California Rule Of Court 3.769 Didn’t Cut It.

Students brought action against the Los Angeles School District and others on the theory they were denied their constitutional right to equal educational opportunities after a reduction in the teacher force. A settlement was negotiated and judgment was entered.  The United Teachers Los Angeles [UTLA] union appealed, arguing the consent decree potentially abrogates the seniority rights of its members and that the issues should have a determination on their merits. The students and district argued the settlement was different from a settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 in that the court did not simply enter judgment pursuant to terms agreed by the parties.  Instead, judgment was entered under California Rules of Court, rule 3.769 and involved judicial action after a four-day evidentiary hearing. The appellate court noted the UTLA did not sign the consent decree and, therefore, “the consent decree cannot be enforced against UTLA or any of the teachers and the judgment was improper.” It reversed the judgment, stating:  “The problem for the students and the School District is that this rule does not contemplate approval of a class action that abrogates the rights of nonsettling parties.”  Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 2; August 10, 2012)  208 Cal.App.4th 322.