Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs S.E. and P.D., minor students at La Costa Heights Elementary School in the Encinitas Union School District, and their parents sued district officials alleging violations of the First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
The claims arose from a “buddy program” activity in which a teacher read the book “My Shadow is Pink” to a fifth-grade class and showed a read-along video, then instructed each fifth grader to ask their kindergarten buddy to pick a color representing the buddy’s gender identity and trace the buddy’s shadow in that color.
Plaintiffs alleged the activity conflicted with their religious beliefs and that the school denied them notice and an opt-out opportunity.
Judge M.
James Lorenz granted a preliminary injunction on May 19, 2025, barring the district from including gender-identity topics covered in health instruction in buddy-program activities without parental notice and opt-out.
Defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit but voluntarily dismissed the appeal on November 19, 2025.
The case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Chu, and after mediation and settlement conferences the parties filed a joint motion to approve a minors’ compromise, vacate the preliminary injunction, and dismiss the action with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the joint motion in full.
It approved the $175,000 total settlement, allocating $10,000 each to the two minor plaintiffs (S.E. and P.D.), $98,000 to the Encinas parents, $30,000 to the Doe parents, and $27,000 in attorney’s fees (15.43% of the gross recovery) to plaintiffs’ counsel.
The Court found each minor’s net recovery fair and reasonable under Ninth Circuit standards (Robidoux v.
Rosengren), noting the absence of proven psychological harm, the natural guardians’ consent, and comparability to settlements in similar discrimination cases.
The Court approved deposit of the minors’ funds into existing custodial 529 education accounts under California Probate Code § 3611(d), with no disbursements until majority.
The preliminary injunction issued by Judge Lorenz (Dkt. 48) was vacated, and the case was dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until payment is complete.
Key Takeaways
- The Court approved a $175,000 settlement resolving constitutional claims over a gender-identity classroom activity, with $10,000 net to each minor plaintiff.
- Minors’ compromise review focused solely on the fairness of each minor’s net recovery, per Robidoux, without regard to adult co-plaintiffs’ shares or attorney-fee proportions.
- The Court found the $10,000 per minor fair given disputed causation of psychological harm, parental consent, and precedent from housing and school discrimination cases with comparable awards.
- Settlement funds for the minors were ordered into existing custodial 529 education accounts under California Probate Code § 3611(d), restricting disbursement until age of majority.
- The preliminary injunction requiring parental notice and opt-out for gender-identity topics in buddy-program activities was vacated, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the district court’s gatekeeping role under Rule 17(c) and Local Civil Rule 17.1 when minors’ federal constitutional claims are settled.
The decision applies the Robidoux framework, limiting judicial scrutiny to the minor’s net recovery and endorsing 529 education accounts as a presumptively appropriate vehicle for modest settlements.
The vacatur of the preliminary injunction removes the only judicial directive in the case, leaving the underlying constitutional questions—whether the buddy-program activity violated free exercise, free speech, or due process rights—unresolved on the merits.
The settlement thus resolves the parties’ dispute without establishing precedent on the scope of parental opt-out rights in public-school gender-identity instruction.