Disabled Student Wins Major Settlement in MVUSD Case

Case Background

A civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of a minor student with disabilities against the Moreno Valley Unified School District (MVUSD) and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department reached a major, confidential settlement, concluding two years of intense litigation. The case centered on the treatment of "C.B.," an eleven-year-old student identified as having special educational needs, who claimed the school district failed to provide required accommodations, leading to an unnecessary and traumatic confrontation with law enforcement on campus.

Cause

The core of the legal challenge argued that the Moreno Valley Unified School District systematically denied C.B. the legally mandated supportive educational services he required under federal and state law. The complaint detailed that the school environment created an atmosphere of crisis for the student, and the district’s failure to implement C.B.’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) was a direct cause of the disciplinary incidents that followed. This negligence, the Plaintiffs maintained, resulted in the inappropriate involvement of Deputy Sheriff Norma Loza, the School Resource Officer (SRO), in a behavioral incident, a response which they characterized as discriminatory and excessive given C.B.’s documented disability.

Injury

The legal team for C.B. asserted that the student suffered significant emotional and psychological trauma due to the alleged systemic failures and the subsequent physical restraint by law enforcement. The claimed injuries included severe anxiety, regression in his academic and behavioral development, and long-term emotional distress requiring extensive therapeutic intervention. Furthermore, the trauma severely disrupted C.B.’s ability to access his education, which constituted a denial of his fundamental right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Damages Sought

The Plaintiffs sought substantial damages from all Defendants. These included compensatory damages to cover the cost of ongoing medical and psychological treatment, specialized educational services necessary to make up for lost time and opportunity, and compensation for emotional pain and suffering. They also demanded punitive damages against the individual Defendants, arguing that their actions or lack thereof amounted to a willful and malicious disregard for C.B.’s civil and constitutional rights. Finally, as is typical in such civil rights actions, the Plaintiffs sought reimbursement for all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the lengthy legal battle.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, involved numerous complex legal claims and was headed toward a potential jury trial before the parties finalized the settlement agreement. Throughout the discovery and motion phase, the Court addressed issues of qualified immunity for the individual officers and administrators, and the extent of the district’s liability for systemic policy failures.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): C.B., by and through his guardian’s ad litem W.B. and B.T.

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Robert Borrelle | Lindsay Appell | Stephen Peters | Dan Stormer | David Washington | Anna Mercedes Rivera | Leah J. Kang | Malhar Shah | Maronel Barajas | Melinda Ruth Bird | Munmeeth Kaur Soni |

·       Experts for Plaintiff(s): Jaime Hernandez | Edward Miguel

Defendant(s): Moreno Valley Unified School District | Superintendent Martinrex Kedziora | Administrators Darryl Scott | Scott Walker | Demetrius Owens | Manuel Arellano | Loniesha King, County of Riverside | Riverside County Sheriff's Department | Sheriff Chad Bianco | Deputy Sheriff Norma Loza | Deputy Sheriff Jerssy Toscano.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Susan Knock Beck | Allen Christiansen | Michael J. Marlatt, Esq | Daniel C. Faustino | Charmaine Espinosa Grant | John Almon Boyd | Trevor Daniel DeBus

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The attorneys fiercely debated the central issues of the case, attempting to shape the Court’s understanding of the events and assign responsibility.

Claims

Attorneys for the Plaintiff argued that the MVUSD failed in its legal duty by not adjusting its disciplinary policies to account for C.B.’s documented disability, directly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA Title II) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They maintained that the school officials knew, or should have known, that their lack of intervention would lead to a crisis. Furthermore, they asserted that the actions of Deputy Loza constituted excessive force and unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, leading to a claim under the federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983). The Plaintiff's counsel stated that the district’s reliance on law enforcement to manage student behavior, particularly for students with disabilities, amounted to a harmful pattern, violating C.B.'s constitutional rights.

Defense

Attorneys for the school district and the County mounted a vigorous defense, contending that C.B.’s behavior presented a genuine safety risk to other students and staff, which necessitated the involvement of law enforcement. The defense for the District argued that they had implemented disciplinary protocols and that the individual administrators acted in good faith under stressful and rapidly developing circumstances. The County’s counsel for Deputy Loza contended that the officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable and necessary to quickly de-escalate the volatile situation and secure the student, protecting everyone involved. They maintained that the officer had received training in crisis intervention and disability awareness, and that her actions conformed to departmental policy.

Settlement

The matter resolved through a negotiated settlement, meaning the case did not proceed to a jury trial where a formal verdict would have been delivered. After extensive mediation and pretrial conferences, the parties reached an agreement that brought an end to all claims against the Moreno Valley Unified School District, the County of Riverside, and the individual Defendants. The settlement confirmed a significant recovery for the student, C.B., and his legal team, confirming the magnitude of the legal victory.

Furthermore, the Court explicitly designated the Plaintiff as the prevailing party, clearing the way for C.B.'s counsel to seek reimbursement for their legal expenses. The publicly disclosed portion of the settlement awarded $5,354,260 for attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The substantial financial award and the policy change component reportedly requiring the District and Sheriff’s Department to review and reform their protocols regarding students with disabilities underscored the profound impact of the case on public policy and student civil rights. While no jury delivered a verdict, the combined effect of the financial terms and the Court’s order effectively validated the Plaintiffs’ core arguments about the systemic failures that had harmed the young student.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com