.’s frequent placement on solitary confinement, Defendants did not

23 make any reasonable modifications to their policies. Defendants did not determine what

24 reasonable accommodations W.B. might need, and they never once inquired into whether his

25 misconduct was disability-related.

26

230. Defendants also failed to modify school disciplinary policies and practices to

27 ensure that school officials, not Probation officers, were responsible for disciplinary decisions

28 related to W.B.’s behavior in school.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF35

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page37 of 62

1

231. Defendants failed to modify solitary confinement policies and practices to avoid

2 any disproportionate burden on W.B. because of his disabilities.

3

Q.G.

4

232. Plaintiff Q.G. is 17 years old. Q.G. was first detained at Juvenile Hall on

5 November 23, 2010. He has since been in and out of Juvenile Hall at several group home

6 placements. He is now in the YOTP program which requires completion of four phases to

7 YOTP plus an orientation before he can be released.

8

233. Q.G. has been eligible for special education since he was in the third grade and

9 has been diagnosed with oppositional defiance disorder and attention deficit and hyperactivity

10 disorder.

11

234. Q.G. is an individual with a disability as he has an impairment that substantially

12 limits one or more major life activities, including learning.

13

235. Q.G. is a resident of Juvenile Hall and, as such, is qualified to participate in the

14 programs, services and activities of Juvenile Hall.

15

236. Q.G. came to Juvenile Hall with an IEP that placed him outside the general

16 education classroom for 37% of the school day. Q.G. additionally received 150 minutes per day

17 of specialized academic instruction, 60 minutes per week of psychological services, 20 minutes

18 per month of individual counseling, 10 minutes per day of behavior intervention services, and a

19 behavioral support plan. Upon arriving at Mt. McKinley, Defendants placed Q.G. into the

20 general education classroom 100% of the school day, reduced his specialized academic

21 instruction to 90 minutes per week, and eliminated his mental health services and behavioral

22 support plan. Defendants made these changes without re-assessment and without explanation in

23 the IEP.

24

237. During the last year in Juvenile Hall, Q.G. had more than 30 unexcused absences

25 resulting from being placed in solitary confinement; for the prior year, Q.G. had many, many

26 more. QG believes he has been placed in solitary for as many as 200 days since his arrival in

27 Juvenile Hall.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF36

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page38 of 62

1

238. Q.G. is disciplined and locked in solitary confinement due to his disabilities. His

2 attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiance disorder cause him to

3 violate certain of Juvenile Hall’s rules and thus subject him to discipline.

4

239. Defendants, however, never attempt or make reasonable accommodations for

5 Q.G. Defendants do not attempt accommodations such as a cooling-down period outside of

6 Q.G.’s cell, increased mental health counseling, or the legal requirements under IDEA—

7 including but not limited to a behavioral improvement plan, a functional analysis assessment, or

8 positive behavioral intervention and supports.

9

240. While on Max and Risk, Q.G. is not allowed to attend school. Because the school

10 counts each of the days Q.G. was locked away as an unexcused absence. Q.G. receives only

11 partial credit for the classes he was taking and has failed to progress from grade to grade on

12 schedule due to an academic credit deficiency.

13

241. Academic tests indicate Q.G. is performing well-below grade level in all subjects.

14

242. While locked in solitary confinement, Q.G.s progress in the YOTP program is

15 placed “on pause,” meaning the time served does not count toward his sentence, lengthening his

16 amount of detention time.

17

243. Solitary confinement worsened Q.G.’s disabilities, made him fall further behind

18 in his education and YOTP program, and is not an effective deterrent against further misconduct.

19 As a result, Q.G. frequently returns to solitary confinement because of his disabilities, and when

20 he is in solitary confinement, he is further excluded from and denied educational and

21 rehabilitative services.

22

244. Despite Q.G.’s frequent placement on solitary confinement, Defendants have not

23 made any reasonable modifications to their policies. Defendants have not determined what

24 reasonable accommodations Q.G. might need, and they have never once inquired into whether

25 his misconduct is disability-related.

26

245. Defendants also have failed to modify school disciplinary policies and practices to

27 ensure that school officials, not Probation officers, are responsible for disciplinary decisions

28 regarding Q.G.’s behavior in school.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF37

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page39 of 62

1

246. Defendants fail to modify solitary confinement policies and practices to avoid any

2 disproportionate burden on Q.G. because of his disabilities.

3

CAUSES OF ACTION

4

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

5

Violation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

6

Against Both Defendants

7

(20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.)

8

247. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

9 foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein.

10

248. Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students

11 with disabilities are entitled to receive a free appropriate public education also known as

12 “FAPE.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(a).

13

249. IDEA defines a child with a disability as a child “with mental retardation, hearing

14 impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments

15 (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance . . ., orthopedic impairments, autism,

16 traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities” “who, by

17 reason thereof, needs special education and related services.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3).

18

250. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are all youth with disabilities as defined by the

19 ADA and Section 504. Many of these youth are currently eligible or should be eligible for

20 special education and related services under IDEA. Therefore, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

21 qualify as children with disabilities for the purposes of IDEA.

22

251. The Office of Education is a public agency because it is a “political subdivision[]

23 of the State that [is] responsible for providing education to children with disabilities” (34 C.F.R.

24 § 300.33) and because it is a local education agency (“LEA”) which is defined as a “public

25 authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to

26 perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county,

27 township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(19); 34

28 C.F.R. § 300.328(a). As a result, the Office of Education has the duty to provide a FAPE to all

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF38

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page40 of 62

1 students with disabilities, including those who have been suspended or expelled from school. 20

2 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(1), 1413(a). This duty extends to school-eligible persons with disabilities

3 who are incarcerated in juvenile and adult correctional facilities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(iv).

4

252. The Probation Department, and thus, the County, is a public agency because it

5 runs a correctional facility “involved in the education of children with disabilities” (34 C.F.R. §

6 300.2(b)). The Probation Department, and thus, the County, is an educational services agency

7 with “administrative control and direction” over Mt. McKinley School (34 C.F.R. § 300.33), and

8 it is a “political subdivision[] of the State that [is] responsible for providing education to children

9 with disabilities.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.33. As such, the Probation Department, and thus the County,

10 has the same duties as the Office of Education. 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)

11

253. IDEA requires Defendants to meet certain obligations including, but not limited

12 to:

13

a) Providing a free appropriate public education to all students with disabilities

14

(20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(a));

15

b) Identifying, locating and evaluating “[a]ll children with disabilities residing in

16

the State…who are in need of special education and related services” (20

17

U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A)) and having in effect policies and procedures to ensure

18

this happens (34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a));

19

c) Upon identification, conducting a full and individual initial evaluation before

20

the initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a

21

disability in all areas of suspected disability and thereafter a re-evaluation

22

every three years (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(A), (2)(B)) or whenever educational

23

or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and

24

functional performance, if the child warrants a reevaluation (34 C.F.R. §

25

300.303(a));

26

d) Developing and implementing an appropriate Individualized Education

27

Program (IEP) for each child with a disability, defined as a written statement

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF39

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page41 of 62

1

that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with 210 U.S.C. §

2

1414(d), which must include, but is not limited to including:

3

i. a statement of the child’s present levels of academic

4

achievement and functional performance (20 U.S.C. §

5

1414(d)(1)(A)(i));

6

ii. a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic

7

and functional goals (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(ii));

8

iii. a description of the measurement of the annual goals and the

9

reporting of these goals (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(III));

10

iv. for children over 16 years of age, annually updated appropriate

11

measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate

12

transition assessments related to training, education,

13

employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills

14

(20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(VIII)(aa)); and

15

v. in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child's

16

learning or that of others, consideration of the use of positive

17

behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to

18

address that behavior (20 USC § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i)).

19

e) Holding an IEP team meeting at least annually (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(A)(i));

20

f) When students with an IEP enter a new school district, providing “comparable”

21

services to their previous IEP for the next 30 days at which point, either

22

adopting the prior IEP or developing, adopting and implementing a new IEP

23

(20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e));

24

g) If behavior leads to removal from school for more than 10 days or to removal

25

for less than 10 days but is based on behavior that constitutes a pattern,

26

continuing to provide educational services so as to enable the child to continue

27

to participate in the general education curriculum (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(d));

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF40

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page42 of 62

1

h) If behavior leads to removal from school for more than ten days or to removal

2

for less than 10 days but is based on behavior that constitutes a pattern,

3

convening an immediate IEP meeting to determine if the behavior is a

4

manifestation of the student’s disability (20 USC § 1415(k); 34 C.F.R. §

5

300.530(e); 34 C.F.R. § 300.536(a)(2); Cal. Educ. Code § 48915.5);

6

i) If the behavior is a manifestation of disability, (1) conducting a functional

7

behavior/analysis assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan; or

8

(2) reviewing and modifying existing behavioral intervention plan; and (3)

9

returning student to placement from which he or she was removed, unless it

10

involved weapons, drug possession, or serious bodily injury (at which time

11

student would be placed in an interim alternative educational setting for not

12

more than 45 school days) (20 USC § 1415(k); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)&(g));

13

j) If, on the other hand, the behavior was not a manifestation of disability,

14

providing FAPE and services to the student no later than the 11th cumulative

15

day of removal (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(c)); and

16

k) Implementing procedural safeguards for children with disabilities, consisting,

17

at a minimum, of notice to parents or guardians of their procedural rights

18

regarding the identification, evaluation, or education placement of their child

19

or the provision of a FAPE to their child, and the right to present complaints

20

and to an impartial due process hearing on such complaints (20 U.S.C. §§

21

1412(a)(6), 1415).

22

254. By failing to identify, evaluate, recommend, and then provide a FAPE (including

23 appropriate IEPs, special education, and related services to eligible students in Juvenile Hall),

24 and by failing to provide procedural safeguards specified in the statute implementing the IDEA

25 (including manifestation determinations), Defendants have impeded students’ rights to a free

26 appropriate public education, have significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate

27 in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to

28 their students, and/or have deprived students of educational benefits.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF41

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page43 of 62

1

255. Similarly, by failing to provide any of the IDEA requirements, including FAPE,

2 to students with disabilities who are locked in solitary confinement, Defendants have impeded

3 students’ rights to a free appropriate public education, have significantly impeded the parents’

4 opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free

5 appropriate public education to their students, and/or have deprived students of educational

6 benefits.

7

256. As a result, Defendants have violated and continue to violate rights secured by 20

8 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300 et seq.

9

257. Because Defendants’ discriminatory and wrongful conduct is ongoing,

10 declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of

11 Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are suffering irreparable harm,

12 including lost education opportunities. Therefore, speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.

13

258. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable

14 attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this action under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3).

15

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

16

Violation of Americans with Disabilities Act

17

Against Both Defendants

18

(42 U.S.C. § 12101, et. seq.)

19

259. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

20 foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein.

21

260. Title II of the ADA states, in pertinent part:

22

[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such

disability, b e e xcluded f rom pa rticipation i n or be de nied t he

23

benefits of t he s ervices, pr ograms, or a ctivities of a publ ic e ntity,

or s ubjected t o di scrimination by a ny s uch e ntity. 42 U .S.C. §

24

12132.

25

261. Defendants were, at all times relevant to this action, and are currently “public

26 entities” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and provided and provide a “program,

27 service or activity” including educational and rehabilitative programs, services and activities in

28 the Juvenile Hall.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF42

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page44 of 62

1

262. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were, at all times relevant to this action, and are

2 currently “qualified individuals with disabilities” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA.

3 They all have impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, and they were and/or are

4 all residents of Juvenile Hall qualified—with or without reasonable accommodation—to

5 participate in the programs, services, and activities of Juvenile Hall.

6

263. Congress directed the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to write regulations

7 implementing Title II’s prohibition against discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12134. Pursuant to this

8 mandate, the DOJ has issued regulations defining the forms of discrimination prohibited by Title

9 II of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 et. seq.

10

264. In providing any aid, benefit, or service, a public entity “may not ... [d]eny a

11 qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid,

12 benefit or service,” “[a]fford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate

13 in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others,” “[p]rovide

14 a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in

15 affording equal opportunity ... as that provided to others,” or “[o]therwise limit a qualified

16 individual with a disability in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity

17 enjoyed by others[.]” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (vii).

18

265. A public entity “shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or

19 procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of

20 disability[.]” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) (emphasis added).

21

266. Nor may a public entity (1) “impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or

22 tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from

23 fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to

24 be necessary[,]” 28 C.F.R.§ 35.130(b)(8); or (2) “utilize criteria or methods of administration …

25 that have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the

26 basis of disability … or the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing

27 accomplishment of the objectives of the public entity’s program with respect to individuals with

28 disabilities[.]” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i)(ii).

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF43

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page45 of 62

1

267. A public entity is also prohibited from aiding and perpetuating discrimination

2 against persons with disabilities in the programs, services, or activities it provides. 28 C.F.R. §

3 35.130(b)(1)(v).

4

268. Defendants have violated the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff

5 Class secured by Title II of the ADA and its implementing regulations.

6

269. When Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are locked in solitary

7 confinement, Defendants exclude them from participating in and deny them the benefits of

8 Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities by reason of their

9 disabilities. Specifically, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are excluded by reason of their

10 disabilities in that the behaviors that lead to their being placed in solitary confinement are a

11 direct result of their disability.

12

270. Solitary confinement has a disproportionate burden on Plaintiffs and members of

13 the Plaintiff Class by reason of their disabilities that results in further solitary confinement and

14 further denial of educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities than their non-

15 disabled peers. As such, when Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are locked in solitary

16 confinement, Defendants exclude them from participation in and deny them the benefits of

17 Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities by reason of their

18 disabilities.

19

271. The denial of education and rehabilitative services during solitary confinement

20 leaves Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class further behind in their education and rehabilitation than

21 their non-disabled peers because, by reason of their disabilities, disabled youth require additional

22 assistance to access the general education curriculum and rehabilitative programs.

23 Consequently, when Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are locked in solitary

24 confinement, Defendants deny them equal opportunity to benefit from Defendants’ educational

25 and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities and/or provide Plaintiffs and members of the

26 Plaintiff Class with a benefit that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity as the benefits

27 offered to their non-disabled peers.

28

272. Defendants also fail to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices,

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF44

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page46 of 62

1 and procedures even though such modifications are necessary to avoid discriminating against

2 Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class by, inter alia, not identifying and tracking Plaintiffs

3 and member of the Plaintiff Class who require reasonable accommodations, not inquiring into

4 whether behaviors of Plaintiffs or members of the Plaintiff Class leading to disciplinary

5 measures are disability-related, not modifying school disciplinary policies and practices to ensure

6 that school officials have responsibility for discipline during school hours, and not modifying

7 solitary confinement policies and practices to ensure that Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff

8 Class are not disproportionately burdened by such policies and practices by reason of their

9 disabilities.

10

273. Defendants have adopted and implemented policies and practices with regard to

11 solitary confinement that have a disparate impact on youth with disabilities. Specifically,

12 Defendants impose and apply eligibility criteria—i.e., requirements that youth not be in solitary

13 confinement in order to receive educational and rehabilitative services—that screen out or tend

14 to screen out Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class from fully and equally enjoying, by

15 reason of their disabilities, any of Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative programs, services

16 or activities.

17

274. By denying educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities while

18 youth with disabilities are locked in solitary confinement and by using solitary confinement for

19 youth with disabilities, Defendants utilize methods of administration that have the effect of

20 subjecting Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class to discrimination by reason of their

21 disabilities. These methods of administration also have the purpose and effect of defeating or

22 substantially impairing accomplishments of the objectives of Defendants’ educational and

23 rehabilitative programs, services, and activities with respect to Plaintiffs and members of the

24 Plaintiff Class.

25

275. Defendants also aid and perpetuate discrimination against persons with

26 disabilities in Defendants’ programs, services or activities by, inter alia, maintaining policies and

27 practices that allow for discrimination by each Defendant and that permit the discrimination of

28 the other co-Defendant to continue unchecked.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF45

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page47 of 62

1

276. When Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are in school, Defendants

2 deny them “meaningful access” to education by violating the relevant regulations.

3

277. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 35. 130(b)(ii), a public entity may not “[a]fford a

4 qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid,

5 benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others. . .”

6

278. Defendants fail to provide youth with disabilities the special education and related

7 services they require, by reason of their disabilities, to equally access education in Juvenile Hall.

8

279. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(iii), a public entity may not “[p]rovide a

9 qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in

10 affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the

11 same level of achievement as that provided to others. . .”

12

280. Defendants fail to provide disabled youth with educational services that they

13 require—because of their disabilities—that are as effective in affording youth with disabilities

14 equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, and to reach the same level

15 of achievement as provided to others.

16

281. Because Defendants’ discriminatory and wrongful conduct is ongoing,

17 declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of

18 Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are suffering irreparable harm,

19 including lost education opportunities. Therefore, speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.

20

282. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive

21 relief as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this action under 42

22 U.S.C. § 12205.

23

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

24

Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

25

Against Both Defendants

26

(29 U.S.C. § 794, et. seq.)

27

283. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

28 foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF46

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page48 of 62

1

284. Section 504 provides, in pertinent part:

2

No o therwise q ualified i ndividual w ith a d isability in th e U nited

States . . . s hall, s olely by r eason of hi s or he r di sability, b e

3

excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving

4

federal financial assistance[.] 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

5

285. Each Defendant was, at all times relevant to this action, and is currently a

6 recipient of federal financial assistance within the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

7 Act and provided and provides a “program or activity” where “program or activity” is described

8 as “all the operations of” the recipient which includes the educational and rehabilitative

9 programs and activities in Juvenile Hall. 29 U.S.C. § 794(b).

10

286. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were, at all times relevant to this action, and are

11 currently “otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities” within the meaning of Section 504 as

12 they all have impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, and they were and/or are

13 all residents of Juvenile Hall qualified—with or without reasonable accommodation—to

14 participate in the programs, services, and activities of Juvenile Hall.

15

287. The Department of Justice is charged under Executive Order 12250 with

16 coordinating the implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 28 CFR §

17 41.1.

18

288. In providing any aid, benefit, or service, a recipient of federal financial assistance

19 “may not ... [d]eny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in or benefit

20 from the aid, benefit or service,” “[a]fford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to

21 participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others,”

22 “[p]rovide a qualified handicapped person with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective

23 in affording equal opportunity ... as that provided to others,” or “[o]therwise limit a qualified

24 handicapped person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed

25 by others[.]” 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(i), (ii), (iii), and (vii).

26

289. A recipient of federal financial assistance shall make reasonable modifications in

27 policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination

28 on the basis of disability.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF47

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page49 of 62

1

290. Nor may a recipient of federal financial assistance “utilize criteria or methods of

2 administration (i) that have the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to

3 discrimination on the basis of handicap and/or (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or

4 substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient’s program or activity

5 with respect to handicapped persons...” 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(4)(i), (ii);

6

291. A recipient of federal financial assistance is also prohibited from aiding and

7 perpetuating discrimination against a qualified handicapped person by providing significant

8 assistance to an agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of handicap. 45

9 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(v).

10

292. Defendants have violated the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff

11 Class secured by Section 504 and its implementing regulations.

12

293. When Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiffs Class are locked in solitary

13 confinement, Defendants exclude them from participating in and deny them the benefits of

14 Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities solely by reason of

15 their disabilities. Specifically, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are excluded by reason of their

16 disabilities in that the behaviors that lead to their being placed in solitary confinement are a

17 direct result of their disability.

18

294. Solitary confinement has a disproportionate burden on Plaintiffs and members of

19 the Plaintiff Class solely by reason of their disabilities that results in further solitary confinement

20 and further denial of educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities than their

21 non-disabled peers. As such, when Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are locked in

22 solitary confinement, Defendants exclude them from participation in and deny them the benefits

23 of Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities solely by reason

24 of their disabilities.

25

295. The denial of education and rehabilitative services during solitary confinement

26 leaves Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class further behind in their education and rehabilitation than

27 their non-disabled peers because, solely by reason of their disabilities, disabled youth require

28 additional assistance to access the general education curriculum and rehabilitative programs.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF48

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page50 of 62

1 Consequently, when Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are locked in solitary

2 confinement, Defendants deny them equal opportunity to benefit from Defendants’ educational

3 and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities and/or provide Plaintiffs and members of the

4 Plaintiff Class with a benefit that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity as the benefits

5 offered to their non-disabled peers.

6

296. Defendants also fail to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices,

7 and procedures even though such modifications are necessary to avoid discriminating against

8 Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class by, inter alia, not identifying and tracking Plaintiffs

9 and member of the Plaintiff Class who require reasonable accommodations, not inquiring into

10 whether behaviors of Plaintiffs or members of the Plaintiff Class leading to disciplinary

11 measures are disability-related, not modifying school disciplinary policies and practices to ensure

12 that school officials have responsibility for discipline during school hours, and not modifying

13 solitary confinement policies and practices to ensure that Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff

14 Class are not disproportionately burdened by such policies and practices by reason of their

15 disabilities.

16

297. Defendants have adopted and implemented policies and practices with regard to

17 solitary confinement that have a disparate impact on youth with disabilities. Specifically,

18 Defendants impose and apply eligibility criteria—i.e., requirements that youth not be in solitary

19 confinement in order to receive educational and rehabilitative services—that screen out or tend

20 to screen out Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class from fully and equally enjoying, solely

21 by reason of their disabilities, any of Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative programs,

22 services or activities.

23

298. By denying educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities while

24 youth with disabilities are locked in solitary confinement and by using solitary confinement for

25 youth with disabilities, Defendants utilize methods of administration that have the effect of

26 subjecting Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class to discrimination solely by reason of

27 their disabilities. These methods of administration also have the purpose and effect of defeating

28 or substantially impairing accomplishments of the objectives of Defendants’ educational and

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF49

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page51 of 62

1 rehabilitative programs, services, and activities with respect to Plaintiffs and members of the

2 Plaintiff Class.

3

299. Defendants also aid and perpetuate discrimination against persons with

4 disabilities in Defendants’ programs, services or activities by, inter alia, maintaining policies and

5 practices that allow for discrimination and that permit the discrimination of each co-Defendant to

6 continue unchecked.

7

300. When Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are in school, Defendants

8 deny them “meaningful access” to education by violating the relevant regulations.

9

301. Pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(ii), a public entity may not “[a]fford a qualified

10 individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or

11 service that is not equal to that afforded others. . .”

12

302. However, Defendants fail to provide youth with disabilities the special education

13 and related services they require—solely by reason of their disabilities—to equally access

14 education in Juvenile Hall.

15

303. Pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(iii), a public entity may not “[p]rovide a qualified

16 individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording

17 equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of

18 achievement as that provided to others. . .”

19

304. Defendants fail to provide disabled youth with educational services that they

20 require—solely by reason of their disabilities—that are as effective in affording youth with

21 disabilities equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, and to reach the

22 same level of achievement as provided to others.

23

305. Moreover, when Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are in school,

24 Defendants deny them FAPE as secured by Section 504’s regulations by inter alia:

25

a) Failing to provide a free appropriate public education to each qualified

26

handicapped person who is in Defendants’ jurisdiction (45 C.F.R. § 84.33(a));

27

b) Failing to provide special education and related aids and services that are

28

designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF50

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page52 of 62

1

adequately as the needs of non-handicapped persons are met (45 C.F.R. §

2

84.33(b)).

3

306. Because Defendants’ discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory relief and

4 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of Defendants’ actions,

5 Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are suffering irreparable harm, including lost

6 educational opportunities. Therefore, speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.

7

307. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794a, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive

8 relief and to recover from Defendants the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in

9 bringing this action.

10

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

11

Violation of California Government Code § 11135

12

Against Both Defendants

13

(Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135 et seq.)

14

308. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

15 foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein.

16

309. California Government Code section 11135 sets forth a nondiscrimination policy

17 for state programs. It provides, in pertinent part, that:

18

[n]o pe rson i n t he S tate of C alifornia s hall, on the ba sis of r ace,

national or igin, e thnic gr oup i dentification, religion, a ge, s ex,

19

sexual or ientation, c olor, genetic i nformation or d isability, b e

unlawfully de nied f ull a nd e qual a ccess t o t he be nefits of , or be

20

unlawfully s ubjected t o di scrimination unde r, a ny pr ogram or

activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or

21

by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any

financial assistance from the state. Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135(a).

22

310. Each Defendant was, at all times relevant to this action, and is currently operating

23

or administering a program or activity that receives state financial assistance, within the meaning

24

of Section 11135 including educational and rehabilitative programs and activities in the Juvenile

25

Hall.

26

311. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were, at all times relevant to this action, and are

27

currently “persons in the State of California” within the meaning of California Government Code

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF51

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page53 of 62

1 section 11135. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class all have disabilities as defined by California

2 Government Code section 12926, and they were and/or are all residents of Juvenile Hall

3 qualified to participate in the programs, services and activities of Juvenile Hall.

4

312. It is a discriminatory practice for a recipient of state financial assistance, in

5 carrying out any program or activity, on the basis of disability, (a) to deny a person the

6 opportunity to participate in, or benefit from an aid, benefit or service; (b) to afford a person the

7 opportunity to participate in or benefit from an aid, benefit or service that is not equal to that

8 afforded others; (c) to provide a person with an aid, benefit or service that is not as effective in

9 affording an equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the

10 same level of achievement as that provided to others . . . (g) to otherwise limit a person in the

11 enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving any aid,

12 benefit or service resulting from the program or activity.” 22 Cal. Code Regs. § 98101 (a), (b),

13 (c), (g).

14

313. It is also discrimination for a recipient of state financial assistance to utilize

15 criteria or methods of administration that: (1) have the purpose or effect of subjecting a person to

16 discrimination on the basis of disability; (2) have the purpose or effect of defeating or

17 substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient’s program with

18 respect to a person with a disability. 22 Cal. Code Regs. § 98101(i).

19

314. Defendants have violated the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff

20 Class secured by Section 11135 et seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 22 Cal. Code

21 Regs. § 98100, et seq.

22

315. When Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiffs Class are locked in solitary

23 confinement, Defendants deny them full and equal access to Defendants’ educational and

24 rehabilitative programs, services, and activities on the basis of their disabilities. Specifically,

25 Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are excluded by reason of their disabilities in that the behaviors

26 that lead to their being placed in solitary confinement are a direct result of their disability.

27

316. Solitary confinement has a disproportionate burden on Plaintiffs and members of

28 the Plaintiff Class on the basis of their disabilities that results in further solitary confinement and

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF52

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page54 of 62

1 further denial of educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities than their non-

2 disabled peers. As such, when Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are locked in solitary

3 confinement, Defendants exclude them from participation in and deny them the benefits of

4 Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities on the basis of their

5 disabilities.

6

317. Solitary confinement leaves Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class further behind in

7 their education and rehabilitation than their non-disabled peers because, on the basis of their

8 disabilities, disabled youth require additional assistance to access the general curriculum and

9 rehabilitative programs. Consequently, when Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are

10 locked in solitary confinement, Defendants deny them equal opportunity to benefit from

11 Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities and/or provide

12 Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class with a benefit that is not as effective in affording

13 equal opportunity as the benefits offered to their non-disabled peers.

14

318. Defendants have adopted and implemented policies and practices with regard to

15 solitary confinement that have a disparate impact on youth with disabilities. Specifically,

16 Defendants impose and apply eligibility criteria—i.e., requirements that youth not be in solitary

17 confinement in order to receive educational and rehabilitative services—that screen out or tend

18 to screen out Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class from fully and equally enjoying, on

19 the basis of their disabilities, any of Defendants’ educational and rehabilitative programs,

20 services, or activities.

21

319. By denying educational and rehabilitative programs, services, and activities while

22 youth with disabilities are locked in solitary confinement and by using solitary confinement for

23 youth with disabilities, Defendants utilize methods of administration that have the effect of

24 subjecting Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class to discrimination on the basis of their

25 disabilities. These methods of administration also have the purpose and effect of defeating or

26 substantially impairing accomplishments of the objectives of Defendants’ educational and

27 rehabilitative programs, services, and activities with respect to Plaintiffs and members of the

28 Plaintiff Class.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF53

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page55 of 62

1

320. California Government Code section 11135 further requires that the programs and

2 activities that receive financial assistance from the state “shall meet the protections and

3 prohibitions contained in Section 202 of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act . . . except

4 that if the laws of this state prescribe stronger protections and prohibitions, the programs and

5 activities subject to subdivision (a) shall be subject to the stronger protections and prohibitions.”

6 Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135(b). Here, because Defendants are violating Title II of the ADA, they

7 also are violating California Government Code section 11135.

8

321. Because Defendants’ discriminatory and wrongful conduct is ongoing,

9 declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of

10 Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are suffering irreparable harm,

11 including lost education opportunities. Therefore, speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.

12

322. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 526(a) and 1021.5,

13 Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and

14 costs incurred in bringing this action.

15

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

16

Violation of California Education Code for Special Education Requirements

17

Against Both Defendants

18

(Cal. Educ. Code §§ 56000, et seq.)

19

323. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

20 foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein.

21

324. Individuals with exceptional needs are entitled to receive a free appropriate public

22 education in accordance with IDEA and its implementing regulations. Cal. Educ. Code § 56040.

23

325. A student may qualify as an individual with exceptional needs under one of the

24 following: Hearing Impairment, Hearing and Visual Impairment, Language or Speech Disorder,

25 Visual Impairment, Severe Orthopedic Impairment, Other Health Impairments, Autistic-Like

26 Behaviors, Mental Retardation, Serious Emotional Disturbance, Specific Learning Disability. 5

27 Cal. Code Regs. § 3030.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF54

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page56 of 62

1

326. Because it is “involved in any decisions regarding a pupil,” the Probation

2 Department, and thus, the County is “a responsible public agency” pursuant to California

3 Education Code, section 56501, subdivision (a). The Probation Department, and thus, the

4 County, also qualifies as a public agency pursuant to IDEA, as previously alleged.

5

327. Because it is “involved in any decisions regarding a pupil,” the Office of

6 Education is “a responsible public agency” pursuant to California Education Code, section

7 56501, subdivision (a). The Office of Education also qualifies as a public agency pursuant to

8 IDEA, as previously alleged.

9

328. As responsible public agencies under California Education Code section 56000 et

10 seq., Defendants are required to meet certain conditions, including, but not limited to:

11

a) Providing FAPE to individuals with exceptional needs in accordance with

12

IDEA and its implementing regulations (Cal. Educ. Code § 56040);

13

b) Identifying, locating, and assessing all children with disabilities, who are in

14

need of special education and related services, and establishing written policies

15

and procedures to do so (Cal. Educ. Code § 56301(a), (d)(1));

16

c) Conducting individual assessments by qualified persons knowledgeable about

17

the suspected disability before an initial placement in special education and

18

related services (Cal. Educ. Code § 56320) and conducting reassessments

19

every three years (Cal Educ. Code § 56381(a)(2));

20

d) When a student transfers, providing FAPE, including services comparable to

21

previous IEP, for a time not to exceed 30 days by which time the new

22

placement shall adopt the previous IEP or develop, adopt, and implement a

23

new IEP (Cal. Educ. Code § 56043(m)(l) and Cal. Educ. Code § 56325);

24

e) For each student with a disability, developing and implementing appropriate

25

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), defined as a written statement that

26

is developed, reviewed, and revised which must include, but is not limited to:

27

(i) Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (Cal.

28

Educ. Code § 56345(a)(1));

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF55

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page57 of 62

1

(ii) Measurable annual goals (Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(a)(2));

2

(iii) Criteria for determining whether annual goals are being achieved (Cal.

3

Educ. Code § 56345(a)(3));

4

(iv) Specific special educational instruction, related services, supplementary

5

aids and services to be provided, based on peer-reviewed research to the

6

extent possible (Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(a)(4));

7

(v) Explanation of the extent, if any, to which the pupil will not participate

8

with non-disabled pupils in their regular class and activities (Cal. Educ.

9

Code § 56345(a)(5));

10

(vi)Individual appropriate accommodations in the administration of state-wide

11

or district-wide assessments (Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(a)(6)); and

12

(vii)

Projected date for the beginning of services and modifications, and

13

anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and

14

accommodations (Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(a)(7))

15 f) Implementing the IEP and related services (Cal. Educ. Code § 56345(c);
16 g) Holding annual IEP team meetings to review the student’s progress and
17 create/revise the IEP document (Cal. Educ. Code § 56043(j));
18 h) If the IEP team finds that instructional/behavioral approaches specified in the
19 student’s IEP have been ineffective, conducting a functional analysis
20 assessment (FAA) and developing a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) (5 Cal.
21 Code Regs. § 3052(b), (c));
22 i) If behavior leads to removal from school for more than ten days, conducting a
23 manifestation determination IEP meeting to determine if the behavior is a
24 manifestation of the student’s disability (Cal. Educ. Code § 48915.5);
25 j) Implementing procedural safeguards for children with disabilities, consisting,
26 at a minimum, of notice to parents or guardians of their procedural rights
27 regarding the identification, evaluation, or education placement of a child or
28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF56

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page58 of 62

1

the provision of a FAPE to a child, and the right to present complaints and to

2

an impartial due process hearing on such complaints (Cal. Educ. Code §

3

56301(d)(2)).

4

329. By failing to identify, locate, assess and then provide a FAPE (including

5 appropriate IEPs, special education, and related services to eligible students within the custody

6 of the Probation Department), and by failing to provide procedural safeguards specified in the

7 statute implementing the IDEA (including manifestation determinations), Defendants have

8 violated and continue to violate rights secured by California Education Code sections 56000 et

9 seq., and its implementing regulations.

10

330. By failing to provide any of the California Education Code section 56000 et seq.

11 requirements, including FAPE, to students with disabilities who are locked in solitary

12 confinement, Defendants have similarly violated and continue to violate rights secured by

13 California Education Code sections 56000 et seq., and its implementing regulations.

14

331. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs and

15 members of the Plaintiff Class have suffered, and continue to suffer, irreparable harm, including

16 lost educational opportunities, based on their disabilities.

17

332. Because Defendants’ discriminatory and wrongful conduct is ongoing,

18 declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of

19 Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are suffering irreparable harm,

20 including lost education opportunities. Therefore, speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.

21

333. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 526(a) and 1021.5,

22 Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and

23 costs incurred in bringing this action.

24

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25

Violation of California Education Code for General Education Requirements

26

Against Both Defendants

27

334. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

28 foregoing paragraphs as if specifically alleged herein.

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF57

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page59 of 62

1

335. Pursuant to California law, students are entitled to 240 minutes of instruction

2 minimum for each school day (Cal. Educ. Code § 48645.3); 400 minutes of physical education

3 each 10 school days for an average of 40 minutes of physical education per day (Cal. Educ. Code

4 §§ 51220(d) and 51222); and, provision of state approved textbooks and instructional materials

5 so that each student has a textbook or instructional material to use in class and to take home (Cal.

6 Educ. Code § 35186(f)(1)). Moreover, suspension of a student requires certain due process

7 protections including notice to the student and parents and an opportunity to respond. Cal. Educ.

8 Code § 48911(b), (d). Furthermore, suspending students in excess of five consecutive

9 schooldays and/or allowing students to be suspended for more than 20 schooldays within a

10 school year is prohibited. Cal. Educ. Code § 48911 and Cal. Educ. Code § 48903 respectively.

11

336. Defendants, who are charged with providing 240 minutes of instruction each

12 school day, have failed to provide and continue to fail to provide such instruction time to

13 Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class in solitary confinement.

14

337. Defendants, who are charged with providing on average 40 minutes of physical

15 education per day, have failed to provide and continue to fail to provide such physical education

16 to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class, particularly those in solitary confinement.

17

338. Defendants, who are charged with providing educational services to Plaintiffs and

18 members of the Plaintiff Class, have failed to provide and continue to fail to provide Plaintiffs

19 and members of the Plaintiff Class with state approved textbooks and instructional materials so

20 that each student has a textbook or instructional materials, or both, to use in class and to take into

21 their cells.

22

339. Defendants, who are charged with providing educational services to Plaintiffs and

23 members of the Plaintiff Class, have suspended and continue to suspend Plaintiffs and members

24 of the Plaintiff Class without due process protections.

25

340. Defendants, who are charged with providing educational services to Plaintiffs and

26 members of the Plaintiff Class, have allowed and continue to allow Plaintiffs and members of the

27 Plaintiff Class to be suspended from school for more than 20 schooldays within a school year.

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF58

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page60 of 62

1

341. Because Defendants’ discriminatory and wrongful conduct is ongoing,

2 declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Further, as a direct result of

3 Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are suffering irreparable harm,

4 including lost education opportunities. Therefore, speedy and immediate relief is appropriate.

5

342. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable

6 attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this action. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 526(a),

7 1021.5.

8

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

10

1. Order that Plaintiffs may maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Rule

11 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

12

2. Order and declare that the Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein has violated, and

13 continues to violate, IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., and accompanying regulations, the ADA,

14 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and accompanying regulations, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

15 Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and accompanying regulations, California Education Code sections 56000

16 et seq., and accompanying regulations, and California Government Code sections 11135, et seq.

17 and accompanying regulations.

18

3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from violating IDEA, 20 U.S.C.

19 §§ 1400 et seq., and accompanying regulations, the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and

20 accompanying regulations, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and

21 accompanying regulations, California Education Code sections 56000 et seq., and accompanying

22 regulations, and California Government Code sections 11135, et seq. and accompanying

23 regulations.

24

4. Order Defendants to provide Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class:

25

a. a free appropriate public education and meaningful access to education for all

26

students with disabilities and compliance with all special education laws that

27

protect such students;

28

b. educational and rehabilitative services to all youth with disabilities in solitary

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF59

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page61 of 62

1

confinement who are subject to disciplinary measures in any of its forms for any

2

amount of time;

3

c. compensatory education to youth with disabilities who have served and are

4

currently serving time in Juvenile Hall;

5

d. reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that

6

youth with disabilities do not suffer discrimination because of their disabilities,

7

including through placement in solitary confinement;

8

5. Order the appointment of a special master to oversee the implementation of the

9 above-listed systems, processes, and mechanisms, and grant the special master legal authority to

10 administer specific programs and activities of Defendants as may be necessary to ensure the

11 provision of educational and rehabilitative services to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff

12 Class;

13

6. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have complied with the orders of

14 this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in the

15 future, absent continuing jurisdiction;

16

7. Award Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided by statute and law; and

17

8. Any such other relief as the Court finds just and proper.

18 DATED: December 19, 2013
19
20
21

Respectfully submitted,
MARY-LEE K. SMITH REBECCA WILLIFORD KARA JANSSEN DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

22

23

Mary-Lee K. Smith

24

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

26

27

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF60

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document87 Filed12/24/13 Page62 of 62

1

HERNAN VERA

LAURA FAER

2

PUBLIC COUNSEL

3

4

Laura Faer

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

GRACE A. CARTER

7

GINA GUARIENTI COOK

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

8

9

/s/

10

Grace A. Carter

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C 13-3667-SBA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF61

 </s> 1

2

3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6

7

G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem,

Case No: C 13-03667 SBA

8 Gail F.; W.B., by and through his guardian ad 9 litem, CiCi C.; Q.G., by and through his

ORDER

10

guardian ad litem, Barbara C.; and on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly

Docket 8, 43, 62

11 situated,

12 Plaintiffs,

13 vs.

14 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

15 Defenda

nts.

16

On August 8, 2013, Plaintiffs commenced the instant putative class action and filed

17 a motion for class certification. Dkt. 1, 8. On September 12, 2013, Defendants Contra

18 Costa County, Contra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader, and Bruce

19 Pelle filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. 43. On October 17, 2013, Defendants

20 Contra Costa County Office of Education, Joseph A. Ovick, and Lynn Mackey filed a

21 revised motion to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. 62. On December 24, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a

22 first amended complaint.1 Dkt. 87. Accordingly,

23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

24

1. Defendants Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Department of

25 Probation, Philip Kader, and Bruce Pelle’s motion to dismiss the complaint is DENIED as

26 MOOT.

27
1 The named Defendants are Contra Costa County and Contra Costa County Office 28 of Education. Dkt. 87.

1

2. Defendants Contra Costa County Office of Education, Joseph A. Ovick, and

2 Lynn Mackey’s revised motion to dismiss the complaint is DENIED as MOOT.

3

3. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is DENIED without prejudice.

4 Plaintiffs may refile their motion for class certification by no later than ten (10) days from

5 the date this Order is filed. Plaintiffs shall notice the motion for hearing on March 18,

6 2014. Defendants shall file their oppositions by no later than February 7, 2014. Plaintiffs

7 shall file their reply briefs by no later than February 28, 2014.

8

4. This Order terminates Docket 8, 43, and 62.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: 12/30/2013
11 12

________________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

13

14

15 16 17

18 19 20

21 22 23

24 25 26

27 28

- 2 -

 </s> Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page1 of 19

1 JOCELYN SAMUELS, Acting Assistant Attorney General ROY L. AUSTIN, JR., Deputy Assistant Attorney General
2 EVE L. HILL, Deputy Assistant Attorney General

3 ANURIMA BHARGAVA, Chief

RENEE WOHLENHAUS, Deputy Chief

4 United States Department of Justice

Civil

Rights Division

5 Educational

Opportunities Section

6 REBECCA B. BOND, Chief

KATHLEEN P. WOLFE, Special Litigation Counsel

7 United States Department of Justice

Civil

Rights Division

8

Disability Rights Section

9 JONATHAN M. SMITH, Chief

LUIS E. SAUCEDO, Acting Deputy Chief

10 RYAN C. WILSON, Trial Attorney (DC 1013907)

United States Department of Justice

11 Civil

Rights Division

Special Litigation Section

12

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

13 Telephone:

(202) 305-9937

Facsimile: (202) 514-0212

14

Email: ryan.wilson@usdoj.gov

15 PHILIP H. ROSENFELT, Deputy General Counsel

Delegated to Perform the Functions of the General Counsel

16 United States Department of Education

Office of General Counsel

17

400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20202

18

Telephone: (202) 401-6000

Email: phil.rosenfelt@ed.gov

19

Attorneys for the United States of America

20

21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

23

G.F., W.B., and Q.G., by and through their guardians ad litem, and on behalf of themselves and a class of

24

similarly situated,

25 Plaintiffs,

26

v.

Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

27

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

28

Defendants.

i
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page2 of 19

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 1
3
4 II. INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

5 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND . . . .. . . . . . . . 3

6

A. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .3

7

B. PLAINTIFFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 5

8

C. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTIONS TO DISMISS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

9 IV. DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

10

A. DEFENDANTS CANNOT EVADE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES

11

UNDER THE ADA AND THE IDEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .7

12

B. THE IDEA REQUIRES DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE ELIGIBLE

13

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION AND RELATED

SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

14

C. THE ADA REQUIRES DEFENDANTS TO TAKE PROACTIVE

15

STEPS TO AVOID DISCRIMINATION AGAINST STUDENTS

16

WITH DISABILITIES AT THE JUVENILE HALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .11

17 V. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 13

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ii
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page3 of 19

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2
CASES 3 Chevron U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) . . . . . 2

4
Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
5
Magyar v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 958 F.Supp. 1423 (D. Ariz. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
6

7 Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,4,10,12

8 M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
9 A.E. v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
10
Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
11
12 Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

13 Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 829 F. Supp. 1016 (N.D. Ill. 1993). . . . . . . . . .. . . .12

14 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
15
20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
16
17 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

18 28 U.S.C. § 517. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

19 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 et seq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
20
42 U.S.C. § 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
21
22 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

23 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV)(bb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

24 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4)(ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
25
20 U.S.C. § 1401(26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
26
27 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

28 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

iii
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page4 of 19
1 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Cal Educ. Code § 48645.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Cal Educ. Code § 56150. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4
20 U.S.C. § 1412 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
5
20 U.S.C. § 1413. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
6
7 34 C.F.R. § 300.200. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
8 34 C.F.R. § 300.201. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 1730. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
10
34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(1)(iv) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,13
11
12 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a)(12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,10
13 34 C.F.R. 300.154 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8, 10 14 15 Cal Code Reg. § 1370(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
15
15 Cal Code Reg. § 1370(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
16
17 15 Cal Code Reg. § 1390(j) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
18 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 19 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(v) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
20
20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
21
22 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
23 34 C.F.R. § 300.101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 24 34 C.F.R. § 300.102. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
25
34 C.F.R. § 300.324 (d)(1)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
26
27 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,12
28 20 U.S.C § 1415(k)(1)(E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
iv
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page5 of 19
1 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (k)(1)(D)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
4
42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5
42 U.S.C. § 12132. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6
7 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 8 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
10
28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
11
12 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 14 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (b)(1)(D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
15
20 U.S.C. § 1415 (b)(1)(G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
16 17 OTHER AUTHORITIES 18 Robert L. Listenbee, Jr., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on
Children Exposed to Violence Dec. 12, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page6 of 19

1

I. Introductio n

2

The Plaintiffs allege that youthful offenders with disabilities who are confined to the Contra Costa

3 County Juvenile Hall (“Juvenile Hall”) are often subjected to solitary confinement1 because of their
4 disabilities and are denied special education, related services, and rehabilitation services. Plaintiffs allege 5
that each Plaintiff is a youth with a disability eligible for special education and related services under the 6
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and each youth is a person with a disability qualified for the 7
8 Defendants’ programs under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs allege that they are placed in

9 restrictive security programs because of their disabilities and, once they are placed in restrictive security

10 programs, they are denied education and other services in violation of federal law. According to the

11 Amended Complaint and exhibits, Plaintiffs have missed hundreds of hours of education combined.
12 Despite their pronouncements to the contrary, Defendants, the Contra Costa County Office of
13 Education (“Office of Education”) and Contra Costa County (“County”), have a legal obligation to avoid
14 15 placing students with disabilities in restrictive security programs on the basis of their disabilities. In
16 addition, Defendants are required to provide special education and related services to youth with

17 disabilities in restrictive security programs. Defendants cannot abandon their legal responsibilities when

18 the County’s Department of Probation places the youth in restrictive security programs. Nor can they
19 each avoid responsibility by pointing the finger of liability at the other. Both are prohibited from 20
discriminating on the basis of disability and both are required to ensure special education and related 21
services are provided. As they acknowledge in their Motions, they can, and are required by State law to 22 23 work together to accomplish these requirements. When they fail, the agencies, not the children they are
24 required to serve, must take responsibility.

25

26 1 Plaintiffs use the term “solitary confinement” to refer to the County’s Security Program, which provides different levels of discipline and supervision in the Juvenile Hall. According to Plaintiffs, in the most
27 restrictive levels, a youth is locked in his or her room for 22 hours or more and is not permitted to participate in group activities, including school. Hereinafter, this Statement will refer to these restrictive
28 confinement levels as “restrictive security programs.”

1
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page7 of 19

The United States submits this Statement of Interest to affirm and clarify the comprehensive 1 2 protections afforded to youth with disabilities by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20

3 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 (“IDEA”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-

4 12134 (“ADA”), and their implementing regulations.2

5

II. Interest of the United States

6 The United States files this Statement of Interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, which authorizes
7 the Attorney General “to attend to the interests of the United States” in any case pending in federal court.3
8
9 The Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence recently addressed the

10 interest of the United States in enforcement of laws protecting the rights of children in detention

11 generally, and in solitary confinement, specifically. “Nowhere is the damaging impact of incarceration on

12 vulnerable children more obvious than when it involves solitary confinement. A 2002 investigation by
13 the U.S. Department of Justice showed that juveniles experience symptoms of paranoia, anxiety, and 14
depression even after very short periods of isolation. Confined youth who spend extended periods 15
isolated are among the most likely to attempt or actually commit suicide.” Robert L. Listenbee, Jr., 16 17 Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence at 178 (Dec. 12,
18 2012), www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf.

19

As the agency charged by Congress with enforcing and implementing regulations under the ADA,

20 the Department of Justice’s interpretation of the Title II regulations has been accorded substantial
21 deference. Chevron U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);
22 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2010) (observing that the Department of
23 2 Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), as
24 amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 et seq., and various state laws in the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth claims of their Amended Complaint. The United States does not take a position on these claims other than to
25 recognize that the ADA does not afford Plaintiffs any lesser protections than those provided under Section 504 and its implementing regulations.
26 3 The full text of 28 U.S.C. § 517 is as follows: “The Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department
27 of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to
28 attend to any other interest of the United States.”

2
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page8 of 19

Justice’s Title II implementing regulations “should be given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, 1 2 capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.”) The Department of Education is charged with

3 administering the IDEA and its interpretation of the IDEA has been afforded similar deference. See

4 Magyar v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 958 F. Supp. 1423, 1439-40 (D. Ariz. 1997) (observing that the

5 Department of Education’s interpretive statements on the IDEA command heightened respect) (internal

6 citations omitted). Furthermore, the United States has an interest in ensuring the appropriate and
7 consistent interpretation of the IDEA and ADA, and their implementing regulations. See Honig v. Doe,
8
9 484 U.S. 305, 325 n. 8 (1988); M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663 F.3d 1100, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2011).

10

The Department of Justice also enforces federal rights guaranteed by the Constitution and federal

11 law in juvenile detention facilities and other public institutions through the Civil Rights of

12 Institutionalized Persons Act (“CRIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. CRIPA gives the Department of Justice

13 authority to investigate and seek a remedy for conduct in juvenile detention facilities that violates the
14 IDEA. Accordingly, the United States believes that its views will be of interest to the Court in resolving
15 Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. The United States additionally requests that, should the Court hear oral
16
17 argument on Defendants’ Motions, the United States be permitted to participate.

18

III. Factual Allegations and Procedural Background

19

A. Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall

20

The County operates the Juvenile Hall, a maximum-security detention facility for male and female

21 youth.4 Pls.’ Am. Compl. ¶ 61. The Juvenile Hall has 290 beds for youth under age 18. Id. Within the
22 Juvenile Hall, the Office of Education operates a juvenile court school, Mt. McKinley School (“Mt.
23 McKinley”). Id. at ¶ 47. While on school sites, youth are under the direct supervision of personnel of the
24

25 County’s Probation Department. Id. at ¶ 124.

26

The administrative responsibilities and relationship between the Office of Education and the

27 4 Unless otherwise noted, the factual allegations are from the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. At the motion to dismiss stage, courts accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in
28 the light most favorable to the plaintiff. A.E. v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012).

3
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page9 of 19

County regarding the operation of Mt. McKinley are governed by state law and a memorandum of 1 2 understanding (“MOU”). Id. at ¶¶ 36-37; see also Office of Education Mot. to Dismiss at 13-14, Jan. 24,

3 2014, ECF No. 113. The purpose of the MOU is to “develop a collaborative model that will foster an

4 educational and residential environment that nurtures the whole child and consistently supports services

5 that will meet the educational needs of the pupils.” Office of Education Mot. to Dismiss at 13 (internal
6 citations omitted). The MOU incorporates State education regulations and states, in pertinent part, that
7 the “educational program shall be integrated into the facility’s overall behavioral management plan and
8
9 security system” and that for individuals with special needs “[e]ducational instruction shall be provided to
10 youth restricted to high security or other special units.” Office of Education Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A-1 at

11 2, Jan. 24, 2014, ECF No. 114-1.

12

According to estimates provided by the Office of Education, from January to April 2013,

13 approximately 32.7% of the youth at Mt. McKinley had a disability that required an individualized

14 education program (“IEP”) under the IDEA5 or a similar plan under Section 504. Pls.’ Am Compl. ¶ 140. 15
These are also students with disabilities under the ADA. 16

17

According to Plaintiffs, the County administers “Special Programs,” which provide different

18 levels of securing youth as discipline. Id. at ¶ 69. In the most restrictive levels – maximum, security risk,

19 and special program – a youth is confined in his or her cell for more than 22 hours a day. Id. at ¶¶ 69-71,

20 76, 81. Each cell is “extremely small without even room to exercise.” Id. at ¶ 66. The cell has a solid
21 door with a small window “about as wide as a hand and long as an arm.” Id. 22
While in the maximum and security risk levels of restrictive security programs, a youth is 23
prohibited from attending school and is denied general education and special education services. Id. at 24

25 5 An IEP is the “primary vehicle” through which each child with a covered disability is provided a free and appropriate education under IDEA. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. at 311; 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A). The
26 IEP ensures that each child with a disability receives the special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services necessary to enable the child to be involved and make progress in the
27 general education curriculum. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV)(bb); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4)(ii). Related services may include counseling services, rehabilitation counseling services, and psychological
28 services. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(a).

4
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page10 of 19

¶¶ 71, 74, 76, 79. In the special program level, probation supervisors are authorized to impose 1 2 “restrictions on school attendance,” and a tutor may visit the youth for 5 to 30 minutes a day on some

3 days to provide school work. Id. at ¶¶ 82-83. Plaintiffs allege that tutors rarely provide actual instruction

4 and, instead, provide worksheets for the youth to complete. Id. at ¶ 83. In all three of these levels, youth

5 are not permitted to participate in the Juvenile Hall’s rehabilitation programs, such as anger management

6 classes and group counseling sessions. Id. at ¶¶ 75, 80, 84.

7 B. Plaintiffs
8

9

Plaintiffs are youth with disabilities who are eligible for special education services through an IEP.

10 They are also individuals with disabilities protected under the ADA. W.B. is a 17-year-old youth

11 diagnosed with psychosis and schizophrenia. Pls.’ Am. Comp. at ¶¶ 210-211. At the time Defendants

12 placed W.B. in restrictive security programs, he was “spitting, hearing voices, and talking to himself.” Id.

13 at ¶ 212. Because of these behaviors, he was locked in restrictive security programs for 60 days from 14
February to May 2013. Id. at ¶ 211. Throughout February 2013, he remained in maximum security 15
because of hallucinations, inappropriate laughter, and facial twitching. County Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. E at 16 17 9. In March and April 2013, he remained in restrictive security programs because he continued to have
18 hallucinations, accused staff of spitting into his food and shoes, and defecated in the shower. Id. In May

19 2013, he “totally decompensated” and began smearing feces in his cell. Id. He suffered a psychotic break

20 and was hospitalized for three weeks. Pls.’ Am. Comp. at ¶¶ 213, 228.

21

G.F. is a 15-year-old youth diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder, attention deficit and

22 hyperactivity disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder. Id. at ¶¶ 189, 191, 198. She has been in
23

restrictive security programs for over 100 days in the past year. Id. at ¶ 198. The extent of her disabilities 24

25 caused her to violate the rules and receive placement in restrictive security programs as punishment. Id.

26 at ¶ 199. Specifically, she has had fights with other youth while in the Juvenile Hall, which have resulted

27 in placement in restrictive security programs. County Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. C at 9.

28

Q.G. is a 17-year-old youth diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder and attention deficit and

5
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page11 of 19

hyperactivity disorder. Id. at ¶ 232-33. He believes he has been in restrictive security programs for over 1 2 200 days since 2010. Id. at ¶ 237. His disabilities caused him to express behaviors that led to his

3 restrictive security programs punishment. Id. at ¶ 238.

4

According to Plaintiffs, while in restrictive security programs, Defendants denied G.F., W.B., and

5 Q.G. access to education services. Id. at ¶¶ 206, 225, 243. Each youth performs well below grade level in

6 all subjects and has failed to progress from grade-to-grade on schedule. Id. at ¶¶ 203-204, 226, 243.

7 C.
8

Amended Complaint and Motions to Dismiss

9

Plaintiffs filed their original complaint and motion for class certification on August 8, 2013. They

10 amended their complaint on December 24, 2013, and filed an amended motion for class certification on

11 January 9, 2014. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint challenges alleged systemic violations of the IDEA and

12 the ADA throughout the Juvenile Hall program, including the restrictive security programs. However,

13 because the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss focus on the claims regarding the restrictive security 14
programs, this Statement of Interest also focuses on those aspects of the amended complaint. Plaintiffs 15
claim, inter alia, that Defendants violate the ADA, IDEA, Section 504, and various State laws. Id. at ¶¶ 16 17 259-82. In their ADA claim, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants place youth with disabilities in restrictive
18 security programs because of their disabilities, thus denying them access to education and rehabilitation

19 services in the Juvenile Hall. Id. at ¶¶ 110-121, 278. They allege that Defendants fail to make reasonable

20 modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures, even though they are necessary to avoid
21 discrimination. Id. at ¶ 272. These modifications include identifying youth with disabilities who require 22
reasonable accommodations; inquiring into whether behaviors of youth with disabilities that lead to 23
disciplinary measures are disability-related; modifying school disciplinary policies and practices to ensure 24
25 that school officials have responsibility for discipline during school hours; and modifying restrictive

26 security program policies and practices to ensure that youth with disabilities are not disproportionately

27 burdened by such policies and practices by reason of their disabilities. Id.

28

Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants violate the IDEA by failing to conduct manifestation

6
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page12 of 19

determinations or any of the requirements that flow from such determinations, prior to removing youth 1 2 from the classroom for more than 10 days in a school year, as required by the IDEA. Id. at ¶¶ 253-254.

3 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants violate the IDEA by providing inadequate special education and

4 related services to youth at the Juvenile Hall and failing to provide special education and related services

5 altogether to youth with disabilities in the two most restrictive security programs. Id. at ¶¶ 92-109, 164,
6 254-256. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that any “tutoring” provided to youth in the third most restrictive
7 level, special program, does not constitute specialized academic instruction because it is not consistent
8
9 with the students’ IEP goals and does not allow youth with disabilities to continue to participate in the
10 general education curriculum. Id. at ¶ 165, 253-56.

11

Both Defendants responded with Motions to Dismiss on January 24, 2014. The Office of

12 Education contends that it has no legal responsibility for the disciplinary actions of the County, including

13 the use of restrictive security programs. Office of Education Mot. to Dismiss at 13-14. The County 14
contends that it does not have administrative control and direction over Mt. McKinley. County Mot. to 15
Dismiss at 8, Jan. 24, 2014, ECF No. 118. However, both the Office of Education and the County 16 17 acknowledge in their Motions to Dismiss that State law provides that they must engage in a collaborative
18 process to meet the needs of youth who are receiving education services in juvenile court schools and that

19 they must have procedures to communicate and coordinate between education and probation staff. Id.;

20 Office of Education Mot. to Dismiss at 13.

21

The County also argues that because of violent behavior, Plaintiffs pose a direct threat and are not

22 “otherwise qualified” under the ADA to participate in classroom education and the County’s
23

rehabilitation programs. County Mot. to Dismiss at 11-13. 24

25

IV. Discussion

26

A. Defendants Cannot Evade Their Responsibilities Under the ADA and the IDEA.

27

As used in Title II, a public entity includes any “state or local government” or “any department,

28 agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a state or local government.” 42 U.S.C.

7
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page13 of 19

§ 12131(1). As a local government, the County is a public entity under the ADA. The Office of 1 2 Education, as one of California’s Offices of Education, is an agency of a local government and subject to

3 the ADA. As such, both Defendants are prohibited by the ADA from discriminating against youth with

4 disabilities in the Juvenile Hall.

5

In addition, the IDEA places a duty both on the Office of Education and the County to provide

6 access to special education and related services to confined youth with disabilities. As the overseer of
7 special education services throughout the state, California vested responsibility for the operation of the
8
9 juvenile court schools and the provision of special education services to the County Boards of Education.6

10 See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a); Cal Educ. Code § 48645.2, § 56150. As the educational public agency, the

11 Office of Education has many responsibilities, including, but not limited to, the provision of special

12 education and related services and compliance with IDEA due process requirements, including those
13 protections specifically related to discipline. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412-1413; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.200-300.201; 14
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 1730. 15
The County alleges that it is not subject to the IDEA because it does not have any role in the 16 17 determination or provision of special education services. County Mot. to Dismiss at 6-7. However, the
18 IDEA applies to all political subdivisions of a state that are involved in the education of children with

19 disabilities, including local juvenile correctional facilities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(1)(iv). In their Amended

20 Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the County is involved in the education of youth with disabilities at the
21 Juvenile Hall in multiple ways. Pls.’ Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36, 37, 252 22

23 6 This is consistent with the IDEA statutory scheme that allows states to assign responsibility for delivery of special education services to other non-educational public agencies to provide or pay for special
24 education. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(12); 34 C.F.R. § 300.154. The IDEA expressly requires States to have mechanisms in place to address situations where a non-educational public agency in the State shares
25 responsibility under Federal or State law for providing or paying for special education and related services for children with disabilities in the State. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(12); 34 C.F.R. § 300.154. This is
26 accomplished through an interagency agreement or other mechanism for interagency coordination in order to ensure that all services that are needed to ensure a free appropriate public education are provided to
27 children with disabilities in the State. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(12); 34 C.F.R. § 300.154.

28

8
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page14 of 19

For instance, the County’s Chief Probation Officer is required to work with the Office of 1 2 Education to provide for the administration and operation of juvenile court schools. 15 Cal. Code Reg.

3 § 1370(a). The County’s facility administrators are required to work with the Office of Education to

4 develop a written policy and procedures “to ensure communication and coordination between educators

5 and probation staff.” Id. The County and the Office of Education must also ensure that education
6 instruction is “provided to minors restricted to high security or other special units” and that “state and
7 federal laws [are] observed for individuals with special education needs.” 15 Cal. Code Reg. § 1370(d).
8
9 The County is also prohibited by State law from depriving youth of education when imposing discipline.
10 15 Cal. Code Reg. § 1390(j).

11

The MOU entered into between the County and the Office of Education also delineates their joint

12 education-related responsibilities, including the provision of special education and related services.

13 Office of Education Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A at 1. For instance, both agencies are required to: collaborate
14 to ensure the safety and security of youth, staff, and outside providers; collaborate to encourage and
15 motivate parents and legal guardians to attend IEP meetings; and collaborate on a process in which the
16
17 Office of Education meets the educational needs of students held-back in their living units. Id. at 4.

18

The Office of Education alleges that it cannot be responsible for the denial of special education

19 and related services while youth with disabilities are locked in restrictive security programs because,

20 under the MOU, the County has sole legal authority to discipline youth. Office of Education Mot. to
21 Dismiss at 13. The County alleges that it has no role in the provision of special education and related 22
services at the Juvenile Hall. County Mot. to Dismiss at 6-7. 23
Public entities cannot avoid their ADA and IDEA obligations by contracting, transferring them to, 24
25 or sharing them with, another entity, especially one that is unwilling or unable to meet those obligations.

26 The Title II regulations prohibit public entities from discriminating “directly or through contracting,

27 licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1). In addition, it is a

28 violation of Title II to “aid or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability by

9
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page15 of 19

providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of 1 2 disability in providing any aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries of the public entity’s program.” Id.

3 § 35.130(b)(1)(v). Similarly, a public agency designated as the educational agency under the IDEA

4 remains responsible for ensuring IDEA compliance, even if another non-educational agency shares in that

5 obligation. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(12); 34 C.F.R. § 300.154.
6 In short, an entity covered under the ADA or the IDEA cannot escape its legal obligations by
7 contracting or delegating them to another entity, or by allowing another entity to interfere with carrying
8
9 out its responsibilities. Both Defendants attempt to do just that here, with the apparent hope of leaving no
10 one responsible for the discrimination and denial of special education and related services alleged by

11 Plaintiffs.

12 B. The IDEA Requires Defendants to Provide Eligible Students with Special Education and

13 Related

Services.

14

Congress enacted the IDEA in 1975 to ensure that children with disabilities that affect their ability

15 to learn are provided a “free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related

16 services designed to meet their unique needs.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); see §1401(3)(a); see also
17 Honig, 484 U.S. at 309. With very specific limited exceptions for those incarcerated in adult prisons, age18
eligible students with disabilities in detention are entitled to a free appropriate public education under the 19
IDEA. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.101-102, § 300.324 (d)(1)(i). The Juvenile Hall is not an adult prison and youth 20 21 detained in the Juvenile Hall retain their rights under the IDEA.

22

The IDEA contains procedural safeguards to protect the education rights of children removed from

23 instruction for disciplinary infractions. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k). Before a school can change the placement

24 of a child with a disability (i.e. removal for more than 10 school days), it must conduct a “manifestation
25 determination,” which is a review of all relevant information to determine if the questioned behavior was
26 caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability or the failure to implement
27 the child’s IEP. Id. § 1415(k)(1)(E). Furthermore, if an education provider removes a student from the
28

10
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page16 of 19

classroom for more than 10 days in a school year, it must provide the services necessary to allow the child 1 2 “to continue to participate in the general education curriculum and to progress toward meeting the goals

3 set out in the child’s IEP.” Id. § 1415(k)(1)(D)(i). Thus, if, as alleged, Defendants remove a youth with a

4 disability from school and place him or her in restrictive security programs for more than 10 school days

5 without conducting a manifestation determination or without providing the special education and related

6 services he or she is eligible for, they have violated the IDEA.

7 C.
8

The ADA Requires Defendants to Take Proactive Steps to Avoid Discrimination Against Students with Disabilities at the Juvenile Hall.

9

With the enactment of the ADA, Congress announced its intent to provide “a clear and national

10 mandate for the elimination of discrimination” based on disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). Congress
11 found that “[i]solat[ion] and segregat[ion]” were pervasive in areas such as education and
12 institutionalization prior to the ADA’s implementation. Id. § 12101(a)(2) and (3). Under the public
13

14 services provisions of Title II, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability,

15 be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public

16 entity, or be subjected to discrimination.” Id. § 12132. The protections of the ADA extend to youth with

17 disabilities in a juvenile detention facility. See Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998)
18 (holding that the language of the ADA unambiguously refers to people who are incarcerated); Lee v. City
19 of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 691 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (“[T]he
20 21 ADA’s broad language brings within its scope anything a public entity does…includ[ing] programs or
22 services provided at jails, prisons, and any other custodial or correctional institution.”).

23

The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA set forth the general prohibitions against

24 discrimination that apply to Defendants. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a). Public entities may not, on the basis

25 of disability, deny youth with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit,
26 or service the entity provides. Id. § 35.130(b)(1)(i). Nor may public entities afford youth with disabilities
27 an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded
28

11
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page17 of 19

others. Id. § 35.130(b)(1)(ii). The public entity must provide all services, programs, and activities in the 1 2 most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual with disabilities. Id. § 35.130(d). In

3 addition, public entities must make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, or procedures

4 when necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate

5 that doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity, or would result in
6 undue financial or administrative burdens. Id. § 35.130(b)(7), see § 35.164.
7 In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have not fulfilled their obligations
8
9 under the ADA because they have not considered and implemented reasonable modifications that would
10 prevent qualified youth with disabilities from being placed in restrictive security programs because of

11 their disability-related behaviors and from being denied disability-related education and rehabilitation

12 services while in restrictive security programs. Pls.’ Am. Compl. ¶¶ 269, 272. As a result, Plaintiffs

13 allege that Defendants deny youth with disabilities meaningful access to special education and related 14
services. Plaintiffs also allege that the denial of special education and related services while in restrictive 15
security programs leaves youth with disabilities further behind in their education and rehabilitation than 16 17 their non-disabled peers because, by reason of their disability, disabled youth require additional assistance
18 to access the general education curriculum and rehabilitative programs. Id. at ¶ 271.

19

The County alleges in a blanket assertion that Plaintiffs are a direct threat to safety and that this

20 relieves them from providing education and rehabilitation services. The Office of Education defers to the
21 County in this determination. Under the IDEA, public entities are not relieved from providing special 22
education and related services to eligible youth with disabilities based on disciplinary reasons, and “direct 23
threat” or dangerousness is not a defense to the IDEA obligation to provide educational services to all 24
25 eligible youth. See Honig, 484 U.S. at 323; 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k). The fact that youth have been charged

26 with or convicted of a crime does not diminish their substantive rights, procedural safeguards, and

27 remedies provided under the IDEA to youth with disabilities and their parents. See 34 C.F.R.

28 300.2(b)(1)(iv); Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 829 F.Supp. 1016, 1020 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Even

12
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page18 of 19

when there are special circumstances based on the seriousness of a youth’s behavior, the youth is entitled 1 2 to continue receiving education services and appropriate interventions and modifications to address the 3 youth’s behavior. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)(D), § 1415(b)(1)(G).

4

V. Conclusion

5

Public entities have a responsibility to serve youth with disabilities: Title II of the ADA requires

6 them to ensure that their services, programs, and activities do not discriminate against qualified youth
7 with disabilities. The IDEA and its regulations require public agencies designated to provide special
8
9 education and related services to deliver free appropriate public education to youth with disabilities. The

10 IDEA also provides that youth with covered disabilities have a right to a manifestation determination

11 prior to extended removal from the classroom and to receive educational services during long placements

12 outside of the classroom, such as in restrictive security programs.

13

Plaintiffs have adequately alleged violations of the ADA and IDEA. Contrary to their assertions,

14 no Defendant can avoid its responsibilities by pointing to the other. They both have independent and
15 shared responsibilities. The students in their charge cannot be responsible for the agencies’ failures to
16

17 meet those legal obligations.

18

Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests consideration of this Statement of Interest

19 and, for the reasons stated herein, requests this Court to deny Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss on the bases

20 addressed herein.7

21

Respectfully submitted,

22 PHILIP

H. ROSENFELT JOCELYN

23

Deputy General Counsel Delegated to

Perform the Functions of the General Counsel

24 U.S.

Department of Education

25

26

SAMUELS Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. Deputy Assistant Attorney General

27 7 The United States takes no position on any other issues not specifically addressed in this Statement of
28 Interest.

13
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:13-cv-03667-MEJ Document159 Filed02/13/14 Page19 of 19

1

2

JONAT

3

4 Special
5

6

7

RENEE

8

Educational

9

REBE

10

11

Special

12

13

14

RYAN

15

Civil

16

950

17

Telephone:

18

Facsim

E-m

19

Attorneys 20

21

22 DATED: February 13, 2014

Washington,

D.C.

23

24

25

26

27

28

EVE L. HILL Deputy Assistant Attorney General
HAN M. SMITH Chief LUIS E. SAUCEDO Acting Deputy Chief
Litigation Section
ANURIMA BHARGAVA Chief
WOHLENHAUS Deputy Chief
Opportunities Section
CCA B. BOND Chief KATHLEEN P. WOLFE
Litigation Counsel Disability Rights Section

Special

s/ Ryan C. Wilson C. WILSON (DC 1013907)
Trial Attorney Rights Division Litigation Section
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 305-9937 ile: (202) 514-4883 ail: ryan.wilson@usdoj.gov
for the United States of America

14
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. Case No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 </s> 1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
G. F., et al., 7
Plaintiffs, 8
v. 9
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., 10
Defendants. 11

Case No. 13-cv-03667-MEJ
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND GRANTING MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 292, 303

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

13

INTRODUCTION

14

The Court preliminarily approved the parties’ settlement of this class case on July 30,

15 2015. Prelim. Approval Order, Dkt. No. 288. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’

16 unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreements (Dkt. No. 303) and Motion

17 for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Dkt. No. 292). The Court held a final fairness hearing

18 on these matters on November 12, 2015. Dkt. No. 306. Having carefully considered the Motions,

19 the relevant legal authority, and the proposed Settlement Agreements and all supporting

20 documents, the Court GRANTS FINAL APPROVAL of the Settlement Agreements and

21 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs as set forth below.

22

BACKGROUND1

23 A. Case Background

24

On August 8, 2013, Plaintiffs G.F. (by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.), W.B.,

25 and Q.G. filed this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleging

26 discrimination against a proposed class of youth with disabilities who are detained, or will be

27 1 A more thorough description of the background of this case, the settlement negotiations, and the

28

terms of the settlement agreement can be found in the Preliminary Approval Order. See Prelim. Approval Order at 1-15.

1 detained, at the Juvenile Hall located in Martinez, California (“Juvenile Hall”). See Compl. at 1-6,

2 Dkt. No. 1; see also First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) at 1-5, Dkt. No. 87. In doing so, Plaintiffs sued

3 Defendant Contra Costa County (the “County”), which operates Juvenile Hall through its

4 Probation Department, and is responsible for the care of youth detained there. FAC ¶¶ 34-35, 61.

5 Plaintiffs also sued Defendant Contra Costa Office of Education (“CCCOE”), in conjunction with

6 the County Probation Department, which operates Mt. McKinley, the public onsite school that

7 provides educational services for youth held at Juvenile Hall. Id. ¶¶ 47, 122.

8

In bringing this action, Plaintiffs assert CCCOE and the County (collectively,

9 “Defendants”) have adopted and implemented policies and practices with regard to solitary

10 confinement that have a disparate impact on youth with disabilities. Id. ¶ 297. Specifically,

11 Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ solitary confinement policies and practices deny youth

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 educational and rehabilitative services, which disproportionately burdens youth with disabilities

13 who require additional assistance to access the general education curriculum and rehabilitative

14 programs. Id. ¶¶ 2, 9. Plaintiffs also contend that while Individualized Education Plans (“IEPs”)

15 are legally required for youth with disabilities, Defendants have an established policy of simply

16 disregarding those requirements, noting the IEPs in Juvenile Hall are strikingly similar regardless

17 of the students’ varying disabilities, needs, and previous IEPs. Id. ¶¶ 134, 150. Plaintiffs allege

18 Juvenile Hall’s IEPs do not consider disability-related behavior that may impact education, and

19 Defendants do not rely on positive behavioral interventions and supports to counter behavior that

20 impedes learning. Id. ¶¶ 166, 169.

21

Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification contemporaneously with their original

22 Complaint, and subsequently re-filed their motion for class certification following the filing of

23 their FAC on December 24, 2013. See Dkt. Nos. 8-9 (Mot. and Br. in Supp. of. Class

24 Certification), 92-93 (Am. Mot. and Br. in Supp. of. Class Certification). Plaintiffs’ FAC asserts

25 six causes of action against Defendants: (1) violation of the Individuals with Disabilities

26 Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.; (2) violation of the Americans

27 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; (3) violation of Section 504 of the

28 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.; (4) violation of California Government Code section 2

1 11135; (5) violation of California Education Code for Special Education Requirements, sections

2 56000, et seq.; and (6) violation of California Education Code for General Education

3 Requirements. FAC ¶¶ 247-342.

4

On January 24, 2014, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the FAC, Dkt. Nos. 113, 118,

5 and on February 7, 2014, they filed their Oppositions to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification,

6 Dkt. Nos. 133, 136. All motions have been fully briefed, but upon notification about the parties’

7 ongoing efforts to reach a settlement, the Court deferred ruling on these motions.

8

After extensive negotiations and the assistance of three experienced mediators, including

9 Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, the parties reached an agreement to settle this case. Plaintiffs’

10 final agreement with CCCOE (“CCCOE Agreement”) was fully executed on May 18, 2015, and

11 their final agreement with the County (“County Agreement”) was fully executed on May 19, 2015

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 (collectively, “Settlement Agreements”). Mary-Lee Smith Decl. in Supp. of Prelim. Approval ¶

13 24, Dkt. No. 279-1; see also Dkt. No. 279-2 (“CCCOE Agmt.”); Dkt. No. 279-3 (“Cty. Agmt.”).

14 Plaintiffs filed an unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of their Settlement Agreements on

15 June 30, 2015. Dkt. No. 279.

16 B. Settlement Terms

17

1. The County Agreement

18

Under the County Agreement, Probation Staff will no longer use room confinement for

19 discipline, punishment, administrative convenience, retaliation, staffing shortages or reasons other

20 than a temporary response to behavior that threatens immediate harm to the youth or others. Cty.

21 Agmt. at 5, § IV(D)(2). Additionally, Probation Staff is prohibited from placing youth in

22 continuous room confinement for longer than four hours. Id., § IV(D)(3). After four continuous

23 hours, Staff must return the youth to the general population, develop “specialized individualized

24 programming” for the youth, or consult with a qualified mental health professional about whether

25 a youth’s behavior requires that he or she be transported to a mental health facility. Id.

26

Further, Probation Staff must develop special individualized programming for youth with

27 persistent behavior problems that threaten the safety of youth or staff or the security of the facility

28 and may not use room confinement as a substitute for special individualized programming. Id. at 3

1 5, § IV(D)(4). Special individualized programming includes the development of any

2 individualized plan designed to improve the youth’s behavior, which is created in consultation

3 with the youth, Contra Costa County Mental Health (“County Mental Health”) staff, and the

4 youth’s family members, when available. Id. at 5-6, § IV(D)(4)(a).

5

The County Agreement calls for increased coordination between Probation, CCCOE, and

6 County Mental Health through the use of multi-disciplinary team meetings, to be held at least once

7 per month with additional meetings held as needed. Id. at 4, § IV(B). Among other things, the

8 meetings will address coordination of responses and interventions as well as coordination of

9 special education and counseling services to all eligible youth. Id., §§ IV(B)(1)-(3).

10

The County will also retain Professor Barry Krisberg as an expert in this matter, and

11 Professor Krisberg will work with Professor Edward Latessa to conduct a review of the County’s

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 policies and practices at Juvenile Hall. Id., § IV(A)(1)-(2). Specifically, Professors Krisberg and

13 Latessa will review policies and practices relating to: (a) room confinement; (b) use of behavior

14 incentives; (c) coordination between CCCOE and the Probation Department, including but not

15 limited to, the County’s coordination with CCCOE on CCCOE’s implementation of IEPs, Section 16 504 Plans2, and behavior intervention plans; (d) identification, assessment and tracking of youth

17 with disabilities who are detained at Juvenile Hall and referral systems to identify these youth for

18 CCCOE and County Mental Health; and (e) the implementation of Juvenile Detention Alternatives

19 Initiative standard V.D.4., which specifies that disability must be considered in determining an

20 appropriate response when assigning consequences. Id., §§ IV(A)(1)(a)-(e). Following review by

21 the experts of the above policies and practices, the joint recommendations of Professors Krisberg

22 and Latessa will be submitted to the County and Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the County will

23 implement those joint recommendations. Id., § IV(A)(2). The County Agreement also sets forth a

24 dispute resolution process if the experts do not agree on recommendations. Id. at 3-4, §§

25 IV(A)(2)(a)-(e). If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, they may submit the matter for

26 further mediation or to the Court and ultimately the Ninth Circuit if necessary. Id., § IV(A)(2)(a)-

27 28 2 Section 504 Plans refer to plans established in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act.

4

1 (d). Attorneys’ fees and costs are permitted to the prevailing party under the Agreement. Id., §

2 (IV)(A)(2)(e).

3

The County Agreement consists of two primary phases: the Implementation Period and the

4 Monitoring Period. The Implementation Period lasts 18 months, allowing for the experts to

5 conduct their review, issue their expert report detailing their findings and recommendations, and

6 for the County to train staff and revise policies to implement those recommendations. Id. at 6, §

7 IV(E). Following that Period, there will be a Monitoring Period that lasts for 24 months, during

8 which the experts will provide the parties with monitoring reports every six months. Id. The

9 parties will rely on benchmarks to show the County’s compliance with the County Agreement

10 during the initial phase of the Monitoring Period, concluding with the provision that all units will

11 be in substantial compliance with the provisions of the County Agreement. Id., § IV(E).

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

The County Agreement provides for the payment of $1,340,000 as full and final settlement

13 of all attorneys’ fees and costs related to this case and the named Plaintiffs’ individual due process

14 claims, as set forth in Contra Costa County v. Barbara C., Civil Case No. C-14-00268 MEJ,

15 Contra Costa County v. CiCi C., Civil Case No. C-14-00269 MEJ, and Contra Costa County v.

16 Gail F., Civil Case No. C-14-00270 MEJ. Id. at 11-12, § IX.

17

2. The CCCOE Agreement

18

The CCCOE Agreement provides for CCCOE to retain an expert with expertise in: (1) the

19 IDEA; (2) the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA; (3) California state law requirements pertaining to

20 special education; and (4) the operation of juvenile court schools. CCCOE Agmt. at 2, § 4.1.1.

21 This expert will conduct a review of CCCOE’s policies, procedures and practices in the following 22 areas: (a) Child Find obligations3 in accordance with the IDEA, related California law, and the

23 Rehabilitation Act for youth with suspected disabilities who are detained at Juvenile Hall; (b)

24 development and implementation of IEPs and Section 504 Plans in accordance with the IDEA,

25

26

3 According to Plaintiffs’ FAC, “a local education agency (‘LEA’) has what are called ‘Child Find’ obligations, which means it must have procedures to identify, locate and evaluate ‘[a]ll

27

children with disabilities . . . who are in need of special education and related services[.]’ 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); Cal. Educ. Code § 56301(a); see also 45 C.F.R. § 84.32(a). When a LEA

28

identifies a student suspected of having a disability, an initial assessment must be conducted by qualified persons in all areas of suspected disability. Cal. Educ. Code § 56320.” FAC ¶ 128.

5

1 related California law, and the Rehabilitation Act for all eligible disabled youth detained in

2 Juvenile Hall; (c) discipline in accordance with applicable law for all eligible disabled youth

3 detained in Juvenile Hall; and (d) CCCOE’s obligation to coordinate with Probation regarding all

4 matters in which CCCOE and Probation have joint or overlapping responsibilities, in accordance

5 with relevant California law. Id. at 3-4, § 4.1.7.

6

To conduct this review, the CCCOE Agreement gives the expert full and reasonable access

7 to any and all information he or she deems necessary, including: (1) full access to the areas in

8 which CCCOE operates; (2) the ability to talk with, consult with, and interview staff from

9 CCCOE; (3) the ability to observe youth in the classroom setting, attend IEP meetings with the

10 consent of the educational rights holder, observe youth during other special education related

11 services (except for individual counseling services), and review recordings of IEP team meetings;

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 (4) access to CCCOE records, with the exception of private personnel files; and (5) the ability to

13 conduct written surveys of youth detained in Juvenile Hall and to speak with small groups of

14 students as needed. Id. at 4-5, § 4.1.8.

15

Based on this review, the expert will develop a report (“Expert Report”) that will include

16 all proposed revisions to policies, procedures, and practices he or she recommends. Id. at 5, §

17 4.1.10. This report will be completed within six months of the commencement of the expert’s

18 review. Id. Following the issuance of the Expert Report, both Plaintiffs and CCCOE will have an

19 opportunity to challenge any recommendation contained in the report on the basis that it is not

20 required by and/or does not comply with federal and/or state law. Id., § 4.1.11. Once all

21 challenges have been resolved, CCCOE will adopt and implement the report. Id., § 4.1.12.

22 CCCOE shall use best efforts when implementing the Expert Report to coordinate and cooperate

23 with other authorities operating in and providing services at Juvenile Hall, including, but not

24 limited to, the County’s Probation Department. Id. at 6, § 4.3.1.

25

Following selection of the Expert and drafting and approval of the Expert Report, there

26 will be a 24-month monitoring term. Id. at 5, § 4.1.12. During this time, the Expert will provide

27 the parties with monitoring reports on a quarterly basis for the first 12 months and on a semi-

28 annual basis thereafter with a final report at the end of the monitoring term. Id. at 6, § 5.2. 6

1

In addition, CCCOE will designate at least one employee at Juvenile Hall as an “ADA

2 Coordinator” who will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the ADA generally and for

3 investigating and responding to any ADA complaints. Id. at 6, § 4.2.1.

4

To the extent disputes arise regarding the Expert Report and/or compliance with the

5 CCCOE Agreement during its term, the CCCOE Agreement provides for a dispute resolution

6 process, which may be heard by this Court or appealed further. Id. at 7, § 6.2.

7

Finally, the CCCOE Agreement provides for a total payment of $1,165,000 for reasonable

8 attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the course of the lawsuit, to be paid in installments, with

9 $70,000 of this amount put aside to compensate for fees, expenses and costs incurred in

10 monitoring CCCOE’s implementation of the Settlement Agreement. Id. at 11, §§ 12.2-7.

11

3. Similar Provisions in Both Agreements

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Under the CCCOE Agreement, the “Released Injunctive Claims” are “any and all claims,

13 rights, demands, charges, complaints, actions, suits and causes of action, whether known or

14 unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for injunctive or declaratory relief, that

15 have been brought in the Lawsuit or which could have been brought as educationally-based claims

16 under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and/or IDEA, arising from August 8, 2013 through the Term

17 of the Agreement.” Id. at 10, § 11.2. The Term of the Agreement is defined as “from the

18 Effective Date [i.e., the date of Final Approval] until the completion of the Expert Monitoring

19 Term and issuance of the final Monitoring Report[.]” Id. at 8, § 7.1. The County Agreement is

20 similar: the “Released Injunctive Claims” are “any and all claims[,] rights, demands, charges,

21 complaints, actions, suits and causes of action, whether known or unknown, suspected or

22 unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for injunctive or declaratory relief, that have been brought in

23 this lawsuit under the IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, California Government Code § 11135 and/or

24 the California Education Code[,] arising from August 8, 2013 through the Term of the

25 Agreement[.]” Cty. Agmt. at 10, § VI. The Term of the Agreement is defined as “from the

26 Effective Date [i.e., the date of Final Approval] until the completion of the Monitoring Period,

27 which shall be the date of the issuance of the final Monitoring Report.” Id. at 12, § X(A). At the

28 hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed the “Terms” of these Agreements would last approximately 7

1 three years to three and a half years, give or take the time built into the CCCOE Agreement to

2 select experts for CCCOE’s monitoring.

3

The settlements do not: (1) provide for any monetary relief to be paid to class members;

4 (2) release any individual claims for damages, or otherwise affect the rights of class members to

5 pursue individual claims for compensatory education or other individual relief under the IDEA

6 and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and (3) do not affect any claims for reasonable

7 accommodations related to physical access, communication access, and/or accommodations

8 otherwise relating to hearing, vision and/or mobility disabilities arising under the ADA or the 9 Rehabilitation Act. CCCOE Agmt. at 10-11, § 11; Cty. Agmt. at 10, § VI.4

10

The Agreements provide for the Court to retain jurisdiction for purposes of approval and

11 enforcement of any award of attorneys’ fees and costs, as well for purposes of dispute resolution.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Cty. Amgt. at 11, § VIII; CCCOE Agmt. at 10, § 10.1; see also Stipulation, Dkt. No. 284.

13 C. Preliminary Approval

14

On Preliminary Approval, the Court conditionally certified the stipulated and proposed

15 class for purposes of settlement pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2),

16 defined as:

17

[A]ll youth with disabilities as defined under the ADA and the

Rehabilitation Act who are currently detained at or who will be

18

detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall.

19 Prelim. Approval Order at 26; see also Cty. Agmt. at 2, § V(B).; CCCOE Agmt. at 2, § 3.2.1. The

20 Court also appointed Disability Rights Advocates (“DRA”) and Public Counsel as class counsel to

21 effectuate the settlement, and Plaintiffs G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.; W.B.;

22 and Q.G as class representatives for settlement purposes only. Prelim. Approval Order at 26.

23

24

4 Under the County Agreement, however, the three named Plaintiffs have released their individual claims for compensatory education against the County as a resolution of their related individual

25

appeals cases, Contra Costa County v. Barbara C., Civil Case No. C-14-00268 MEJ, Contra Costa County v. CiCi C., Civil Case No. C-14-00269 MEJ, and Contra Costa County v. Gail F.,

26

Civil Case No. C-14-00270 MEJ. Cty. Agmt. at 10-11, §§ VI-VII. Specifically, the County will pay the named Plaintiffs a total of $1,140, representing the amount awarded to them for

27

compensatory education by an administrative judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) in their separate individual due process administrative proceedings. See Prelim.

28

Approval Mot. at 4-5 & 10 n.6. The County will provide these funds in exchange for Plaintiffs dismissing their cross appeals of the OAH’s decisions. Id. at 10 n.6.

8

1

The Court also largely approved the form and content of the proposed Notice of Proposed

2 Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit (“Notice”), Dkt. No. 284-1, as well as the Notice Plan as set

3 forth in the parties’ Agreements (CCCOE Agmt. at 8, § 8.4; Cty. Agmt. at 9, § V(F)). Id. at 26-27.

4 D. Post-Preliminary Approval

5

Following preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreements, the parties set off to

6 accomplish the Notice Plan, see Decl. of Kimberly Smith Confirming Distribution of Notice to Pl.

7 Settlement Class Members (“CCCOE Decl.”) ¶ 5(a)-(b), Dkt. No. 300; Decl. of D. Cameron Baker

8 Regarding Distribution of Notice of Settlement (“Cty. Decl.”) ¶ 4(b), Dkt. No. 301; Mary-Lee

9 Smith Decl. In Supp. of Pls.’ Unopposed Mot. for Final Approval of the Settlement Agmts.

10 (“Smith Final Approval Decl.”) ¶ 11, Dkt. No. 304.

11

Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Attys’ Fees

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Mot.”), Dkt. No. 292, on September 29, 2015, and subsequently, on October 29, 2015, filed their

13 unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreements (“Final Approval Mot.”),

14 Dkt. No. 303. The Court held the fairness hearing on these matters on November 12, 2015. Dkt.

15 No. 306.

16

DISCUSSION – FINAL APPROVAL

17 A. Legal Standard

18

The Ninth Circuit maintains a “strong judicial policy” that favors the settlement of class

19 actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). Nonetheless,

20 “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled . . . only with the court’s

21 approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). “The purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the unnamed members

22 of the class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights.” In re Syncor ERISA Litig.,

23 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

24

“Adequate notice is critical to court approval of a class settlement under Rule 23(e).”

25 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1025 (9th Cir. 1998). Additionally, Rule 23(e) requires

26 the Court to determine whether the proposed settlement “is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

27 reasonable.” Id. at 1026; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) (“If the proposal would bind class members, the

28 court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.”). 9

1 To assess whether a settlement proposal is fair, adequate, and reasonable, the Court must generally

2 balance a number of factors, including:

3

(1) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense,

complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of

4

maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount

offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the

5

state of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7)

the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of

6

the class members to the proposed settlement.

7 In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

8 Where a settlement agreement is negotiated prior to formal class certification, it is subject to a

9 higher level of scrutiny, and a court’s approval order must ensure that the settlement is not the

10 product of collusion among the negotiating parties. Id. at 946-47.

11 B. Adequacy of Notice

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Rule 23(e) requires that “[t]he court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class

13 members who would be bound by the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). The notice must be

14 “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency

15 of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central

16 Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (citations omitted); see also Officers for

17 Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of S.F., 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982) (“The class

18 must be notified of a proposed settlement in a manner that does not systematically leave any group

19 without notice.” (citation omitted)). “Rule 23(e) requires notice that describes ‘the terms of the

20 settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come

21 forward and be heard.’” In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 946 (9th Cir.

22 2015) (quotation omitted). The court’s role in reviewing a proposed settlement is to represent

23 those class members who were not parties to the settlement negotiations and agreement. See, e.g.,

24 S.F. NAACP v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 59 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1027 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

25

1. How Notice Was Effected

26

The Court previously approved (1) the form and content of the proposed Notice, Dkt. No.

27 284-1; (2) the Notice Plan as set forth in the parties’ Agreements in Dkt. Nos. 279-2 (CCCOE

28 Agmt. at 8, § 8.4) and 279-3 (Cty. Agmt. at 9, § V(F)); and (3) the parties’ Stipulation at Dkt. No. 10

1 284. Prelim. Approval Order at 26-27. The Court also ordered the distribution of the Notice to

2 the class be completed by August 21, 2015. Id. at 27. The parties have largely fulfilled the Notice

3 Plan, as discussed below.

4

i. County’s Notice

5

First, the County posted the approved Notice in visitor areas, in a prominent place in each

6 unit, and in the entrance lobby of Juvenile Hall, commencing on or about August 6, 2015. Cty.

7 Decl. ¶ 4(b). Second, the County e-mailed the approved Notice to the Contra Costa County

8 Juvenile Court Judges, the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office, and the Contra Costa

9 County District Attorney’s Office. Id. ¶ 4(a). Finally, Plaintiffs and the County Department of

10 Probation posted the Notice and proposed Agreement in prominent places on their respective

11 websites on or before August 20, 2015. Id. ¶ 4(c); Smith Final Approval Decl. ¶ 11.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

ii. CCCOE Notice

13

First, CCCOE distributed the approved Notice to education rights holders of all youth

14 currently enrolled at Mt. McKinley with an IEP and/or a Section 504 plan, by personal delivery or

15 by First Class U.S. mail to the last known address. CCCOE Decl. ¶ 5(a)-(b). CCCOE sent out a

16 total of 65 notices and only two were returned as undeliverable. Supplemental Declaration of

17 Kimberly A. Smith Regarding Distribution of Notice to Plaintiff Settlement Class Members

18 (“CCCOE Suppl. Decl.”) ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 302. At the Hearing, CCCOE’s counsel represented to the

19 Court that it had successfully re-sent one of those previously returned notices, meaning only one

20 notice was ultimately undeliverable. See also id. In addition, CCCOE posted the approved Notice

21 in each classroom of Juvenile Hall, id. ¶ 5(c), and Plaintiffs’ Counsel and CCCOE posted the

22 Notice and proposed Agreement in a prominent place on their respective websites, on or before

23 August 20, 2015. Id. ¶ 6; Smith Final Approval Decl. ¶ 12.

24

iii. CAFA Compliance

25

Defendants provided Notice of the proposed Agreements to the U.S. Department of

26 Justice, the U.S. Department of Education, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, the

27 Attorney General for the State of California, the California Department of Education, and the

28 California Board of State and Community Corrections, as required by the Class Action Fairness 11

1 Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), by registered mail sent on July 10, 2015. Cty. Decl. ¶ 4(d)

2 and Ex. B. None of these class notices were returned as undeliverable. Id. ¶ 4(d).

3

iv. Website Link Issues

4

There were a couple problems that arose in posting the Notice and Proposed Settlement

5 Agreements online. Specifically, around August 4, 2015, the County Department of Probation

6 posted the Notice on its website but did not directly provide the Agreement; instead, the County

7 directed viewers to follow a link to the DRA website to find the proposed Agreement. Id. ¶ 4(c).

8 The County discovered this deficiency on October 2, 2015, and promptly posted the Agreement

9 directly to its website. Id. CCCOE likewise had a problem posting this information. Around

10 August 20, 2015, CCCOE posted an announcement of the proposed settlement with a link that

11 opened the Proposed Settlement Agreement, but it was later discovered on September 30, 2015

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 that the link did not include the Notice. CCCOE Decl. ¶ 6. CCCOE corrected the website on

13 October 1, 2015. Id.

14

2. Whether Notice Was Adequate

15

Given the foregoing, the Court finds that notice was directed in a reasonable manner to

16 class members who will be bound by the parties’ proposed Agreements. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

17 23(e)(1). First, the Court previously approved the language of the Notice itself and remains

18 satisfied that the notice describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with

19 adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard. In re Online, 779 F.3d at

20 946. Second, the Court finds Defendants’ manner of effecting notice “apprise[d] interested parties

21 of the pendency of the action and afford[ed] them an opportunity to present their objections.”

22 Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. While there were some minor issues with the posting of the

23 Agreements on the Defendants’ websites, the Court finds these minor mistakes do not detract from

24 the overall reasonableness of the notice effected in this case. The Court is satisfied that the notice

25 mailed and personally delivered to the education-rights holders, as well as the various postings of

26 the notice in the classrooms and lobby areas ensures class members received reasonable notice of

27 the Settlement Agreements.

28 // 12

1 C. Fairness, Adequacy, and Reasonableness

2

The Court now examines the Settlement Agreements to ensure they are “fair, reasonable,

3 and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). In doing so, the Court considers the settlement factors

4 listed above. As noted, when settlement occurs before formal class certification, settlement

5 approval requires a higher standard of fairness in order to ensure that class representatives and

6 their counsel do not secure a disproportionate benefit at the expense of the class. See Lane v.

7 Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012).

8

1. Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case

9

Approval of a class settlement is appropriate when plaintiffs must overcome significant

10 barriers to make their case. Chun-Hoon v. McKee Foods Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 848, 851 (N.D.

11 Cal. 2010). Here, Plaintiffs recognize the multitude of barriers they face to prevail with their

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 claims, including “acknowledg[ing] the novel nature of their class claims” and the obstacles in

13 establishing their claims in light of the uncertainties surrounding class certification and

14 Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. See Final Approval Mot. at 9 (citing Smith Final Approval Decl.

15 ¶ 8). Plaintiffs and the Court have previewed Defendants’ arguments in those Motions, and there

16 are several contentious issues that threaten Plaintiffs’ ability to maintain this case and their class

17 claims. While Plaintiffs maintain the Court would have certified the class and they would have

18 prevailed at summary judgment or trial, the challenges Plaintiffs face in this case weigh in favor of

19 approving the settlement.

20

2. Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of Further Litigation

21

Difficulties and risks of litigating weigh in favor of approving a class settlement. See

22 Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 966 (9th Cir. 2009). According to Plaintiffs, “both

23 parties agree that, absent settlement, this case would involve prolonged and costly litigation,

24 which might last years and involve extensive and complex law and motion practice.” Final

25 Approval Mot. at 10 (citing Smith Final Approval Decl. ¶ 9). In addition to the complexities

26 inherent with the claims here, the case is still at a relatively early stage in the proceedings, with

27 potentially years more protracted litigation before trial. Additionally, as Plaintiffs discussed, the

28 issues raised in this case are somewhat novel, which in the Court’s experience raises the likelihood 13

1 of significant motion practice and often appeals as well. See Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 966

2 (“Inevitable appeals would likely prolong the litigation, and any recovery by class members, for

3 years. This factor, too, favors the settlement.”). Plaintiffs maintain “[t]he proposed Agreements

4 avoid the risk, delay, and cost of further litigation, and allow all parties to participate in fashioning

5 almost immediate relief for young people with disabilities at Juvenile Hall.” Final Approval Mot.

6 at 10. Given the foregoing, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of approving the settlement.

7

3. Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Throughout Trial

8

The potential difficulties associated with achieving and maintaining class certification in

9 this case weigh in favor of approving the settlement. See Chun-Hoon, 716 F. Supp. 2d at 851. At

10 the time the parties executed the Settlement Agreements, the Court had not certified the class, and

11 it is unclear whether certification would have been granted. Defendants raised a number of

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 forceful challenges to Plaintiffs’ operative Class Certification Motion, including moving to strike

13 Plaintiffs’ expert. See Dkt. No. 143. Plaintiffs’ Counsel acknowledges that even if the Court

14 originally certified the class, there was a risk that “after granting Plaintiffs’ motion [for class

15 certification]” the Court could “later decertify the class.” Final Approval Mot. at 9-10 (citing

16 Smith Final Approval Decl. ¶ 9). Given these circumstances, the Court finds this factor weighs in

17 slight favor of approving the settlement.

18

4. Amount Offered in Settlement

19

The class-wide relief proposed in the Settlement Agreements is wholly injunctive;

20 accordingly, this factor does not have weight in the Court’s analysis.

21

5. Extent of Discovery Completed and the State of the Proceedings

22

“In the context of class action settlements, ‘formal discovery is not a necessary ticket to the

23 bargaining table’ where the parties have sufficient information to make an informed decision

24 about settlement.” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation

25 omitted). Accordingly, courts often “look to the amount of exchanged information prior to

26 settlement to determine whether the parties have made an informed decision to settle the case.”

27 Willner v. Manpower Inc., 2015 WL 3863625, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015) (citation omitted).

28

The extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings weigh in favor of final

14

1 approval. The parties entered into the proposed Agreements nearly two years after Plaintiffs filed

2 their Complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 279-2, 279-3. Before filing, Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted an

3 extensive investigation of policies and practices affecting youth at Juvenile Hall, including

4 reviewing thousands of pages of documents obtained through Public Records Act requests and

5 education records requests as well as making numerous visits to Juvenile Hall to meet with

6 detained youth. Smith Final Approval Decl. ¶ 6. Since the action commenced, the parties have

7 engaged in significant discovery. Among other things, Defendants produced extensive education

8 records concerning individual young people held at Juvenile Hall, and each of the named Plaintiffs

9 have been deposed. Id. Additionally, the parties have briefed two separate sets of motions to

10 dismiss and a motion for class certification, and Plaintiffs have pursued administrative

11 proceedings against the County and CCCOE on behalf of each of the named Plaintiffs. Id. By the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 time the Settlement Agreements were reached, the litigation had proceeded to a point where both

13 Plaintiffs and Defendants “ha[d] a clear view of the strengths and weaknesses of their cases.”

14 Chun-Hoon, 716 F. Supp. 2d at 852. Approval of the settlement is thus favored.

15

6. The Experience and Views of Counsel

16

“Parties represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts to produce a

17 settlement that fairly reflects each party’s expected outcome in litigation.” In re Pac. Enters. Sec.

18 Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 378 (9th Cir. 1995). Class Counsel, the DRA and Public Counsel, are well-

19 qualified litigators with specialized expertise in the fields of disability and education rights. DRA

20 has served as lead counsel in over one hundred disability rights class action cases across the

21 United States and has specialized expertise in class action litigation to improve physical and

22 programmatic access to governmental programs and activities. Smith Preliminary Approval Decl.

23 ¶ 6, Dkt. No. 279-1; see also Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 2010

24 WL 2228531, at *3 n.3 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2010) (acknowledging DRA’s “extensive experience

25 litigation ADA class action claims.”). Likewise, Public Counsel’s education rights team has

26 extensive experience in impact litigation to improve access to education services, particularly

27 special education services. Laura Faer Decl. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees & Final

28 Approval of Class Settlement Agmts. (“Faer Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-9, Dkt. No. 294. 15

1

Class Counsel consider the proposed Agreements to be fair and reasonable compromises of

2 the disputed issues. Smith Final Approval Decl. ¶ 10. They also indicate they are aware of no

3 other class action challenging disciplinary and educational policies and practices in a juvenile hall

4 on the basis of disability discrimination that has resulted in such comprehensive reforms,

5 particularly, the adoption of national best practices found in the Juvenile Detention Alternatives

6 Initiative standards. Id. ¶ 10. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of the settlements.

7

7. The Presence of a Governmental Participant

8

While the government participants in this case are the Defendants, their support of the

9 settlements nevertheless weights slightly in favor of approval. Moreover, the United States

10 Department of Justice submitted a Statement of Interest in this case in February 2014 (Dkt. No.

11 159), and it has not objected to the Settlements, despite receiving Notice of the Agreements. See

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Cty. Decl. ¶ 4(d) and Ex. B. These facts weigh slightly in favor of the settlements.

13

8. Reaction of the Class Members to the Proposed Settlement

14

“[T]he absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises

15 a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are favorable to the class

16 members.” In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (quotation

17 omitted). No class members submitted objections to either the County or CCCOE Agreement.

18 Smith Final Approval Decl. ¶ 13. There were no other responses received by Plaintiffs’ counsel

19 from class members. Id. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of the settlements.

20

9. Potential Collusion

21

In addition to the eight factors above, where a settlement is agreed upon prior to class

22 certification, the Court must also consider whether the settlement is the product of collusion

23 among the negotiating parties. In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 947. In its Preliminary Approval

24 Order, the Court found “[t]he settlements in this case appear to be the product of serious,

25 informed, non-collusive negotiations.” Prelim. Approval Order at 22. In doing so, the Court

26 primarily considered the procedure by which the parties arrived at their settlements. See Chun-

27 Hoon, 716 F. Supp. 2d at 852. In charting out all the various negotiations that took place to settle

28 this case, the Court found these negotiations were “extensive and serious . . . lasting virtually the 16

1 duration of the litigation,” but at the same time the “parties continued to vigorously litigate the

2 action, which in turn permitted them to become more informed about the facts of this case.”

3 Prelim. Approval Order at 22-23. Additionally, the Court noted “the Parties did not negotiate

4 Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees or costs until after agreement was reached on the key merits issues.” Id.

5 at 23; Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027 (affirming trial court’s approval of class action settlement where

6 parties reached agreement after several months of negotiation and the record contained no

7 evidence of collusion).

8

In addition to the procedure by which the parties arrived at their settlements, the Court

9 must also look for other signs that may demonstrate collusion, including (1) when counsel receive

10 a disproportionate distribution of the settlement, or when the class receives no monetary

11 distribution but class counsel are amply rewarded; (2) when the parties negotiate a “clear sailing”

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 arrangement providing for the payment of attorneys’ fees separate and apart from class funds,

13 which carries the potential of enabling a defendant to pay class counsel excessive fees and costs in

14 exchange for counsel accepting an unfair settlement on behalf of the class; and (3) when the

15 parties arrange for fees not awarded to revert to defendants rather than be added to the class fund.

16 In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 947.

17

The first potential sign of collusion is present here: class counsel seek approximately $2.5

18 million in fees (Attys’ Fees Mot. at 1), while the class receives no monetary compensation under

19 the Settlement Agreements. The second potential sign of collusion is also present to an extent;

20 while there are no class funds, the Settlement Agreements arrange for class counsel to be paid

21 apart from some of the relief for to the class in the sense that Class Counsel will be paid before the

22 Defendants implement much of the injunctive relief established in the Settlement Agreements after

23 the expert reports. The third potential sign of collusion is not present: the Settlement Agreements

24 do not provide for fees not awarded to revert to Defendants. Although two of the potential signs

25 of collusion appear to be present here, their presence is not dispositive; rather, “[w]here a class

26 action settlement results in injunctive relief, the court must ensure that the amount of the requested

27 attorneys’ fees does not result in ‘less injunctive relief for the class than could otherwise have been

28 obtained.’” In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 947 (quotation omitted). 17

1

The Court is reassured the amount of requested attorneys’ fees has not resulted in less

2 injunctive relief for the class than could have otherwise been obtained. First, as noted previously,

3 the fact that the parties only negotiated attorneys’ fees after agreement was reached on the key

4 merits issues is favorable in showing class counsel did not allow their attorneys’ fees to interfere

5 with the injunctive relief sought for the class. In support of this fact, Class counsel submitted the

6 Declaration of Mary-Lee Smith, an attorney with the DRA, who states under the penalty of perjury

7 that the parties “did not negotiate Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees or costs until after reaching agreement

8 on the key merits issues.” Smith Final Approval Decl. ¶ 7. Second, the parties worked with

9 neutral mediators, including Judge Spero (id.), which is “a factor weighing in favor of a finding of

10 non-collusiveness,” though not dispositive on its own of whether the end product is a fair,

11 adequate, and reasonable settlement agreement. In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 948. Third, the

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Agreements provide that Class Counsel can seek addition attorneys’ fees in monitoring

13 Defendants’ compliance with the Agreements, which indicates the fee amounts provided for in the

14 Agreements are not necessarily class counsel’s final settling point and provides incentive to ensure

15 the injunctive relief is fully implemented. See Cty. Agmt. at 11, § IX; CCCOE Agmt. at 6, § 5.3

16 and 11, § 12.4. Fourth, considering the Settlement Agreements in their entireties, and comparing

17 the relief originally sought in this case to the relief achieved through these Agreements, the Court

18 finds the Agreements largely accomplish the injunctive relief sought in Plaintiffs’ First Amended

19 Complaint. See Final Approval Mot. at 7-8. Finally, the Court has considered Plaintiffs’

20 Counsel’s fee request and the reasonableness of those fees in the section below and finds them to

21 be fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

22

In sum, while the attorneys’ fees in this case are not insignificant, the Court has not

23 uncovered grounds for finding the requested fees have resulted in less injunctive relief for the

24 class or that there is evidence of collusion between the parties.

25

10. Summary

26

Given the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that even under heightened scrutiny, the

27 Settlement Agreements are “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).

28 // 18

1 D. Certification of the Settlement Class

2

In considering Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Approval Motion, the Court considered in detail

3 whether all of the elements of Rule 23 are met such that certification of a settlement class was

4 warranted. See Prelim. Approval Order at 16-22. “Because the Settlement Class has not changed,

5 the Court sees no reason to revisit the analysis of Rule 23.” Sadowska v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am.,

6 Inc., 2013 WL 9600948, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013).

7 E. Summary Regarding Final Approval

8

Given the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that Final Approval of the Settlement

9 Agreements is warranted under the circumstances. The Court now turns to the matter of Plaintiffs’

10 attorneys fees’ and costs.

11

ATTORNEYS FEES’ AND COSTS – DISCUSSION

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 A. Legal Standard

13

“In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable

14 costs that are authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). Thus, in

15 awarding attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), “courts have an

16 independent obligation to ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the

17 parties have already agreed to an amount.” In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941 (citations omitted).

18

In this circuit, there are two primary methods used to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees:

19 the lodestar method and the percentage-of-recovery method. In re Online, 779 F.3d at 949. The

20 lodestar method is most appropriate where the relief sought is “primarily injunctive in nature,” and

21 a fee-shifting statute authorizes “the award of fees to ensure compensation for counsel undertaking 22 socially beneficial litigation.” In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941.5 The lodestar represents a

23 reasonable hourly fee multiplied by the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation.

24 See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); see also Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029-30

25 (explaining that courts employ the lodestar method of calculating attorneys’ fees in injunctive

26 5 See also Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1209-10 (9th Cir. 2013) (“It is not per se

27

unreasonable for attorneys to receive a fee award that exceeds the amount recovered by their clients,” which is “especially true in civil rights cases, where the dollar amount lawyers recover

28 for their clients is not the sole measure of the results the prevailing parties’ attorneys obtained.”).

19

1 relief class actions, multiplying the hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate). The lodestar figure

2 is a presumptively reasonable fee. Clark v. City of L.A., 803 F.2d 987, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1986).

3

Because Plaintiffs pursued claims under statutes with fee-shifting provisions—42 U.S.C. §

4 12205 and California Civil Code sections 52(a) and 54.3(a) (see Attys’ Fee Mot. at 1)—and

5 because the relief sought is injunctive in nature, the Court applies the lodestar method to assess the

6 reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees request. See, e.g., Lara v. Renaissance Hotel

7 Operating Co., 2011 WL 6002521, at *4 (D. Haw. Nov. 29, 2011) (“Although Plaintiffs do not

8 request a lodestar award of attorneys’ fees in this case, this Court uses the fees that it could have

9 awarded Plaintiffs under the lodestar analysis as a gauge of the reasonableness of the attorneys’

10 fees provided for in the Settlement Agreement.” (citations omitted)).

11 B. Lodestar Analysis

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

As an initial matter, the Court notes that in the Preliminary Approval Order it required

13 Plaintiffs’ Counsel to file their Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs by September 29, 2015—

14 two weeks in advance of the deadline for objections, and over one month in advance of the

15 Fairness Hearing. Prelim. Approval Order at 27. Plaintiffs’ Counsel timely filed their Motion for

16 Attorneys’ Fees, and the Court has received no objections to the Motion. Accordingly, the Court

17 weighs for itself whether Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s request is reasonable under the lodestar method.

18

Four legal organizations represented Plaintiffs throughout this action: DRA, Public

19 Counsel, Paul Hastings LLP (“Paul Hastings”) and Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP6 (“Zelle

20 Hofmann”). The following chart represents the breakdown of each of the four law firms’ lodestar 21 in the Federal Class Action7:

22 6 Paul Hastings withdrew as Plaintiffs’ counsel on March 13, 2014, and Zelle Hofmann joined 23 thereafter. Attys’ Fee Mot. at 2 n.1.

24

7 Plaintiffs’ Counsel provided the numbers and lodestar calculations for their other work on the related administrative actions for the class representatives (Dkt. Nos. 294-5 and 294-6, Exs. E-F to

25

Smith Decl.), but for purposes of this Order, the Court finds it more appropriate to focus on the numbers related to the Federal Class Action (i.e., the litigation apart from the appeals from the

26

administrative hearings), as those numbers apply more concretely to the Court’s required analysis under Rule 23(h). It is possible that the time spent on the administrative actions could be

27

considered under the Rule 23(h) analysis, but the Court finds it unnecessary to consider that data at this point, particularly as the lodestars for the Federal Class Action are well above the fees

28 sought through the Settlement Agreements.

20

1

Firm8

Hours Rate Range9 Avg. Rate Lodestar10

2

Disability Rights Advocates 5293.6 $195-$895 $451.92 $2,375,735.50

3

Public Counsel

772.5 $175-$570 $311

$240,247.50

4

Zelle Hofmann

79.6 $175-$550 $336.25 $33,090.00

5

Paul Hastings

2548.10 $205-$975 $497.33 $1,606,542.75

6

TOTALS:

8693.80 ---

---

$4,322,068.75

7 See Dkt. No. 293-4 (Ex. D to Mary-Lee Smith Decl. in Supp. of Attys’ Fees Mot.).

8

Plaintiffs did not settle fees and costs separately, and thus the costs are included in the

9 settlement amounts from the Defendants. The following chart represents the breakdown of each

10 of the four firms’ costs related to the Federal Class Action:

11

Firm

Costs

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

Disability Rights Advocates $15,490.94

13

Public Counsel

$0

14

Zelle Hofmann

$24.33

15

Paul Hastings

$76,461.53

16

TOTAL:

$91,976,80

17 Id.

18

1. Hourly Rate

19

First, to determine the appropriate lodestar amount, the reasonableness of the hourly billing

20 rate must be assessed. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). In

21 8 In the co-counsel agreement between Paul Hastings, Public Counsel, and DRA, these entities

22

agreed that if they recovered fees and costs, Paul Hastings would be reimbursed for its out-ofpocket expenses but would donate to Public Counsel and DRA any attorneys’ fees obtained as a

23

result of Paul Hastings’ work. “Therefore, the Paul Hastings share of fees . . . will be donated to Public Counsel and DRA.” Carter Decl. ¶ 32, Dkt. No. 296.

24 9 DRA, Public Counsel, and Zelle Hofmann seek only their 2014 rates as negotiations began in

25

2014 and as a concession in the process of settlement; Paul Hastings seeks only its 2013 rates as their participation in the case ended in early 2014. Attys’ Fees Mot. at 12.

26 10 The lodestar figures listed here take into account the hours spent by the various attorneys

27

working on the case. A breakdown of all the hours spent by the various attorneys and related staff on the Federal Class Action is found at Docket Number 293-4, an exhibit to the Declaration of

28 Mary-Lee Smith of DRA.

21

1 considering the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ hourly rates, as the Court has noted above,

2 Plaintiffs seek an hourly rate of between $175 per hour and $975 per hour depending on the

3 particular attorney or counsel. Plaintiffs seek an hourly rate of $845-$975 for two of the most

4 senior and experienced litigators at the DRA, Sid Wolinsky and Laurence Paradis, as well as the

5 most senior litigator working on this case from Paul Hastings LLP, Grace Carter. The other

6 attorneys’ hourly rates fall between $210 and $700. For non-attorneys, Plaintiffs seek hourly rates

7 of between $175 and $340.

8

To determine whether rates are reasonable, courts must identify the relevant community,

9 and assess the prevailing hourly rate in that community for similar services by lawyers of

10 reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation. See Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979.

11 “Generally, when determining a reasonable hourly rate, the relevant community is the forum in

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 which the district court sits.” Id. Consequently, Plaintiffs submit that the relevant community in

13 this case is the San Francisco Bay Area, and the reasonableness of rates charges should be

14 determined by reference to the rates charged by Bay Area attorneys with commensurate skill,

15 experience, and reputation. Attys’ Fees Mot. at 9-10.

16

In support of their rates, skill, experience, and reputation, Plaintiffs provided supporting

17 declarations of attorneys from each of the organizations that worked on this case: Declaration of

18 Mary-Lee Smith of DRA (“Smith Decl.”), Dkt. No. 293; Declaration of Laura Faer of Public

19 Counsel (“Faer Decl.”), Dkt. No. 294; Declaration of Lillian Chen of Public Counsel (“Chen

20 Decl.”), Dkt. No. 295; Declaration of Grace Carter of Paul Hastings (“Carter Decl.”), Dkt. No.

21 296; and Declaration of Daniel S. Mason of Zelle Hofmann (“Mason Decl.”), Dkt. No. 297.

22 These declarations describe the organization the individual declarant attorney works with, their

23 efforts in this litigation, their methods for calculating their lodestars, as well as the experience,

24 skill, and reputation of the organizations and the individuals who worked on this case. All of the

25 declarations demonstrate these firms are experienced and tested in the area of complex litigation

26 with strong reputations in the legal community.

27

In addition, Plaintiffs submitted the declaration of William Alderman, a partner at the San

28 Francisco office of the law firm Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP, who has expertise regarding 22

1 prevailing billing rates for Bay Area attorneys who handle complex litigation and is the co-author

2 of the chapter entitled “Fee Arrangements” in West Group’s treatise, “Successful Partnering

3 Between Inside and Outside Counsel.” Alderman Decl. ¶¶ 1-9, Dkt. No. 298. The majority of his

4 practice focuses on defense of securities class actions and he also is the co-editor of the monthly

5 “Securities Reform Act Litigation Reporter,” both of which give him familiarity with attorney fee

6 requests and awards. Id. ¶ 10. According to Alderman, the rates requested by Plaintiffs’ Counsel

7 are well within the range of market rates for Bay Area attorneys who handle comparable, complex

8 litigation. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. Alderman’s own hourly rate in 2014 was $995 per hour. Id. ¶ 11.

9 Alderman also notes he has personal knowledge of the work and reputation of Mary-Lee Smith

10 and Sid Wolinsky, two attorneys from the DRA, and notes they are “among the leading experts in

11 the country in the area of disability rights.” Id. ¶ 14.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

The Court finds the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs demonstrates that the range of rates

13 requested by the attorneys here are in line with the overall range of market rates for attorneys and

14 for litigation support staff of similar abilities and experience in this District between 2013 and

15 2014. See Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 455 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding

16 district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding 2008 hourly rates for Bay Area attorneys of

17 up to $875 for a partner, $700 for an attorney with 23 years of experience, $425 for an attorney

18 with approximately five years of experience, and $190 for paralegals); see also Gutierrez v. Wells

19 Fargo Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 2438274, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) (in a complex action,

20 finding reasonable rates for Bay Area attorneys of between $475-$975 for partners, $300-$490 for

21 associates, and $150-$430 for litigation support and paralegals). While under other circumstances

22 greater scrutiny might be appropriate for some of the hourly rates sought here, the Court is

23 satisfied Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ hourly rates fall under the range of reasonable fees—particularly as

24 the Court is only analyzing the lodestar figure as a secondary test in order to determine whether

25 the sums already agreed to by the parties are reasonable.

26

2. Hours Expended

27

Beyond establishing a reasonable hourly rate, a party seeking attorneys’ bears the burden

28 to “document[ ] the appropriate hours expended.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. Such an applicant 23

1 must exercise sound “billing judgment” as to the number of hours worked, eliminating excessive,

2 redundant, or unnecessary hours, and provide billing records supporting the time claimed. Id. at

3 433-34. Plaintiffs’ counsel “is not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time

4 was expended,” but should “identify the general subject matter of his time expenditures.” Id. at

5 437 n.12; Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000) (“plaintiff’s counsel can

6 meet his burden—although just barely—by simply listing his hours and ‘identifying the general

7 subject matter of his time expenditures.’” (quotation omitted)).

8

Plaintiffs provided declarations from each of the four organizations working on their

9 behalf, which explain the sorts of things these attorneys worked on and now seek compensation

10 for through this fee request. Plaintiffs note their counsel “devoted a reasonable and necessary

11 amount of time to develop the case and the legal and factual claims, prepare the complaint (and

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 eventually the First Amended Complaint,” as well as “fully brief two major motions (i.e.,

13 Defendants’ motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, propound and

14 respond to discovery including defending three named plaintiff depositions, and prepare mediation

15 briefs and settlement proposals for numerous unsuccessful settlement attempts.” Attys’ Fees Mot.

16 at 15. They further note Plaintiffs’ counsel “dedicated substantial resources to obtain the

17 settlement agreements that ultimately resolved the matter[,]” which “included numerous

18 mediations and the drafting of the settlement agreements, for which Plaintiffs’ Counsel took the

19 lead.” Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel also “took the lead in drafting the motion for preliminary approval

20 and supporting papers, the class notice, the proposed order, this motion and the application for

21 final approval.” Id.

22

In their declarations, each of the four organizations explain they sought fees related to the

23 foregoing activities and tasks related to those activities, including for investigation and research,

24 drafting and editing briefs and related documents, negotiating and structuring the settlement

25 agreements, reviewing documents, interviewing witnesses, preparing and defending depositions,

26 and other such advocacy. See Smith Decl. ¶ 18; Faer Decl. ¶ 15; Carter Decl. ¶ 25; Mason Decl. ¶

27 13. Additionally, each attorney attests to the fact that they reviewed their organization’s time

28 records in this case and independently exercised their billing judgment to eliminate or reduce 24

1 certain time that did not appear to be reasonably spent or to otherwise limit their time to that

2 which was reasonable and benefitted the class. Smith Decl. ¶¶ 19-20; Faer Decl. ¶¶ 16-17; Carter

3 Decl. ¶¶ 23, 26; Mason Decl. ¶¶ 10, 14. The hours spent on the Federal Class Action for each of

4 the four organizations is as follows: DRA = 5, 293.6 hours (Smith Decl. ¶ 21); Public Counsel =

5 772.5 hours (Faer Decl. ¶ 18); Paul Hastings = 2,548.1 hours (Carter Decl. ¶ 27); Zelle Hofmann =

6 79.6 hours (Mason Decl. ¶ 15).

7

Although Plaintiffs did not provide detailed time records for the attorneys and support staff

8 working on this case, having carefully reviewed the declarations above and the supporting

9 documentation, the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating the 10 reasonableness of the time their counsel expended on this litigation.11 There has been no

11 challenge to the time spent by these organizations, and the Court cannot find grounds for further 12 reducing the hours spent in this litigation.12 In the Court’s own first-hand interactions with

United States District Court Northern District of California

13 Plaintiffs’ counsel and their work, the Court has found them consistently well-prepared and

14 thorough. Accordingly, the Court finds the number of hours spent by attorneys and related staff in

15 these four organizations was reasonably expended on the litigation and settlement of this case.

16

3. Summary of Lodestar and Cost Comparison to Settlement Agreement Amounts

17

As noted above, the total lodestar for the four organizations working on Plaintiffs’ Federal

18 Class Action totals $4,322,068.75 and the costs total $91,976.80. Plaintiffs have only requested

19 that the Court approve the amounts proposed in the parties’ Settlement Agreements, i.e., the

20 11 Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, sitting by designation, has emphasized

21

the overall equitable nature of fee analysis: “[t]he net result of fee-setting jurisprudence . . . is that the district courts must engage in an equitable inquiry of varying methodology while making a

22

pretense of mathematical precision.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2007) (O’Connor, J., sitting by designation, joining in the

23

opinion) (citation omitted). Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recently echoed these sentiments: “[T]rial courts need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants.

24

The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection. So trial courts may take into account their overall sense of a suit, and may use

25

estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney’s time.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 2205, 2216 (2011).

26 12 As noted earlier, the Court has chosen not to consider the time spent on the administrative

27

actions for the individual class representatives. Adding the time spent on the administrative actions adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ lodestar amount. See Dkt.

28

Nos. 293-5 and 293-6 (charts demonstrating the hourly rates, hours worked, and costs of the attorneys working on the administrative actions).

25

1 $1,165,000 from CCCOE and $1,340,000 from the County for a total of $2,505,000. That amount

2 is significantly less than what these attorneys might otherwise be entitled to under the lodestar 3 analysis or if Plaintiffs’ costs were included.13 Given the significant reduction in fees and costs,

4 the Court finds Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs reasonable under the circumstances.

5

CONCLUSION

6

In light of the foregoing analysis, the Court GRANTS FINAL APPROVAL to the

7 Settlement Agreements in this case and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’

8 Fees and Costs in the amounts specified in the parties’ Settlement Agreements.

9

The Court thus ORDERS the following:

10

1. For the reasons set forth in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval, Dkt. No. 288,

11 the Court confirms class certification of the class for settlement purposes only.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

2. The Court confirms the appointment of Plaintiffs G.F., by and through her guardian

13 ad litem, Gail F.; W.B.; and Q.G as class representatives.

14

3. The Court confirms the appointment of Disability Rights Advocates and Public

15 Counsel as Class Counsel.

16

4. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and

17 Defendant County, the County shall pay Plaintiffs’ Counsel $1,340,000 within 60 days of the date

18 of this Order.

19

5. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and

20 Defendant CCCOE and the stipulation amending the terms of the settlement agreement (Dkt. No.

21 13 Plaintiffs included very little detail about their costs in this litigation; potentially this is because

22

they already agreed to amounts for fees and costs in their Settlement Agreements. Given the fact that Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ lodestar for the Federal Class Action is so much more than they

23

recovered through the amounts assigned in the Settlement Agreements, it seems unnecessary for the Court to proceed with the typical analysis to assess the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ costs

24

under Rule 23(h). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) (“In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties’

25

agreement.”); see also Newberg on Class Actions § 16:10 (5th ed.) (“[R]ecoverable nontaxable costs include counsel’s out-of-pocket expenses that would normally be charged to a fee paying

26

client.”); Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir. 2005) (permitting recovery of costs for “an expense that would normally be charged to a fee paying client.”). In other circumstances, the

27

Court might have difficulty determining whether to award costs authorized by the parties’ agreement without greater explanation about what those costs were. Nonetheless, considering the

28

entirety of the Settlement Agreements in comparison to Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ lodestar and requested costs, the Court is satisfied that it may issue such an award under Rule 23(h).

26

1 283), CCCOE shall pay Plaintiffs’ Counsel on the following schedule: (1) the first installment of

2 $435,000.00 is payable within 60 days of the date of this Order; (2) the second installment of

3 $435,000.00 is payable on July 1, 2016; and (3) the third installment of $295,000.00 is payable on

4 July 1, 2017.

5

6. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED on the merits and with prejudice,

6 subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction to administer and enforce the Settlement Agreements.

7

7. The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of

8 enforcement and for purposes of dispute resolution, including disputes related to the final

9 monitoring report with the County and the Expert Report with CCCOE, and to determine and

10 enforce the amount of an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to which Class Counsel is entitled,

11 including fees and costs resulting from the litigation to-date and from any future dispute

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 resolution.

13

8. Judgment is hereby entered on the terms set forth above. The Clerk of Court shall

14 close the file on this matter.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

17 Dated: November 25, 2015

18

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

19

United States Magistrate Judge

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 27

 </s> 8/12/13 Lawsuit Details Solitary Confinement and Failure to Educate Young People with Disabilities in Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall | Disability Rights Advocates
SKIP TO CONTENT ACCESSIBILITY
TEXT SIZE A A A COLOR
SEARCH
SEEKING LEGAL HELP?
LAWSUIT DETAILS SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND FAILURE TO EDUCATE YOUNG PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL
Berkeley, CA – August 8, 2013 – Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall locks young people with disabilities in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day and deprives them of education, according to a federal clas s action lawsuit filed today by Disability Rights Advocates , Public Couns el and Paul Has tings LLP. Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, like all juvenile halls in the State, exists “solely for the purpose of rehabilitation and not punishment,” according to the California Supreme Court. Education is supposed to be at the center of young people’s rehabilitation. But s tudents at Contra Cos ta County Juvenile Hall are locked for weeks at a tim e in cells that have barely enough room for a bed and a narrow window the s ize of a hand. Young people are routinely held in conditions like those in a m axim um security pris on. By its own estim ate, roughly 32% of the students at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall have dis abilities that require s om e form of s pecial education. But youth with disabilities at Contra Cos ta County Juvenile Hall are trapped in a vicious cycle of discrim ination: they do not receive critical s pecial education and related s ervices , and lacking such supports, they are locked in their cells for a variety of infractions. Despite knowing that m any students have a learning disability, m ental illness, or other disabilities, Contra Cos ta County puts students in solitary confinem ent for behavior that is related to their disabilities, denies them general and special education services, and holds them in conditions that can make their disabilities worse.
G.F., who entered Juvenile Hall at age 13 and is diagnosed with bipolar disorder and ADHD, spent approxim ately 100 days in solitary confinem ent where she often received no education let alone special education. When she was removed from school and locked in solitary confinement, Juvenile Hall never inquired into whether her behavior was disability-related or even whether she had a disability. W.B., a 17-year-old who was found mentally incompetent by the Juvenile Court due to his mental disability, deteriorated rapidly when he was placed in solitary confinement for approxim ately 90 days . He began hearing voices , was talking to him s elf, and believed he was being pois oned, yet he was kept in s olitary. Eventually he had a severe psychotic episode during which he sm eared feces on the cell wall and was hos pitalized in a psychiatric facility for three weeks. He is now back at Juvenile Hall. Q.G. has been in full-time special education for most of his life and received help for diagnosed behavior problems. At Juvenile Hall, Q.G. has no behavioral support plan and has been locked in solitary confinem ent for weeks at a tim e.
“Young people deserve a second chance when they get off track and end up in Juvenile Hall, and education should be at the center of rehabilitation,” said Mary-Lee Smith, Managing Attorney at Disability Rights Advocates. “Young people with dis abilities pay a huge price from pris on-like practices s uch as s olitary confinem ent. Contra Costa County is locking up young people with disabilities in solitary confinem ent and throwing away their futures.” “It is cruel and inhumane,” said Laura Faer, Statewide Education Rights Director at Public Counsel. “Contra Costa County denies children with disabilities the education and mental health services they need to get better and then throws them in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. The result is unconscionable harm, psychotic breaks and deterioration for children who the system is required by law to educate and rehabilitate.” “Contra Costa County officials are abandoning education and the hope for change, the m ost powerful tools they have to reach young people in trouble,” s aid Grace Carter, partner at the law firm of Paul Hastings. California and federal laws require special education and related services for all young people with disabilities, as well as determinations before punishment for misbehavior about whether their behavior was related to their disability. The lawsuit names officials from the Contra Costa County Probation Department and Contra Costa County Office of Education, which are legally res ponsible for the rehabilitation and education of hundreds of young people in Contra Cos ta County Juvenile Hall. Dis ability Rights Advocates , Public Couns el and Paul Hastings LLP are co-couns el in G.F. et al. v. Contra Costa County et al. The laws uit is filed in U.S. Dis trict Court in Oakland. Read the complaint and learn more at www.dralegal.org and www.publiccounsel.org. Disability Rights Advocates is a non-profit legal center advocating for the civil rights of all people with disabilities through class action and other high-impact litigation across the nation. Public Counsel is the nation’s largest pro b ono law firm with a 40-year history of fighting for the rights of students, children, families, and others in need of justice. Paul Hastings LLP is a leading global law firm with offices in As ia, Europe, and the United States. The firm is com m itted to giving back to those in need and currently is ranked 3rd in the American Lawyer’s Pro Bono Report.
###
Media contacts: Alicia Reyes, Disab ility Rights Advocates, (510) 665-8644 Michael Soller, Pub lic Counsel, (213) 446-1851 cell Related Cases: G.F. et al. v. Contra Costa County et al.
Read the Complaint
©2013 Dis ability Rights Advocates All rights reserved. Sitem ap Accessibility Policy Legal Contact Us ↑Top

dralegal.org/pressroom/press-releases/lawsuit-details-solitary-confinement-and-failure-to-educate-young-people

1/2

8/12/13 Lawsuit Details Solitary Confinement and Failure to Educate Young People with Disabilities in Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall | Disability Rights Advocates

dralegal.org/pressroom/press-releases/lawsuit-details-solitary-confinement-and-failure-to-educate-young-people

2/2

8/12/13 Lawsuit Details Solitary Confinement and Failure to Educate Young People with Disabilities in Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall | Disability Rights Advocates
SKIP TO CONTENT ACCESSIBILITY
TEXT SIZE A A A COLOR
SEARCH
SEEKING LEGAL HELP?
LAWSUIT DETAILS SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND FAILURE TO EDUCATE YOUNG PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUVENILE HALL
Berkeley, CA – August 8, 2013 – Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall locks young people with disabilities in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day and deprives them of education, according to a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Disability Rights Advocates, Public Counsel and Paul Hastings LLP. Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, like all juvenile halls in the State, exists “solely for the purpose of rehabilitation and not punishment,” according to the California Supreme Court. Education is supposed to be at the center of young people’s rehabilitation. But students at Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall are locked for weeks at a tim e in cells that have barely enough room for a bed and a narrow window the size of a hand. Young people are routinely held in conditions like those in a m axim um security prison. By its own estim ate, roughly 32% of the students at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall have disabilities that require som e form of special education. But youth with disabilities at Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall are trapped in a vicious cycle of discrim ination: they do not receive critical special education and related services, and lacking such supports, they are locked in their cells for a variety of infractions. Despite knowing that m any students have a learning disability, m ental illness, or other disabilities, Contra Costa County puts students in solitary confinem ent for behavior that is related to their disabilities, denies them general and special education services, and holds them in conditions that can make their disabilities worse.
G.F., who entered Juvenile Hall at age 13 and is diagnosed with bipolar disorder and ADHD, spent approxim ately 100 days in solitary confinem ent where she often received no education let alone special education. When she was removed from school and locked in solitary confinement, Juvenile Hall never inquired into whether her behavior was disability-related or even whether she had a disability. W.B., a 17-year-old who was found mentally incompetent by the Juvenile Court due to his mental disability, deteriorated rapidly when he was placed in solitary confinement for approxim ately 90 days. He began hearing voices, was talking to him self, and believed he was being poisoned, yet he was kept in solitary. Eventually he had a severe psychotic episode during which he sm eared feces on the cell wa ll and was hospitalized in a psychiatric facility for three weeks. He is now back at Juvenile Hall. Q.G. has been in full-time special education for most of his life and received help for diagnosed behavior problems. At Juvenile Hall, Q.G. has no behavioral support plan and has been locked in solitary confinem ent for weeks at a tim e.
“Young people deserve a second chance when they get off track and end up in Juvenile Hall, and education should be at the center of rehabilitation,” said Mary-Lee Smith, Managing Attorney at Disability Rights Advocates. “Young people with disabilities pay a huge price from prison-like practices such as solitary confinem ent. Contra Costa County is locking up young people with disabilities in solitary confinem ent and throwing away their futures.” “It is cruel and inhumane,” said Laura Faer, Statewide Education Rights Director at Public Counsel. “Contra Costa County denies children with disabilities the education and mental health services they need to get better and then throws them in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. The result is unconscionable harm, psychotic breaks and deterioration for children who the system is required by law to educate and rehabilitate.” “Contra Costa County officials are abandoning education and the hope for change, the m ost powerful tools they have to reach young people in trouble,” said Grace Carter, partner at the law firm of Paul Hastings. California and federal laws require special education and related services for all young people with disabilities, as well as determinations before punishment for misbehavior about whether their behavior was related to their disability. The lawsuit names officials from the Contra Costa County Probation Department and Contra Costa County Office of Education, which are legally responsible for the rehabilitation and education of hundreds of young people in Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall. Disability Rights Advocates, Public Counsel and Paul Hastings LLP are co-counsel in G.F. et al. v. Contra Costa County et al. The lawsuit is filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland. Read the complaint and learn more at www.dralegal.org and www.publiccounsel.org. Disability Rights Advocates is a non-profit legal center advocating for the civil rights of all people with disabilities through class action and other high-impact litigation across the nation. Public Counsel is the nation’s largest pro b ono law firm with a 40-year history of fighting for the rights of students, children, families, and others in need of justice. Paul Hastings LLP is a leading global law firm with offices in Asia, Europe, and the United States. The firm is com m itted to giving back to those in need and currently is ranked 3rd in the American Lawyer’s Pro Bono Report.
###
Media contacts: Alicia Reyes, Disab ility Rights Advocates, (510) 665-8644 Michael Soller, Pub lic Counsel, (213) 446-1851 cell Related Cases: G.F. et al. v. Contra Costa County et al.
Read the Complaint
©2013 Disability Rights Advocates All rights reserved. Sitem ap Accessibility Policy Legal Contact Us ↑Top

dralegal.org/pressroom/press-releases/lawsuit-details-solitary-confinement-and-failure-to-educate-young-people

1/2

 </s> Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 1 of 37
ADRMOP,CLOSED,MEDTERM,PROTO,REFSET−JCS,RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ

G.F. et al v. Contra Costa County et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James Referred to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero (Settlement) Relate Case Cases: 3:14−cv−00270−MEJ
3:14−cv−00268−MEJ
3:14−cv−00269−MEJ Cause: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/08/2013 Date Terminated: 11/25/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

G. F. by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.

represented by Daniel Simon Mason Furth Salem Mason & Li LLP 101 California Street, Suite 2710 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 365−9685 Email: dmason@fsmllaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary−Lee Kimber Smith Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 x 114 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: mkimber@dralegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin T. Conway Public Counsel 610 Ardmore Ave Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−637−3823 Fax: 213−201−4723 Email: bconway@publiccounsel.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Freya E. K. Pitts Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 United Sta 510−665−8644 Email: fpitts@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina Guarienti Cook Paul Hastings LLP 55 Second Street 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−856−7000 Fax: 415−856−7100 TERMINATED: 03/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 2 of 37
Grace A. Carter Paul Hastings LLP 55 Second Street 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−856−7000 Fax: 415−856−7100 TERMINATED: 03/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather T. Rankie Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 415 693−0700 Fax: 415 693−0770 Email: hrankie@zelle.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hernan Diego Vera Public Counsel 2001 Center Street Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704−1204 510−529−341 Fax: 213−385−9089 TERMINATED: 08/14/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Zoog Marks Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 United Sta (510)665−8644 Email: jmarks@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kara Jane Janssen Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld 50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 United Sta (415) 433−6830 Fax: (415) 433−7104 Email: KJanssen@rbgg.com TERMINATED: 08/07/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Lynne Faer Public Counsel 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−529−3419 Email: lfaer@publiccounsel.org TERMINATED: 09/11/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Brady Public Counsel Statewide Education Rights Project 1430 Franklin St, Suite 201 Oakland, CA 94612 510−200−0715

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 3 of 37
Email: lbrady@publiccounsel.org TERMINATED: 06/28/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Chen Public Counsel 2120 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704−1026 (213) 385−2977 Fax: (213) 385−9089 Email: lchen@publiccounsel.org TERMINATED: 08/07/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Bradford Clayton Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla 456 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−788−7210 Fax: 415−788−0706 Email: pbc@scarpullalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poonam Juneja Public Counsel 2001 Center Street Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−529−3472 Fax: 510−529−3491 Email: pjuneja@publiccounsel.org TERMINATED: 08/14/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Susanne Williford Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center St., Third Floor Berkeley, Ca 94704−1204 510−665−8644 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: rwilliford@dralegal.org TERMINATED: 04/15/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center St 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 United Sta 510−655−8644 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: sparks@dralegal.org TERMINATED: 10/30/2013
Sidney M. Wolinsky Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: general@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 4 of 37

Zoe Pershing−Foley Chernicoff Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center St. Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 Email: zchernicoff@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
W. B. by and through his guardian ad litem CiCi C.

represented by Daniel Simon Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin T. Conway (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Freya E. K. Pitts (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gina Guarienti Cook (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Grace A. Carter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather T. Rankie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hernan Diego Vera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Zoog Marks (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kara Jane Janssen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/07/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura Lynne Faer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Brady (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 5 of 37

Plaintiff
Q. G. by and through his guardian ad litem

Lillian Chen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/07/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Bradford Clayton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poonam Juneja (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Susanne Williford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/2013
Sidney M. Wolinsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zoe Pershing−Foley Chernicoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Simon Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin T. Conway (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Freya E. K. Pitts (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gina Guarienti Cook (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grace A. Carter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather T. Rankie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 6 of 37

Plaintiff
Barbara C. and on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated

Hernan Diego Vera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Zoog Marks (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kara Jane Janssen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/07/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Lynne Faer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Brady (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Chen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/07/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Bradford Clayton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poonam Juneja (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Susanne Williford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/2013
Sidney M. Wolinsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zoe Pershing−Foley Chernicoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Simon Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 7 of 37
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin T. Conway (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Freya E. K. Pitts (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gina Guarienti Cook (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grace A. Carter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather T. Rankie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hernan Diego Vera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Zoog Marks (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kara Jane Janssen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/07/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Lynne Faer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Brady (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Chen Public Counsel 1430 Franklin Street Suite 201 Oakland, CA 94612 (213) 385−2977 Fax: (213) 385−9089 Email: lchen@publiccounsel.org TERMINATED: 08/07/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poonam Juneja (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 8 of 37
Rebecca Susanne Williford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/15/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/2013
Sidney M. Wolinsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zoe Pershing−Foley Chernicoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Contra Costa County
Defendant Costra Costa County Department of Probation TERMINATED: 09/26/2013
Defendant Philip Kader in his official capacity, Chief Probation Officer TERMINATED: 09/26/2013 Defendant Bruce Pelle in his official capacity, Superintendent of Juvenile Hall TERMINATED: 09/26/2013 Defendant Contra Costa County Office of Education

represented by D. Cameron Baker County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street Ninth Floor Martinez, CA 94553 925−335−1800 Fax: 925−335−1866 Email: cameron.baker@cc.cccounty.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by D. Cameron Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by D. Cameron Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by D. Cameron Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer R. Rowe Gonzalez Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 7108 N. Fresno St. Suite 270 Fresno, CA 93720 (559) 860−4700 Fax: (559) 860−4799 Email: jrowegonzalez@f3law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly Anne Smith

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 9 of 37

Law Offices of Kimberly A. Smith 233 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 400 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310−477−1192 Email: kimberly@kaslawoffices.com TERMINATED: 11/10/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reis Mishook Fagen Friedman and Fulfrost, LLP 70 Washington Street, Suite 205 Oakland, CA 94607 510−550−8200 Fax: 510−550−8211 Email: dmishook@f3law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joseph A. Ovick in his official capacity as Superintendent, Contra Costa County Office of Education TERMINATED: 12/18/2013

represented by Kimberly Anne Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/10/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reis Mishook (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Lynn Mackey in her offical capacity, Director of Contra Costa County Court Schools TERMINATED: 12/18/2013

represented by Kimberly Anne Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/10/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Reis Mishook (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus United States of America

represented by Ryan Christopher Wilson United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 United Sta 202−305−9937 Email: ryan.wilson@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/08/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Office of Education, Costra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick, Bruce Pelle ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 44611010726.). Filed by Barbara C., W. B., Q. G., G. F.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 10 of 37

08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013
08/08/2013 08/08/2013
08/08/2013

2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 10/30/2013. Case Management Conference set for 11/6/2013 03:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order − SBA)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
3 Administrative Motion to Use Fictitious Names and to File Under Seal, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
4 Ex Parte MOTION to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem for W.B. filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
5 Ex Parte MOTION to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem for Q.G., filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
6 Ex Parte MOTION to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem for G.F., filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
7 Summons Issued as to Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Office of Education, Costra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick, Bruce Pelle. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
8 MOTION to Certify Class filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. Motion Hearing set for 10/29/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Responses due by 8/22/2013. Replies due by 8/29/2013. (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
9 Brief: Memorandum in Support re 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
10 Proposed Order re 8 MOTION to Certify Class , 9 Brief by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
11 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Private Information of Minor Plaintiffs and Reference List of Redacted Information Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(G) filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
12 Declaration of Laura Faer in Support of 11 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Private Information of Minor Plaintiffs and Reference List of Redacted Information Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(G) filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 11 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
13 [REDACTED] NOTICE OF REFERENCE LIST to 12 Declaration in Support, 11 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Private Information of Minor Plaintiffs and Reference List of Redacted Information Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(G), filed by Barbara C., W. B., Q. G., G. F.. (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
14 Proposed Order re 11 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Private Information of Minor Plaintiffs and Reference List of Redacted Information Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(G), by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
15 Declaration of Peter Leone in Support of 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − L to Declaration of Peter Leone in Support of Motion for Class Certification, # 2 Exhibit M − W to Declaration of Peter Leone in Support of Motion for Class Certification, # 3 Exhibit X − BB to Declaration of Peter Leone in Support of Motion for Class Certification)(Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
16 Declaration of Stuart Grassian in Support of 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A through J to Declaration of Grassian ISO Motion for Class Cert, # 2 Exhibit K to Declaration of Grassian ISO

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 11 of 37

08/08/2013
08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/09/2013
08/12/2013 08/12/2013
08/12/2013 08/20/2013

Motion for Class Cert)(Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
17 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − H to Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Motion for Class Certification, # 2 Exhibits I − K to Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Motion for Class Certification, # 3 Exhibit L − Q to Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Motion for Class Certification, # 4 Exhibit R − S to Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Motion for Class Certification)(Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
18 Declaration of G.F. in Support of 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
19 Declaration of Q.G. in Support of 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
20 Declaration of W.B. in Support of 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
21 Declaration of CiCi C. in Support of 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
22 Declaration of Grace A. Carter in Support of 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
23 Declaration of Shawna Parks in Support of 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − E to Declaration of Parks ISO Motion for Class Cert)(Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
24 Declaration of Laura Faer in Support of 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 8 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/8/2013) Modified on 8/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
25 EXHIBITS T − V to 17 Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith in Support of Motion for Class Certification, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit W to Z Declaration of Smith ISO Motion for Class Cert, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit AA to BB Declaration of Smith ISO Motion for Class Cert, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit CC Declaration of Smith ISO Motion for Class Cert, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit DD to HH Declaration of Smith ISO Motion for Class Cert)(Related document(s) 17 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/9/2013) Modified on 8/12/2013 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/2013)
26 CLERKS NOTICE: That Case Management Conference is set for 11/6/2013 03:00 PM, via Telephone. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013) Modified on 8/13/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2013)
27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G. re 5 MOTION to Appoint ad Litem, 4 MOTION to Appoint ad Litem, 8 MOTION to Certify Class , 7 Summons Issued, 1 Complaint, 11 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Private Information of Minor Plaintiffs and Reference List of Redacted Information Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(G), 6 MOTION to Appoint ad Litem, 3 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/12/2013) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G. re 26 Clerks Notice (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/12/2013) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
29 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 11 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2013) (Entered: 08/20/2013)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 12 of 37

08/20/2013 08/21/2013
08/21/2013 08/23/2013
08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 09/12/2013

30 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 29 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal REFERENCE LIST FILED PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2(G) by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 8/20/2013) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
31 EXHIBIT AA to the Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification re 8 Motion to Certify Class, filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. ***FILED UNDER SEAL BY ORDER OF THE COURT, PLEASE SEE DOCUMENT NO. 29 *** (Related document(s) 8 ) (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2013) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
32 NOTICE of Appearance of Kimberly A. Smith and David R. Mishook as Counsel, filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 8/21/2013) Modified on 8/22/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/21/2013)
33 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES OF PARTIES TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND COMPLETE BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/23/2013) Modified on 8/26/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/23/2013)
34 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 33 Stipulation TO EXTEND DEADLINES OF PARTIES TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND COMPLETE BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2013) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
** See Docket No. 34 .** Reset Deadlines as to 8 MOTION to Certify Class : Responses due by 9/27/2013; Replies due by 10/15/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2013) Modified on 8/26/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2013)
35 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 3 Administrative Motion to Use Fictitious Names and to File Under Seal. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2013) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
36 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 4 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2013) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
37 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 5 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2013) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
38 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 6 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2013) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
39 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 35 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/26/2013) Modified on 8/27/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2013)
40 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 35 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/26/2013) Modified on 8/27/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2013)
41 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 35 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/26/2013) Modified on 8/27/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2013)
42 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 35 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/26/2013) Modified on 8/27/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2013)
43 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Contra Costa County, Costra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader, Bruce Pelle. Motion Hearing set for 11/5/2013 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Responses due by 9/26/2013. Replies due by 10/3/2013. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 9/12/2013) (Entered: 09/12/2013)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 13 of 37

09/12/2013 09/12/2013 09/12/2013 09/13/2013
09/13/2013 09/13/2013 09/13/2013 09/13/2013 09/13/2013 09/13/2013 09/18/2013 09/24/2013
09/25/2013

44 Request for Judicial Notice re 43 MOTION to Dismiss filed byContra Costa County, Costra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader, Bruce Pelle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A sealed, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C sealed, # 4 Exhibit D sealed, # 5 Exhibit E sealed, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 43 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 9/12/2013) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
45 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Contra Costa County, Costra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader, Bruce Pelle. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Baker, D.) (Filed on 9/12/2013) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
46 Proposed Order by Contra Costa County, Costra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader, Bruce Pelle. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 9/12/2013) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
47 Notice of Motion and MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Joseph A. Ovick, Lynn Mackey. Motion Hearing set for 11/5/2013 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Responses due by 9/27/2013. Replies due by 10/4/2013. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 9/13/2013) Modified on 9/16/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2013)
48 Request for Judicial Notice re 47 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Joseph A. Ovick, Lynn Mackey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 47 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 9/13/2013) Modified on 9/16/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2013)
49 Declaration of Kimberly A. Smith in Support of 47 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Joseph A. Ovick, Lynn Mackey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C, # 3 Exhibit D, # 4 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 47 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 9/13/2013) Modified on 9/16/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2013)
50 Declaration of Lynn Mackey in Support of 47 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Joseph A. Ovick, Lynn Mackey. (Related document(s) 47 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 9/13/2013) Modified on 9/16/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2013)
51 Declaration of Katie Gaines in Support of 47 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Joseph A. Ovick, Lynn Mackey. (Related document(s) 47 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 9/13/2013) Modified on 9/16/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2013)
52 Proposed Order re 47 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Joseph A. Ovick, Lynn Mackey. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 9/13/2013) Modified on 9/16/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2013)
53 Certificate of Interested Entities by Joseph A. Ovick, Lynn Mackey. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 9/13/2013) Modified on 9/16/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2013)
54 Proposed Order re 44 Request for Judicial Notice, by Contra Costa County, Costra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader, Bruce Pelle. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 9/18/2013) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
55 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR BRIEFING OF AND TO CONTINUE HEARINGS DATES FOR DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G., Contra Costa County Office of Education, Contra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick, Bruce Pelle. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/24/2013) Modified on 9/25/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/2013)
56 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Dismissal of Contra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader and Bruce Pelle, filed by Contra Costa County, W.B., G.F., Q.G.. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 9/25/2013) Modified on 9/26/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2013)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 14 of 37

09/25/2013
09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/26/2013 09/26/2013 09/26/2013 09/26/2013 10/10/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/17/2013
10/30/2013

57 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 55 Stipulation to Extend Deadlines for Briefing and to Continue Hearing Motions for Class Certification. Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 03/26/14 at 2:30 PM. Joint Case Management Statements due by 03/19/2014. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 09/25/13. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2013) Modified on 9/26/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/26/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2013)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Case Management Statement due by 3/19/2014. Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 3/26/2014 02:30 PM. (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2013) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 8 Motion to Certify Class. Responses due by 12/17/2013. Replies due by 1/21/2014. Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2013) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 1/15/2014, per 57 Order. (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2013) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
58 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 56 Stipulation re Dismissal of Contra Costa County Department of Probation, Philip Kader and Bruce Pelle. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2013) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 8 Motion to Certify Class. Responses due by 12/18/2013. Replies due by 1/21/2014, per 57 Order. (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2013) Modified on 9/27/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 43 Motion to Dismiss. Responses due by 12/17/2013. Replies due by 1/21/2014. Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong, per 57 Order. (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2013) Modified on 9/27/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/27/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 47 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. Responses due by 12/17/2013. Replies due by 1/21/2014. Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong, per 57 Order. (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2013) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
59 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Permit Withdrawal and refiling of Motion to Dismiss by Defendants CCCOE, Ovick, and Mackey, filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick, W.B., Barbara C., G.F., Q.G. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 10/10/2013) Modified on 10/11/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2013)
60 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 59 Stipulation to Permit Withdrawal and refiling of Motion to Dismiss (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2013) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
61 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 45 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2013) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
62 Revised MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint re 48 Request for Judicial Notice, 50 Declaration in Support, 51 Declaration in Support, 49 Declaration in Support, filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick. Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Responses due by 12/17/2013. Replies due by 1/21/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Kimberly Smith with one exhibit ISO Revised Motion to Dismiss Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting CCCOE's Revised Motion to Dismiss Complaint)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 10/17/2013) Modified on 10/17/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/17/2013 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2013)
63 NOTICE of Change In Counsel Withdrawing Shawna Parks as Counsel, filed by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/30/2013) Modified on 10/31/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/30/2013)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 15 of 37

12/02/2013 12/02/2013 12/02/2013 12/06/2013 12/06/2013 12/06/2013 12/09/2013 12/09/2013

64 MOTION to Continue Case Management Conference, filed by Contra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 12/2/2013) Modified on 12/3/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2013)
65 Declaration of D. Cameron Baker in Support of 64 Motion to Continue, filed by Contra Costa County. (Related document(s) 64 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 12/2/2013) Modified on 12/3/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2013)
66 Proposed Order re 64 Motion to Continue, by Contra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 12/2/2013) Modified on 12/3/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2013)
67 Memorandum in Opposition re 64 Motion to Continue Case Management Conference, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/6/2013) Modified on 12/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/06/2013)
68 Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith in Support of 67 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 67 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/6/2013) Modified on 12/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/06/2013)
69 Joinder re 64 Motion to Continue Case Management Conference, filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 12/6/2013) Modified on 12/9/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/06/2013)
70 Memorandum in Opposition re 69 Joinder, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/9/2013) Modified on 12/10/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/2013)
71 ***ERRONEOUS ENTRY, PLEASE REFER TO DOCUMENT NO. 72 ***

12/09/2013
12/09/2013 12/09/2013 12/09/2013 12/10/2013 12/12/2013

NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE JUDGE JOSEPH SPERO, filed by Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Office of Education, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Request for Settlement Conference)(Baker, D.) (Filed on 12/9/2013) Modified on 12/10/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/2013)
72 MOTION for Settlement Conference Before Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, filed by Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Office of Education, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick. Responses due by 12/13/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Request for Settlement Conference)(Baker, D.) (Filed on 12/9/2013) Modified on 12/10/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/10/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/10/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/2013)
73 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Terminating 64 Motion to Continue). (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2013) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
Reset Deadlines/Hearings (See Docket No. 73 ): Case Management Statement due by 1/2/2014. Case Management Conference set for 1/9/2014 03:30 PM. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2013) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
74 NOTICE of Appearance of Laura Lynne Faer as Counsel, filed by G. F., Q. G., W. B. (Faer, Laura) (Filed on 12/9/2013) Modified on 12/10/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/09/2013)
Reset Deadlines as to 72 MOTION for Settlement Conference Before Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero. Responses due by 12/13/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2013) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
75 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE: ASSIGNMENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE SPERO FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G., Contra Costa County Office of Education, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick, Contra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/12/2013) Modified on 12/13/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2013)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 16 of 37

12/13/2013 12/13/2013 12/16/2013 12/16/2013
12/16/2013
12/16/2013 12/17/2013
12/18/2013 12/18/2013 12/18/2013 12/19/2013 12/23/2013

76 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 75 STIPULATION RE: ASSIGNMENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE SPERO FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES. (Terminating 72 Motion). (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2013) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for Settlement. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2013) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
77 CLERKS NOTICE. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 12/16/2013 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. This is a text only entry. There is no document associated with this notice (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2013) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
78 Minute Entry: Telephonic Scheduling Conference held on 12/16/13 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C.Spero. Settlement conference set for 3/12 and 3/13/14 at 9:00 AM*. Settlement conference statements due by 2/26/14. Plaintiffs to make a settlement demand by 2/5/14. Defendants to make a settlement proposal by 2/19/14. Court to issue a settlement conference order. (Recording #Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/16/2013) Modified on 12/16/2013 (klhS, COURT STAFF). *Settlement conference is 9:30 AM, not 9:00 AM. See settlement conference order, ECF No. 79. Modified on 12/17/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2013)
79 Notice of Settlement Conference and Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Settlement Conference set for 3/12/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Settlement Conference set for 3/13/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 12/16/13. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2013) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
Set/Reset Hearing Settlement Conference set for 3/13/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2013) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
80 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Re−set Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick, Contra Costa County, G.F., W.B., Barbara C., Contra Costa County, G.F., Q.G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to re−set briefing and hearing scheduleon Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 12/17/2013) Modified on 12/18/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/17/2013)
81 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANTS OVICK AND MACKEY, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G., Contra Costa County Office of Education, Lynn Mackey, Joseph A. Ovick. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/18/2013) Modified on 12/19/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2013)
82 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 80 Stipulation to Re−set Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
83 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 81 STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANTS OVICK AND MACKEY. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
84 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G., Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/19/2013) Modified on 12/20/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2013)
85 ***DISREGARD, SEE DOCKET NO. 86 *** ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 84 Stipulation TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2013) Modified on 12/24/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/23/2013)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 17 of 37

12/23/2013 12/24/2013 12/27/2013

86 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 84 Stipulation to File First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 12/23/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2013) Modified on 12/26/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/24/2013)
87 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Office of Education, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. . (Carter, Grace) (Filed on 12/24/2013) Modified on 12/26/2013 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/24/2013)
88 CLERKS NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that the Telephonic Case Management Conference, previously set for Thursday, January 9, 2014, is continued to Wednesday, March 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. The parties shall meet and confer prior to the conference and shall prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement which shall be filed no later than seven (7) days prior to the Case Management Conference that complies with the Standing Order For All Judges Of The Northern District Of California and the Standing Order of this Court. Plaintiffs shall be responsible for filing the statement as well as for arranging the conference call. All parties shall be on the line and shall call (510) 637−3559 at the above indicated date and time.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

12/27/2013

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2013) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
89 CLERKS NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that the Telephonic Case Management Conference, previously set for Wednesday, March 12, 2014, is continued to Wednesday, March 19, 2014, at 2:45 p.m., in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. The parties shall meet and confer prior to the conference and shall prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement which shall be filed no later than seven (7) days prior to the Case Management Conference that complies with the Standing Order For All Judges Of The Northern District Of California and the Standing Order of this Court. Plaintiffs shall be responsible for filing the statement as well as for arranging the conference call. All parties shall be on the line and shall call (510) 637−3559 at the above indicated date and time.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

12/30/2013 12/30/2013 01/06/2014 01/09/2014
01/09/2014 01/09/2014

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2013) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
90 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (denying 43 Motion to Dismiss; 62 Motion to Dismiss; and 8 Motion to Certify Class). (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2013) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
Reset Deadlines/Hearing (See Docket No. 90 ): Motions due by 1/9/2014. Responses due by 2/7/2014. Replies due by 2/28/2014. Motion Hearing set for 3/18/2014 02:00 PM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2013) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
91 NOTICE of Appearance of Sid Wolinsky as Counsel, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 1/6/2014) Modified on 1/7/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/06/2014)
92 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. Motion Hearing set for 3/18/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Responses due by 1/23/2014. Replies due by 1/30/2014. (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
93 Brief: Memorandum in Support re 92 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 92 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
94 Proposed Order re 92 Motion to Certify Class, by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 18 of 37

01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/13/2014 01/14/2014 01/15/2014 01/16/2014

95 REDACTION to Reference List Filed Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(G) by W. B., Q. G., G. F.. (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
96 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Private Information of Plaintiffs and Reference List of Redacted Information Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(G) filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix)(Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
97 Declaration of G.F. in Support of 92 Motion to Certify Class filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 92 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
98 Declaration of Q.G. in Support of 92 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 92 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
99 Declaration of CICI C. in Support of 92 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 92 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
100 Declaration of Peter Leone in Support of 92 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 92 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
101 Declaration of Stuart Grassian in Support of 92 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 92 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
102 Declaration of Grace Carter in Support of 92 Motion to Certify Class filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 92 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
103 Declaration of Sidney Wolinsky in Support of 92 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 92 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
104 Declaration of Laura Faer in Support of 92 Motion to Certify Class filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 92 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
105 Declaration of Mary−Lee Smith in Support of 92 Motion to Certify Class, filed by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 92 ) (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 1/9/2014) Modified on 1/10/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2014)
106 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER, filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G., Contra Costa County Office of Education, Contra Costa County. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 1/13/2014) Modified on 1/14/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2014)
107 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong re 106 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 01/14/14 (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2014) Modified on 1/15/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/14/2014)
108 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Contra Costa County Office of Education.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Request to Proceed before US Magistrate Judge James)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 1/15/2014) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
109 ORDER GRANTING 108 REQUEST TO PROCEED BEFORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARIA−ELENA JAMES. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 1/16/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2014) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 19 of 37

01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/23/2014 01/24/2014 01/24/2014 01/24/2014 01/24/2014 01/24/2014 01/24/2014
01/24/2014
01/24/2014
01/24/2014

Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Judge Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong no longer assigned to the case. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2014) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
110 CLERKS NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT FOR ALL PURPOSES. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2014) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
111 SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP OF CASE WITH 3:14−cv−00269 NC. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 1/16/14. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2014) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
112 SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL FOR PURPOSE OF DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 01/23/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2014) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education. Motion Hearing set for 3/20/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 2/7/2014. Replies due by 2/14/2014. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
114 Request for Judicial Notice re 113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 113 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
115 Declaration of Lynn Mackey in Support of 114 Request for Judicial Notice, 113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Related document(s) 114 , 113 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
116 Declaration of Katie Gaines in Support of 114 Request for Judicial Notice, 113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Related document(s) 114 , 113 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
117 Proposed Order re 113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
118 MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT filed by Contra Costa County. Motion Hearing set for 3/20/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 2/7/2014. Replies due by 2/14/2014. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
119 Declaration of BRUCE PELLE in Support of 118 MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT filed byContra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 118 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
120 Declaration of D. CAMERON BAKER in Support of 118 MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT filed byContra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 118 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
121 Request for Judicial Notice re 118 MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT, 120 Declaration in Support, 119 Declaration in Support, filed byContra Costa County. (Related document(s) 118 , 120 , 119 ) (Baker,

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 20 of 37

01/24/2014
01/24/2014
01/24/2014
01/27/2014 01/27/2014 01/27/2014 01/28/2014 01/28/2014
02/05/2014 02/05/2014 02/06/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014
02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014

D.) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
122 Proposed Order re 121 Request for Judicial Notice, 120 Declaration in Support, 119 Declaration in Support, ([PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY) by Contra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
123 Proposed Order re 118 MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT, 121 Request for Judicial Notice, 120 Declaration in Support, 119 Declaration in Support, by Contra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
124 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Contra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A to Baker Decl, # 4 Exhibit A to Baker Decl UNREDACTED, # 5 Exhibit D to Pelle Decl, # 6 Exhibit D to Pelle Decl UNREDACTED, # 7 Exhibit E to Pelle Decl, # 8 Exhibit E to Pelle Decl UNREDACTED)(Baker, D.) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
125 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 96 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2014) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
126 ORDER re: Class Certification. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on January 27, 2014. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2014) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
127 Letter from Kimberly Smith re Order on class certification. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 1/27/2014) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
128 Letter from MARY−LEE K. SMITH re: Order on Class Certification. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 1/28/2014) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
129 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 92 MOTION to Certify Class : Motion Hearing set for 3/20/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on January 28, 2014. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2014) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
130 Please disregard − see Dkt. No. 131 for correct entry. (Entered: 02/05/2014)
131 ORDER RELATING CASE with 14−268 and 14−269. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 2/5/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2014) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
132 Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on February 6, 2014. (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2014) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
133 RESPONSE (re 92 MOTION to Certify Class ) OPPOSITION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byContra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
134 Declaration in Support of 133 Opposition/Response to Motion DECLARATION OF D. CAMERON BAKER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byContra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 133 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
135 Declaration of Bruce Pelle in Support of 133 Opposition/Response to Motion filed byContra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 133 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
136 RESPONSE (re 92 MOTION to Certify Class ) Opposition of Defendant CCCOE to Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
137 Request for Judicial Notice re 136 Opposition/Response to Motion for class certification filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Related document(s)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 21 of 37

02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014
02/07/2014 02/07/2014
02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014

136 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
138 Declaration of Lynn Mackey in Support of 136 Opposition/Response to Motion for class certification filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 136 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
139 Declaration of Rebecca Corrigan in Support of 136 Opposition/Response to Motion for class certification filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit E, # 4 Exhibit F, # 5 Exhibit G, # 6 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 136 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
140 Declaration of Kimberly Smith in Support of 136 Opposition/Response to Motion for class certification filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I, # 2 Exhibit J, # 3 Exhibit K, # 4 Exhibit L, # 5 Exhibit M, # 6 Exhibit N)(Related document(s) 136 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
141 Proposed Order re 136 Opposition/Response to Motion for class certification by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
142 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Private Information filed by Contra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A Redacted version, # 4 Exhibit A Unredacted version, # 5 Exhibit B Redacted version, # 6 Exhibit B Unredacted version, # 7 Exhibit C Redacted version, # 8 Exhibit C Unredacted version, # 9 Exhibit D Redacted version, # 10 Exhibit D Unredacted version, # 11 Exhibit E Redacted version, # 12 Exhibit E Unredacted version, # 13 Exhibit F Redacted version, # 14 Exhibit F Unredacted version)(Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
143 MOTION to Strike Expert declaration of Peter Leone filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education. Motion Hearing set for 3/20/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 2/21/2014. Replies due by 2/28/2014. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
144 MOTION to Strike 133 Opposition/Response to Motion, 92 MOTION to Certify Class CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed by Contra Costa County. Motion Hearing set for 3/20/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 2/21/2014. Replies due by 2/28/2014. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
145 Proposed Order re 144 MOTION to Strike 133 Opposition/Response to Motion, 92 MOTION to Certify Class CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Contra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
146 Proposed Order re 143 MOTION to Strike Expert declaration of Peter Leone by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
147 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit unredacted, # 4 Exhibit unredacted, # 5 Exhibit unredacted, # 6 Exhibit unredacted, # 7 Exhibit unredacted, # 8 Exhibit unredacted, # 9 Exhibit unredacted, # 10 Exhibit unredacted, # 11 Exhibit unredacted, # 12 Exhibit unredacted)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
148 RESPONSE (re 113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATIONS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 22 of 37

02/07/2014
02/07/2014
02/07/2014
02/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/11/2014 02/11/2014 02/12/2014 02/13/2014

Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Contra Costa County Office of Education's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
149 RESPONSE (re 118 MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTYS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of G.F. In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Contra Costa County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of G.F., # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of G.F., # 4 Declaration Declaration of Q.G. In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Contra Costa County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Q.G., # 6 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Q.G., # 7 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Q.G.)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
150 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Version Of Exhibit A to Declaration of G.F., # 4 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit A to Declaration of G.F., # 5 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit A to Declaration of Q.G., # 6 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit A to Declaration of Q.G., # 7 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit B to Declaration of G.F., # 8 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit B to Declaration of G.F., # 9 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit B to Declaration of Q.G., # 10 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit B to Declaration of Q.G., # 11 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit C to Declaration of Q.G., # 12 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit C to Declaration of Q.G.)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
151 Request for Judicial Notice re 149 Opposition/Response to Motion,,,, 148 Opposition/Response to Motion,, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATIONS MOTIONS TO DISMISS filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 149 , 148 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/7/2014) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
152 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: Case Management Statement due by 3/20/2014. Case Management Conference set for 3/27/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2014) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
153 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: Case Management Statement due by 3/20/2014. Case Management Conference set for 3/27/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2014) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
154 ORDER RELATING CASE NO. 14−270 Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on February 11, 2014. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2014) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
155 Amended ORDER RELATING CASE 13−3667 and 14−270. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 2/11/2014. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2014) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
156 Letter from SID WOLINSKY to Magistrate Judge Spero re: Settlement Conference Schedule. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/12/2014) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
157 Letter from Defendants CCC and CCCOE to Magistrate Judge Spero re settlement conference. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/13/2014) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 23 of 37

02/13/2014 02/13/2014 02/14/2014
02/18/2014
02/18/2014
02/20/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014
02/21/2014
02/24/2014 02/24/2014
02/26/2014

158 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Statement filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/13/2014) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
159 Statement of Interest by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Wilson, Ryan) (Filed on 2/13/2014) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
160 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/14/2014) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
161 RESPONSE (re 160 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ) Opposition filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/18/2014) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
162 RESPONSE (re 160 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ) OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS filed byContra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/18/2014) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
163 Letter from SID WOLINSKY to MAGISTRATE JUDGE SPERO re: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/20/2014) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
164 Letter from Kimberly Smith to Magistrate Judge Spero re settlement conference. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
165 RESPONSE (re 143 MOTION to Strike Expert declaration of Peter Leone ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATIONS MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATION OF PETER LEONE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
166 RESPONSE (re 144 MOTION to Strike 133 Opposition/Response to Motion, 92 MOTION to Certify Class CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTYS MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
167 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 160 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2014) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
168 MOTION to Consolidate Cases NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. Motion Hearing set for 4/3/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 3/10/2014. Replies due by 3/17/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/24/2014) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
169 CLERKS NOTICE VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE.The settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero set for March 12, 2014, and March 13, 2014 at 9:30 A.M., have been taken off calendar until after a ruling has issued by Judge James on the Motion to Dismiss. Counsel will need to consider timing and propose to the Court dates for a two (2) day settlement conference. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2014) (Entered: 02/26/2014)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 24 of 37

02/26/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014
02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014

170 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference as to Defendants Contra Costa County and Contra Costa County Office of Education set for 3/13/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Recording #Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/26/2014) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
171 REPLY (re 113 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ) Reply in support of CCCOE's Motion to Dismiss FAC filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
172 REPLY (re 143 MOTION to Strike Expert declaration of Peter Leone ) iso of CCCOE's Motion to Strike declaration of Dr. Leone filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kimberly Smith in support of MTS declaration of Dr. Peter Leone, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to declaration of Kimberly Smith iso MTS declaration of Dr. Leone)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
173 Response re 159 Statement of Interest of USA byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
174 REPLY (re 92 MOTION to Certify Class ) PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
175 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PRIVATE INFORMATION OF PLAINTIFFS filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Private Information of Plaintiffs, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
176 REPLY (re 118 MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT ) filed byContra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
177 Request for Judicial Notice re 176 Reply to Opposition/Response, 118 MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT filed byContra Costa County. (Related document(s) 176 , 118 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
178 Proposed Order re 177 Request for Judicial Notice, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY by Contra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
179 Declaration of Bruce Pelle in Support of 176 Reply to Opposition/Response, (Supplemental Declaration of Bruce Pelle in Support of Defendant Contra Costa County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint) filed byContra Costa County. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
180 Declaration of James Rivers in Support of 176 Reply to Opposition/Response, (Declaration of James Rivers in Support of Defendant Contra Costa County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint) filed byContra Costa County. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
181 Declaration of Jessica Fliehmann in Support of 176 Reply to Opposition/Response, (Declaration of Jessica Fliehmann in Support of Defendant Contra Costa County's

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 25 of 37

02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 03/04/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014
03/05/2014 03/05/2014

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint) filed byContra Costa County. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
182 Declaration of Julia Robinson in Support of 176 Reply to Opposition/Response, (Declaration of Julia Robinson in Support of Defendant Contra Costa County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint) filed byContra Costa County. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
183 Declaration of LaTonya Blakney in Support of 176 Reply to Opposition/Response, (Declaration of LaTonya Blakney in Support of Defendant Contra Costa County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint) filed byContra Costa County. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
184 Declaration of D. Cameron Baker in Support of 176 Reply to Opposition/Response, (Supplemental Declaration of D. Cameron Baker in Support of Contra Costa County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint) filed byContra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Related document(s) 176 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
185 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Contra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit BLAKNEY DECL EXH A UNREDACTED VERSION, # 4 Exhibit BAKER DECL EXHIBIT H UNREDACTED VERSION, # 5 Exhibit BAKER DECL EXH I UNREDACTED VERSION)(Baker, D.) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
186 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CHANGE HEARING DATES filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/4/2014) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
187 CLERKS NOTICE. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 4/2/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Counsel shall provide direct line phone contact numbers to the Court by March 27, 2014. The Court will initiate the phone contact. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2014) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
188 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting 186 Stipulation Requesting Change to Hearing Dates. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2014) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to (118 in 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ) MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT, (143 in 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ) MOTION to Strike Expert declaration of Peter Leone, (92 in 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ) MOTION to Certify Class, (113 in 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ) MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, (144 in 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ) MOTION to Strike (133) Opposition/Response to Motion, (92) MOTION to Certify Class CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. Motion Hearing set for 3/27/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2014) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to (168 in 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ) MOTION to Consolidate Cases NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT. Motion Hearing set for 3/27/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2014) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
189 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James in case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ; granting (18) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00268−MEJ; granting (17) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00269−MEJ; granting (17) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00270−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2014) (Entered: 03/05/2014)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 26 of 37

03/10/2014
03/10/2014
03/13/2014 03/14/2014 03/14/2014 03/14/2014 03/17/2014
03/18/2014 03/18/2014
03/19/2014 03/19/2014 03/20/2014 03/25/2014 03/26/2014

190 RESPONSE (re 168 MOTION to Consolidate Cases NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT ) OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PROCEEDINGS filed byContra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 3/10/2014) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
191 RESPONSE (re 168 MOTION to Consolidate Cases NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT ) Defendant Contra Costa County Office of Education's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Proceedings filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Mishook, David) (Filed on 3/10/2014) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
192 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gina Guarienti Cook (Cook, Gina) (Filed on 3/13/2014) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
193 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference as to Defendants only,held on 3/13/14 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. (Recording #Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/14/2014) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
194 MOTION for Leave to File ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION filed by Contra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION)(Baker, D.) (Filed on 3/14/2014) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
195 Proposed Order re 194 MOTION for Leave to File ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION by Contra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 3/14/2014) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
196 REPLY (re 168 MOTION to Consolidate Cases NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT ) PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE PROCEEDINGS filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/17/2014) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
197 CLERKS NOTICE Vacating 4/2/14 telephonic scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2014) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
198 RESPONSE (re 194 MOTION for Leave to File ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION ) PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mary−Lee Smith)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/18/2014) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
199 CLERKS NOTICE RESCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Settlement Conference re−set for 7/9/2014 at 09:30 and 7/10/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2014) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
200 REPLY (re 194 MOTION for Leave to File ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION ) filed byContra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 3/19/2014) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
201 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/20/2014) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
202 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 194 Motion for Leave to File (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2014) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
203 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7−3.d filed byContra Costa County. (Related document(s) 118 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 3/26/2014) (Entered: 03/26/2014)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 27 of 37

03/26/2014 03/26/2014 03/26/2014 04/04/2014
04/09/2014
04/09/2014
04/09/2014 04/10/2014
04/11/2014 04/14/2014 04/15/2014 04/16/2014 04/18/2014 04/24/2014

204 ORDER Vacating Hearing Date. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on March 26, 2014. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2014) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
Set/Reset Hearing (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2014) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
Set/Reset Hearing re (204 in 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ) Order (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2014) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
205 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James in case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ; granting (27) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00268−MEJ; granting (26) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00269−MEJ; granting (26) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00270−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2014) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
206 MOTION for Leave to File UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION filed by Contra Costa County. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Recent Decision)(Baker, D.) (Filed on 4/9/2014) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
207 Proposed Order re 206 MOTION for Leave to File UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION by Contra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 4/9/2014) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
208 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at Meet and Confer Conferences filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 4/9/2014) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
209 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting (208) Motion to Appear by Telephone at Meet and Confer re case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2014) Modified on 4/10/2014 (rmm2S, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/10/2014)
210 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 206 Motion for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decision (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2014) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
211 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7−3.d filed byContra Costa County. (Related document(s) 118 ) (Baker, D.) (Filed on 4/14/2014) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
212 Letter from MARY−LEE K. SMITH, D. CAMERON BAKER, AND KIMBERLY A. SMITH JOINT LETTER. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/15/2014) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
213 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Zoe Pershing−Foley Chernicoff (Chernicoff, Zoe) (Filed on 4/16/2014) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
214 Letter from Mary−Lee K. Smith, D. Cameron Baker, and Kimberly A. Smith Joint Letter. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/18/2014) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
CLERKS NOTICE RE: CHAMBERS COPIES

This is a text−only entry. There is no document associated with this notice

04/30/2014

The parties are hereby advised that they do not need to submit chambers copies, with the exception of documents that (1) are related to a pending motion and/or discovery dispute and (2) exceed 10 pages when combined. (For example, if there is a 20−page stipulation and proposed order, no chambers copy is required.) For these documents only, the submitting party shall comply with Civil Local Rule 5−1(e)(7). All chambers copies should be double−sided (when possible) and include (1) the ECF running header at the top of each page, and (2) exhibits, if any, that are clearly delineated with tabbed dividers. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2014) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
215 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James in case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ; granting (33) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00268−MEJ; granting (32) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00269−MEJ; granting (32) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00270−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2014) (Entered:

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 28 of 37

05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/21/2014 05/21/2014 05/23/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/28/2014 05/28/2014
05/29/2014 06/23/2014
06/25/2014

04/30/2014)
216 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 124 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2014) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
217 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 142 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2014) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
218 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 147 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2014) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
219 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 150 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2014) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
220 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 175 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2014) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
221 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 185 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2014) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
222 MOTION for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decision filed by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 5/21/2014) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
223 Proposed Order re 222 MOTION for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decision by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 5/21/2014) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
224 RESPONSE (re 222 MOTION for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decision ) Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant Contra Costa County Office of Educations Administrative Motion for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decision filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Janssen, Kara) (Filed on 5/23/2014) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
225 REPLY (re 222 MOTION for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decision ) filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 5/27/2014) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
226 REPLY (re 222 MOTION for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decision ) filed byContra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 5/27/2014) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
227 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 222 MOTION for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decision (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2014) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
228 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James in case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ; granting (44) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00268−MEJ; granting (44) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00269−MEJ; granting (43) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00270−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2014) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
229 Statement of Recent Decision by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Statement of recent decision)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 5/29/2014) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
230 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James in case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ; granting (48) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00268−MEJ; granting (48) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00269−MEJ; granting (47) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00270−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2014) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
231 CLERKS NOTICE RESCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. The Settlement Conference previously set for 7/9/14 and 7/10/14 at 9:30 AM has been re−set for 8/26/2014 09:30 AM and 8/27/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor,

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 29 of 37

07/02/2014 07/25/2014 08/12/2014 08/13/2014 08/27/2014 08/28/2014
08/28/2014 09/03/2014 09/09/2014 09/09/2014
09/18/2014 09/18/2014

San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2014) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
232 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick Bradford Clayton and Daniel S. Mason as Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs (Clayton, Patrick) (Filed on 7/2/2014) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
233 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James in case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ; granting (50) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00268−MEJ; granting (50) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00269−MEJ; granting (49) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00270−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2014) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
234 ORDER to split the 8/26/14 and 8/27/14 settlement conference between the two parties. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 8/12/14. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2014) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
235 ORDER Excusing Named Plaintiffs from attending the upcoming settlement conference on 8/26/14 and 8/27/14. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 8/13/14. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2014) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
236 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held on 8/26/14 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa Office of Education. Further telephonic settlement conference, with counsel only, to be held within two weeks. Clerk will contact counsel with proposed dates and times. (Recording #Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/27/2014) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
237 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING FURTHER TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Settlement Conference with Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendant's counsel for Defenant Contra Costa County Office of Education set for 9/18/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. The Office of Education will arrange a conference call number. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2014) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
238 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held on 8/27/14 as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County. Case did not settle. Further telephonic settlement conference, with counsel only, to be held within two weeks. Clerk will contact counsel with proposed dates and times.(Court Reporter Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/28/2014) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
239 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James in case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ; granting (52) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00268−MEJ; granting (52) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00269−MEJ; granting (51) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00270−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
240 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING FURTHER TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Telephonic Settlement Conference with Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendant's counsel for Defendant Contra Costa County set for 9/17/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2014) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
241 AMENDED CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING FURTHER TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Telephonic Settlement Conference with Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendant's counsel for Defendant Contra Costa County set for 9/17/2014 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. *Amended to correct time from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2014) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
242 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County on 9/17/14 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Joint Letter to Court due by 10/14/14. Further Settlement Conference set for 10/20/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Recording #Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/18/2014) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
243 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County Office of Education, held on 9/18/2014 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further Settlement Conference set for 11/20/2014

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 30 of 37

09/26/2014 09/26/2014 10/10/2014 10/14/2014 10/14/2014 10/30/2014 11/05/2014 11/14/2014
11/14/2014 11/21/2014 11/21/2014

09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Recording #Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/18/2014) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
244 Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further Settlement Conference as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County Office of Education only set for 11/20/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 9/26/14. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2014) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
245 Notice andOrder Setting Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further Settlement Conference as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County only set for 10/20/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 9/26/14. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2014) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
246 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 245 Order Setting Settlement Conference, REQUEST TO CHANGE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DATE filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Janssen, Kara) (Filed on 10/10/2014) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
247 Order, signed on 10/14/14, by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 246 Stipulation To Continue Settlement Conference from 10/20/14 at 9:30 AM to 11/13/14 at 9:30 AM only as to Defendant Contra Costa County.(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2014) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
Set/Reset Hearing Settlement Conference re−set for 11/13/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco as to Defendant Contra Costa County.(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2014) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
248 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James in case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ; granting (56) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00268−MEJ; granting (56) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00269−MEJ; granting (55) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00270−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2014) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
249 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S REQUEST TO CONTINUE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 SETLEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 11/5/14. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2014) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
250 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Further Settlement Conference as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County only held on 11/14/2014. Court to set a further telephonic settlement conference for 12/1/14 at 9:00 AM to discuss remaining issues.Court Reporter Name or FTR Time Not Reported. Plaintiff Attorney Sid Wolinsky, Mary−Lee Kimber Smith, Kara Janssen, Laura Faer. Defendant Attorney D. Cameron Baker − Dft Contra Costa County. Attachment Minute Order.(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
251 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (TELEPHONIC). Further Settlement Conference as to Plaintiffs counsel and Defendant's counsel for Defendant Contra Costa County only set for 12/1/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2014) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
252 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: FurtherSettlement Conference with Plaintiffs and Defendant CCC Office of Education held on 11/21/2014. Further settlement conference (telephonic) set for 12/11/14 at 4:00 PM Court Reporter Name or FTR Time Not Reported. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
253 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (TELEPHONIC). Further Settlement Conference with Plaintiffs and Defendant CCC Office of Education (counsel only) set for 12/11/2014 04:00 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Plaintiffs will circulate a conference call number.(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 31 of 37

12/02/2014
12/12/2014
12/15/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014
12/19/2014 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 01/07/2015 01/07/2015 01/07/2015 01/09/2015

254 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Further TelephonicSettlement Conference held on 12/1/14 as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County only. Further Telephonic Settlement Conference as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County set for 12/18/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco.Court Reporter Name or FTR Time Not Reported. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/2/2014) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
255 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference as to Plaintiff and Defendant Contra Costa County Office of Education NOT held on 12/11/14. Due to a power outage caused by the winter storm, the San Francisco Courthouse was closed. The Court will work with counsel to reschedule the settlement conference.Court Reporter Name or FTR Time Not Reported. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/12/2014) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
256 CLERK'S NOTICE. Further Telephonic Settlement Conference as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County Office of Education set for 12/19/2014 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2014) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
257 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held on 12/19/2014 as to Plaintiffs and Defendant CCC Office of Education. Settlement Conference set for 1/22/15 at 9:30 AM.Court Reporter Name or FTR Time Not Reported. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/19/2014) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
258 Amended Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held on 12/18/2014 as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County.**Amended to correct appropriate defendant.Court Reporter Name or FTR Time FTR: Not Reported. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/19/2014) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
259 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held on 12/19/2014 as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County Dept of Education. Parties to finalize settlement agreement and will go to a mediator to negotiate attorney fees. Parties to contact the court if they need a further settlement conference.Court Reporter Name or FTR Time Not Reported. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/19/2014) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
260 Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further Settlement Conference as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County only set for 1/22/2015 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 12/19/14. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2014) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
261 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO THE COURT'S ADR PROGRAM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James on 12/31/2014. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2014) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
CASE REFERRED to Mediation. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2014) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
262 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 1/7/2015) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
263 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options ADR CERTIFICATION BY PARTIES AND COUNSEL (Janssen, Kara) (Filed on 1/7/2015) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
264 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Mediation by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Janssen, Kara) (Filed on 1/7/2015) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
265 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting 264 Stipulation selecting Mediation (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2015) (Entered:

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 32 of 37

01/22/2015
01/22/2015
01/28/2015 02/04/2015 02/13/2015 02/20/2015 02/26/2015 03/17/2015
03/20/2015 03/25/2015 03/31/2015 04/14/2015 06/11/2015

01/09/2015)
266 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Further Settlement Conference held on 1/22/2015 as to Plaintiffs and Defendant CCC only. Further settlement conference (Plaintiff and Defendant CCC only) re: fees set for 2/26/15 at 11 AM. Settlement conference statements due by 2/24/15.Court Reporter Name or FTR Time Not Reported. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/22/2015) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
267 Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further Settlement Conference re: fees as to Plaintiffs and Defendant Contra Costa County only set for 2/26/2015 11:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 1/22/15. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2015) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
268 ADR Clerk's Notice Appointing Robert D. Links as Mediator. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2015) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
Set/Reset Hearing Mediation Hearing set for 2/24/2015 10:00 AM., at the U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2015) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
269 CLERK'S NOTICE RESCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Settlement Conference previously set for 2/26/15 at 9:30 AM has been re−set for 3/31/2015 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2015) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
270 ORDER Re: Attendance at Mediation (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2015) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
271 CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session 2/24/2015, case partially settled, mediation complete. By Mediator, Robert D. Links, dated 2/26/2014. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2015) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
272 MOTION ADMINISTRATIVE Administrative Motion to Remove Guardians Ad Litem for Named Plaintiffs Q.G. and W.B. and to Allow Q.G. and W.B. to Continue to Proceed Under Fictitious Names filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. Responses due by 3/31/2015. Replies due by 4/7/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Zoe Chernicoff ISO Administrative Motion, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Administrative Motion)(Chernicoff, Zoe) (Filed on 3/17/2015) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
273 ORDER TERMINATING MOTIONS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. Motions terminated: 92 MOTION to Certify Class, 113 MOTION to Dismiss, 118 MOTION to Dismiss, 143 MOTION to Strike, 144 MOTION to Strike, 168 MOTION to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 3/20/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2015) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
274 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 272 Administrative Motion to Remove Guardians Ad Litem for Named Plaintiffs Q.G. and W.B. and to Allow Q.G. and W.B. to Continue to Proceed Under Fictitious Names (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2015) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
275 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Further Settlement Conference as to Plaintiffs and Defendant CCC held on 3/31/2015.Court Reporter Name or FTR Time Not Reported. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/31/2015) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
276 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James in case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ; granting (63) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00268−MEJ; granting (63) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00269−MEJ; granting (62) Stipulation in case 3:14−cv−00270−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2015) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
277 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Regarding Settlement Agreements by W. B., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/11/2015) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 33 of 37

06/12/2015 06/30/2015
06/30/2015
06/30/2015
07/07/2015 07/23/2015 07/24/2015 07/27/2015 07/27/2015
07/30/2015 07/30/2015 08/07/2015

278 NOTICE of Appearance by Poonam Juneja (Juneja, Poonam) (Filed on 6/12/2015) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
279 MOTION for Settlement PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. Motion Hearing set for 7/23/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 7/14/2015. Replies due by 7/21/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mary−Lee Smith, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Mary−Lee Smith, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Mary−Lee Smith, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Mary−Lee Smith, # 5 Declaration of Laura Faer)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/30/2015) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
280 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 279 MOTION for Settlement PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Stipulated Request For Order Changing Time)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/30/2015) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
281 Proposed Order re 279 MOTION for Settlement PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS; CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS; DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE; AND SCHEDULING OF HEARING ON FINAL APPROVAL by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/30/2015) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
282 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 280 Stipulation. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Request for Order Changing Time, the hearing date for Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlements is set for Thursday, July 23, 2015, and Defendants shall file no response to Plaintiffs motion.(cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2015). (Entered: 07/07/2015)
283 STIPULATION re 279 MOTION for Settlement PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS Amended Schedule for Payment of Attorneys Fees filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 7/23/2015) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
284 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 279 MOTION for Settlement PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 7/24/2015) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
285 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting (284) Stipulation in case 3:13−cv−03667−MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2015) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
286 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James: Motion Hearing held on 7/23/2015. FTR Time 10:15−10:24. Plaintiff Attorney(s): Laura Faer; Mary−Lee Kimber Smith. Defendant Attorney(s): Kimberly A. Smith; D. Cameron Baker. Interpreter: None Needed.Attachment: Minutes of unopposed motion for settlement. Counsel to submit stipulation and order re dates discussed in Court; Also Updated Notice to be resubmitted to Court.(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/27/2015) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
287 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Daniel Simon Mason (Mason, Daniel) (Filed on 7/30/2015) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
288 ORDER granting 279 Motion for Settlement and setting schedule for Fairness Hearing and related dates (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2015) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
289 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF KARA JANSSEN (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/7/2015) (Entered: 08/07/2015)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 34 of 37

08/14/2015 09/11/2015 09/29/2015 09/29/2015
09/29/2015
09/29/2015 09/29/2015
09/29/2015 09/29/2015

290 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Laura Lynne Faer NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF HERNN VERA AND POONAM JUNEJA (Faer, Laura) (Filed on 8/14/2015) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
291 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Lillian Chen NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY (Chen, Lillian) (Filed on 9/11/2015) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
292 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 10/13/2015. Replies due by 10/20/2015. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/29/2015) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
293 Declaration of MARY−LEE SMITH in Support of 292 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DECLARATION OF MARY−LEE SMITH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 292 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/29/2015) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
294 Declaration of LAURA FAER in Support of 292 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DECLARATION OF LAURA FAER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 292 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/29/2015) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
295 Declaration of LILLIAN CHEN in Support of 292 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DECLARATION OF LILLIAN CHEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Related document(s) 292 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/29/2015) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
296 Declaration of GRACE A. CARTER in Support of 292 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DECLARATION OF GRACE A. CARTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 292 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/29/2015) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
297 Declaration of DANIEL S. MASON in Support of 292 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. MASON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 292 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/29/2015) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
298 Declaration of WILLIAM F. ALDERMAN in Support of 292 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DECLARATION OF WILLIAM F. ALDERMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 292 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/29/2015) (Entered: 09/29/2015)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 35 of 37

09/29/2015
10/08/2015 10/21/2015 10/26/2015 10/29/2015
10/29/2015
10/29/2015 11/12/2015
11/25/2015 12/18/2015 12/18/2015 12/18/2015 01/11/2016

299 Proposed Order re 292 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/29/2015) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
300 Statement / Declaration of Kimberly Smith Confirming Distribution of Notice to Plaintiff Settlement Class Members by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A iso Declaration)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 10/8/2015) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
301 Statement DECLARATION OF D. CAMERON BAKER REGARDING DISTRIBUTION OF NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT by Contra Costa County. (Baker, D.) (Filed on 10/21/2015) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
302 Statement / Supplemental Declaration of Kimberly Smith Regarding Distribution of Notice to Plaintiff Settlement Class Members by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 10/26/2015) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
303 MOTION for Settlement PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James. Responses due by 11/12/2015. Replies due by 11/19/2015. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/29/2015) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
304 Declaration of Mary−Lee Smith in Support of 303 MOTION for Settlement PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS DECLARATION OF MARY−LEE SMITH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS filed byW. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 303 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/29/2015) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
305 Proposed Order re 303 MOTION for Settlement PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/29/2015) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
306 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James: Motion Hearing held on 11/12/2015. Court Reporter: Belle Ball. FTR Time: 10:17−10:20. Plaintiff Attorney(s): Mary−Lee Kimber Smith, Esq.; Lilly Chen, Esq. Defendant Attorney(s): Monika L. Cooper, Esq., Kimberly A. Smith, Esq. Attachment: Minutes of Motion/Fairness Hearings; Matter submitted, Court will issue Order.(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/12/2015) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
307 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting Final Approval of the Settlement Agreements 303 and granting Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs 292 (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2015) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
308 NOTICE by Contra Costa County Office of Education JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY COURT APPROVED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 12/18/2015) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
309 Proposed Order re 308 Notice (Other) Approving Joint Request to Modify Court Approved Class Action Settlement by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 12/18/2015) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
310 ORDER APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James on 12/18/2015. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2015) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
311 NOTICE of Appearance by Julia Zoog Marks Notice of Appearance of Julia Marks (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 1/11/2016) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 36 of 37

01/11/2016 07/13/2016 07/13/2016
07/13/2016 07/13/2016 09/28/2016 09/29/2016 10/05/2016 10/05/2016 10/06/2016
10/17/2016
10/17/2016
11/09/2016 11/10/2016 11/10/2016 06/28/2017 06/28/2017

312 NOTICE of Appearance by Freya E. K. Pitts Notice of Appearance of Freya Pitts (Pitts, Freya) (Filed on 1/11/2016) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
313 NOTICE by Contra Costa County Office of Education JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY COURT APPROVED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 7/13/2016) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
314 EXHIBITS re 313 Notice (Other) JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY COURT APPROVED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT filed byContra Costa County Office of Education. (Related document(s) 313 ) (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 7/13/2016) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
315 Proposed Order re 313 Notice (Other) JOINT REQUEST TO MODIFY COURT APPROVED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Contra Costa County Office of Education. (Smith, Kimberly) (Filed on 7/13/2016) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
316 ORDER re Joint Request to Modify Court approved Class Action Settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James on 7/13/2016. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2016) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
317 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Status Conference filed by W. B., Barbara C., G. F., Q. G.. Responses due by 10/3/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/28/2016) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
318 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James granting 317 Administrative Motion Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2016) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
319 NOTICE of Appearance by Lauren Brady (CA Bar No. 247538) (Brady, Lauren) (Filed on 10/5/2016) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
320 NOTICE of Change of Address by Lauren Brady (Brady, Lauren) (Filed on 10/5/2016) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
321 CLERK'S NOTICE: Telephonic Status Conference as to Plaintiffs and only Defendant Contra Costa County, set for 10/17/2016 at 09:15 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2016) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
322 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/17/2016. Further Settlement Conference set for 11/10/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.FTR Time Not Reported. Plaintiff Attorney Mary Lee Kimber Smith & Lauren Brady. Defendant Attorney Cameron Baker. Attachment Minute Order.(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/17/2016) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
323 Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further Settlement Conference set for 11/10/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 10/17/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2016) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
324 ORDER To Excuse Attendance of Plaintiffs at the 11/10/16 Settlement Conference. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero on 11/9/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2016) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
325 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Settlement Conference held on 11/10/2016.FTR Time Not Reported. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/10/2016) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
326 NOTICE by Contra Costa County Office of Education of Designation of Counsel for Service (Rowe, Jennifer) (Filed on 11/10/2016) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
327 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Lauren Brady (Brady, Lauren) (Filed on 6/28/2017) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
328 NOTICE of Change of Address by Lauren Brady (Brady, Lauren) (Filed on 6/28/2017) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

Case: 3:13-cv-3667 As of: 11/11/2017 04:13 PM PST 37 of 37
08/07/2017 329 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Benjamin T. Conway (Conway, Benjamin) (Filed on 8/7/2017) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

 </s> CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by Plaintiffs G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.; W.B.; and Q.G. individually and on behalf of themselves (collectively, “Named Plaintiffs”) and a class of persons similarly situated (the “Class” and collectively with Named Plaintiffs, “Plaintiffs”) as well as between Contra Costa County Office of Education (“CCCOE” or “Defendant.”)
1.2. Defendant and Plaintiffs shall be referred to individually as a “Party” and jointly as the “Parties.”
2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2.1. On or about August 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against CCCOE, G.F. et al. v. Contra Costa County et al., Case No. C13-3667 MEJ (the “Lawsuit”), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. (“Rehabilitation Act”), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq. (“IDEA”), California Government Code Section 11135 and the California Education Code. Plaintiffs concurrently filed their motion for class certification with their original complaint.
2.2. Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint on December 20, 2013 and, pursuant to court order, re-filed Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on January 9, 2014. Plaintiffs sought to certify the Class defined as: all youth with disabilities as defined under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act who are currently detained at or who will be detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall.
2.3. CCCOE filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on January 24, 2014 and an opposition to the motion for class certification on February 7, 2014.
2.4. All motions were pending before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) for more than a year and on March 20, 2015 the District Court terminated these motions for statistical purposes only.
3. NATURE AND EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT
3.1. Settlement Purpose and Scope.
3.1.1. The Parties have the mutual goal of settling this action to avoid additional protracted and expensive litigation.
-1 ­

3.1.2. The Parties now wish to effectuate a complete resolution and settlement of all claims, disputes, and controversies relating to Plaintiffs’ allegations, and to resolve their differences and disputes by settling the Lawsuit.
3.1.3. Plaintiffs believe that a resolution of their claims, as set forth in this Agreement, accomplishes the goals reasonably achievable through litigation of their claims.
3.1.4. To that end, upon Final Approval by the District Court of this Agreement (“Effective Date”), the parties will jointly request dismissal of CCCOE from the above referenced action. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the litigation only as set forth in Section 10 of this Agreement. Any motions filed as to the Contra Costa County Probation Department (“Probation”) are not covered or affected by this agreement.
3.2. Settlement on a Class Basis
3.2.1. The Parties hereby stipulate to certification of a Settlement Class as follows: all youth with disabilities as defined under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act who are currently detained at or who will be detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall. The Parties will jointly move for the certification of the Settlement Class as part of the Parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.
3.3. No Admission of Liability.
3.3.1. By agreeing to and voluntarily entering into this Agreement, there is no admission or concession by Defendant, direct or indirect, express or implied, that there is any violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, or applicable California state laws.
3.4. Exhibits
3.4.1. The terms of all Exhibits attached hereto are fully incorporated into this Agreement and are an integral part thereof. The terms of this Agreement, where applicable, are fully incorporated into all Exhibits and are, where applicable, an integral part thereof. To the extent that there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between the terms of this Agreement and any of the Exhibits, the terms of this Agreement shall control.
4. SETTLEMENT RELIEF
4.1. Retention of Expert
4.1.1. CCCOE will retain an expert with expertise in: (a) the IDEA; (b) the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA; (c) California state law requirements pertaining to special education; and (d) the operation of juvenile court schools (“Settlement Expert”).
-2 ­

4.1.2. The Parties will meet and confer for a period not to exceed two weeks from the Effective Date, or earlier if practicable, to determine whether the Parties can reach agreement on a mutually acceptable Settlement Expert.
4.1.3. In the event the Parties cannot agree on a mutually acceptable Settlement Expert, each Party will select one expert and those experts (the “Selection Experts”) will meet to select a third expert. This third expert shall be the Settlement Expert, who will then serve as the expert for purposes of this Agreement. If the Parties are unable to pick a mutually acceptable Settlement Expert, the Parties shall pick Selection Experts within two weeks of the end of the time period provided for in Paragraph 4.1.2 above, and the Selection Experts shall have 30 days from the date of their selection to appoint the Settlement Expert.
4.1.4. Each Party may give their chosen Selection Expert whatever information that Party believes will be helpful in guiding the selection process. Neither Party may restrict its Selection Expert to choose someone from any given list of identified possible experts. However, the Parties may advise their Selection Experts prior to the beginning of the selection process of up to five (5) potential experts, the names of which must be shared with the other Party, that may not be accepted. Once the Selection Experts choose a Settlement Expert, both Parties are bound by that choice and must work with the chosen Settlement Expert.
4.1.5. In order to serve as the Settlement Expert, the person selected to fill the role must enter into an agreement with CCCOE that allows the Settlement Expert to have access to student records in keeping with the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, and also sign an agreement acknowledging that he or she will comply with relevant privacy and confidentiality laws. If the chosen Settlement Expert refuses to sign such agreements, the Parties will utilize the process outlined in Section 4.1.2 to 4.1.4 to select a new Settlement Expert.
4.1.6. In the event the Settlement Expert becomes unavailable for any reason, the Parties will meet and confer to determine whether a mutually acceptable replacement expert can be agreed upon. If the Parties are unable to select a mutually acceptable replacement expert within two weeks of the Settlement Expert becoming unavailable, the Parties will utilize the process described in Sections 4.1.2 to 4.1.4 to select the replacement Settlement Expert.
4.1.7. The Settlement Expert will conduct a review of CCCOE’s policies, procedures and practices in the following areas:
4.1.7.1. Child Find obligations in accordance with the IDEA and related California law and the Rehabilitation Act related to youth with suspected disabilities who are detained at John A. Davis Juvenile Hall;
-3 ­

4.1.7.2. Development and implementation of individualized education plans (“IEPs”) and Section 504 Plans in accordance with the IDEA and related California law and the Rehabilitation Act, with an emphasis on compliance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.115, 20 U.S.C. § 1414 et. seq., 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320 et. seq., and 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.31 et. seq. for all eligible disabled youth detained in John A. Davis Juvenile Hall;
4.1.7.3. Discipline in accordance with applicable law with emphasis on compliance with Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 300.530 et seq, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 et. seq., 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 et. seq., 29 U.S.C. § 794 et. seq., Cal Educ. Code §§ 48900 et. seq., and Cal Educ. Code §§ 56520 et. seq. for all eligible disabled youth detained in John A. Davis Juvenile Hall.
4.1.7.4. The obligations of CCCOE to coordinate with Probation regarding all matters in which CCCOE and Probation have joint or overlapping responsibilities, in compliance with 15 Cal. Code Reg. § 1370 et. seq. and Cal. Ed Code § 48646.
4.1.8. The Settlement Expert shall be given full and reasonable access throughout the Term of the Agreement to any and all information he or she deems necessary to assist in conducting the review described in Section 4.1.7, and the development of a report and recommended changes to policies, procedures and practices described in Section 4.1.10. The Settlement Expert shall have access to personnel and documents of Mt. McKinley School, including at least the following:
4.1.8.1. Full access to the areas in which CCCOE operates, including, but not limited to, the ability to observe classes in session, movement to and from classes, and other activities conducted by CCCOE staff;
4.1.8.2. The ability to talk with, consult with, and interview staff from CCCOE, including, but not limited to, the principal and assistant principal of Mt. McKinley School, teachers at Mt. McKinley School, para-educators, teaching aides, school psychologists, and other support staff including substitute and/or temporary staff for any of these positions;
4.1.8.3. The ability to observe youth in the classroom setting, attend IEPs meetings with the consent of the educational rights holder, observe youth during other special education related services, except for individual counseling services, and review recordings of IEP team meetings;
4.1.8.4. Access to CCCOE records including, but not limited to, attendance logs, schedules, intake assessments, student assessments, performance assessments and reviews, class schedules, classroom logs, discipline reports, teacher professional development, teacher participation in IEPs, creation and implementation of behavior management plans, out of class referrals and
-4 ­

credentialing information, and any grievances or other complaints received by CCCOE regarding the subject matter of this Agreement; and,
4.1.8.5. The Settlement Expert shall be allowed to conduct written surveys of youth detained in John A. Davis Juvenile Hall and to speak with small groups of students as needed. Youth shall be permitted to provide feedback and information to the Settlement Expert and the Settlement Expert shall not be precluded from having informal conversations with youth during visits to Mt. McKinley School which naturally arise as a result of incidental contact.
4.1.9. The Settlement Expert shall not be given access to the private personnel files of CCCOE employees.
4.1.10. Based on the review described in Section 4.1.7, the Settlement Expert shall develop a report (“Expert Report”) which shall include all proposed revisions to policies, procedures and practices that the Settlement Expert recommends. The Expert Report will be completed and provided, along with a summary listing all underlying material relied upon by the Settlement Expert, to both Parties within six months of the commencement of the Settlement Expert’s work as described herein.
4.1.10.1. In addition to the items listed in Section 4.1.10 the Expert Report will include a recommended timeline and process for implementation and training of CCCOE staff over the two year Expert Monitoring Term detailed in Section 4.1.12.
4.1.11. Following the issuance of the Expert Report either Party may challenge a recommendation contained in the Expert Report on the basis that it is not required by and/or does not comply with federal and/or state law. Such challenge shall be made within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the Expert Report in accordance with Section 6 of this Agreement.
4.1.12. Once all challenges to the Expert Report have been resolved, CCCOE will take all necessary steps to have any new policies adopted by its Board of Education at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. Once the Board of Education has approved the Expert Report, a two year period in which the Settlement Expert shall monitor and assist in the implementation of his or her recommended revisions to Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices (the “Expert Monitoring Term”) will commence.
4.1.12.1. Time spent selecting the Settlement Expert, formulating the Expert Report, challenging any provision in the Expert Report, and time spent in the adoption of the Expert Report by the CCCOE Board of Education shall not be counted towards the Expert Monitoring Term.
-5 ­

4.1.13. CCCOE will coordinate with the Settlement Expert throughout the Expert Monitoring Term regarding implementation of the Expert Report, including but not limited to, by participating in the actions set forth in Section 5, and by providing all information and access detailed in Section 4.1.8.
4.1.14. Training of CCCOE staff on any and all changes in policies, procedures and/or practices shall be developed and conducted in consultation with the Settlement Expert during the Term of the Agreement. Such training shall be provided within sixty (60) days of the adoption of such revised policies, procedures and/or practices.
4.2. ADA Coordinator
4.2.1. CCCOE will designate at least one employee at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall as responsible for coordinating ADA compliance (“ADA Coordinator”). This person will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the ADA generally and for investigating and responding to any ADA complaints.
4.3. Coordination and Cooperation with Other Authorities
4.3.1. CCCOE shall use best efforts when implementing the Expert Report and engaging in subsequent monitoring to coordinate and cooperate with other authorities operating in and providing services at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall, including, but not limited to, Probation.
5. REPORTS AND MONITORING
5.1. CCCOE will provide the Settlement Expert with access to items deemed necessary by the Settlement Expert for monitoring purposes, including, but not limited to, the items described in Section 4.1.8, during and prior to the Term of the Agreement. The Settlement Expert will then prepare periodic monitoring reports detailing the actions taken to implement the Expert Report and provide a copy of each such monitoring report, along with a summary listing any and all materials relied upon by the Settlement Expert in drafting such report with any confidential information which would reveal the identity of a minor redacted, to the Parties.
5.2. The monitoring reports described in Section 5.1 will be provided throughout the Expert Monitoring Term on a quarterly basis for the first year of the Expert Monitoring Term and on a semi-annual basis thereafter and with a final report at the end of the Expert Monitoring Term.
5.3. CCCOE will pay Disability Rights Advocates and Public Counsel (collectively, “Plaintiffs’ Counsel”) reasonable fees and costs for worked performed in conjunction with monitoring of this Agreement in accordance with Section 12, below.
-6 ­

6. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
6.1. Disability Rights Advocates and Public Counsel, as counsel for the Named Plaintiffs and the Class, shall have standing to enforce the terms of this Agreement during the Term of the Agreement.
6.2. All disputes concerning the interpretation, implementation, modification pursuant to Section 13.2, monitoring, and compliance with this Agreement, shall be resolved as follows:
6.2.1. Notification in Writing: Any Party’s dispute concerning the interpretation, implementation, monitoring, modification pursuant to section 13.2, and compliance with this Agreement shall be brought in writing to the attention of the other Party.
6.2.2. Meet and Confer: Unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties, with respect to any particular dispute concerning the interpretation, implementation, modification pursuant to section 13.2, monitoring, and compliance with this Agreement, the Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith, within ten (10) business days after a dispute is raised in writing by one of the Parties to discuss and try to resolve such dispute.
6.2.3. Submission to Mediator: Failing a resolution by the Parties or upon a failure to timely meet and confer, any Party may agree to submit the dispute to JAMS for random assignment to a panel mediator The Parties may then submit the dispute to the selected mediator within thirty (30) days of meeting and conferring, who shall have the authority to assist the Parties in resolving the dispute but who shall not have the authority to direct any Party to take or refrain from taking any action or to render decisions. The mediation shall be held and completed within forty-five (45) calendar days of submission unless the assigned mediator's calendar will not allow for such scheduling. In such an instance, the mediation shall be scheduled as soon as practicable.
6.2.4. Submission to Court: Failing resolution of a dispute with the mediator, any Party may, within thirty (30) days of the unsuccessful mediation, submit the issue to the District Court for decision. Any court order issuing as a result of such a submission may be subject to appeal in accordance with applicable law.
6.3. The Parties have agreed to be silent on the standard for any award for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during dispute resolution. By such silence, Plaintiffs are not waiving any right to attorneys’ fees or costs incurred during dispute resolution as anticipated under Section 6.
-7 ­

7. TERM OF AGREEMENT
7.1. This Agreement shall remain in effect from the Effective Date until the completion of the Expert Monitoring Term and issuance of the final Monitoring Report (“Term of the Agreement”).
8. PROCEDURE FOR CLASS SETTLEMENT
8.1. District Court Approval.
8.1.1. This Agreement shall be subject to District Court approval. However, nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to authorize the District Court to change or vary any of its terms.
8.2. Preliminary Approval by the District Court of the Settlement Agreement.
8.2.1. Counsel for the Parties agree that they will take all reasonable steps to ensure that this Agreement is approved by the District Court and becomes effective. Specifically, within 75 days of Full Execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall (1) jointly file the Agreement, including the attached Exhibits, with the Court, (2) jointly move for Preliminary Approval of this Agreement in the District Court, and (3) request entry by the Court on the earliest date acceptable to the Court, of the Proposed Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement; Certifying Settlement Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval attached as Exhibit A.
8.3. Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).
8.3.1. Within ten days of the date that this Agreement is filed in the District Court for Preliminary Approval, Defendant will provide the Notice of this Settlement Agreement as required by the CAFA (28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)) to the U.S. Attorney General, the California Attorney General’s Office, and/or any other necessary parties.
8.4. Notice to Plaintiff Settlement Class Members.
8.4.1. The Parties jointly request that the Court approve the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit (“Notice”) which is attached as Exhibit B.
8.4.1.1. The attached Notice includes: (1) A brief statement of the claims released by the Class; (2) the date of the hearing on the Final Approval of the Agreement with a clear statement that the date may change without further notice to the class; (3) the deadline for submitting objections to the Agreement; (4) contact information for class counsel to answer questions; (5) the address for class counsel website with links to relevant documents in the case; (6)
-8 ­

instructions on how to access the case docket via PACTER or in person at the court’s locations. The Notice shall be published as follows:
8.4.1.2. Within 30 days after Preliminary Approval, Defendant shall distribute the Notice to the education rights holders of all youth currently enrolled at Mt. McKinley, who have an IEP and/or a Section 504 plan. If the youth is over 18 and holds their own education rights, Notice may be given directly to the youth at the Juvenile Hall. If the youth is under 18 or does not hold their own education rights then Notice will be mailed to the last known address of the education rights holder. The outside front of the envelope or mailing surface shall clearly be printed with the phrase “IMPORTANT SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED” in both English and Spanish. The Notice shall be mailed in a stand-alone mailing via First Class U.S. Mail. Defendant may utilize the services of a third-party vendor who specializes in the service of class action notices to accomplish this mailing.
8.4.1.3. Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant shall each post on the front page of their respective websites a copy of the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit and the proposed Agreement until the deadline for submitting objections has passed. Following final approval Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant shall each post a copy of the final Agreement on their respective websites.
8.4.1.4. Defendant shall also post the Notice in each classroom at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall and request that Contra Costa County post the Notice in the entrance lobby of the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall. The posted Notices shall remain in place until the deadline for submitting objections has passed.
8.4.1.5. Nothing in this agreement shall bar either Party from further distribution of the Notice at their own expense.
8.4.1.6. Defendant shall bear all costs for publication of the Notice in a manner agreed upon by the Parties and/or ordered by the District Court.
8.4.1.7. At least fourteen (14) days before the Fairness Hearing, both Counsel for Defendant and Plaintiffs’ Counsel will provide a declaration to the District Court attesting that they each disseminated notice consistent with the Agreement.
8.5. Fairness Hearing.
8.5.1. The Parties shall jointly request that the District Court schedule and conduct a Fairness Hearing to address the fairness of this Agreement settling Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant and to decide whether there shall be Final Approval of the settlement embodied in this Agreement. At the Fairness Hearing, the Parties shall jointly move for and recommend certification of the Class and Final Approval of
-9 ­

this Agreement. The Fairness Hearing shall take place at dates allowing for such period of Notice to the Class as the District Court may direct, and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
8.6. Dismissal of the Lawsuit.
8.6.1. Upon Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, the District Court shall dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction as detailed in Section 10 of this Agreement.
9. MORATORIUM ON LITIGATION
9.1. During the Term of the Agreement, Disability Rights Advocates and Public Counsel shall not file or cause to be filed any lawsuit against CCCOE which alleges systemic or institutional violations of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, or the IDEA related to the claims pled in the First Amended Complaint at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall.
10. RETENTION OF DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION
10.1. The District Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for enforcement and dispute resolution, including enforcement of any award of attorneys’ fees and costs, and challenges to an Expert Report or any other disputes between the Parties pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement.
11. RELEASE OF CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
11.1. Subject to the District Court’s retention of jurisdiction, Named Plaintiffs and the Class, in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, do fully and finally release, acquit, and discharge Defendant from the Released Injunctive Claims as defined below.
11.2. The “Released Injunctive Claims” are any and all claims, rights, demands, charges, complaints, actions, suits, and causes of action, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for injunctive or declaratory relief, that have been brought in the Lawsuit or which could have been brought as educationallybased claims under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and/or IDEA, arising from August 8, 2013, through the Term of the Agreement. The Released Injunctive Claims do not include any claims for compensatory education or individual due process claims arising under the IDEA or Section 504, any claims for reasonable accommodations related to physical access, communication access, and/or accommodations otherwise relating to hearing, vision and/or mobility disabilities arising under the ADA or Section 504, or any monetary claims that may exist under any relevant laws. The Parties further agree that the individual claims of Plaintiff G.F. are not released by this Agreement.
11.3. This release and discharge shall also apply to the CCCOE’s past, present and future officers, directors, board members, attorneys, agents, servants, representatives, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, predecessors and successors in interest,
- 10 ­

assigns and all other persons, firms or corporations with whom any of the former have been, are now, or may hereafter be affiliated with CCCOE.

11.4. Named Plaintiffs and the Class, and each of them, represent and warrant that they have not assigned, sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred any of their rights, titles or interests in any of the Released Injunctive Claims.

12. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

12.1. Named Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel, including the firms of Disability Rights Advocates, Public Counsel, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Gette LLP and Paul Hastings LLP, maintain a claim for attorneys’ fees or costs in connection with the Lawsuit which the Parties have negotiated for purposes of settlement.

12.2. CCCOE shall pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of One Million, One Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($1,165,000) as full and final settlement of all attorneys’ fees and costs related to this action.

12.3. Plaintiffs have determined that they will designate and set aside $70,000 of the total $1,165,000 for fees, expenses and costs incurred in monitoring CCCOE’s implementation of this Agreement
12.4. Payment of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to paragraphs 12.1 through 12.6 of this Agreement shall not prevent Plaintiffs from seeking additional fees by motion to the Court in connection with any future disputes between the parties, as referenced in paragraph 6.3 of this Agreement.

12.5. Payment of attorneys’ fees and costs by CCCOE shall be made in three (3) installments to be paid annually at the beginning of each fiscal year, beginning with the 2015-2016 fiscal year as follows:

1st Installment 2nd Installment 3rd Installment

$435,000.00 $435,000.00 $295,000.00

Payable July 1, 2015
 Payable July 1, 2016
 Payable July 1, 2017


12.6.

Payment drafts shall be made payable to Disability Rights Advocates and shall be

delivered to 2001 Center Street, Berkeley, California 94704 for appropriate distribution.

12.7. The obligation of CCCOE to make payment pursuant to sections 12.1 through 12.6 of this Settlement Agreement shall be discharged upon the mailing or personal delivery of valid checks in the amounts indicated to the address of the payee designated in Section 12.6 of this Agreement and upon receipt, Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall notify CCCOE’s counsel when payment has been received within a reasonable time of receipt.

13. OTHER MATTERS

13.1. Entire Agreement.

- 11 ­

13.1.1. This Agreement contains all the agreements, conditions, promises, and covenants between Plaintiffs and Defendant regarding matters set forth in it, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, drafts, representations, or understandings, either written or oral, with respect to the subject matter of the present Agreement.
13.2. Modification.
13.2.1. This Agreement can only be amended by written agreement of the Parties. Following Final Approval of the Agreement by the District Court, no modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is made pursuant to court order.
13.3. Drafting of this Agreement.
13.3.1. This Agreement is deemed to have been drafted by all parties hereto, as a result of arm’s length negotiations among the parties. Whereas all parties have contributed to the preparation of this Agreement, it shall not be construed more strictly against one party than another.
13.4. Execution by Facsimile and in Counterparts.
13.4.1. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties hereto by facsimile and in separate counterparts, and all such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement.
13.5. Interpretation
13.5.1. The language of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the Parties. The headings in this Agreement are solely for convenience and shall not be considered in its interpretation. Where required by context, the plural includes the singular and the singular includes the plural, and the terms “and” and “or” shall mean “and/or.” This Agreement is the product of negotiations and joint drafting so that any ambiguity shall not be construed against any Party.
13.6. Additional Documents
13.6.1. To the extent any documents are required to be executed by any of the Parties to effectuate this Agreement, each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such and further documents as may be required to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
13.7. Authority to Bind
13.7.1. The undersigned each represent and warrant that they are authorized to sign on behalf of, and to bind, the respective parties of this Agreement.
- 12 ­

EXHIBIT A 


1 SIDNEY M. WOLINSKY (CA BAR NO. 33716) (swolinsky@dralegal.org)

2

MARY-LEE K. SMITH (CA BAR NO. 239086) (msmith@dralegal.org) ZOE CHERNICOFF (CA BAR NO. 274545 ) (zchernicoff@dralegal.org)

3 KARA JANSSEN (CA BAR NO. 274762) (kjanssen@dralegal.org) DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

4 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 5 Telephone: (510) 665-8644

6 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

7 LAURA FAER (CA BAR NO. 233846) (lfaer@publiccounsel.org) PUBLIC COUNSEL
8 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 9 Telephone: (510) 529-3419
10 Facsimile: (213) 385-9089

11 DANIEL S. MASON (CA BAR NO. 54065) (dmason@zelle.com)

PATRICK B. CLAYTON (CA BAR NO. 240191) (pclayton@zelle.com) 12 ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP

13

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104

14 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18

19 G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem,

Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

Gail F.; W.B., by and through his guardian ad

20 litem, CiCi C.; Q.G., by and through his

CLASS ACTION

21 22

guardian ad litem, Barbara C.; and on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated,

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS;

23

Plaintiffs,

CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS; DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF

24 v.

SETTLEMENT NOTICE; AND SCHEDULING OF HEARING ON FINAL

25 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF

APPROVAL

26 EDUCATION,

27

Defendants.

28

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F., W.B. and

2 Q.G., Defendant Contra County Office of Education, and Defendant Contra Costa County

3 (collectively the “Parties”) have advised the Court that they have settled the above-captioned

4 litigation (hereafter “Litigation”), the terms of which have been memorialized in two settlement

5 agreements, an agreement with the Contra Costa County Office of Education (“CCCOE”)

6 (hereafter “CCCOE Agreement”) and a separate agreement with Defendant Contra Costa County

7 (“County”) (hereafter “County Agreement”) (and collectively, the “Settlement Agreements”).

8 The CCCOE Agreement is attached to the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the

9 Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A and the County Agreement is attached as Exhibit B;

10

WHEREAS, the Parties have applied to this Court through a joint motion for an order

11 (1) certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes only (hereafter “Settlement Class”),

12 (2) granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreements, which resolve all claims in the

13 Litigation, (3) directing notice to the Settlement Class, and (4) setting a Fairness Hearing; and

14

WHEREAS, the Court has read and considered the Joint Motion for Preliminary

15 Approval of the Settlement Agreements, the points and authorities and declarations submitted

16 therewith, the proposed Settlement Agreements, and all of the supporting documents; and good

17 cause appearing:

18

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

19

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreements

20 and all terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this Order as set forth in the

21 Settlement Agreements.

22

2. The Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Agreements (“Joint Motion”) is

23 granted. All pending pretrial deadlines are hereby vacated. It appears to this Court on a

24 preliminary basis that the Settlement Agreements are fair, adequate and reasonable. It further

25 appears that extensive evaluation of the merits has been conducted such that the attorneys for the

26 Parties are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions. It also appears to the Court that

27 settlement at this time will avoid substantial additional costs to all Parties, as well as avoid the

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

1

1 delay and the risks presented by further litigation regarding issues addressed by the Settlement

2 Agreements. It further appears that the Settlement Agreements have been reached as the result

3 of intensive, prolonged, serious, and non-collusive arms-length negotiations, including multiple

4 in-person and telephonic settlement sessions.

5

3. The proposed Settlement Class is hereby conditionally certified pursuant to FRCP

6 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as:

7 “all youth with disabilities as defined under the ADA and the

8

Rehabilitation Act who are currently detained at or who will be

detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall.” 9

10

4. Certification of the Settlement Class shall be solely for settlement purposes and

11 without prejudice in the event that the Settlement Agreements are not finally approved by this

12 Court or otherwise do not take effect. The conditional certification of the Settlement Class shall

13 be vacated and shall have no effect in the event that the Settlement Agreements are not finally

14 approved by this Court or otherwise do not take effect.

15

5. The Court hereby appoints and designates the following as representatives of the

16 Settlement Class: Named Plaintiffs G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.; W.B.;

17 and Q.G.

18

6. Notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement shall be given to class members.

19

7. The Court hereby approves the proposed Joint Notice of Proposed Settlement of

20 Class Action Lawsuit (“Notice”), attached as Exhibit B to each of the Settlement Agreements as

21 to form and content.

22

8. Within 30 days after issuance of this Order, the Parties shall distribute the Notice

23 advising the Settlement Class of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement and their right

24 to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement. This Notice shall be distributed as follows:

25

a) Notice to be given by Defendant CCCOE:

26

i) Defendant CCCOE shall distribute the Notice to the education rights holders of all

27

youth currently enrolled at Mt. McKinley, who have an IEP and/or a Section 504 plan.

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

2

1

If the youth is over 18 and holds their own education rights, Notice may be given

2

directly to the youth at the Juvenile Hall. If the youth is under 18 or does not hold

3

their own education rights then Notice will be mailed to the last known address of the

4

education rights holder. The outside front of the envelope or mailing surface shall

5

clearly be printed with the phrase “IMPORTANT SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS

6

ENCLOSED” in both English and Spanish. The Notice shall be mailed in a stand­

7

alone mailing via First Class U.S. Mail. CCCOE may utilize the services of a third-

8

party vendor who specializes in the service of class action notices to accomplish this

9

mailing.

10

ii) Plaintiffs’ Counsel and CCCOE shall each post on the front page of their respective

11

websites a copy of the Notice and the proposed CCCOE Agreement until the deadline

12

for submitting objections has passed. Following final approval Plaintiffs’ counsel and

13

CCCOE shall each post a copy of the final CCCOE Agreement on their respective

14

websites.

15

iii) CCCOE shall also post the Notice in each classroom at the John A. Davis Juvenile

16

Hall and request that Contra Costa County post the Notice in the entrance lobby of

17

the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall. The posted Notices shall remain in place until the

18

deadline for submitting objections to the CCCOE Agreement has passed.

19

iv) Nothing in this Order shall bar either Plaintiffs or CCCOE from further distribution of

20

the Notice at their own expense.

21

v) CCCOE shall bear all costs for publication of the Notice in a manner agreed upon by

22

the Parties.

23

b) Notice to be given by Defendant County:

24

i) Plaintiffs’ Counsel and County shall each post their respective websites a copy of the

25

Notice and the proposed County Agreement until the deadline for submitting

26

objections has passed. Following final approval, Plaintiffs’ Counsel and the County

27

shall each post a copy of the final County Agreement on their respective websites.

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

3

1

ii) The County shall also post the Notice in the visitor areas, in a prominent place on

2

each unit, and in the entrance lobby of the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall until the

3

deadline for submitting objections to the County Agreement has passed. Defendant

4

shall also mail the Notice to the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court Judges, the

5

Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office, and the Contra Costa County District

6

Attorney’s Office.

7

iii) Nothing in this Order shall bar either Plaintiffs or the County from further distribution

8

of the Notice at their own expense.

9

iv) The County shall bear all costs for publication of the Notice in a manner agreed upon

10

by the Parties except the County shall have no obligations with respect to the posting

11

of the Notice on Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s websites.

12

9. In the event that the Settlement Agreements are not approved by the Court, or

13 otherwise fail to become effective, neither the Plaintiffs nor any of Plaintiffs’ counsel shall have

14 any obligation to repay the amounts actually and properly disbursed to accomplish such notice

15 and administration.

16

10. The Court finds that the forms of notice to the Settlement Class regarding the

17 proposed Settlement Agreements, including the methods of dissemination to the proposed

18 Settlement Class in accordance with the terms of this Order, meet the requirements for due

19 process, the requirements of Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to

20 constitute reasonable, appropriate notice to the class.

21

11. Any objections by members of the Settlement Class to the proposed Settlement

22 Agreement shall be heard, and any papers submitted in support of said objection shall be

23 considered by the Court at the Fairness Hearing only if, on or before seventy-five (75) calendar

24 days after the issuance of this Order, such objector files with the Class Action Clerk of the

25 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,

26 San Francisco, CA 94102: (1) a notice of his/her objection and a statement of the basis for such

27 an objection; and/or (2) if applicable, a statement of his/her intention to appear at the Fairness

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

4

1 Hearing. A member of the Settlement Class need not appear at the Fairness Hearing in order for

2 his/her objection to be considered. Any Settlement Class member who does not make his/her

3 objection in the manner provided for in this Order shall be deemed to have waived such

4 objection.

5

12. Plaintiffs shall file their motion for approval of attorneys’ fees and costs at least

6 fourteen (14) days before the deadline for objecting to the Settlement Agreements, as reflected in

7 paragraph 11.

8

13. No later than fourteen (14) days before the Fairness Hearing described below, the

9 Parties shall file all papers in support of the Application for Final Approval of the Settlement

10 Agreements and/or any papers in response to any valid and timely objection submitted to the

11 Court, and shall serve copies of such papers on each other and upon any objector who has

12 complied with the provisions of Paragraph 11 of this Order. Counsel for the Parties will also file

13 with the Court sworn statements evidencing compliance with the notice provisions of this Order.

14

14. A Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court no less than one hundred (100)

15 calendar days after the issuance of this Order to determine all necessary matters concerning the

16 Settlement Agreements, including: whether the proposed Settlement Agreements’ terms and

17 conditions are fair, adequate, and reasonable; whether Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and

18 reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and whether an order approving the Settlement

19 Agreements and dismissing the Litigation on the merits and with prejudice against the Named

20 Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction to administer and

21 enforce the Settlement Agreements, should be entered.

22

15. The Fairness Hearing may, from time to time and without further notice to the

23 Settlement Class (except those who have filed timely objections or entered appearances), be

24 continued or adjourned by order of the Court.

25

16. Counsel for the Parties are hereby authorized to utilize all reasonable procedures

26 in connection with the administration of the Settlement Agreements which are not materially

27 inconsistent with either this Order or the terms of the Settlement Agreements.

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

5

1 IT IS SO ORDERED:

2

3 Dated: _______ 4 5 6

_______________________________
HONORABLE MARIA-ELENA JAMES Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court Northern District of California

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

6

EXHIBIT B 


NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
ATTENTION: all youth with disabilities as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act who are currently detained at, or who will be detained in the future, at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall, located in Martinez, California (the “Juvenile Hall”). You may be a member of the proposed settlement class affected by this lawsuit.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION.
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION
The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the proposed settlements in a pending class action lawsuit brought on behalf of juveniles with disabilities who are detained, or will be detained in the future, at the Juvenile Hall. The lawsuit, G.F. v. Contra Costa County, N.D. Cal. Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ, filed in 2013, alleges that Contra Costa County (“County”), through its Probation Department, and Contra Costa County Office of Education (“CCCOE”) have discriminated against juveniles with disabilities housed at the Juvenile Hall. CCCOE and the County deny any liability or wrongdoing. Separate class action settlements, which must be approved by the Court, have now been reached with both the County (“County Agreement”), and CCCOE (“CCCOE Agreement”) (collectively the “Settlement Agreements”).
THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
If you are a youth with a disability who is currently detained at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall in Martinez, CA, or who will be detained at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall, you may be a member of the proposed settlement class affected by this lawsuit and the proposed Settlement Agreements. Please read this notice carefully because your rights may be affected.
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
CCCOE Agreement
Expert Review of Educational Policies
The CCCOE Agreement provides for CCCOE to retain an expert with expertise in (1) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq. (“IDEA”), (2) the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et. seq. (“Rehabilitation Act”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et. seq. (“ADA”), (3) California state law requirements pertaining to special education, and (4) the operation of juvenile court schools.
The expert will conduct a review of CCCOE’s policies, procedures and practices in the following areas:
• Child Find obligations in accordance with the IDEA and related California law and the Rehabilitation Act related to youth with suspected disabilities who are detained at John A. Davis Juvenile Hall.
• Development and implementation of individualized education plans (“IEPs”) and Section 504 Plans in accordance with the IDEA and related California law and the Rehabilitation Act for all eligible disabled youth detained in John A. Davis Juvenile Hall.
1

• Discipline in accordance with applicable law for all eligible disabled youth detained in John A. Davis Juvenile Hall.
• The obligations of CCCOE to coordinate with Probation regarding all matters in which CCCOE and Probation have joint or overlapping responsibilities.
In order to conduct this review the expert will be given full and reasonable access to any and all information deemed necessary including at least the following: (1) Full access to the areas in which CCCOE operates; (2) The ability to talk with, consult with, and interview staff from CCCOE; (3) The ability to observe youth in the classroom setting, attend IEP meetings with the consent of the educational rights holder, observe youth during other special education related services, except for individual counseling services, and review recordings of IEP team meetings; (4) Access to CCCOE records with the exception of private personnel files, and (5) The ability to conduct written surveys of youth detained in John A. Davis Juvenile Hall and to speak with small groups of students as needed.
Based on this review the expert will develop a report (“Expert Report”) which shall include all proposed revisions to policies, procedures, and practices that he or she recommends. This report will be completed within six months of the commencement of the expert’s review. Following the issuance of the report both Plaintiffs and Defendant CCCOE will have an opportunity to challenge any recommendation contained in the report on the basis that it is not required by and/or does not comply with federal and/or state law. Once all challenges have been resolved the report will be adopted and implemented by CCCOE.
ADA Coordinator
CCCOE will designate at least one employee at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall as responsible for coordinating ADA compliance (“ADA Coordinator”). This person will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the ADA generally and for investigating and responding to any ADA complaints.
Coordination with the Contra Costa County Probation Department
CCCOE shall use best efforts when implementing the Expert Report to coordinate and cooperate with other authorities operating in and providing services at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall, including, but not limited to, the County’s Probation Department.
County Agreement
Expert Review of Disciplinary Policies
Pursuant to the County Agreement the County will retain an expert to conduct a review of the County’s policies, procedures, and practices at the Juvenile Hall in the following areas:
• the use of room confinement; • the use of behavior incentives; • coordination between CCCOE and the County’s Probation Department, including but
not limited to policies and practices relating to the County’s coordination with CCCOE on CCCOE’s implementation of IEPs, 504 Plans, and behavior intervention plans;
2

• the identification, assessment, and tracking of youth with disabilities who are detained at Juvenile Hall and referral systems to identify these youth for CCCOE and County Mental Health; and
• implementation of Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (“JDAI”) standard V.D.4., which specifies that disability must be considered in determining an appropriate response when assigning consequences.
This expert will work with another expert retained by the County to develop a joint report setting forth the experts’ proposed revisions to these policies, procedures, and practices.
Multi-Disciplinary Teams
Multi-disciplinary team meetings including representatives from Probation, CCCOE, and Contra Costa County Mental Health will be held at least once per month with additional meetings held as needed. Such meetings will address the following subjects:
• Coordination of responses and interventions for individual youth who are having consistent and/or chronic issues conforming their behavior to expectations, regardless of where or when the behavior occurs;
• Coordination of the provision of special education and counseling services to all eligible youth on all units;
• Discussion of provision of a continuum of placements based on the special education needs of youth in Juvenile Hall, including a process for approving and placing children in non-public schools and residential placements outside of the Juvenile Hall.
Attendance at IEP Meetings
A Probation staff member will attend IEP meetings when requested to do so and the Probation Department has received prior written or oral consent from the education rights holder to attend where any one of the following conditions is met:
• The youth has been removed from the classroom or prevented from attending Mt. McKinley School for more than 9 school days in one school year for disciplinary reasons by the Probation Department and/or CCCOE in response to conduct by the youth. For purposes of determining the number of missed school days, removal or preventions for one school block or less shall not be considered; or
• Where a youth has been detained in the Juvenile Hall for 30 consecutive days or more and a special day class, residential treatment, or a non-public school placement is being recommended or requested as a placement option by CCCOE or the education rights holder for the youth; or
• For youth assigned to the Youthful Offender Treatment Program or the Girls in Motion program or youth who have been detained in the Juvenile Hall for 60 consecutive days or more, where a behavior support/intervention plan is being put in place.
Room Confinement
Pursuant to the County Agreement, Probation will adopt the following standards:
3

• Staff shall not use room confinement for discipline, punishment, administrative convenience, retaliation, staffing shortages or reasons other than a temporary response to behavior that threatens immediate harm to the youth or others as provided below.
• Staff shall not place youth in continuous room confinement for longer than four hours. After four continuous hours, staff shall return the youth to the general population, develop special individualized programming for the youth, or consult with a qualified mental health professional about whether a youth’s behavior requires that he or she be transported to a mental health facility. As part of the expert review, the experts will consider whether and under what conditions it would be appropriate for the youth to remain in room confinement after the initial four hour period as part of special individualized programming, discussed below.
• Staff will develop special individualized programming for youth with persistent behavior problems that threaten the safety of youth or staff or the security of the facility. Staff shall not use room confinement as a substitute for special individualized programming. Special individualized programming includes the following:
o Development of an individualized plan designed to improve the youth’s behavior, created in consultation with the youth, County Mental Health staff, and the youth’s family members, when available.
o The plan identifies the causes and purposes of the negative behavior, as well as concrete goals that the youth understands and that he or she can work toward to be removed from special programming.
o In-person supervision by and interaction with staff members. o In-person provision of educational services. o Involvement of youth in other aspects of the facility’s programming unless
such involvement threatens the safety of youth or staff or the security of the facility. o A guarantee that the youth will not be denied any of his or her basic rights. o Daily review with the youth of his or her progress toward the goals outlined in his or her plan.
General Provisions
Resolution of Claims
These Settlement Agreements resolve all claims for injunctive relief brought by Plaintiffs. Except as discussed below, these settlements do not (1) provide for any monetary relief to be paid to members of the class, (2) release any individual claims for damages, or otherwise affect the rights of class members to pursue individual claims for compensatory education or other individual relief pursuant to the IDEA and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and (3) do not affect any claims for reasonable accommodations related to physical access, communication access, and/or accommodations otherwise relating to hearing, vision and/or mobility disabilities arising under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. As a part of the County Agreement, the
4

County has agreed to pay the three named Plaintiffs a total of $1,140 for the compensatory education awarded to them by an administrative judge in three separate individual due process administrative proceedings. These payments do not affect other class members’ rights to bring their own claims for compensatory education based on their individual experiences in Juvenile Hall, and are not part of the class-wide settlement.
Attorneys’ Fees
The class was represented by Disability Rights Advocates, Public Counsel, Paul Hastings LLP and Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP (“Class Counsel”). The CCCOE Agreement provides for the payment of $1,165,000 for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the course of the lawsuit with $70,000 of this amount put aside to compensate for fees, expenses and costs incurred in monitoring Defendant CCCOE’s implementation of the Settlement Agreement. The County Agreement provides for the payment of $1,340,000 as full and final settlement of all attorneys’ fees and costs related to the class action and the named Plaintiffs’ individual due process claims, as set forth in Contra Costa County v. Barbara C., Civil Case No. C14-00268 MEJ, Contra Costa County v. CiCi C., Civil Case No. C14-00269 MEJ, and Contra Costa County v. Gail F., Civil Case No. C14-00270 MEJ.
Fairness of Agreement
The class representatives and Class Counsel have concluded that the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement Agreements are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. In reaching this conclusion, the class representatives and Class Counsel have considered the benefits of the settlement, the possible outcomes of continued litigation of these issues, and the expense and length of continued litigation and possible appeals.
OBJECTIONS TO THE SETTLEMENT
The Court has given preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreements, and has scheduled a hearing for [DATE/TIME] in the Courtroom of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreements are fair and reasonable and should be finally approved.
You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection. You cannot ask the Court to modify the terms of the settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement. If the Court denies approval, the actions outlined in this notice will not occur and the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must file an objection.
All written objections and supporting papers must (a) clearly identify the case name and number (G.F. v. Contra Costa County, Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ), (b) be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and (c) be filed or postmarked on or before [DATE].
5

Although you are not required to attend the final approval hearing, as a Class Member, you may participate in, and be heard at, this hearing if you have filed a timely written objection that includes a statement of your intention to participate in this hearing. You may appear on your own or through an attorney. If you appear through an attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. This hearing date may be changed by the Court without further notice to the entire class. If you wish to be on the electronic service list to be informed of any changes to the schedule, please file a notice of appearance with the Court which includes a valid e-mail address at which you can receive notice.
IF YOU DO NOT TIMELY SUBMIT AN OBJECTION AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED YOUR OBJECTION AND SHALL BE FORECLOSED FROM MAKING ANY OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT.
IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THIS SETTLEMENT, YOU NEED NOT APPEAR OR FILE
ANYTHING IN WRITING.
BINDING EFFECT The proposed Settlement Agreements, if given final approval by the Court, will bind all members of the Settlement Class. This will bar any person who is a member of the Settlement Class from seeking different or additional relief regarding all issues resolved in the Settlement Agreements for the term of the Settlement Agreements.
FURTHER INFORMATION This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement Agreements. For the precise terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreements, copies of the Settlement Agreements are available at www.dralegal.org, or by contacting class counsel at Disability Rights Advocate, Attn: Mary-Lee Smith, 2001 Center St. Fourth Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704, Telephone (510) 665-8644, or by accessing the Court docket in this case through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.
To obtain copies of this Notice in alternative accessible formats, please contact Class Counsel listed above.
6

 </s> CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by Plaintiffs G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F., W.B. and Q.G., individually and on behalf of themselves (collectively, “Named Plaintiffs”) and a class of persons similarly situated (the “Class” and collectively with Named Plaintiffs, “Plaintiffs”) as well as between Contra Costa County (“County” or “Defendant”). Defendant and Plaintiffs shall be referred to jointly as the “Parties.”
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. On or about August 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the County, G.F. et al. v. Contra Costa County et al., Case No. C13-3667 MEJ (the “Lawsuit”), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. (“Rehabilitation Act” or “Section 504”), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq. (“IDEA”), California Government Code § 11135 and the California Education Code. Plaintiffs concurrently filed their motion for class certification with their original complaint.
B. Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint on December 20, 2013, and, pursuant to court order, re-filed Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on January 9, 2014. Plaintiffs sought to certify the Class defined as: all youth with disabilities as defined under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act who are currently detained at or who will be detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall (“Juvenile Hall”).
C. The County filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on January 24, 2014.
D. All motions were pending before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) for more than a year and on March 20, 2015, the District Court terminated these motions for statistical purposes only.
III. NATURE AND EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT
A. Settlement Purpose and Scope
1. The Parties have the mutual goal of settling this action to avoid additional protracted and expensive litigation.
2. The Parties now wish to effectuate a complete resolution and settlement of all claims, disputes, and controversies relating to Plaintiffs’ allegations, and to resolve their differences and disputes by settling the Lawsuit.
1

3. Plaintiffs believe that a resolution of their claims, as set forth in this Agreement, accomplishes the goals reasonably achievable through litigation of their claims.
4. To that end, upon the date of Final Approval by the District Court of this Agreement (“Effective Date”), the Parties will jointly request dismissal of the County from the above referenced action. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the litigation only as set forth in Section VIII of this Agreement. Any motions filed as to the Contra Costa County Office of Education (“CCCOE”) are not covered or affected by this Agreement.
B. Settlement on a Class Basis
The Parties hereby stipulate to certification of the Class as set forth below in Section V(B). The Parties agree to joint briefing regarding this stipulated certification of the Class as outlined in Section V of this Agreement.
C. No Admission of Liability.
By agreeing to and voluntarily entering into this Agreement, the County makes no concession or admission, direct or indirect, express or implied, that the County, its governing body, employees or agents, have violated any federal or state law or regulation, including the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, or applicable California state laws, and the County expressly denies all such claims.
D. Exhibits
The terms of all Exhibits attached hereto are fully incorporated into this Agreement and are an integral part thereof. The terms of this Agreement, where applicable, are fully incorporated into all Exhibits and are, where applicable, an integral part thereof. To the extent that there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between the terms of this Agreement and any of the Exhibits, the terms of this Agreement shall control.
The Exhibits to this Agreement are:
Exhibit A - Proposed Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement; Certifying Settlement Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval; and
Exhibit B - Notice of the proposed Agreement.
2

IV. SETTLEMENT RELIEF
A. Expert Review
1. Topics for Expert Review
The County will retain Professor Barry Krisberg to review the following policies and practices of the Contra Costa County Probation Department (“Probation” or “Probation Department”):
a. Room confinement policies and practices at the Juvenile Hall.
b. Policies and practices relating to the use of behavior incentives at the Juvenile Hall.
c. Policies and practices relating to coordination between CCCOE and the Probation Department, including but not limited to policies and practices relating to the County’s coordination with CCCOE on CCCOE’s implementation of Individualized Education Plans (“IEPs”), 504 Plans, and behavior intervention plans.
d. Policies and practices relating to the identification, assessment and tracking of youth with disabilities who are detained at Juvenile Hall and referral systems to identify these youth for CCCOE and Contra Costa County Mental Health (“County Mental Health”).
e. Policies and practices used to implement Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (“JDAI”) standard V.D.4., which specifies that disability must be considered in determining an appropriate response when assigning consequences. The Parties acknowledge that under the new behavior management system, the response to specific conduct, which is disability-related, may or may not be the same as the response to that conduct or similar conduct, which is not disabilityrelated. The Parties also acknowledge that the appropriate response will be based on the individual circumstances in each case.
2. Process for Review
Professor Krisberg will work with Professor Edward Latessa (the “Experts”) to perform a review of the above topics. Following such review, their joint recommendations will be submitted to the County and the County will implement those joint recommendations. A copy of the joint recommendations will also be provided to Disability Rights Advocates and Public Counsel (collectively “Plaintiffs’ Counsel”). To the extent Professors Krisberg and Latessa disagree, the following dispute resolution process shall apply and be final:
a. Upon notification of a dispute between the Experts, see Section IV.E infra, the Parties shall meet and confer within 30 days and attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute.
3

b. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute through the meet and confer process, either Party may submit the matter to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for purposes of mediation.
c. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute through mediation, they shall submit the matter to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James (Judge James) in the form of letter briefs for decision. The Parties agree that in resolving any dispute, Judge James will rely solely on applicable federal and state law and not the terms of this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, the ADA, Section 504, California Government Code § 11135, and the IDEA, as applicable.
d. Either party may appeal Judge James’ decision to the Ninth Circuit.
e. The District Court, in its discretion, may award fees to the prevailing party in accordance with the standard set forth in Christianberg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412 (1978). If Plaintiffs are the prevailing party, the Court may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of attorneys' fees and costs awarded if it determines that the County’s position(s) were reasonable, in whole or in part.
B. Multi-Disciplinary Teams
Multi-disciplinary team meetings between County and CCCOE representatives, including representatives from Probation, CCCOE, and County Mental Health, should be held at least once per month with additional meetings as needed. Such meetings will address the following topics although additional topics may be addressed as needed:
1. Coordination of a response and intervention for individual youth who are having consistent and/or chronic issues conforming their behavior to expectations, regardless of where or when the behavior occurs;
2. Coordination of the provision of special education and counseling services to all eligible youth on all units;
3. Discussion of a continuum of placements based on the special education needs of youth in Juvenile Hall, including a process for approving and placing children in non-public schools and residential placements outside of Juvenile Hall.
C. Attendance at IEP Meetings
A Probation staff member will attend IEP meetings when requested to do so by CCCOE and/or the education rights holder where:
1. Any one of the following conditions is met:
a. The youth has been removed from the classroom or prevented from attending Mt. McKinley School for more than 9 school days in one school year for disciplinary reasons by the Probation Department and/or CCCOE
4

in response to conduct by the youth. For purposes of determining the number of missed school days, removal or preventions for one school block or less shall not be considered; or b. Where a youth has been detained in Juvenile Hall for 30 consecutive days or more and a special day class, residential treatment, or a non-public school placement is being recommended or requested as a placement option by CCCOE or the education rights holder for the youth; or c. For youth assigned to the Youthful Offender Treatment Program or the Girls in Motion program or youth who have been detained in Juvenile Hall for 60 consecutive days or more, where a behavior support/intervention plan is being put in place; and
2. The Probation Department has received prior written or oral consent for the attendance of the Probation Department staff member from the education rights holder at least 48 hours in advance of the IEP meeting. If oral consent has been provided, the education rights holder will provide written consent immediately prior to the IEP meeting.
Plaintiffs agree that Probation’s participation and attendance at such IEP meetings does not create any obligations or responsibilities under the IDEA and related state laws. Probation will not sign any IEPs nor provide any services as part of any IEP but will allow CCCOE to indicate that a member of the Probation Department was present and the name of the particular representative(s) of the Probation Department who attended.
D. Room Confinement
The Probation Department will adopt the following standards:
1. Room Confinement will be defined as the involuntary restriction of a youth alone in his or her room in response to the youth’s behavior or conduct. A youth shall be considered “alone” for purposes of paragraph 3 below even where there are sporadic short visits or check-ins on such youths.
2. Staff shall not use room confinement for discipline, punishment, administrative convenience, retaliation, staffing shortages, or reasons other than a temporary response to behavior that threatens immediate harm to the youth or others as provided in paragraphs 3-5 of this section.
3. Staff shall not place youth in continuous room confinement for longer than four hours except as provided herein and in paragraph 5 below. After four continuous hours, staff shall return the youth to the general population, develop special individualized programming for the youth, or consult with a qualified mental health professional about whether a youth’s behavior requires that he or she be transported to a mental health facility. For implementation purposes, sporadic short visits or check-ins do not extend the four hour cap.
4. Staff will develop special individualized programming for youth with persistent behavior problems that threaten the safety of youth or staff or the security of
5

the facility. Staff shall not use room confinement as a substitute for special individualized programming. Special individualized programming includes the following:
a. Development of an individualized plan designed to improve the youth’s behavior, created in consultation with the youth, County Mental Health staff, and the youth’s family members, when available.
b. The plan identifies the causes and purposes of the negative behavior, as well as concrete goals that the youth understands and that he or she can work toward to be removed from special programming.
c. In-person supervision by and interaction with staff members. d. In-person provision of educational services. e. Involvement of the youth in other aspects of the facility’s programming
unless such involvement threatens the safety of youth or staff or the security of the facility. f. A guarantee that the youth will not be denied any of his or her basic rights. g. Daily review with the youth of his or her progress toward the goals outlined in his or her plan.
5. As part of the review outlined in Section IV.A above, the Experts will consider whether and under what conditions it would be appropriate for the youth to remain in room confinement as part of special individualized programming after the initial four hour period referenced in paragraph 3 above.
E. Implementation and Monitoring Period
The Experts will perform their review as set forth in Section IV.A above and issue their report within six months of the Effective Date. This report shall set forth all jointly agreed-upon recommendations and all disputes between the Experts. The County will implement all jointly agreed-upon recommendations/policies over the first year and a half after the Effective Date and will be held to compliance with the terms of the Agreement as set out herein. The initial year and a half year following the Effective Date will be called the “Implementation Period.”
Following this Implementation Period, there will be a two year Monitoring Period. This twoyear Monitoring Period will not include time spent in dispute resolution following the issuance of the Experts’ report. During the Monitoring Period, the Experts will provide reports every 6 months to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and the County with the first report provided on the first day of the Monitoring Period, subsequent reports provided every six months thereafter, and the final report at the conclusion of the Monitoring Period (“Monitoring Report(s)”). Probation will provide the Experts with access to items deemed necessary by the Experts to prepare the Monitoring Reports. The Monitoring Reports prepared by the Experts shall include each of the metrics listed below:
1) Instances of the use of continuous room confinement in Juvenile Hall for periods of three hours or more, including the reason the youth was placed in room confinement, the duration of room confinement, any and all general education and/or special education
6

provided to such youth, and any special individualized programming developed for the youth; 2) The total number of IEP meetings for youth in Juvenile Hall attended by Probation Department staff, including the name of the youth, the name of staff attending, and the reasons for Probation Department staff attendance; 3) The total number of youth in Juvenile Hall having consistent and/or chronic issues conforming their behavior to expectations who were discussed at the Multi-Disciplinary Team meetings, including the reason for the discussion and who was present at the meeting; 4) The total number and names of Juvenile Hall units employing the new behavioral management system; 5) The total number of youth detained in Juvenile Hall referred by Probation Department staff to (a) CCCOE for a determination respecting the youth’s eligibility to receive special education under the IDEA and/or state law and/or (b) County Mental Health for mental health counseling services; 6) A summary of any discussions between CCCOE and the Probation Department occurring during the relevant six month period with respect to coordination of the provision of special education programs and services at Juvenile Hall by CCCOE; 7) The total number of grievances and/or complaints filed by youth in Juvenile Hall respecting room confinement and/or disciplinary actions; 8) The total number of youth receiving special individualized programming as outlined in subsection IV.D.4 and the types of such programming provided; 9) The total number of youth in Juvenile Hall denied access to recreational services by the Probation Department as the result of disciplinary actions, including a breakdown of the number of youth denied access to recreational services by type; and 10) The total number of youth in Juvenile Hall denied access to educational services in the classroom environment as a result of disciplinary actions, including the number of days each youth was not able to attend class and the reasons for such non-attendance.
The Probation Department agrees to make the underlying documents available upon request to the Experts and Plaintiffs’ Counsel. The Experts’ reports and underlying documents contain confidential information, including but not limited to confidential information pertaining to Class members and other juveniles. The Experts and Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall keep such information confidential and shall not use such information for purposes other than implementation and enforcement of this Agreement unless that information was also obtained by the entity seeking to use that information through independent means.
The Parties recognize that implementation of the substantive provisions of the Agreement will be difficult and therefore will rely on benchmarks to show compliance with this Agreement during the initial phase of the Monitoring Period as set forth below. The benchmark for the compliance with the Agreement at the time of the first and second Monitoring Report will be 70% compliance. The benchmark for the next year of the Monitoring Period, during which the Experts will provide their third and fourth Monitoring Reports, will be 80% compliance. Thereafter and through the conclusion of the Monitoring Period, including the issuance of the fifth and final Monitoring Report, all units shall be in substantial compliance with the provisions of this Agreement.
7

The County will pay the Experts reasonable fees for monitoring work, not to exceed a combined total of $25,000 for the Monitoring Period. The County will not pay Plaintiffs’ Counsel their attorneys’ fees and costs for work performed during the Monitoring Period in conjunction with monitoring of this Agreement.
Should there be a dispute between the Parties respecting compliance with this Agreement during the Monitoring Period, the Parties will use the dispute resolution process set forth in Section IV.A.2 (Process for Review) above, subject to the limitations set forth in that provision respecting recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs by the prevailing party. Either party has up to thirty days after issuance of a Monitoring Report to notify the other party of any disputes respecting compliance during the time period reflected in that Report.
V. PROCEDURE FOR CLASS-WIDE SETTLEMENT
A. District Court Approval.
This Agreement shall be subject to District Court approval. However, nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to authorize the District Court to change or vary any of its terms.
B. Certification of the Settlement Class
The Parties hereby stipulate to certification of the Class defined as “all youth with disabilities as defined under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act who are currently detained at or who will be detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall.” The Parties agree to joint briefing regarding this stipulated certification of the Class as outlined below.
C. Preliminary Approval by the District Court of the Settlement Agreement
The Parties agree that they will cooperate and take all reasonable steps to ensure that this Agreement is approved by the District Court and becomes effective. Specifically, within 45 days after all parties have signed this Agreement, the Parties shall (1) jointly file the Agreement, including the attached Exhibits, with the District Court, (2) jointly move for Preliminary Approval of this Agreement in the District Court, and (3) request entry by the District Court on the earliest date acceptable to the Court of the Proposed Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement; Certifying Settlement Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval, attached as Exhibit A.
D. Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).
Within ten days of the date that this Agreement is filed in the District Court for Preliminary Approval, Defendant will provide the Notice of this Settlement Agreement as required by the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)) to the U.S. Attorney General, the California Attorney General’s Office, and/or any other necessary parties.
8

E. Fairness Hearing
The Parties shall jointly request that the District Court schedule and conduct a Fairness Hearing to address the fairness of this Agreement settling Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant and to decide whether there shall be Final Approval of the settlement embodied in this Agreement. At the Fairness Hearing, the Parties shall jointly move for and recommend certification of the Class and Final Approval of this Agreement. The Fairness Hearing shall take place at on a date allowing for such period of Notice to the Class as the District Court may direct, and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
F. Notice
The Parties jointly request that the Court approve Notice of the proposed Agreement (“Notice”) to be provided to the Class as follows: within 30 days after Preliminary Approval, the Parties shall distribute Notice of the proposed Agreement as set forth in the District Court's Preliminary Approval Order. Unless the District Court orders otherwise, this Notice, attached as Exhibit B, shall be published as follows:
a. The Notice includes: A brief statement of the claims released by the Class; the date of the hearing on the Final Approval of the Agreement; the deadline for submitting objections to the Agreement; the web page, address, and phone and fax numbers that may be used to obtain a copy of the Notice in the format and language requested.
b. Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant shall each post in a prominent place on their respective websites a copy of the Notice and the proposed Agreement until the deadline for submitting objections has passed. Following Final Approval, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant shall each post a copy of the final Agreement on their respective websites.
c. Defendant shall also post the Notice in the visitor areas, in a prominent place on each unit, and in the entrance lobby of the Juvenile Hall until the deadline for submitting objections has passed. Defendant shall also mail the Notice to the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court Judges, the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office, and the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office.
d. Nothing in this Agreement shall bar the Parties from further distribution of the Notice at their own expense.
e. The County will bear costs of notifying the putative class members as directed by the Court.
f. At least fourteen (14) days before the Fairness Hearing, Counsel for Defendants and Plaintiffs’ Counsel will provide a declaration to the District Court attesting that they each disseminated notice consistent with this Agreement.
9

VI. RELEASE OF CLAIMS
Subject to the District Court’s retention of jurisdiction, Named Plaintiffs and the Class, in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, do fully and finally release, acquit, and discharge Defendant, including but not limited to its Board of Supervisors, departments, officials, officers, agents, attorneys, insurers, employees, and any other person or persons for whose actions or omissions Contra Costa County may be legally responsible, from claims regarding the Juvenile Hall as set forth below.
The “Released Injunctive Claims” are any and all claims rights, demands, charges, complaints, actions, suits, and causes of action, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for injunctive or declaratory relief that have been brought in this lawsuit under the IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, California Government Code § 11135 and/or the California Education Code arising on or before August 8, 2013, through the Term of the Agreement, as defined below. The Released Injunctive Claims do not include any claims for compensatory education or individual due process claims arising under the IDEA, California Government Code § 11135 and the California Education Code, any claims related to physical access, communication access, and/or accommodations otherwise relating to hearing, vision and/or mobility disabilities arising under the ADA or Section 504, or any monetary claims that may exist under any relevant laws.
In addition to the Released Injunctive Claims, Named Plaintiff G.F, by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F., releases any and all claims whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for monetary relief under the IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, California Government Code § 11135 and/or the California Education Code arising on or before August 8, 2013, through the term of this Agreement. Named Plaintiff G. F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F., further releases any and all claims whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for compensatory education or individual due process under the IDEA, California Government Code § 11135 and/or the California Education Code arising on or before August 8, 2103 through December 27, 2013. Compensatory education and due process claims for Named Plaintiff G.F. after December 27, 2013 are not released.
In addition to the Released Injunctive Claims, Named Plaintiff Q.G., further releases any and all claims whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for compensatory education or individual due process under the IDEA, California Government Code § 11135 and/or the California Education Code arising on or before August 8, 2103 through the Term of the Agreement. Monetary relief claims under the IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, California Government Code § 11135, and the California Education Code for Named Plaintiff Q.G. are not released.
In addition to the Released Injunctive Claims, Named Plaintiff W.B., releases any and all claims whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for compensatory education or individual due process under the IDEA, California Government Code § 11135 and/or the California Education Code arising on or before August 8, 2103 through the Term of the Agreement. Monetary relief claims under the IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, California Government Code § 11135 and the California Education Code for Named Plaintiff W.B. are not released.
10

The Named Plaintiffs agree not to retain Disability Rights Advocates and Public Counsel to pursue any individual claims against the County, or any of its employees or departments through the Term of the Agreement.
VII. DISMISSAL OF THE LAWSUITS
Upon Final Approval of the Agreement, the District Court shall enter final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing this lawsuit with prejudice subject to the District Court’s retention of jurisdiction as detailed in Section VIII, below. Further, the County and all three Named Plaintiffs will dismiss their pending due process appeals in Contra Costa County v. Barbara C., Civil Case No. C14-00268 MEJ, Contra Costa County v. CiCi C., Civil Case No. C14-00269 MEJ, and Contra Costa County v. Gail F., Civil Case No. C14-00270 MEJ, with prejudice. Named Plaintiff W.B., does not waive the provision of the seventeen (17) hours of compensatory education by the County as required by Administrative Law Judge Peter Paul Castillo in his underlying administrative decision. Named Plaintiff Q.G. does not waive the provision of the one (1) hour of compensatory education by the County required by Administrative Law Judge Peter Paul Castillo in his underlying administrative decision. Named Plaintiff G.F., through her guardian, Gail F., does not waive the provision of the twenty (20) hours of compensatory education by the County as required by Administrative Law Judge Peter Paul Castillo in his underlying administrative decision. The County will provide Named Plaintiff W.B., Named Plaintiff Q.G., and Named Plaintiff G.F. with compensation for the compensatory education ordered at the rate of $30 per hour.
VIII. RETENTION OF DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION
The District Court will retain jurisdiction for purposes of approval and enforcement of any award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The District Court will also retain jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of enforcement and for purposes of dispute resolution, including disputes related to the final Monitoring Report and for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees and costs related to dispute resolution.
IX. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Named Plaintiffs and their counsel, including Disability Rights Advocates, Public Counsel, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Gette LLP and Paul Hastings LLP, maintain a claim for attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the Lawsuit which the Parties have negotiated for purposes of settlement. Named Plaintiffs and their counsel also maintain claims for attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with Contra Costa County v. Barbara C., Civil Case No. C14-00268 MEJ, Contra Costa County v. CiCi C., Civil Case No. C14-00269 MEJ, and Contra Costa County v. Gail F., Civil Case No. C14-00270 MEJ, including the underlying administrative proceedings in each of these three cases (collectively “IDEA Due Process Appeals”).
The County shall pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of One Million, Three Hundred, and Forty Thousand Dollars ($1,340,000) as full and final settlement of all attorneys’ fees and costs in this lawsuit and the IDEA Due Process Appeals. As set forth above in Sections
11

IV.A.2 and IV.E, Plaintiffs may seek future attorneys’ fees by motion to the District Court in connection with any future disputes between the parties.
Payment of attorneys’ fees and costs by the County shall be made within 60 days of the District Court’s issuance of Final Approval of this Agreement. Payment shall be made payable to Disability Rights Advocates and shall be delivered to 2001 Center Street, Berkley, California 94704 for appropriate distribution.
X. OTHER MATTERS
A. Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall remain in effect from the Effective Date until the completion of the Monitoring Period, which shall be the date of the issuance of the final Monitoring Report (“Term of the Agreement”).
B. Entire Agreement
This Agreement contains all the agreements, conditions, promises, and covenants between Plaintiffs and Defendant regarding matters set forth in it, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, drafts, representations, or understandings, either written or oral.
C. Modification
This Agreement can only be amended by written agreement of the Parties. Following Final Approval of the Agreement by the District Court, no modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is made pursuant to court order.
D. Drafting of this Agreement
This Agreement is deemed to have been drafted by all Parties hereto, as a result of arm’s length negotiations among the Parties. Whereas all Parties have contributed to the preparation of this Agreement, it shall not be construed more strictly against one Party than another.
E. Execution by Facsimile and in Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed by the Parties hereto in separate counterparts, and all such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement.
F. Interpretation
The language of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the Parties. The headings in this Agreement are solely for convenience and shall not be considered in its interpretation. Where required by context, the plural includes the singular and the singular includes the plural. This Agreement is the product of negotiations and joint drafting so that any ambiguity shall not be construed against any Party.
12

G. Additional Documents
To the extent any documents are required to be executed by any of the Parties to effectuate this Agreement, each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such and further documents as may be required to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
H. Authority to Bind
The undersigned each represents and warrants that: a) he/she is authorized to sign on behalf of, and to bind, the respective Parties of this Agreement; b) there has been no assignment, transfer, conveyance or other disposition of any of the released claims set forth in Section VI above by the Party he/she is signing on behalf of; c) the Party he/she is signing on behalf of is fully entitled to give a full and complete release of all released claims set forth in Section VI above; and d) he/she is represented by counsel, has been so represented throughout all negotiations and the drafting of this Agreement, has read and understands the terms of this Agreement and had the terms of this Agreement explained fully by counsel.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned acknowledge and agree to be bound by the terms of the Agreement.

Plaintiffs:
"W.B.", signed on his behalf by "CiCi C"

Defendant: Contra Costa County

By: Title: Date:

"Q.G"

Date: "Gail F", guardian ad litem for G.F.

Date: 13

G. Additional Documents
To the extent any documents are required to be executed by any of the Parties to effectuate this Agreement, each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such and further documents as may be required to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
H. Authority to Bind
The undersigned each represents and warrants that: a) he/she is authorized to sign on behalf of, and to bind, the respective Parties of this Agreement; b) there has been no assignment, transfer, conveyance or other disposition of any of the released claims set forth in Section VI above by the Party he/she is signing on behalf of; c) the Party he/she is signing on behalf of is fully entitled to give a full and complete release of all released claims set forth in Section VI above; and d) he/she is represented by counsel, has been so represented throughout all negotiations and the drafting of this Agreement, has read and understands the terms of this Agreement and had the terms of this Agreement explained fully by counsel.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned acknowledge and agree to be bound by the terms of the Agreement.

Plaintiffs:
"W.B.", signed on his behalf by "CiCi C"

Defendant: Contra Costa County

Date: ~-~CJ - d\J lS
"Q.G"

Philip F. Kader Title: County Probation Officer
Date:

"Gail F", guardian ad litem for G.F. 13

G. Additional Documents
To the extent any documents are required to be executed by any of the Parties to effectuate this Agreement, each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver s uch and further documents as may be required to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
H. Authority to Bind
The undersigned each represents and warrants that: a) he/she is authorized to sign on behalf of, and to bind, the respective Parties of this Agreement; b) there has been no assignment, transfer, conveyance or other disposition of any of the released claims set forth in Section VI above by the Party he/she is signing on behalf of; c) the Party he/she is signing on behalf of is fully entitled to give a full and complete release of all released claims set forth in Section VI above; and d) he/she is represented by counsel, has been so represented throughout all negotiations and the drafting of this Agreement, has read and unders tands the terms of this Agreement and had the terms of this Agreement explained fully by counsel.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned acknowledge and agree to be bound by the terms of the
Agreement.

Plaintiffs:
''W.B.'', signed on his behalf by ''CiCi C''

Defendant: Contra Costa County

Date:

By:
Philip F. Kader
Title: County Probation Officer
Date:

''Q.G''

Date: 5- . - {S
''Gail F'', guardian ad litem for G.F.

Date:
13

G. Additional Documents
To the extent any documents are required to be executed by any of the Parties to effectuate this Agreement, each party hereto agrees to execute and deliver such and further documents as may be required to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
H. Authority to Bind
The undersigned each represents and warrants that: a) he/she is authorized to sign on behalf of, and to bind, the respective Parties of this Agreement; b) there has been no assignment, transfer, conveyance or other disposition of any of the released claims set forth in Section VI above by the Party he/she is signing on behalf of; c) the Party he/she is signing on behalf of is fully entitled to give a full and complete release of all released claims set forth in Section VI above; and d) he/she is represented by counsel, has been so represented throughout all negotiations and the drafting of this Agreement, has read and understands the terms of this Agreement and had the terms of this Agreement explained fully by counsel.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned acknowledge and agree to be bound by the terms ofthe Agreement.

Plaintiffs:
"W.B.", signed on his behalf by "CiCi C"

Defendant: Contra Costa County

"Q.G"

Philip F. Kader Title: County Probation Officer
Date:

"Gail F", guardian ad litem for G.F.
lilP
Date: 11/30/;~
13

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: W.B., Q.G., and Gail F, Guardian ad litem for G.F.

Attorney for Defendant: Contra Costa County

By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Mary Lee K. Smith, Esq. Disability Rights Advocates

. Cameron Ba , Esq. Contra Costa County Office of the County Counsel ·

By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Laura Faer, Esq. Public Counsel

14

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: W.B., Q.G., and Gail F, Guardian ad litem for G.F.

Attorney for Defendant: Contra Costa County

By:. Mary Lee K. Smith, Esq. Disability Rights Advocates

By:. D. Cameron Baker, Esq. Contra Costa County Office of the County Counsel

By: Laura FaervEssq. Public Counsel

SMj 5

14

EXHIBIT A

1 SIDNEY M. WOLINSKY (CA BAR NO. 33716) (swolinsky@dralegal.org)

2

MARY-LEE K. SMITH (CA BAR NO. 239086) (msmith@dralegal.org) ZOE CHERNICOFF (CA BAR NO. 274545 ) (zchernicoff@dralegal.org)

3 KARA JANSSEN (CA BAR NO. 274762) (kjanssen@dralegal.org) DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

4 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 5 Telephone: (510) 665-8644

6 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

7 LAURA FAER (CA BAR NO. 233846) (lfaer@publiccounsel.org) PUBLIC COUNSEL
8 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 9 Telephone: (510) 529-3419
10 Facsimile: (213) 385-9089

11 DANIEL S. MASON (CA BAR NO. 54065) (dmason@zelle.com)

PATRICK B. CLAYTON (CA BAR NO. 240191) (pclayton@zelle.com) 12 ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP

13

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104

14 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18

19 G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem,

Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

Gail F.; W.B., by and through his guardian ad

20 litem, CiCi C.; Q.G., by and through his

CLASS ACTION

21 22

guardian ad litem, Barbara C.; and on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated,

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENTS;

23

Plaintiffs,

CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS; DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF

24 v.

SETTLEMENT NOTICE; AND SCHEDULING OF HEARING ON FINAL

25 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF

APPROVAL

26 EDUCATION,

27

Defendants.

28

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F., W.B. and

2 Q.G., Defendant Contra County Office of Education, and Defendant Contra Costa County

3 (collectively the “Parties”) have advised the Court that they have settled the above-captioned

4 litigation (hereafter “Litigation”), the terms of which have been memorialized in two settlement

5 agreements, an agreement with the Contra Costa County Office of Education (“CCCOE”)

6 (hereafter “CCCOE Agreement”) and a separate agreement with Defendant Contra Costa County

7 (“County”) (hereafter “County Agreement”) (and collectively, the “Settlement Agreements”).

8 The CCCOE Agreement is attached to the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the

9 Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A and the County Agreement is attached as Exhibit B;

10

WHEREAS, the Parties have applied to this Court through a joint motion for an order

11 (1) certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes only (hereafter “Settlement Class”),

12 (2) granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreements, which resolve all claims in the

13 Litigation, (3) directing notice to the Settlement Class, and (4) setting a Fairness Hearing; and

14

WHEREAS, the Court has read and considered the Joint Motion for Preliminary

15 Approval of the Settlement Agreements, the points and authorities and declarations submitted

16 therewith, the proposed Settlement Agreements, and all of the supporting documents; and good

17 cause appearing:

18

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

19

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreements

20 and all terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this Order as set forth in the

21 Settlement Agreements.

22

2. The Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Agreements (“Joint Motion”) is

23 granted. All pending pretrial deadlines are hereby vacated. It appears to this Court on a

24 preliminary basis that the Settlement Agreements are fair, adequate and reasonable. It further

25 appears that extensive evaluation of the merits has been conducted such that the attorneys for the

26 Parties are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions. It also appears to the Court that

27 settlement at this time will avoid substantial additional costs to all Parties, as well as avoid the

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

1

1 delay and the risks presented by further litigation regarding issues addressed by the Settlement

2 Agreements. It further appears that the Settlement Agreements have been reached as the result

3 of intensive, prolonged, serious, and non-collusive arms-length negotiations, including multiple

4 in-person and telephonic settlement sessions.

5

3. The proposed Settlement Class is hereby conditionally certified pursuant to FRCP

6 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as:

7 “all youth with disabilities as defined under the ADA and the

8

Rehabilitation Act who are currently detained at or who will be

detained at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall.” 9

10

4. Certification of the Settlement Class shall be solely for settlement purposes and

11 without prejudice in the event that the Settlement Agreements are not finally approved by this

12 Court or otherwise do not take effect. The conditional certification of the Settlement Class shall

13 be vacated and shall have no effect in the event that the Settlement Agreements are not finally

14 approved by this Court or otherwise do not take effect.

15

5. The Court hereby appoints and designates the following as representatives of the

16 Settlement Class: Named Plaintiffs G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.; W.B.;

17 and Q.G.

18

6. Notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement shall be given to class members.

19

7. The Court hereby approves the proposed Joint Notice of Proposed Settlement of

20 Class Action Lawsuit (“Notice”), attached as Exhibit B to each of the Settlement Agreements as

21 to form and content.

22

8. Within 30 days after issuance of this Order, the Parties shall distribute the Notice

23 advising the Settlement Class of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement and their right

24 to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement. This Notice shall be distributed as follows:

25

a) Notice to be given by Defendant CCCOE:

26

i) Defendant CCCOE shall distribute the Notice to the education rights holders of all

27

youth currently enrolled at Mt. McKinley, who have an IEP and/or a Section 504 plan.

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

2

1

If the youth is over 18 and holds their own education rights, Notice may be given

2

directly to the youth at the Juvenile Hall. If the youth is under 18 or does not hold

3

their own education rights then Notice will be mailed to the last known address of the

4

education rights holder. The outside front of the envelope or mailing surface shall

5

clearly be printed with the phrase “IMPORTANT SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS

6

ENCLOSED” in both English and Spanish. The Notice shall be mailed in a stand-

7

alone mailing via First Class U.S. Mail. CCCOE may utilize the services of a third-

8

party vendor who specializes in the service of class action notices to accomplish this

9

mailing.

10

ii) Plaintiffs’ Counsel and CCCOE shall each post on the front page of their respective

11

websites a copy of the Notice and the proposed CCCOE Agreement until the deadline

12

for submitting objections has passed. Following final approval Plaintiffs’ counsel and

13

CCCOE shall each post a copy of the final CCCOE Agreement on their respective

14

websites.

15

iii) CCCOE shall also post the Notice in each classroom at the John A. Davis Juvenile

16

Hall and request that Contra Costa County post the Notice in the entrance lobby of

17

the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall. The posted Notices shall remain in place until the

18

deadline for submitting objections to the CCCOE Agreement has passed.

19

iv) Nothing in this Order shall bar either Plaintiffs or CCCOE from further distribution of

20

the Notice at their own expense.

21

v) CCCOE shall bear all costs for publication of the Notice in a manner agreed upon by

22

the Parties.

23

b) Notice to be given by Defendant County:

24

i) Plaintiffs’ Counsel and County shall each post their respective websites a copy of the

25

Notice and the proposed County Agreement until the deadline for submitting

26

objections has passed. Following final approval, Plaintiffs’ Counsel and the County

27

shall each post a copy of the final County Agreement on their respective websites.

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

3

1

ii) The County shall also post the Notice in the visitor areas, in a prominent place on

2

each unit, and in the entrance lobby of the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall until the

3

deadline for submitting objections to the County Agreement has passed. Defendant

4

shall also mail the Notice to the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court Judges, the

5

Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office, and the Contra Costa County District

6

Attorney’s Office.

7

iii) Nothing in this Order shall bar either Plaintiffs or the County from further distribution

8

of the Notice at their own expense.

9

iv) The County shall bear all costs for publication of the Notice in a manner agreed upon

10

by the Parties except the County shall have no obligations with respect to the posting

11

of the Notice on Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s websites.

12

9. In the event that the Settlement Agreements are not approved by the Court, or

13 otherwise fail to become effective, neither the Plaintiffs nor any of Plaintiffs’ counsel shall have

14 any obligation to repay the amounts actually and properly disbursed to accomplish such notice

15 and administration.

16

10. The Court finds that the forms of notice to the Settlement Class regarding the

17 proposed Settlement Agreements, including the methods of dissemination to the proposed

18 Settlement Class in accordance with the terms of this Order, meet the requirements for due

19 process, the requirements of Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to

20 constitute reasonable, appropriate notice to the class.

21

11. Any objections by members of the Settlement Class to the proposed Settlement

22 Agreement shall be heard, and any papers submitted in support of said objection shall be

23 considered by the Court at the Fairness Hearing only if, on or before seventy-five (75) calendar

24 days after the issuance of this Order, such objector files with the Class Action Clerk of the

25 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,

26 San Francisco, CA 94102: (1) a notice of his/her objection and a statement of the basis for such

27 an objection; and/or (2) if applicable, a statement of his/her intention to appear at the Fairness

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

4

1 Hearing. A member of the Settlement Class need not appear at the Fairness Hearing in order for

2 his/her objection to be considered. Any Settlement Class member who does not make his/her

3 objection in the manner provided for in this Order shall be deemed to have waived such

4 objection.

5

12. Plaintiffs shall file their motion for approval of attorneys’ fees and costs at least

6 fourteen (14) days before the deadline for objecting to the Settlement Agreements, as reflected in

7 paragraph 11.

8

13. No later than fourteen (14) days before the Fairness Hearing described below, the

9 Parties shall file all papers in support of the Application for Final Approval of the Settlement

10 Agreements and/or any papers in response to any valid and timely objection submitted to the

11 Court, and shall serve copies of such papers on each other and upon any objector who has

12 complied with the provisions of Paragraph 11 of this Order. Counsel for the Parties will also file

13 with the Court sworn statements evidencing compliance with the notice provisions of this Order.

14

14. A Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court no less than one hundred (100)

15 calendar days after the issuance of this Order to determine all necessary matters concerning the

16 Settlement Agreements, including: whether the proposed Settlement Agreements’ terms and

17 conditions are fair, adequate, and reasonable; whether Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and

18 reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and whether an order approving the Settlement

19 Agreements and dismissing the Litigation on the merits and with prejudice against the Named

20 Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction to administer and

21 enforce the Settlement Agreements, should be entered.

22

15. The Fairness Hearing may, from time to time and without further notice to the

23 Settlement Class (except those who have filed timely objections or entered appearances), be

24 continued or adjourned by order of the Court.

25

16. Counsel for the Parties are hereby authorized to utilize all reasonable procedures

26 in connection with the administration of the Settlement Agreements which are not materially

27 inconsistent with either this Order or the terms of the Settlement Agreements.

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

5

1 IT IS SO ORDERED:

2

3 Dated: _______ 4 5 6

_______________________________
HONORABLE MARIA-ELENA JAMES Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court Northern District of California

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
G.F., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ

[Proposed[ Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlements; Certifying Settlement

Class; Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling of Hearing on Final Approval

6

EXHIBIT B

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
ATTENTION: all youth with disabilities as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act who are currently detained at, or who will be detained in the future, at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall, located in Martinez, California (the “Juvenile Hall”). You may be a member of the proposed settlement class affected by this lawsuit.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION.
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION
The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the proposed settlements in a pending class action lawsuit brought on behalf of juveniles with disabilities who are detained, or will be detained in the future, at the Juvenile Hall. The lawsuit, G.F. v. Contra Costa County, N.D. Cal. Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ, filed in 2013, alleges that Contra Costa County (“County”), through its Probation Department, and Contra Costa County Office of Education (“CCCOE”) have discriminated against juveniles with disabilities housed at the Juvenile Hall. CCCOE and the County deny any liability or wrongdoing. Separate class action settlements, which must be approved by the Court, have now been reached with both the County (“County Agreement”), and CCCOE (“CCCOE Agreement”) (collectively the “Settlement Agreements”).
THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
If you are a youth with a disability who is currently detained at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall in Martinez, CA, or who will be detained at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall, you may be a member of the proposed settlement class affected by this lawsuit and the proposed Settlement Agreements. Please read this notice carefully because your rights may be affected.
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
CCCOE Agreement
Expert Review of Educational Policies
The CCCOE Agreement provides for CCCOE to retain an expert with expertise in (1) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq. (“IDEA”), (2) the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et. seq. (“Rehabilitation Act”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et. seq. (“ADA”), (3) California state law requirements pertaining to special education, and (4) the operation of juvenile court schools.
The expert will conduct a review of CCCOE’s policies, procedures and practices in the following areas:
• Child Find obligations in accordance with the IDEA and related California law and the Rehabilitation Act related to youth with suspected disabilities who are detained at John A. Davis Juvenile Hall.
• Development and implementation of individualized education plans (“IEPs”) and Section 504 Plans in accordance with the IDEA and related California law and the Rehabilitation Act for all eligible disabled youth detained in John A. Davis Juvenile Hall.
1

• Discipline in accordance with applicable law for all eligible disabled youth detained in John A. Davis Juvenile Hall.
• The obligations of CCCOE to coordinate with Probation regarding all matters in which CCCOE and Probation have joint or overlapping responsibilities.
In order to conduct this review the expert will be given full and reasonable access to any and all information deemed necessary including at least the following: (1) Full access to the areas in which CCCOE operates; (2) The ability to talk with, consult with, and interview staff from CCCOE; (3) The ability to observe youth in the classroom setting, attend IEP meetings with the consent of the educational rights holder, observe youth during other special education related services, except for individual counseling services, and review recordings of IEP team meetings; (4) Access to CCCOE records with the exception of private personnel files, and (5) The ability to conduct written surveys of youth detained in John A. Davis Juvenile Hall and to speak with small groups of students as needed.
Based on this review the expert will develop a report (“Expert Report”) which shall include all proposed revisions to policies, procedures, and practices that he or she recommends. This report will be completed within six months of the commencement of the expert’s review. Following the issuance of the report both Plaintiffs and Defendant CCCOE will have an opportunity to challenge any recommendation contained in the report on the basis that it is not required by and/or does not comply with federal and/or state law. Once all challenges have been resolved the report will be adopted and implemented by CCCOE.
ADA Coordinator
CCCOE will designate at least one employee at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall as responsible for coordinating ADA compliance (“ADA Coordinator”). This person will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the ADA generally and for investigating and responding to any ADA complaints.
Coordination with the Contra Costa County Probation Department
CCCOE shall use best efforts when implementing the Expert Report to coordinate and cooperate with other authorities operating in and providing services at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall, including, but not limited to, the County’s Probation Department.
County Agreement
Expert Review of Disciplinary Policies
Pursuant to the County Agreement the County will retain an expert to conduct a review of the County’s policies, procedures, and practices at the Juvenile Hall in the following areas:
• the use of room confinement; • the use of behavior incentives; • coordination between CCCOE and the County’s Probation Department, including but
not limited to policies and practices relating to the County’s coordination with CCCOE on CCCOE’s implementation of IEPs, 504 Plans, and behavior intervention plans;
2

• the identification, assessment, and tracking of youth with disabilities who are detained at Juvenile Hall and referral systems to identify these youth for CCCOE and County Mental Health; and
• implementation of Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (“JDAI”) standard V.D.4., which specifies that disability must be considered in determining an appropriate response when assigning consequences.
This expert will work with another expert retained by the County to develop a joint report setting forth the experts’ proposed revisions to these policies, procedures, and practices.
Multi-Disciplinary Teams
Multi-disciplinary team meetings including representatives from Probation, CCCOE, and Contra Costa County Mental Health will be held at least once per month with additional meetings held as needed. Such meetings will address the following subjects:
• Coordination of responses and interventions for individual youth who are having consistent and/or chronic issues conforming their behavior to expectations, regardless of where or when the behavior occurs;
• Coordination of the provision of special education and counseling services to all eligible youth on all units;
• Discussion of provision of a continuum of placements based on the special education needs of youth in Juvenile Hall, including a process for approving and placing children in non-public schools and residential placements outside of the Juvenile Hall.
Attendance at IEP Meetings
A Probation staff member will attend IEP meetings when requested to do so and the Probation Department has received prior written or oral consent from the education rights holder to attend where any one of the following conditions is met:
• The youth has been removed from the classroom or prevented from attending Mt. McKinley School for more than 9 school days in one school year for disciplinary reasons by the Probation Department and/or CCCOE in response to conduct by the youth. For purposes of determining the number of missed school days, removal or preventions for one school block or less shall not be considered; or
• Where a youth has been detained in the Juvenile Hall for 30 consecutive days or more and a special day class, residential treatment, or a non-public school placement is being recommended or requested as a placement option by CCCOE or the education rights holder for the youth; or
• For youth assigned to the Youthful Offender Treatment Program or the Girls in Motion program or youth who have been detained in the Juvenile Hall for 60 consecutive days or more, where a behavior support/intervention plan is being put in place.
Room Confinement
Pursuant to the County Agreement, Probation will adopt the following standards:
3

• Staff shall not use room confinement for discipline, punishment, administrative convenience, retaliation, staffing shortages or reasons other than a temporary response to behavior that threatens immediate harm to the youth or others as provided below.
• Staff shall not place youth in continuous room confinement for longer than four hours. After four continuous hours, staff shall return the youth to the general population, develop special individualized programming for the youth, or consult with a qualified mental health professional about whether a youth’s behavior requires that he or she be transported to a mental health facility. As part of the expert review, the experts will consider whether and under what conditions it would be appropriate for the youth to remain in room confinement after the initial four hour period as part of special individualized programming, discussed below.
• Staff will develop special individualized programming for youth with persistent behavior problems that threaten the safety of youth or staff or the security of the facility. Staff shall not use room confinement as a substitute for special individualized programming. Special individualized programming includes the following:
o Development of an individualized plan designed to improve the youth’s behavior, created in consultation with the youth, County Mental Health staff, and the youth’s family members, when available.
o The plan identifies the causes and purposes of the negative behavior, as well as concrete goals that the youth understands and that he or she can work toward to be removed from special programming.
o In-person supervision by and interaction with staff members. o In-person provision of educational services. o Involvement of youth in other aspects of the facility’s programming unless
such involvement threatens the safety of youth or staff or the security of the facility. o A guarantee that the youth will not be denied any of his or her basic rights. o Daily review with the youth of his or her progress toward the goals outlined in his or her plan.
General Provisions
Resolution of Claims
These Settlement Agreements resolve all claims for injunctive relief brought by Plaintiffs. Except as discussed below, these settlements do not (1) provide for any monetary relief to be paid to members of the class, (2) release any individual claims for damages, or otherwise affect the rights of class members to pursue individual claims for compensatory education or other individual relief pursuant to the IDEA and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and (3) do not affect any claims for reasonable accommodations related to physical access, communication access, and/or accommodations otherwise relating to hearing, vision and/or mobility disabilities arising under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. As a part of the County Agreement, the
4

County has agreed to pay the three named Plaintiffs a total of $1,140 for the compensatory education awarded to them by an administrative judge in three separate individual due process administrative proceedings. These payments do not affect other class members’ rights to bring their own claims for compensatory education based on their individual experiences in Juvenile Hall, and are not part of the class-wide settlement.
Attorneys’ Fees
The class was represented by Disability Rights Advocates, Public Counsel, Paul Hastings LLP and Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP (“Class Counsel”). The CCCOE Agreement provides for the payment of $1,165,000 for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the course of the lawsuit with $70,000 of this amount put aside to compensate for fees, expenses and costs incurred in monitoring Defendant CCCOE’s implementation of the Settlement Agreement. The County Agreement provides for the payment of $1,340,000 as full and final settlement of all attorneys’ fees and costs related to the class action and the named Plaintiffs’ individual due process claims, as set forth in Contra Costa County v. Barbara C., Civil Case No. C14-00268 MEJ, Contra Costa County v. CiCi C., Civil Case No. C14-00269 MEJ, and Contra Costa County v. Gail F., Civil Case No. C14-00270 MEJ.
Fairness of Agreement
The class representatives and Class Counsel have concluded that the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement Agreements are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. In reaching this conclusion, the class representatives and Class Counsel have considered the benefits of the settlement, the possible outcomes of continued litigation of these issues, and the expense and length of continued litigation and possible appeals.
OBJECTIONS TO THE SETTLEMENT
The Court has given preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreements, and has scheduled a hearing for [DATE/TIME] in the Courtroom of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreements are fair and reasonable and should be finally approved.
You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection. You cannot ask the Court to modify the terms of the settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement. If the Court denies approval, the actions outlined in this notice will not occur and the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must file an objection.
All written objections and supporting papers must (a) clearly identify the case name and number (G.F. v. Contra Costa County, Case No. C-13-03667 MEJ), (b) be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and (c) be filed or postmarked on or before [DATE].
5

Although you are not required to attend the final approval hearing, as a Class Member, you may participate in, and be heard at, this hearing if you have filed a timely written objection that includes a statement of your intention to participate in this hearing. You may appear on your own or through an attorney. If you appear through an attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. This hearing date may be changed by the Court without further notice to the entire class. If you wish to be on the electronic service list to be informed of any changes to the schedule, please file a notice of appearance with the Court which includes a valid e-mail address at which you can receive notice.
IF YOU DO NOT TIMELY SUBMIT AN OBJECTION AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED YOUR OBJECTION AND SHALL BE FORECLOSED FROM MAKING ANY OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT.
IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THIS SETTLEMENT, YOU NEED NOT APPEAR OR FILE
ANYTHING IN WRITING.
BINDING EFFECT The proposed Settlement Agreements, if given final approval by the Court, will bind all members of the Settlement Class. This will bar any person who is a member of the Settlement Class from seeking different or additional relief regarding all issues resolved in the Settlement Agreements for the term of the Settlement Agreements.
FURTHER INFORMATION This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement Agreements. For the precise terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreements, copies of the Settlement Agreements are available at www.dralegal.org, or by contacting class counsel at Disability Rights Advocate, Attn: Mary-Lee Smith, 2001 Center St. Fourth Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704, Telephone (510) 665-8644, or by accessing the Court docket in this case through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.
To obtain copies of this Notice in alternative accessible formats, please contact Class Counsel listed above.
6


[CONTENT] August 8, 2013 | the Costa County Juvenile Hall | the U.S. District Court | the Northern District | California | Costa County | California |||  ||| Contra | Costa County | at least 22 hours ||| the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act | IDEA | the American Disabilities Act | ADA | the Rehabilitation Act | three |||  ||| Saundra B. Armstrong ||| the next year ||| Contra | Costa County | Contra Costa County Office of Education ||| Armstrong ||| January 16, 2014 | County | three | Court | Office of Administrative Hearings | California | the County's | Probation Department | IDEA ||| County | Court ||| three | Court ||| February 13, 2014 | the United States ||| U.S. | the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act | U.S. ||| U.S. ||| U.S. | Court | the Statement of Interest ||| Contra | Costa County ||| November 25, 2015 | Maria-Elena James ||| 2015 WL 7571789 ||| Contra | Costa County | County ||| County | no more than four hours ||| four hours | the Probation Department ||| the Contra Costa County Office of Education | the County Office of Education | Juvenile Hall ||| Child Find | the County’s Board of Education ||| 1,340,000 ||| four years ||| December 18, 2015 ||| July 13, 2016 | second ||| September 28, 2016 | Magistrate | Joseph C. Spero ||| the next day | Magistrate | Spero | October 17 and November 10, 2016 ||| April 18, 2020 [SUMMARY] On August 8, 2013, detainees of the Costa County Juvenile Hall filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Contra Costa County, California. The plaintiffs, represented by counsel from the Disability Rights Advocates, alleged that defendants discriminated against disabled youth in the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall. 

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that because Contra Costa County denied the plaintiffs special education and related services, the plaintiffs misbehaved and were punished; during punishment, the plaintiffs were placed in solitary confinement for at least 22 hours per day, which made their disabilities worse and made the plaintiffs more likely to misbehave again. The plaintiffs alleged that the solitary confinement, denial of rehabilitative services while in solitary confinement, and denial of special education and other services even while out of solitary confinement violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), the American Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and three state anti-discrimination laws. Plaintiffs sought class certification, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief with monitoring by a special master, and attorney fees.

The case was assigned to Judge Saundra B. Armstrong. Over the next year, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, and the plaintiffs moved for class certification. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to drop all defendants except Contra Costa County and Contra Costa County Office of Education. As a result, Judge Armstrong denied as moot the motions for dismissal and class certification, and both parties refiled their motions to include the updated parties and proceedings. 

On January 16, 2014, the County filed three separate suits in this same Court, one against each plaintiff, arguing that the underlying Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for California improperly found that the County's Probation Department could be sued under the IDEA. The County requested attorney fees for the appeal and that the Court set aside the OAH findings. The plaintiffs moved to consolidate their action with the County's three suits, but the Court deferred litigation on the County's claims until a decision was made on its motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims.

On February 13, 2014, the United States filed a Statement of Interest concerning protection of detained youth, especially when solitary confinement was involved. The U.S. explained that it had an interest in the case because of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, which allows the U.S. to investigate juvenile detention facilities for unlawful detention practices. The U.S. argued that the County had a duty to provide services, activities and programs to qualified youth, and that the law does not allow discrimination based on disabilities. For that reason, the U.S. requested that the Court consider the Statement of Interest and deny defendants' motion to dismiss.

Following extensive negotiations, the plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with both Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Office of Education. On November 25, 2015, the court (Judge Maria-Elena James) approved the settlement agreements. 2015 WL 7571789.

Under the settlement agreement with Contra Costa County, the County would no longer use solitary confinement for discipline, punishment, administrative convenience, retaliation, staffing shortages, or reasons other than a temporary response to behavior that threatens immediate harm to the youth or others. In line with national standards, the County could segregate a youth in his or her room for no more than four hours but only if the youth’s behavior risked immediate harm to themselves or others. After four hours, the Probation Department had to remove the youth from confinement, develop specialized individualized programming for the youth, or assess whether the youth should be transported to a mental health facility. 

Under the settlement agreement with the Contra Costa County Office of Education, the County Office of Education would retain an outside expert to evaluate its compliance with federal and state special education laws and to ensure that the students with disabilities in Juvenile Hall would receive the special education that they need. The expert would make recommended revisions to policies, procedures and practices as they relate to Child Find, development and implementation of individualized education plans, and discipline, which the County’s Board of Education will adopt. 

The defendants also agreed to pay $1,340,000 in attorneys' fees. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreements, which were scheduled to last for four years. On December 18, 2015, the court approved the parties' motion to modify the settlement agreements' procedures for choosing experts to monitor implementation. On July 13, 2016, the court approved the parties' second request for modification of the settlement agreement, which increased the time period during which the parties could raise challenges to the export report required by the settlement agreement.

On September 28, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for administrative relief, seeking referral to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for a status conference to discuss disputes between the parties regarding implementation of the settlement agreement. The motion for administrative relief was granted the next day, and the parties held status conferences before Magistrate Judge Spero on October 17 and November 10, 2016. 

As of April 18, 2020, the court retains jurisdiction over the settlement agreements.