University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District IM-CA-0027
Docket / Court CV 98-6154 LGB (RZx) ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU of Southern California
MALDEF
Case Summary
On July 30, 1998, a group of parents filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of their minor children in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District's implementation of Proposition 227, a state initiative restricting use of ... read more >
On July 30, 1998, a group of parents filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of their minor children in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District's implementation of Proposition 227, a state initiative restricting use of bilingual education in public schools to teach students that were limited in English proficiency. Plaintiffs alleged that Proposition 227 (titled "English Language Education for Immigrant Children") violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification. Attorneys for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the ACLU provided representation to the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs sought an emergency Temporary Restraining Order, which was denied. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint which alleged (1) that defendants failed to take appropriate action to address English learning needs of limited education proficiency (LEP) students and (2) that national origin minorities were deprived of a language program that provided them with an opportunity to acquire English skills.

On April 23, 1999, the District Court (Judge Lourdes G. Baird) certified a class consisting of "all current and future public school children who will be enrolled in the Los Angeles Unified School District, who have language barriers that impede their equal participation in the District's instructional programs and have been designated as limited English proficient (LEP) students." Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 48 F. Supp. 2d. 1235 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

Shortly thereafter, the Court encouraged the parties to engage in settlement negotiations. Initial court settlement conferences were not fruitful, but negotiations apparently continued through 2003. During that time, the parties filed various status reports with the Court to update the progress made on settlement.

The PACER docket reflects that in lieu of filing a proposed settlement agreement and having a fairness hearing, the parties filed a joint motion to decertify the class in February 2003. The case then proceeded in the name of the individual plaintiff only. Thereafter, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. The Court granted that motion by order dated August 18, 2003. It is assumed that the parties reached a private settlement agreement, but this cannot be confirmed from the docket.

Stephen Imm - 08/21/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-basis
Language discrimination
General
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration
Constitutional rights
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Defendant(s) Los Angeles Unified School District
Plaintiff Description Public school children who will be enrolled in the Los Angeles Unified School District, who have language barriers that impede their equal participation in the District’s instructional programs and have been designated as limited English proficient.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU of Southern California
MALDEF
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2003
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Threats to the Future of the Immigration Class Action
Washington University Journal of Law and Policy
By: Jill E. Family (Widener University School of Law)
Citation: 27 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 71 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
98-CV-06154-LGB-RZ (C.D. Cal.) 08/18/2003
IM-CA-0027-9000 PDF | Detail
General Documents
Opinion 04/23/1999 (48 F.Supp.2d 1233) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0027-0002 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Without Prejudice 08/18/2003
IM-CA-0027-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Baird, Lourdes Gillespie (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0027-0001 | IM-CA-0027-0002 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Zarefsky, Ralph (C.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0027-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Argueta, Sylvia (California)
IM-CA-0027-0002 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Cordoba, Rocio De Lourdes (California)
IM-CA-0027-0001 | IM-CA-0027-0002 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Fay-Bustillos, Theresa (California)
IM-CA-0027-0002 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Hernandez, Antonia (California)
IM-CA-0027-0001 | IM-CA-0027-0002 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Medina, Maribel S (California)
IM-CA-0027-9000
Rosenbaum, Mark Dale (California)
IM-CA-0027-0001 | IM-CA-0027-0002 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Saenz, Thomas A. (California)
IM-CA-0027-0001 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Villagra, Hector O. (California)
IM-CA-0027-0001 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Hwang, Hojoon (California)
IM-CA-0027-0002 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Martinez, Vilma S. (California)
IM-CA-0027-0001 | IM-CA-0027-0002 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Phillips, Bradley S. (California)
IM-CA-0027-0002 | IM-CA-0027-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -