United States District Court, S.D. California
D.S., By and Through Her Mother Rosalind Solo; and ROSALIND SOLO, Plaintiffs,
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN; AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, United States District Judge.
matter before the Court is the Joint Application for Approval
of Settlement filed by Plaintiffs D.S. and Rosalind Solo and
Defendant Regents of the University of California (ECF No.
72) and the Report and Recommendation issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler recommending that (1) the
parties' joint motion to approve the settlement be
granted; and, (2) the compromise and settlement of the claims
of the minor, D.S., be approved as fair and reasonable and in
the best interests of the minor plaintiff. (ECF No. 74).
21, 2016, Plaintiffs Rosalind Solo and D.S., a minor, by and
through her guardian ad litem, Rosalind Solo, filed a First
Amended Complaint against Defendants American Association of
University Women (“AAUW”); American Association
of University Women of the State of California, Inc.
(“AAUW - CA”); and, the Regents of the University
of California (“The Regents”). (ECF No. 45).
Plaintiffs' causes of action arise from allegations that
Defendants discriminated against D.S. based on her disability
during a one-week middle school camp hosted by AAUW and
AAUW-CA and held at University of California, San Diego
(“UCSD”) in space leased by The Regents.
Id. The Complaint alleges the following claims: (1)
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (2) violation of the California
Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) declaratory relief; (4)
injunctive relief; (5) false or reckless reporting of alleged
child abuse; (6) negligence and retaliatory reporting; and,
(6) negligence per se. Id.
April 11, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendant The Regents filed a
joint application for approval of settlement. (ECF No. 72). The
proposed settlement between Plaintiffs and The Regents
provides that Plaintiffs will not receive monetary damages
and that The Regents agree to include certain provisions in
future conference contracts with AAUW-CA or AAUW for the
lease of space at UCSD for at least five years following the
effective date of the settlement agreement. The required
provisions are as follows:
(1) The Organization [AAUW or AAUW-CA] is required to comply
with state and federal laws regarding the accommodation of
participants and applicants with disabilities.
(2) The Organization [AAUW or AAUW-CA] shall provide
participants with information regarding the
Organization's obligation to comply with state and
federal law regarding the accommodation of participants with
disabilities and describing a method for participants to
raise concerns regarding disability accommodations with the
Regents agree to consider adding these provisions in other
UCSD conference contracts. Further, The Regents agree to
provide Plaintiffs' counsel, upon written request, with a
copy of any conference contracts for the lease of space at
UCSD between The Regents and AAUW and/or AAUW-CA. (ECF No.
22, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler
issued the Report and Recommendation recommending that the
parties joint motion to approve the settlement be granted and
that the compromise and settlement of the claims of the
minor, D.S., be approved as fair and reasonable and in the
best interests of the minor plaintiff. (ECF No. 74). The
Order stated that any objections to the Report and
Recommendation should be filed by June 5, 2017. Id.
The docket reflects that no objections have been filed.
Review of the Report and Recommendation
duties of the district court in connection with a report and
recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The district judge must “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report ... to which
objection is made, ” and “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The
district court need not review de novo those
portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither
party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992,
1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
review of the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes
that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the settlement
between Plaintiffs and The Regents is fair, reasonable and in
the best interests of D.S., the minor plaintiff. Robidoux
v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011)
(holding that district courts have a special duty “to
safeguard the interest of litigants who are minors”
requiring that courts conduct an inquiry into whether a
proposed settlement is in the best interest of a minor
HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 74) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and (2) the Joint
Application for ...