Albuquerque Pub. Sch. v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 30 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | CV 19-1126 KG/JHR |
| Parties | ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Plaintiff, v. AGATHA COOPER and MALCOLM COOPER, as parents of Student, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Albuquerque Public Schools ("APS") filed a Complaint on December 3, 2019 pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq., challenging as legally erroneous and unsupported by the evidence a portion of the findings and decision of a Special Education Hearing Officer for the State of New Mexico which was favorable to the Coopers' minor child ("student"). [See Doc. 1 in CV 19-1126 KG/JHR]. Agatha and Malcolm Cooper sued APS and the New Mexico Department of Education individually and on behalf of their son, J.N., a child with autism, who they allege was physically restrained multiple times while attending Albuquerque Public Schools during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years. [See Doc. 1 in CV 19-1141 SCY/SMV]. The Coopers have now settled with APS in the amount of $50,000 for J.N.'s personal physical injuries and $65,000 in attorney's fees and costs, and presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ("PFRD") recommending approval of the minor's settlement. Doc. 31. For the reasons discussed below, the Court approves the minor settlement and adopts Judge Ritter's recommendation that $2,400 of the settlement funds be applied as a one-time mortgage payment for J.N.'s family home and the remaining $47,600 be placed in a pooled trust administered by the Arc of New Mexico.
On December 3, 2019, APS filed suit against the Coopers, challenging the IDEA administrative decision. Albuquerque Public Schools v. Cooper, No. 19-cv-1126 KG/JHR, Doc. 1 ("IDEA case"). The Coopers filed a separate action on December 4, 2019, against APS and NMPED, bringing claims for disability discrimination, negligence, and attorney's fees and costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), as well as seeking a proposed class action for equitable and injunctive relief. Cooper v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, No. 19-cv-1141 SCY/SMV, Doc. 1 ("damages case"). On September 1, 2020, the parties in the IDEA case informed the Court that they reached a settlement. [Doc. 17, CV 19-1126 KG/JHR]. Likewise, the parties in the damages case informed the Court that the settlement resolved the claims between Plaintiffs and APS.1 [Doc. 45, CV 19-1141 SCY/SMV]. Because Plaintiffs and APS reached a global settlement involving both cases, the Court in both the damages case and the IDEA case referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Jerry Ritter to hold a single fairness hearing and issue a single PFRD as to whether to approve the parties' global settlement. [Doc. 49, CV 19-1126 KG/JHR; Doc. 25, CV 19-1141 SCY/SMV].
The Court in both cases appointed Gabrielle Valdez as the Guardian ad litem ("GAL"). [Doc. 50, CV 19-1126 KG/JHR; Doc. 24, CV 19-1141 SCY/SMV]. She filed her GAL report on December 21, 2020, and a supplemental report on January 1, 2021, recommending approval of the settlement reached between Plaintiffs and APS and that J.N.'s money be placed in either a structured settlement annuity or a pooled trust through the Arc of New Mexico. [Docs. 59, 60, CV19-1141 SCY/SMV]. Judge Ritter held a fairness hearing on January 7, 2021, discussing with the GAL, Ms. Cooper, and the attorneys for the Coopers and APS the fairness of the settlement, the $2,400 carve out, and whether to use a structured annuity or a pooled trust. [Doc. 29, CV 19-1126 KG/JHR; Doc. 61, CV 19-1141 SCY/SMV]. Judge Ritter issued a PFRD on February 10, 2021, agreeing with the GAL and recommending "the Court approve the settlement reached between the parties and order the placement of the funds secured for J.N.'s future benefit with the pooled trust administered by the Arc of New Mexico," and recommending "that $2,400.00 of the settlement funds be applied as a one-time payment on the mortgage to J.N.'s family home to prevent immediate disruption of J.N.'s routine and environment via threat of foreclosure." [Doc. 31, CV 19-1126 KG/JHR; Doc. 63, CV 19-1141 SCY/SMV]. APS filed objections on February 24, 2021, objecting only to the recommendation regarding the $2,400 for the mortgage payment. [Doc. 32, CV 19-1126 KG/JHR; Doc. 64, CV 19-1141 SCY/SMV].
Courts may refer dispositive motions to a magistrate judge for a recommended disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). "Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When resolving objections to a magistrate judge's proposal, "[a] judge of the court shall make de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made" and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.72(b)(3). "[A] party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review." United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). To that end, "[i]ssues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived." Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001) ().
As mentioned above, Judge Ritter recommends approving the minor's settlement ($50,000 for J.N.'s personal physical injuries and $65,000 in attorney's fees and costs) and placing the funds with the pooled trust administered by the Arc of New Mexico, secured for J.N.'s future benefit. APS does not object to this recommendation, and the Court, having reviewed the GAL report, fairness hearing transcript, and PFRD agrees with Judge Ritter that the proposed settlement, including placing fund in the pooled trust, is favorable and fair to the minor child J.N. according to the Jones factors. See Jones v. Nuclear Pharmacy, Inc., 741 F.2d 322, 324 (10th Cir. 1994) ().
Judge Ritter also recommends allowing $2,400 of the $50,000 to be used as a one-time mortgage payment for J.N.'s family home. Ms. Cooper and her counsel explained at the fairness hearing that the Coopers are two months behind on their mortgage payment and would use that money to get caught up and avoid foreclosure. [Doc. 30 at 26:1-3, 37:2-12]. APS objects to this recommendation, and so the Court conducts a de novo review to determine if the $2,400 carve-out for the mortgage payment is in J.N.'s best interest.2 See Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 693 (10th Cir. 1989) (); Mares-Moreno v. Singh, 278 F. Supp. 3d 1223, 1241 (D.N.M. 2017) .
APS first argues that allowing the $2,400 carve out is an "improper revision of the terms of the Settlement Agreement." [Doc. 32, ¶ 10]. To that end, it argues that the parties reached a settlement for the benefit of J.N., and that "the use of payment to the mortgage company is not for the benefit of J.N. as his parents already have the obligation to provide shelter to J.N." Id. The Court agrees that the parents already have an obligation to provide shelter and other basic needsfor J.N. See Britton v. Britton, 1983-NMSC-084, ¶ 8, 671 P.2d 1135 (). But, the Court also agrees with the GAL that allowing a small portion of the settlement proceeds to be used for a missed mortgage payment, and to avoid foreclosure of the family home, is in J.N.'s best interest. [See Doc. 30 at 26:15-24 ()]. Ms. Cooper stated at the fairness hearing that J.N., who is currently nine years old, and his family have lived in their current home for seven years. [Doc. 30 at 37:21-25]. She explained that foreclosure on their family home would disrupt J.N.'s routine and be traumatizing for him, especially as a child with autism who thrives off routine. [Doc. 30 at 37:13-20].
APS cites Hobbs ex rel. Hobbs v. Zenderman, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D.N.M. 2008) to support its argument that the mortgage payment cannot come out of J.N.'s settlement benefits. [Doc. 32 at 4]. In Hobbs, a minor child received a large settlement following a personal injury and the money was placed in a special-needs trust in order to maintain the child's eligibility for Medicaid benefits. 542 F. Supp 2d....
To continue reading
Request your trial