Markham v. Tehachapi Unified School District et al, No. 1:2015cv01835 - Document 71 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 69 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant the Minor's Compromise signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/11/2019. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 K.M., Case No.: 1:17-cv-01431 LJO JLT 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT THE MINOR’S COMPROMISE (Doc. 47) TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 _____________________________________ 17 BRENDA MARKHAM, 18 Case No.: 1:15-cv-01835 LJO JLT Plaintiff, 19 (Doc. 69) v. 20 21 22 TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. _____________________________________ 23 BRENDA MARKHAM, 24 Case No.: 1:18-cv-00303 LJO JLT Plaintiff, 25 (Doc. 22) v. 26 27 28 TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. 1 1 TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 5 Case No.: 1:16-cv-01942 LJO JLT (Doc. 53) v. K.M., Defendant. 6 7 In the first-captioned action listed above, K.M., through her guardian ad litem/mother seek 8 damages from under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities 9 Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Unruh Act for being denied a free appropriate public education. In 10 addition, the parties also have been in litigation in other cases, including, Markham v. Tehachapi 11 Unified School District, Case No.: 1:15-cv-01835 LJO JLT, Markham v. Tehachapi Unified School 12 District, Case No.: 1:18-cv-00303 LJO JLT and Markham v. Tehachapi Unified School District v. 13 Markham, Case No.: 1:16-cv-01942 LJO JLT.1 The parties have settled all of these actions, pending 14 approval of this Court of the minor’s compromise. 15 On February 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered findings and 16 recommendations (“F&Rs”), recommending that the global settlement/minor’s compromise be 17 approved, reasoning that the settlement provides the child significant benefit and services that seem to 18 best serve her needs. Doc. 47. 19 20 All parties in all cases listed above were provided an opportunity to file objections to the F&Rs within 14 days. Id. at 8; Local Rule 304. No objections were filed. 21 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court 22 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds 23 the F&Rs to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 24 25 Accordingly, the petition to approve settlement of the minor’s claims is GRANTED and the settlement is APPROVED IN FULL. 26 27 1 28 As was the practice employed in the F&Rs themselves, for ease of drafting, the docket references in this order are only to K.M. v. Tehachapi Unified School District, Case No.: 1;17-cv-01431 LJO JLT, the case in which the original petition for approval of the minor’s compromise was filed. 2 1 2 The Parties are DIRECTED to file with the Court a stipulation for dismissal of the action with prejudice, and lodge a separate order, pursuant to the schedule set forth in the F&Rs. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ April 11, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
