On March 4, 2004, parents, as next friends of their minor daughters, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under state law and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. against Alhambra Unified School District (AUSD) and individual District Board members and employees and the City of Alhambra. Plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the California Women's Law Center and the Legal Aid Society--Employment Law Center, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that AUSD had violated Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 by denying female student athletes' equal treatment and benefits in comparison with male student athletes.
Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that AUSD had discriminated against plaintiffs' daughters and all similarly situated in the funding of athletics; the granting of opportunities to participate in athletics; provision to teams of publicity and support; access to weight training facilities; the scheduling of games and practice times; the hiring of coaches; and the provision of locker rooms and facilities for both practice and competition. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for injunctive relief was granted by the Court (District Judge Dickran Tevrizian) on October 4, 2004. On March 4, 2005, the Court (District Judge Dickran Tevrizian) deemed filed and served plaintiffs' only amended complaint, previously lodged with the Court on February 16, 2005.
On December 19, 2005, the Court (District Judge Dickran Tevrizian) preliminarily approved parties' settlement agreement that settled all claims, except that the court would retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the City of Alhambra until they made a certain payment of money and over the District defendants until the end of the specified compliance period; the parties also agreed to submit the issue of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded to the court for determination on the basis of briefs submitted. On January 31, 2006, the Court (District Judge Dickran Tevrizian) finally approved the settlements. On February 27, 2006, the Court (District Judge Dickran Tevrizian) awarded plaintiffs half of the attorneys' fees they requested. Plaintiffs filed a 59(e) motion for reconsideration and would eventually appeal the Court's determination of fees. On May 1, 2006, the Court (District Judge Dickran Tevrizian) dismissed the case, retaining continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the agreements' terms and the authority to make all orders necessary to enforce compliance with the agreements' terms.
On July 23, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (District Judge Leighton, and Circuit Judges Prescott and Wardlaw) awarded plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs on appeal, vacating and remanding to the District Court for the Central District of California plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees incurred prior to the filing of the Rule 59(e) motion. On March 3, 2009, the District Court for the Central District of California (District Chief Judge Audrey B. Collins) awarded plaintiffs the full amount sought for attorneys' fees prior to the filing of the Rule 59(e) motion and for attorneys' fees on remand. On January 28, 2010, Appellate Commissioner Peter Shaw determined and granted appellants' attorneys' fees.
On August 3, 2012, the Court (Judge Audrey B. Collins) granted in part defendants' motion to terminate the Court's continuing jurisdiction, retaining jurisdiction over the section of the settlement requiring defendants to provide equal athletic participation opportunities to girls until that section was satisfied. On December 12, 2013, the Court (Judge Audrey B. Collins) determined that defendants had fulfilled all of their obligations under the settlement agreement, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The settlement agreements provided for a grievance policy, Title IX training, and future monitoring of defendants, who agreed therein to create two new softball fields; dedicate new locker room facilities for female students; provide equal access to weight rooms and other facilities, as well as for desirable practice and game times; equitable funding and fund-raising opportunities; equitable publicity; and enhanced coaching.
The case was closed on December 12, 2013.Heather Turner - 03/10/2014