Sigala

Sigala v. Anaheim City School District

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 4th 661·19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 38·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 475·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3251
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 3, 1993G011088California11,636 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

The Anaheim City School District and Maria Rodriguez (the District) appeal a judgment on arbitration award entered in favor of Rachelle Sígala. The judgment was entered nunc pro tunc after the trial court struck the District’s request for trial de novo; the latter action was a sanction for failure to enter into meaningful settlement negotiations.

I

Sígala filed a complaint against the District for personal injuries she incurred while a student at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School. She alleged that while playing on the “monkey bars” in the playground, she was *665 “grabbed” by another student, causing her to fall to the ground and sustain injury. The complaint sought ,$25,000 in general damages, medical expenses according to proof, and costs of suit.

The matter was assigned to arbitration in April 1990; a $20,250 award was made to Sígala; and the District requested a trial de novo in May. At a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) held in August (before Judge Francisco Firmat), defendant’s counsel and the administrative representative from the coalition among the District and other school districts indicated the board’s decision was to offer nothing in settlement. 1…

Concurring Opinion

Sills, J.

I wholeheartedly concur with the majority opinion, but write separately to express some thoughts which result from having served in municipal government and having conducted innumerable settlement conferences both as a trial judge and as a member of this court.

City councils, school boards, special districts and other government bodies simply must pay more attention to the litigation process. They must understand that a settlement conference in the trial court is an extremely important *675 and integral phase of a lawsuit and in the vast majority of cases, the final phase. Prior to a settlement conference, the government body should analyze its position with counsel and designate at least one of its members or high-ranking executives to attend the conference with authority to discuss settlement, conditional, of course, on final approval of any proposed settlement by the governing body.

If, on the other hand, the decision of a board is to litigate—to fight to the bitter final judgment—a high-ranking staff member of the body should attend the conference and be prepared to discuss this position with the court. The cry to battle is so alien to a civil court judge’s thinking, and so…

Opinion

The Anaheim City School District and Maria Rodriguez (the District) appeal a judgment on arbitration award entered in favor of Rachelle Sigala. The judgment was entered nunc pro tunc after the trial court struck the District's request for trial de novo; the latter action was a sanction for failure to enter into meaningful settlement negotiations.

Sigala filed a complaint against the District for personal injuries she incurred while a student at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School. She alleged that while playing on the "monkey bars" in the playground, she was "grabbed" by another student, causing her to fall to the ground and sustain injury. The complaint sought $25,000 in general damages, medical expenses according to proof, and costs of suit.

The matter was assigned to arbitration in April 1990; a $20,250 award was made to Sigala; and the District requested a trial de novo in May. At a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) held in August (before Judge Francisco Firmat), defendant's counsel and the administrative representative from the coalition among the District and other school districts indicated the board's decision was to offer nothing in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.