2005 WL 3677470 (E.D.Mich.)

Page 1

For Opinion See 2008 WL 3833764
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS, INC., Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, Defendants.
Case Number: 2:05CV73475. September 9, 2005.
Deck: S. Division Civil Deck
Complaint
J. Mark Finnegan (P68050), Denise M. Heberle (P64145), Heberle & Finnegan, PLLC, 2580 Craig Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, (734)-302-3233, (734)-302-3234 Telefax, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Judge: Rosen, Gerald E.
Magistrate Judge Komives.
Preliminary Statement
1. The Center for Community Access (“CCA”), is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, membership based, grassroots organization dedicated to assisting individuals with disabilities in becoming all that they can be. CCA's mission is to raise the status of people with disabilities, which is accomplished through educating, advocating and celebrating our differences and the commonality we share as human beings. CCA educates people with disabilities about their rights, and also educates the public on the obligations and responsibilities society has toward people with disabilities. CCA advocates for the individual and collective rights of people with disabilities in order to gain freedom of movement and access to the greater community.
2. CCA is located in the Hannan Building at 4750 Woodward Avenue, on the Southeast corner of the intersection of Woodward with Hancock. Recently the City of Detroit has resurfaced or otherwise altered intersections and sidewalks close to CCA's offices, but has failed to ensure that those altered intersections meet all federal and Michigan accessibility standards and guidelines. The City of Detroit has failed to make these sidewalks and intersections accessible to and readily usable by Plaintiff and its members and clients.
3. The Center is seeking for the City to ensure that these intersections are corrected and brought into compliance with the law.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3); 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (Rehabilitation Act); and 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act);
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2005 WL 3677470 (E.D.Mich.)

Page 2

5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the Defendant is located in the Eastern District and the events and/or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in the Eastern District.
6. Jurisdiction in Count II is based on this Court's supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because the Michigan State law claims arise out a common nucleus of facts with the federal law claims.
III. PARTIES
A. PLAINTIFF
7. The Center for Community Access, Inc., operating in central Detroit, Michigan, is a nonprofit Michigan Corporation. Its Board of Directors and staff, is composed of a majority of people with mobility and/or sight disabilities, along with volunteers. These people have disabilities as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and under applicable Michigan law. The CCA was created to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency Defendants' conduct has and is frustrating the CCA's mission, and the Center has suffered financial harm attempting to overcome discrimination by the City, and it has many members and clients who are suffering from the City's violations of accessibility law. CCA and its employees, members and clients will continue to suffer exclusion from full participation in the grand concourse of life unless and until the court remedies the City's continuing, over-arching pattern and practice of discrimination against people with disabilities.
B. DEFENDANTS
8. Defendant City of Detroit is authorized under the State of Michigan and is a public entity as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1); 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Upon information and belief, the City has received and will continue to receive federal funds for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act and for the Civil Rights Restoration Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(1)(A). The City has a continuing and overaching pattern and practice of discriminating against people with disabilities when it builds or repairs city facilities services, programs or activities.
IV. FACTS
9. Beginning at least in 1992, and continuing each year until the present, the City of Detroit has resurfaced or otherwise altered intersections and sidewalks without ensuring that those altered intersections and sidewalks meet federal and Michigan accessibility standards, and so those sidewalks and intersections remain not accessible to and readily usable by the CCA, its employees, members and clients, as they attempt to transact the business and goals of the CCA. The lack of proper ramps at these intersections and on these sidewalks force the CCA and its members to travel in traffic, and to attempt to negotiate the defective curb ramps and sidewalks.
10. A few of the many examples of these defective sidewalks and intersections near to CCA include intersections on Anthony Wayne, Third Avenue, and West Warren at the John Lodge. Each of these intersections contain ramps that suffer from one or more of the following defects:
A. Running slope in excess of 8.33%;
B. Cross slope in excess of 2%;
C. No level landing at the top of the ramp;

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2005 WL 3677470 (E.D.Mich.)

Page 3

D. Obstructions or “lips” at the juncture of the ramp with the street; and/or,
E. Improperly oriented or maintained truncated dome detectible warnings.
Plaintiff demands that these ramps, sidewalks and intersections be brought into compliance as soon as possible. In addition, work is currently occurring on John R., from Woodward to Adams, as well as on other sidewalks and intersections close to CCA. CCA believes that without Court intervention, the City will leave these intersections and sidewalks not accessible to and readily usable by Plaintiff.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: CLAIM UNDER TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
11. Plaintiff brings this count under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for damages.
12. Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II of the ADA defines the City of Detroit as a “public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1).
13. One form of prohibited discrimination is the exclusion from a public entity's services, programs, or activities because of the inaccessibility of the entity's facility, and so the United States Department of Justice has issued binding program accessibility regulations that Plaintiff now seeks to enforce.
14. The Title II ADA access requirements are set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 149 (the general prohibition against discrimination); 28 C.F.R. § 150 (requiring accessibility of facilities existing prior to January 26, 1992, the effective date of Title II); and, 28 C.F.R. § 151 (requiring that facilities newly constructed or altered after January 26, 1992 be fully accessible).
15. Section 28 C.F.R. § 150(a) requires the City to “operate each service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. “The phrase ‘services, programs, or activities' encompasses virtually everything that a public entity does.” Johnson v. City of Saline, 151 F.3d 564, 569 (6th Cir. 1998). Sidewalks and intersections are city services and programs, and maintaining them is covered by Title II of the ADA and also Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 2002), citing Johnson v. City of Saline.
16. Beginning in at least 1992, and continuing up to the present, the City has engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of over-arching discrimination against Plaintiff by operating several of its services, programs, or activities, when viewed in their entirety, are not readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff. These services, programs, or activities include, among others, the City's sidewalks, intersections, and intersection crossing signals near the CCA's offices.
17. In addition, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that when a public entity builds or alters any part of a facility after January 26, 1992, it shall to the maximum extent possible, be altered so that it is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12146 & 12147; 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a), (b) & (e); Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, Ohio, 133 F.Supp. 2d 589, 591-92 (N.D.Ohio 2001), aff'd 385 F.3d 901 at 904 (6th Cir. 2004)(City must install ADA-compliant curb ramps at all resurfaced
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2005 WL 3677470 (E.D.Mich.)

Page 4

intersections). Compliance with federal building and design standards provides a safe harbor to public entities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(c); Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 1993 (2004).
18. Beginning January 26, 1992, and each year continuing to the present, the City has constructed new services, programs or activities or altered parts of services, programs or activities, but has failed to ensure that those services, programs or activities are readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff. For example, among many other things, the City has resurfaced intersections and/or rebuilt sidewalks nearby CCA's offices after January 26, 1992, without installing curb ramps that meet federal standards. Some of these violations have occurred within the last three years, and are occurring now.
19. Each of these failures by the City has made each of these existing and or newly altered services, programs or activities not readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff. By their actions complained of herein, Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff due to its disabilities. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief ordering the City to bring these and future services, programs or activities into compliance, individual compensatory damages and attorneys fees and costs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: CLAIM UNDER THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
20. Plaintiff brings this claim for declaratory and injunctive relief and for damages. The Rehabilitation Act requires that when a public entity that receives federal funding builds or alters any part of a facility, it shall to the maximum extent possible, be made so that it is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 794. “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Upon information and belief, the City receives Federal financial assistance. The Rehabilitation Act defines “program or activity” as “all of the operations of” a qualifying local government. 29 U.S.C. § 794(B)(1)(A).
21. Beginning with the effective date of the Rehabilitation Act, and continuing each year to the present, the City has received federal money and has operated, constructed or altered parts of services, programs or activities, but has engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of over-arching discrimination against Plaintiff by denying the benefits of, or subjecting it to discrimination under several programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. The City has failed to ensure that those services, programs or activities are readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff. Many of the sidewalks and curb ramps within its jurisdiction nearby the CCA's offices violate minimum accessibility design standards and guidelines. Also, the City has resurfaced intersections and/or rebuilt sidewalks after 1982, without installing curb ramps that meet federal standards. Some of these violations have occurred within the last three years.
22. Each of these failures by the City has made each of these new or altered services, programs or activities not readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiff. By their actions complained of herein, Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff due to its disabilities. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief ordering the City to bring these services, programs or activities into compliance, individual compensatory damages, and attorneys fees and costs.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: CLAIMS UNDER MICHIGAN LAW
23. Plaintiff brings this count for injunctive relief and damages. The above complained of failure by the City to construct, alter and maintain its services, programs or activities nearby CCA's offices to be accessible to
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2005 WL 3677470 (E.D.Mich.)

Page 5

Plaintiff also violates Michigan law at M.C.L. § 37.1301-02. Plaintiff is entitled to individual compensatory damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relied, attorneys fees and costs.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants as follows: 1 That the Court declare the rights and duties of the parties and issue injunctive relief consistent with the relief sought by Plaintiff; 2. That Defendants compensate the Plaintiff for damages under law in an amount according to proof; and 3. That Plaintiff recovers an award of reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses.
Plaintiff further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice may require. Respectfully Submitted, __________ J. Mark Finnegan (P68050) Denise M. Heberle (P64145) 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI. 48103 Tel: (734) 302-3233 Fax: (734) 302-3234 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Appendix not available.
END OF DOCUMENT

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

 
 Page 1
View U.S. District Court Opinion View Original Source Image of This Document
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS, and MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS, OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, Defendants. Case No. 05-CV-73475 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, DETROIT DIVISION 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73475; 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 43753 August 13, 2008 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
VIEW OTHER AVAILABLE CONTENT RELATED TO THIS DOCUMENT: U.S. District Court: Pleading(s) COUNSEL: [*1] J. Mark Finnegan (P68050), Denise M. Heberle (P64145), Heberle & Finnegan, PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, Attorneys for All Plaintiffs. Andrew Jarvis (P59191), City of Detroit Law Department, Detroit, MI, Attorney for Defendant. JUDGES: HON. GERALD E. ROSEN, MAG. JUDGE KOMIVES TITLE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT TEXT: All Plaintiffs, by undersigned Counsel, hereby move this Court for a Temporary Restraining Order, and state in support:
1. On August 31, 2006, the Court Ordered Detroit to correct the Bagley Avenue (Mexican Village) sidewalk project. Document 14, footnote 1. These corrections were required to meet all Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (the "ADAAG"). Document 14, PP 1 and 2. 2. During years 2007 and 2008, Detroit modified the Bagley Avenue project pursuant to the Court's Order, but violated virtually every requirement of the ADAAG, and has instead created an extraordinarily dangerous situation throughout Mexican Village. This includes vertical drops of more than five inches in the middle of the sidewalks, slopes on the sidewalks four times steeper than maximums permitted under the ADAAG, one third [*2] of the required curb ramps remaining uninstalled, and the remaining newly installed curb ramps being placed far from the intersections they

2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73475; 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 43753, *2

Page 2

serve, forcing pedestrians to cross the street into the oncoming traffic, and with no protection from the adjacent stops signs and stop bars.
3. As verified by Mike Harris, the Executive Director of Plaintiff Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Bagley Avenue project sidewalks are not usable by him, and his safety was seriously threatened when he tried to use Mexican Village recently.
4. The Court must act immediately to force Detroit to meet with Plaintiffs, and to take immediate emergency temporary steps to make things safer, and to take prompt, permanent corrections to the project to make it accessible by law.
Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.
On Wednesday, August 6, 2008, at 9:27AM, I emailed the following message to Detroit City Attorney Jarvis.
"Mr. Jarvis:
My clients have authorized me to file a demand for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) regarding an extremely dangerous situation along Bagley Avenue in the Mexican Village area. Due to the City removing many of the previously existing curb [*3] ramps, there are very few opportunities to cross Bagley Avenue. In addition, the City placed what few curb ramps there are so far from the crosswalks, that wheelchair users are stranded on the sidewalks, and must attempt to dodge moving traffic to cross Bagley. Finally, there are defects in sidewalks and the curb ramps themselves, and their transitions with the street that are tipping hazards.
PVA Executive Director Mike Harris visited Mexican Village recently, and was trapped on the sidewalk, and had to dodge traffic and risk his life to cross the street. He can not use Bagley Avenue and its sidewalks as they are. Also, he is afraid that somebody is going to be killed attempting to use these sidewalks.
Plaintiffs are prepared right now to file for the TRO, but will wait a few days to meet with you and/or parties from the City to inspect the alleged defects and to agree upon an immediate course of actions. When can you meet with me at Mexican Village? I am available to meet anytime Thursday or Friday. I hope you and the City can meet to inspect and to review this matter. Time is of the essence. Plaintiffs will file for the TRO early next week, unless the parties resolve [*4] the issues before then.
Please consider this Plaintiffs' proffer under Local Rule 7.1. If I do not hear from you, I will file immediately. Please contact me immediately. My cell phone is (734) 717-8883,
J. Mark Finnegan, HEBERLE & FINNEGAN, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs Paralyzed Veterans of America"
Attorney Jarvis did not respond in any way for the next six days. Finally, at 4:23 p.m. on Monday, August 11, 2008, he sent an email. I telephoned him, and I emailed him this motion and supporting declarations and photographs. We spoke by telephone late Tuesday, August 12, 2008. The City has not concurred in this motion.
/s/ J. Mark Finnegan J. Mark Finnegan (P68050) Denise M. Heberle (P64145) 2580 Craig Road

2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73475; 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 43753, *4

Page 3

Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Attorneys for All Plaintiffs
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Introduction: The "Bagley Avenue Project" in Mexican Village
During the summer of year 2006, Detroit was rebuilding the sidewalks throughout Mexican Village, along Bagley Avenue. Plaintiffs attempted to negotiate with the City about accessibility defects throughout the project, but Detroit was completely unresponsive. During June, 2006 Plaintiffs [*5] filed for a preliminary injunction concerning among other things, the access defects along Bagley Avenue. On August 31, 2006, the Court entered Document 14. At footnote 1 of the Order, the City was required to submit a corrective action plan. Throughout the remainder of year 2006 and 2007, Detroit missed various deadlines, and sporadically made changes to Bagley Avenue's sidewalks. These changes have made for even less accessibility in Mexican Village. Contrary to the Court's Order, none of Bagley's sidewalks and curb ramps meet the ADAAG standards, are not "accessible to and readily usable by" Plaintiffs or others similarly situated, and in fact are potentially deadly to persons in wheelchairs, and must be corrected at once.
I. HISTORY OF BAGLEY AVENUE PROJECT ENFORCEMENT.
1. June 29, 2006. Plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction to correct access defects in the Bagley Avenue project. Document 12.
2. August 31, 2006. The Court entered document 14. That Order required Detroit to file within forty-five days "a written corrective action plan" covering the Bagley project. See doc. 14, footnote 1.
3. October 16, 2006. Detroit filed its written [*6] corrective action plan. Document 19. According to the plan, Detroit claimed that Bagley Avenue Phase II would be fully completed and ADA compliant before November 15, 2006. Detroit claimed that Bagley Avenue Phase I was under survey, and that in a few months Detroit would "supplement" its report about Bagley Phase I.
4. April 24, 2007. Detroit filed document 24. That status report admitted that Bagley Phase II had not been completed by November 15, 2006, but would be completed "sometime in 2007". The report also stated that Bagley Phase I would be completed sometime in 2007.
5. July 2008. Mike Harris, Executive Director of Plaintiff Paralyzed Veterans of America, goes to Mexican Village and is completely blocked from safely using it due to Bagley Avenue's totally defective and inaccessible sidewalks and curb ramps.
Summary of Enforcement History: Thus, there is no doubt that that both Phase I and Phase II of Bagley Avenue were constructed or otherwise altered after entry of the Court's August 31, 2006 Order, and are governed by the Court's Order (document 14) mandating that those sidewalks and curb ramps must meet all ADAAG construction standards. Doc. 14, [*7] PP 1-2. But Bagley Phases I and II violate every requirement of ADAAG, are unusable by Plaintiff Mike Harris and everyone else similarly situated, and are life-threatening.
II. BAGLEY AVENUE VIOLATIONS OF THE COURT'S AUGUST 31, 2006 ORDER, AND OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES (THE "ADAAG")
According to the Court's August 31, 2006 Order, all sidewalk and resurfacing work performed by Detroit from that day forward must strictly meet mandates in the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, (the "ADAAG"), 28 U.S.C. part 36, Appendix A. See document 14, Court's Order at paragraphs 1 and 2. All of the work at

2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73475; 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 43753, *7

Page 4

issue here along Bagley Avenue occurred after the entry of the August 31, 2006 Order. But all of the work violates the ADAAG, and violates paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Court's Order. Below are details of these accessibility violations.
A. Vertical Drop-offs. In several locations on the Bagley project sidewalks, Detroit interrupts the sidewalks with abrupt, five inch vertical drops from the brand new sidewalk onto the street below. Finnegan Declaration at P 2, photographs 01 and 02, showing wheelchair plunging [*8] off the Bagley Avenue project's brand new sidewalks. These drop-offs can easily seriously injure anyone who encounters them, and they can not be avoided on these sidewalks, because where they exist, they are on both sidewalks, so one can not avoid them by crossing the street. This clearly violates the August 31, 2006 Order at P 2.
B. Deadly Location of Curb Ramps. Bagley Avenue is very narrow, with areas of parallel parking, and it handles a large volume of traffic, especially during home Tigers, Red Wings and Lions games, and also during lunch hour and dinner hours. Harris Declaration at PP 4 and 7; Finnegan Declaration at P 6, photographs 08 and 09, showing lunch hour with a continuous stream of vehicular traffic along the Bagley Avenue project. At most intersections along the project, traffic is controlled only by Stop signs.
For some unfathomable reason, Detroit chose to move many of the curb ramps far from the painted cross walks, and to install the new curb ramps far from the intersections. Finnegan Declaration at P 3, photographs 03 and 04. Many of these newly installed curb ramps are actually now located in front of the stop signs and painted "stop bars". Finnegan [*9] Declaration at P 4, photographs 03 through 08, showing wheelchair sitting at logical crossing point inside of painted cross walk, but also showing Detroit's newly installed curb ramps far outside of logical crossing point, where no driver would expect a pedestrian in a wheelchair.
To compound the extreme danger for both driver and wheelchair pedestrian, Detroit has installed the new curb ramps where there are drainage grates and large pot holes blocking entry and exit of wheelchairs onto the curb ramps. n1 Finnegan Declaration at PP 8 and 9, photographs 16-19, showing drainage grates and large pot holes blocking the new curb ramps, which are already far from the intersection.

n1 Indeed, it is hard to imagine how Detroit could possibly create a more dangerous crossing for wheelchair users and local drivers.
These dangerously placed curb ramps abound throughout the Bagley Avenue project. Finnegan Declaration at P 5, photographs 07 and 08, showing yet another intersection where newly installed curb ramp is [*10] actually in front of the stop sign. This means that when a vehicle stops where it is supposed to-at the stop sign-that vehicle is actually blocking the curb ramp. Mind you, the vehicles are not acting improperly; when each pulls up to the stop sign, it will automatically block the curb ramp, because Detroit has placed the curb ramp in the wrong location.
C. Excessive Running Slopes. Running slope is the slope of the path of travel. The Bagley projects run east/west, so the running slopes also run east/west. In some locations on the Bagley project sidewalks, running slopes exceed ten percent. Finnegan Dec. P 10, photographs 20 and 21, showing 10.1% running slope. The ADAAG requires as to running slopes:
"Any part of an accessible route with a [running] slope greater than 1:20 [5%] shall be considered a ramp...The least possible slope shall be used for any ramp...The maximum slope or a ramp in new construction shall be 1:12 [8.33%].
ADAAG, Sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.2. Thus, this 10.1 percent running slope is one hundred percent steeper than the recommended running slope [5%], and is twenty percent steeper than the maximum running slope ever permitted under

2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73475; 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 43753, *11

Page 5

[*11] emergency circumstances by the ADAAG (8.33 percent). Virtually every curb ramp in the Bagley project suffers from excessive running slopes.
D. Excessive Cross slopes.
Cross slope is the slope of a sidewalk perpendicular to the path of travel. For example, Bagley Avenue runs east/west, as do the two sidewalks running parallel to Bagley Avenue. Thus, the cross slope on these sidewalks runs perpendicular, or north/south. n2. According to the ADAAG and the Michigan Building Code: "Nowhere shall the cross slope of an accessible route exceed two percent." ADAAG Section 4.3.7; ICC/ANSI A117.1 1998, Section 403.3 ("The cross slope of a walking surface shall not be steeper than 1:48 [2.08%]").

n2 To visualize this, when rain falls on these sidewalks, there should be a slight slope away from the buildings and toward the street and gutter. This is the "cross slope" of the sidewalk
In several places along the Bagley project sidewalks, the cross slopes reach as high as nearly eight percent, four hundred [*12] percent steeper than the maximum ever permitted. Finnegan Declaration at P 11, photographs 22 and 23, showing 7.1% cross slope. Along the entire length of Bagley Phases I and II, the cross slopes exceed the maximum permitted 2%, and cross slopes exceeding 6% are common. Finnegan Declaration at P 11, showing cross slopes. These excessive cross slopes urge wheelchairs to lose control and to slide off the sidewalks sideways onto Bagley Avenue. They exhaust wheelchair users who must continuously correct their path of travel to fight off and overcome the cross slopes. And any rain, snow or ice on these sidewalks virtually guarantees loss of control of the wheelchair, plunging off the sidewalk and into the street. Detroit was well aware of these excessibe cross slopes, but it chose to leave the defective sidewalks in place anyway. n3

n3 And these cross slope violations are not accidental. On April 24, 2007, Detroit filed its document 24, Exhibit "C". At page two of document 24, Exhibit "C", Detroit admitted: "The sidewalks...constructed by our contractor had to meet the grades at the door level of the Mercado building..." So Detroit clearly knew before April 23, 2007 (when it wrote and filed the above sentence) that the sidewalk slopes along the Bagley Avenue project were defective at the door of the Mercado building. Yet now, more than one year after Detroit filed its admission of defective slopes, the cross slopes of the new sidewalk at the Mercado building door still exceed 4%, double the 2% maximum permitted by the ADAAG and by Michigan's building code. ADAAG Section 4.3.7; ICC/ANSI A.117 1998 Section 403.3.
[*13]
E. Defective Detectible Warnings. A curb ramp's detectible warnings are the red, raised dots one sees on new curb ramps. The ADAAG requires these detectible warnings on every curb ramp. On every curb ramp in the Bagley Avenue Project, the detectible warning is four feet wide by two feet deep. Finnegan Declaration at P 12, photographs 3-5, 7-8, 12-16, 18 and 20, showing Detroit's Bagley Avenue project's standard detectible warning. But the ADAAG clearly requires that "The detectible warning shall extend the full width and depth of the curb ramp." ADAAG Section 4.7.7. Detroit's detectible warnings stop well short of covering the entire curb ramp, violating the ADAAG and the August 31, 2006 Court Order. So Detroit has compounded its dangerous locations of curb ramps by only covering a small portion of the curb ramps with a detectible warning.
F. Omission of Curb Ramps. According to the Court's August 31, 2006 Order at paragraphs 1 and 2, Detroit should have installed 64 curb ramps on the Bagley Avenue project. But Detroit only installed forty-two curb ramps, and

2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73475; 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 43753, *13

Page 6

failed to install twenty of the required ramps. n4 Because Detroit omitted these required curb ramps, [*14] it has created at best a "hop scotch" pattern of curb ramps throughout the Bagley Avenue project, and at worst has made it impossible to cross Bagley Avenue. Finnegan Declaration at P 7, photographs 12 through 15, showing new parking lot with "barrier free" parking spaces, but no way to cross Bagley to get to the building the parking lot is designed to serve.

n4 See Detroit's September 16, 2007 Status Report, Exhibit "C", showing twenty-two "no ramp" notations, indicating exact locations of omitted curb ramps.
CONCLUSION
The Court's August 31, 2006 Order mandated that Detroit rebuild the entire Bagley Avenue (Mexican Village) project to meet all ADAAG standards. Detroit violated that Order, and built the project to have:
1. Potentially deadly vertical drop-offs interrupting the sidewalks;
2. Curb ramps placed in front of stop signs and stop bars;
3. Pot holes blocking access to and from curb ramps;
4. Failed to install one-third of the required curb ramps;
5. Running [*15] slopes twice as steep as the maximum permitted;
6. Cross slopes four times as steep as the maximum permitted; and,
7. Defective, small detectible warnings.
These defects not only egregiously violate the Court's August 31, 2006 Order, they create a deadly situation all along the Bagley project. The Court must Order the City to meet with Plaintiffs today to:
A. Put into place immediate, temporary warnings to drivers and pedestrians at each intersection in the Bagley Project; and,
B. Negotiate permanent corrections to each defect, to be installed right away, but no later then the end of this year.
/s/ J. Mark Finnegan J. Mark Finnegan (P68050) Denise M. Heberle (P64145) 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI. 48103 734 302-3233 jmarkfinnegan@comcast.net
Attorneys for All Plaintiffs
Certificate of Service

2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 73475; 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 43753, *15

Page 7

I hereby certify that I emailed this motion and its supporting declarations and photographs to Andrew Jarvis on August 11, 2008. Also, on this 13th day of August 2008, the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion For Temporary Restraining Order was filed electronically. Parties will receive notice of the filing through the Court's electronic [*16] filing system. In addition, I served the foregoing by email and by hand delivery upon Counsel for Defendant at the following address:
Andrew Jarvis, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel City of Detroit Law Department 660 Woodward Avenue 1650 First National Building Detroit, MI 48226-3535 (313) 237-5038 jarva@law.ci.detroit.mi.us
/s/ J. Mark Finnegan
[SEE DECLARATION OF PARALEGAL MARGUERITE CLAIRE FINNEGAN SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN ORIGINAL]
[SEE DECLARATION OF MIKE HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PLAINTIFF PARALYZED VETERANS, SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN ORIGINAL]
[SEE ATTACHMENT IN ORIGINAL]

 
 2008 WL 3833764

2008 WL 3833764 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan,
Southern Division.
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS, Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant.
No. 05-CV-73475. | Aug. 13, 2008.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Denise M. Heberle, John Mark Finnegan, Heberle & Finnegan, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew R. Jarvis, Law Department, Detroit, MI, for Defendant.
Opinion
ORDER DENYING “PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER” AND SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE
ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge.
*1 The court has reviewed the above-captioned motion, and it is not persuaded that Plaintiffs have met the high standard for obtaining a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). The purpose of an injunction is not to remedy past wrongs, but rather to prevent the occurrence of threatened future wrongs. United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953) (citing Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311, 326, 48 S.Ct. 311, 72 L.Ed. 587 (1928)). When a past wrong has already occurred, a court must determine that some “cognizable danger of recurrent violation” exists. Id. Moreover, the issuance of an injunction may be justified when “no right has yet been violated,” Swift & Co., 276 U.S. at 326, if “the moving party ... satisf[ies] the court that relief is needed.” W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633.
When evaluating a petition for a TRO, a district court must strictly adhere to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Leslie v. Penn C.R. Co., 410 F.2d 750, 751 (6th Cir.1969) (quoting Austin v. Altman, 332 F.2d 273, 275 (2d Cir.1964)). Rule 65 states in relevant part that:

A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney only if (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damages will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b). When evaluating whether to grant a TRO, the court must consider “(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury absent a[TRO], (3) whether granting the [TRO] would cause substantial harm to others, and (4) whether the public interest would be served by granting the [TRO].” N.E. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir.2006) (citations omitted). These factors are “interrelated considerations that must be balanced together,” not independent prerequisites. Id. (quoting Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir.1991)). “For example, the probability of success that must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable injury the movants will suffer absent the [TRO].” Id. (citing Griepentrog, 945 F.2d at 153).
Plaintiffs’ motion does not address the standard articulated above. Instead, it presents procedural background of this previously settled case and a description of facts that might support Plaintiffs’ ultimate plea for relief, claiming in essence that the terms of settlement have been inadequately met. Nothing is presented that persuades the court that an emergency exists that could rationally be ordered remedied on a temporary basis.1
*2 In the absence of reasoned argument tying together the relevant legal authority with a factual basis to support the temporary, emergency relief requested, the court concludes that the relevant standard is not met. The court will instead schedule a status conference, where counsel will discuss, at least preliminarily, the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ motion. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order” [Dkt. # 30] is DENIED.

2008 WL 3833764
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all counsel shall appear at a status conference in the chambers of Judge Gerald Rosen on August 19, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.

 
 2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 19 Filed 10/16/06 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 178

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS, and MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS, OF AMERICA,

Case No. 05-73475

Plaintiffs,

HON GERALD E. ROSEN

v.

Magistrate Judge Komives

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

Defendants.

J. Mark Finnegan (P68050) Denise M. Heberle (P64145) HEBERLE & FINNEGAN, PLLC 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor Michigan 48103 (734) 302-3223 (734) 302-3234 (fax)

Andrew Jarvis (P59191) CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT Attorney for Defendants 660 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 1650 Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 237-5038 (313) 224-5505 (fax)

DEFENDANT CITY OF DETROIT’S CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR WOODWARD AND BAGLEY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AUGUST 31, 2006 ORDER

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 19 Filed 10/16/06 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 179
October 13, 2006 Report: City of Detroit Corrective Action Plan
For Woodward and Bagley
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Courts August 31, 2006 Order the Defendant City of Detroit submits this Corrective Action Plan and Attachments.
WOODWARD AVE
The Woodward Projects referenced in the motion for preliminary injunction were constructed through contracts from the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation they are
Woodward Streetscape – Phase II (Project Limits: Woodward Ave. R.O.W. – Kirby to Warren) Phase III (Project Limits: Woodward Ave. R.O.W. – Mack to I-75 Service Drive)
The Detroit Economic Growth Corporation submitted a Corrective Action Plan) for these contracts along with a Corrective Action Plan (Exhibit 1) for citywide projects that are complete or nearly complete but not closed out.
Within 60 days of the date of this letter, the DEGC plans to hire a Professional Engineer to evaluate the existing conditions of all existing ramps and corresponding sidewalks to determine compliance or non -compliance utilizing City-accepted methods. All non-compliant ramps and corresponding sidewalks will be re -designed pursuant to the most recent City-accepted ADA Special Provision for Sidewalk Ramp Detail (R-28-E unless directed otherwise by the City of Detroit), constructed, inspected and certified by

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 19 Filed 10/16/06 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 180
the City of Detroit for compliance with the ADA Special Provision for Sidewalk Ramp Detail R-28-E.
The reconstruction of non -compliant areas is estimated to begin during the spring of 2007.
BAGLEY
Bagley Phase I (Project Limits: 24th St. to Freeway and 16th St. to alley W. of St. Anne) Bagley Phase II (Project Limits: Freeway to Alley W. of St. Anne)
Bagley Phase I is currently in redesign. Funding for redesign and retrofitting of ADA compliant ramps is being pursued through the City of Detroit budget pro cess and through private sources. The City of Detroit Fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30 of each year. The 2007 -2008 Budget is in the early planning stages and will be submitted to the Chief Executive in early 2007 and to the City Counsel for a pproval in April of 2007. The 2007 -2008 Budget will include funding consistent with the Bagley Phase I Corrective Action Plan. The City of Detroit recognizes this area is a high use and desirable location, however because it is a very old project, designe d in 1997 in metric units and that continues to be unfinished due only to unanticipated problems with construction the corrections cannot be made as expediently as we all desire. The City will supplement this portion of the Plan in the next few months wh en more information becomes available, and a time line can be accurately forecast
Bagley Phase II (Project Limits: Freeway to Alley W. of St. Anne) The Bagley project Phase II is currently under construction. Fully compliant
ramp construction is expected before November 15, 2006.

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 19 Filed 10/16/06 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 181

Prepared for William Talley, P.E., Head Engineer, by: Cheryl LaBash, Head Construction Inspector

October 16, 2006

Respectfully submitted,
s/Andrew Jarvis Andrew Jarvis (P59191) CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT Attorney for Defendants 660 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 1650 Detroit, Michigan 48226 313.237.5038 jarva@law.ci.detroit.mi.us

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 19 Filed 10/16/06 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 182

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS, and MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS, OF AMERICA,

Case No. 05-73475

Plaintiffs,

HON GERALD E. ROSEN

v.

Magistrate Judge Komives

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

Defendants.

J. Mark Finnegan (P68050) Denise M. Heberle (P64145) HEBERLE & FINNEGAN, PLLC 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor Michigan 48103 (734) 302-3223 (734) 302-3234 (fax)

Andrew Jarvis (P59191) CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT Attorney for Defendants 660 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 1650 Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 237-5038 (313) 224-5505 (fax)

I hereby certify that on October 16, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the flowing: HEBERLE & FINNEGAN, PLLC.

s/Andrew Jarvis Andrew Jarvis (P59191) CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT Attorney for Defendants 660 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 1650 Detroit, Michigan 48226 313.237.5038 jarva@law.ci.detroit.mi.us

 
 05·7?~7s- 2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 08/31/06 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 124

t

F i l e UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

-3-- CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS, and )

2'05~. MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS,

)

c... No

OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiffs,

) HON. GERALD E. ROSEN

V.

)

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

)

MAG JUDGE KOMIVES

)

Defendants.

)

J. Mark Finnegan (P68050) Denise M. Heberle (P64145) Heberle & Finnegan, PLLC 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 (734 )-302-3233 (734)-302-3234 Telefax Hffinn@Comcast. net Attorneys for All Plaintiffs

Andrew Jarvis (P59191) City of Detroit Law Department 660 Woodward Ave. Ste. 1650 Detroit, Ml 48226 (313) 237-5038 (313) 224-5505 (Telefax) jarva@law.ci.detroitmi.us
Attorney for Defendant

FIRST SETTLEMENT ORDER AND PARTIAL SETTLEMENT

WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed a class-action Complaint against the City of

Detroit alleging violations of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and

also Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the City of Detroit denies

any violations of federal law; and,

WHEREAS the parties entered into significant settlement negotiations and

the City of Detroit has presented a corrective action plan to resolve plaintiffs'

concern.

WHEREAS the City of Detroit maintains a comprehensive resurfacing

program that includes installing and upgrading ADA ramps through which the

City intends to bring all ramps in residential areas and on major streets under the

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 08/31/06 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 125
jurisdiction of the City of Detroit into compliance. The new compliant MOOT detail
R-28-E and a special provision will be included in all future contracts
THEREFORE, the parties agree and the Court hereby enters the following
First Settlement Order and Partial Settlement. Nothing in this document shall
impact in any way upon the rights or duties of any parties concerning resurfacing
or alteration of any sidewalks, curb ramps, or intersections in the public right of
way in the City of Detroit in construction projects primarily under the sole
jurisdiction and the sole control of the State of Michigan and its Department of
Transportation or under the sole jurisdiction and sole control of Wayne County.
1. Future Resurfacing and Alteration. The City of Detroit shall ensure in year 20061 and thereafter that whenever it alters or resurfaces2 any streets, intersections, sidewalks3 or curb ramps, Detroit shall ensure that each portion of such projects, to the maximum extent feasible,4 will be altered in such manner
that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities during the course of resurfacing or before the project
' As to the Woodward Ave and Bagley Ave projects referenced in the motion for preliminary injunction within 45 days the City of Detroit will file a written corrective action plan with the court and with plaintiffs' counseL The parties shall meet and confer and if they are unable to agree they may approach the court.
' As used throughout this Settlement Order, the term "alter" shall have the meaning the ADAAG section 3.5 and the term "resurface" shall have the definition given by the United States Department of Justice Title II Technical Assistance Manual§ 11-6.6000 "Resurfacing beyond normal maintenance is an alteration. Merely filling potholes is considered to be normal maintenance."
) Replacement of a few flags of sidewalk not impacting the corner will not trigger the alteration requirements.
'As used throughout this Settlement Order, the term "to the maximum
extent feasible" shall have the meaning set forth at 28 C.F.R. § 36.402(c).
2

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 08/31/06 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 126
is completed .5 Each such project shall comply with all Americans with Disability Act requirements, including 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.151 (b),(c),(e)(1) and (e)(2) and 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A, the ADAAG6, and the attached MOOT Sidewalk Ramp Detail R-28~E.
2. The City of Detroit shall ensure that curb ramps7 under its jurisdiction complying with these above requirements shall be installed into all resurfaced intersections of "streets, roads, highways,8 and replaced sidewalks and paths during year 2006 and thereafter. Also, these curb ramps shall be installed into intersections of each cross street that intersects with the alteration or resurfacing, so that these ramps are fully accessible to mobility-impaired persons with disabilities. The City of Detroit shall ensure that all plans and specifications under its jurisdiction for such work shall include the specific requirements of the Americans with Disability Act!MDOT R-28-E set out above.
'As used throughout this Settlement Order, the term "readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities" shall have the meaning set forth at Section 11-6.1000 of the United States Department of Justice ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, and set forth at 28 C.F.R. Appendix B § 36.401.
' The City of Detroit has chosen to follow the ADAAG standards rather than the UFAS standards. See United States Department of Justice ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, Section 11-6.2100.
'As used throughout this Settlement Order, the term "curb ramp" includes curb cuts, wheelchair ramps, and any other sloped areas at the intersection of pedestrian walkways with streets, alleys, roads, highways and all other pathways.
'These are the relevant "facilities" as defined by the United States Department of Justice in its ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual§ 11-6.6000.
3

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 08/31/06 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 127
Prior to the start of the construction season in 2007 and each year during the life of this Order, the City of Detroit shall submit a written report to the Plaintiffs' Counsel listing the streets and limits the City intends to resurface in that year. If new projects are added after that date the City will provide an amended list within 30 days. 3. Annual Reports of Compliance. On or before January 31, 2007 and each year thereafter for the life of this Settlement Order, the City of Detroit shall file a written report with the Court and with Plaintiffs' Counsel, listing each street and limits resurfaced during the previous year, and listing each curb ramp altered, constructed or resurfaced during the previous year, and stating where new curb ramps have been installed as a part of these projects. Each report will contain a sworn certification that the City of Detroit has inspected each such project under its jurisdiction and that each curb ramp and each corner in each project and this report shall contain all accurate measurements necessary to determine if those projects have met all standards set out in MDOT R-28-E. 4. Potential Exceptions Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Part 36. App. A § 4.1.6(j) and lklf3l. The parties agree for purposes of this Settlement Order that
ADAAG § 4.1 .6U) sets the standards for construction or alterations that can not
meet in full the ADAAG standards. In compiling the listing described in paragraph 2 above, or during the course of year 2006 and thereafter, if the City of Detroit believes that any particular intersection prohibits construction or alteration in full compliance with each of the ADA-ADAAG/MDOT standards set out in paragraph 1 above, the City of Detroit shall within 30 days of discovering
4

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 08/31/06 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 128
the alleged site conditions inform Plaintiffs' counsel in writing. This writing shall list the name of the engineer(s) who have reviewed the intersection, the location of the intersection, as well as a statement detailing the standards that cannot be met and why the deviation is necessary. 9 The parties shall allow at least 15 days from the postmark of the written notification to attempt to resolve the matter. Unresolved Disputes. The parties expressly agree that Magistrate Judge Komives shall have jurisdiction to resolve any disputes under the terms of this paragraph. If the dispute can not be resolved during the 15 day period, the parties may submit written briefs to Judge Komives. When one side submits such a brief, the other side shall be permitted 10 days to submit an opposing brief, if it wishes. Judge Komive's decision under this paragraph shall be treated as a decision by the Court During the course of the next year the parties will discuss and consider alternatives to this procedure.
5. CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN -SURVEY AREA In an effort to make the public areas fully accessible, the City of Detroit will
survey the area bounded by East and West Grand Boulevard to the north, the J.C. Lodge Freeway to the West, the Chrysler Freeway to the East and the Detroit River to the South. Approximately 2800 commercial ramps exist in the 5 square mile survey area.
On or before one year from the date of this agreement, the City of Detroit will submit to the court and to plaintiffs' counsel the results of this survey and a
9 Special attention shall be given to the measurements of the direct slope, the cross-slope, the flared side, the juncture of the ramp and the street, and the level landing at the top of each ramp.
5

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 08/31/06 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 129
proposed plan to bring all ramps in the target area into compliance with the requirements of the ADA. As part of the report, any corners where strictly compliant ramps cannot be constructed will be identified, including the extent of any proposed deviation from the ADA specifications. The survey area report shall include a statement of whether the City believes that each of the curb ramps at those intersections meet the ADA·ADAAG standards set out in paragraph 1 above, and if they do not why the City believes that they do not. The report will also state the location of any missing ramps. As part of the report, any corners where strictly compliant ramps allegedly cannot be constructed will be identified, including the extent of any proposed deviation from the ADA specifications. Any such report will include a signed sworn certification that the City of Detroit has researched its records and that the listing is true and correct.
The survey and its corrective action plan will be submitted to court and Plaintiffs Counsel allowing at least 90 days for the parties to meet and confer to agree on the survey area corrective action plan. If the parties are unable to agree, the dispute will be referred to the court. Over the course of the next year, the parties will meet and confer about retrofitting defective curb ramps outside of the survey area. If the parties are unable to agree they may approach the court for guidance.
6. Attorne)ls Fees and Costs to Date. Plaintiffs' have submitted invoices to the City for all time and costs from the inception of this matter to August 1, 2006. The City attorney will recommend that City Council approve the payment of $30,500.00 to Finnegan & Heberle, PLLC, and the payment of
6

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 08/31/06 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 130
$10,000.00 to Megan Buffington, in full payment of fees and costs up to August 1, 2006. The request by the City attorney will be submitted to City Council immediately, with the intention of City council approving the payments at the next City council meeting. In the unlikely event that City Council rejects or otherwise fails to act on the City Attorney's recommendation, Plaintiffs shall approach the Court for payment of the entire claimed amount of fees and costs reflected in the Invoices, as well as for the fees and costs generated in litigating those full fees and costs. By taking these actions, the City of Detroit in no way admits liability for any future payments, and Plaintiffs do not waive any claims for payments for future fees and costs that may be incurred.
7. Consideration for This Settlement Order. The parties understand that this is not intended as a resolution of the entire lawsuit, but rather only as to a part of it. The parties and their Counsel, by entering into this Settlement Order, expressly agree that in exchange for the successful completion of each of the terms of the Settlement Order that Plaintiffs shall forbear from seeking preliminary injunctive relief for these issues.
8. Retention of Jurisdiction. The parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce any and all terms of this Settlement Order.
7

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 14 Filed 08/31/06 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 131 Read on This Day of August and Approved for Form by:

Attorneys for all Defendants

. Mark Finnegan (P68050 enise M. Heberle (P64145) HEBERLE & FINNEGAN PLLC 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 (734) 302-3233 hffinn@comcast net
Attorneys for All Plaintiffs

All parties having agreed, and the Court having reviewed it and found it
equitable, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this First Settlement Order and Partial
Settlement is ENTERED this "l \ ~ day of August, 2006.

 
 2:05-cv-73O47R5I-GGEINRA-PLJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS, and )

MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS,

)

OF AMERICA

)

Case No: 2:05CV73475

)

Plaintiffs,

)

HON. GERALD E. ROSEN:

)

v.

)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KOMIVES

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

Defendants.

)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

****~•••**********************************•••*******~••*******•*******************~***111*****•*

J. Mark Finnegan (P68050)
Denise M. Heberle (P64145) Heberle &-Finnegan, PLLC 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, Ml48103 (734)-302-3233
(734)-302-3234 Telefax Hffirm@Comcast.net

~

[\

,
i I...

·
. '1 • •

Di::C i: .,·
CLEH :. ·, U :;:, ;· · ··

~""U~>c "~"'
?"t;;~ S!
~~~~ng '::g

~:::oCg~~

).:>
w

s:J ~

;.:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Preliminary Statement

1. The Center for Community Access ("CCA"), is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit,

membership based, grassroots organization dedicated to assisting individuals with

disabilities in becoming all that they can be. CCA's mission is to raise the status of people

with disabilities, which is accomplished through educating, advocating and celebrating our

differences and the commonality we share as human beings. CCA educates people with

disabilities about their rights, and also educates the public on the obligations and

responsibilities society has toward people with disabilities. CCA advocates for the

individual and collective rights of people with disabilities in order to gain freedom of

movement and access to the greater community.

I
19
;t
\ ·

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 2 of 15 Pg ID 16
2. The Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America (MPVA), is a membership organization which conducts business in Detroit and across Michigan, representing veterans with disabilities, and also has members who live in, or who frequently work, travel and visit throughout the in the City of Detroit The Mission of Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America is to enhance the lives of veterans with spinal cord injury or disease as well as all citizens with disabilities, by advocating for civil rights, assuring quality health care, supporting continued research and education, and encouraging independence and healthy living through various health sports and recreational programs. MPVA shall continue striving to remain at the forefront of veterans' benefits, services and disability rights, while working toward a better quality of life for all American citizens.
3. Recently Detroit resurfaced several streets and otherwise altered sidewalks used by CCA, MPVA and their members while failing to ensure that those intersections and sidewalks are readily accessible to and usable by CCA, MPVA, its members and others similarly situated. At times, Detroit failed to install any curb cuts while resurfacing these intersections. Other times, Detroit resurfaced intersections while leaving old, defective curb cuts. And at other intersections, Detroit installed new curb cuts, but those curb cuts are too steep, have large lips, or have other violations of accessibility standards making them unusable by MPVA and its members.
4. Detroit's illegal activity creates lack of access and frustrates the mission of the CCA and the MPVA and has caused them and their members financial harm.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S. C. § 1343(a)(3); 29 U S.C. § 794(a} (Rehabilitation Act); and 42 U.S.C. §
12133 (Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act);
2

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 3 of 15 Pg ID 17
6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S. C.§ 1391(b) because the Defendant is located in the Eastern District and the events and/or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in the Eastern District.
7. Jurisdiction in Count II is based on this Court's supplemental jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S C.§ 1367, because the Michigan State law claims arise out a common nucleus of facts with the federal law claims.
Ill. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs
8. The Center for Community Access, Inc., operating in central Detroit, Michigan, is a nonprofit Michigan Corporation. Its Board of Directors and staff, is composed of a majority of people with mobility and/or sight disabilities, along with volunteers. These persons have disabilities as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and under applicable Michigan law. The CCA was created to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency Defendants' conduct has and is frustrating the CCA's mission, and the Center has suffered financial harm attempting to overcome discrimination by the City, and it has many members and clients who are suffering from the City's violations of accessibility law. CCA and its employees, members and clients will continue to suffer exclusion from full participation in the grand concourse of life unless and until the court remedies the City's continuing, over-arching pattern and practice of discrimination against people with disabilities.
9. The Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc., (MPVA), is a nonprofit Michigan Corporation. Its Board of Directors, staff and members are people with mobility disabilities as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act, under Section 504 of the
3

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 4 of 15 Pg ID 18
Rehabilitation Act, and under applicable Michigan law. The MPVA was created to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency. Defendant's conduct has and is frustrating the MPVA's mission, and the MPVA and its members have suffered financial harm attempting to overcome discrimination by the City, and are suffering from the City's violations of accessibility law. They will continue to suffer exclusion from full participation in the grand concourse of life unless and until the court remedies the City's continuing, over-arching pattern and practice of discrimination against people with disabilities. B. DEFENDANTS
10. Defendant City of Detroit is authorized under the State of Michigan and is a
public entity as that term is defined under42 U.S C.§ 12131(1 ); 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Upon
information and belief, the City has received and will continue to receive federal funds for
purposes of the Rehabilitation Act and for the Civil Rights Restoration Act, 29 U.S.C. §
794(b)(1 )(A). The City has discriminated against MPVA as described below. IV. FACTS
11. Veteran Maurice Jordan is the Executive Director of Plaintiffs MPVA. He lives in suburban Detroit, and frequently conducts business and pleasure trips throughout Detroit. He drives his own van, but he must rely on a power assist wheelchair for mobility.
12. Veteran Michael Harris is the Advocacy Director of Plaintiffs MPVA. He lives in suburban Detroit, and frequently conducts business and pleasure trips throughout Detroit He drives his own car, but he must rely on a manual wheelchair for mobility.
13. Veteran Quintin Williams is an employee and member of Plaintiff CCA and is a member of Plaintiff MPVA. He lives in suburban Detroit, and frequently conducts business and pleasure trips throughout Detroit. He drives his own van, but he must rely
4

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 5 of 15 Pg ID 19
on a manual wheelchair for mobility. 14. When in Detroit, like many others, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Harris and Mr. Williams use
sidewalks to move about. However, if those sidewalks are defective, or if they lack proper curb cuts at intersections, these gentlemen must leave the sidewalk and travel in the street, at great personal risk and inconvenience. This is true for most other members of CCA and MPVA as well.
15. When Detroit resurfaced the streets or altered the sidewalks described below, it created an excellent opportunity for Detroit to remove old solid curbs or defective curb cuts and to install proper accessible curb cuts at those resurfaced intersections. But Detroit ignored these opportunities, and instead altered intersections and sidewalks without installing accessible curb cuts. Detroit left these sidewalks and intersections inaccessible to CCA, MPVA, and their employees and members. This inaccessibility is hampering the organizations in carrying out their missions, and is draining their resources unnecessarily. While listing each such violation can not be done in this Complaint, Plaintiffs provide five transactions with examples of this discrimination by Detroit below. These are merely examples of identical violations across the City.
STREETS ADJACENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
16. CCA, MPVA and its members intend to seek justice in the United States District Courthouse located at 231 West Lafayette Boulevard in Detroit. During year 2005, Detroit altered intersections directly adjacent to the Courthouse, but installed defective curb cuts. Some of these curb cuts are prohibitively steep, with excessive cross slopes and no level landings. When CCA, MPVA or their members park in commercial parking lots across the street from the Courthouse, these curb cuts leading toward the Courthouse are not readily usable by nor accessible to Plaintiffs.
5

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 6 of 15 Pg ID 20

STREETS ADJACENT TO COMERICA PARK AND FORD FIELD.

17. MPVA has and still is working with the Detroit Lions football team and the

Detroit Tigers baseball team to improve accessibility at Ford Field and Comerica Park.

Both Mr. Jordan and Mr. Harris and many other members of CCA and MPVA have

attended events at these stadiums. Tens of thousands of persons attending events there

must find parking in surface lots and parking garages in the neighborhood surrounding

these two stadiums. The sidewalks and intersections in this neighborhood are crucial for

CCA, MPVA members to access the stadiums from these numerous parking garages and

surface lots.

18. During years 2004 and 2005, Detroit altered most of the streets and

intersections connected to these parking lots and garages, and adjacent to the two

stadiums. These streets include Woodward Avenue, Park Avenue, West Adams Avenue,

Clifford Street, West Elizabeth Street and West Montcalm Street. At the same time, Detroit

rebuilt all or parts of most of the sidewalks parallel to these streets and intersections.

Unfortunately, Detroit built many of these sidewalks incorrectly, with cross slopes in excess

of two percent. In addition, many of these intersections now lack curb cuts, or still have

curb cuts that violate federal and Michigan minimum accessibility codes. For example:

A. During year 2005, the City of Detroit resurfaced Montcalm Street at Woodward

Avenue, directly adjacent to Comerica Park. That intersection now has 2 new diagonal

ramps on the west side of Woodward and 2 old ramps on the east side. The old ramps

lack detectable warnings and have substantial lips, and are dangerous for Plaintiffs and

their members to use.

•

The northwest corner has a broken lip that is up to 2 inches on the north side

of the ramp, a running slope of 12.6%, cross-slopes of 10.6% and 7.3% and

6

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 7 of 15 Pg ID 21

no level landing.

•

The southwest corner has a broken lip on both edges of the ramp, cross-

slopes of 2.5% and 4.0% and no level landing.

B. The entire intersection at Montcalm and Clifford was resurfaced. New sidewalks

and curbs were installed on the west side of Clifford and around the northwest and

southwest corners. Four new diagonal ramps were installed at the four corners of the

intersection.

The northwest corner has a 3 inch lip. The detectable warning was not

pressed deeply enough into the concrete and is barely visible. The new

sidewalk around the corner has cross-slopes as high as 4.5%.

•

The northeast corner has a lip, a running slope of 8.6%, cross-slopes of

6.1% and 6.2% and no level landing.

The southeast corner has a lip, a running slope of 10%, cross-slopes of5.1%

and 9.2% and no level landing.

•

The southwest corner has a reverse lip, a running slope of 11.4% and cross-

slopes of 4.5% and 4.8% and no level landing. The detectable warning is

barely visible.

19. Similar access violations exist at several sidewalks and intersections directly

adjacent to Montcalm and Woodward, and several other sidewalks and intersections in that

neighborhood. These defects should be corrected immediately, so that CCA, MPVA, its

members, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Harris, Mr. Williams and others can safely access the two

professional sports stadiums, especially since the Super Bowl is being held at Ford Field

this year. Accessible sports stadiums are not of much use is Detroit fails to make an

accessible route from event parking to the stadiums.

7

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 8 of 15 Pg ID 22
EAST LARNED STREET ADJACENT TO THE COLEMAN A. YOUNG MUNICIPAL CENTER AND CLOSE TO THE RENAISSANCE CENTER AND RIVER WALK 20. During year 2005, Detroit resurfaced East Larned Street from Woodward Avenue to Interstate 375. Virtually every intersection along this stretch contains curb cuts that violate federal and Michigan accessibility codes, and are too steep, have large lips, have excessive cross-slopes, and/or lack level landings and detectible warnings. These intersections are not readily usable by nor accessible to Mr. Jordan, Mr. Harris, Mr. Williams, Plaintiffs CCA and MPVA and their members. 21. Mr. Jordan, Mr. Harris, Mr. Williams, Plaintiffs CCA and MPVA and their members have used the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center and businesses nearby, and intend to do so in the future if the corrections are made to create fully accessible curb cuts at these intersections. THE EASTERN MARKET 22. Detroit's Eastern Market is a heavily used area, visited by approximately fortyfive thousand persons each Saturday, including at times CCA and MPVA and their members Mr. Jordan, Mr. Harris and Mr. Williams, among others. During years 2004 and 2005, Detroit resurfaced major intersections in the Eastern Market, including Russell Street from Mack to Gratiot, and Winder from Orleans to Rivard, and installed new curb cuts at many of these intersections. These intersections and new curb cuts are very dangerous, and are not readily usable by and accessible to CCA, MPVA and their members, and those similarly situated. For example: A• At the intersection of Mack and Russell there are 3 new ramps on the
southeast and southwest corners.
8

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 9 of 15 Pg ID 23

o

The southwest corner facing north has a rolled lip, a running slope of 12.5%

for an 8 foot run and no level landing (4.5% X 2 0%).

•

The southwest corner facing east has a rolled curb with a 1inch lip, a running

slope of 13.8% for an 8 foot run and no level landing.

o

The southeast corner has one diagonal ramp with a 1 inch lip, a running

slope of 16.7% for a 7 foot run and no level landing (3.7% X 4.6%).

B. At the intersection of Russell and Wilkens there are four new diagonal ramps.

•

The northwest corner has a rolled curb with a 2 inch lip, and no level landing

(3.7% X 5.5%). The detectable warning wraps around the corner and is not

oriented to the crosswalk.

The northeast corner has a running slope of 9.3%, cross-slopes of 5.8% and

3.9%, and no level landing. The detectable warning wraps around the corner

and is not oriented to the crosswalk.

The southeast corner has cross-slopes of 5. 7% and 5.1% and no level

landing. The detectable warning wraps around the corner and is not oriented

to the crosswalk.

The southwest corner has a rolled curb with a 2 inch lip, a running slope of

8.8%, cross-slopes of 4.0% and 6.4%, and no level landing. The detectable

warning wraps around the corner and is not oriented to the crosswalk.

C. AI the northwest corner of Russell and Alfred the ramp has a 2" lip and faces a

solid curb on the other side of the street.

D. At the intersection of Winder and Rivard there is one new diagonal ramp on the

northeast corner. It is scooped with steeply flared sides, a running slope of 13.3% for a 10

in run, a 1 14 in lip and no detectable warning.

9

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 10 of 15 Pg ID 24

E. At the intersection of Winder and Russell there are 3 ramps.

•

the northwest corner has an old ramp with a 3 inch lip and no level landing.

•

The northeast corner has a solid 6 inch curb with no ramp.

The southeast corner has a large lip.

F. The ramp from the parking lot to the Farmer's Market (between Market and

Russell) creates a cross-slope on the sidewalk of 6.4%.

G. At the intersection of Winder and Riopelle there are 2 old ramps with no ramps

crossing Winder.

the southwest corner has no ramp.

•

The northwest corner has a rolled, 2 inch curb.

•

The southeast corner has a lip and a steep running slope.

23. In sum, the Eastern Market at its recently resurfaced intersections is not readily

usable by and accessible to CCA, MPVA, their members and Mr. Jordan, Mr. Harris, Mr.

Williams and similarly situated persons with mobility impairments. These defects should

be corrected immediately.

FOURTH STREET NEAR THE MASONIC TEMPLE AND MOTOR CITY CASINO

24. Mr. Jordan has attended events at the Masonic Temple, and would like to visit

the Motor City Casino. In year 2004, Detroit resurfaced Fourth Street was resurfaced from

Calumet to Seldon and from Mack to Temple. Yet there are several defects at these

intersections and sidewalks. For example, Temple and Fourth is the only intersection that

is ramped to cross Fourth Street. There is no other place to cross Fourth in a wheelchair

though pedestrians are clearly meant to cross Fourth at any of the intersections. Some

other examples of the many problems are:

10

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 11 of 15 Pg ID 25

A At the intersection of Fourth and Temple there are 2 new ramps crossing Fourth.

There are no ramps crossing Temple.

•

The northwest ramp facing east has a reverse lip, and running slope of

16.6% and no level landing.

The northeast ramp facing west has a running slope of 14.1% and no level

landing.

B. At the intersection of Fourth and Charlotte there are 4 new ramps crossing

Charlotte and no ramps crossing Fourth.

The northwest ramp has a reverse lip and a cross-slope of 3. 9% and no level

landing.

The northeast ramp has a 1 inch rolled curb and a running slope of 10.8%.

•

The southeast corner has a 2 inch rolled curb, and running slope of 12.3%

and no detectable warning.

•

The southwest ramp has a reverse lip and no level landing.

25. Mr. Jordan and other members of Plaintiffs CCA and MPVA have used the

intersections adjacent to the Masonic Temple and Motor City Casino and intend to use

them in the future if the proper curb cuts are installed.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

26. Each of these sidewalks and intersections described above were resurfaced or

otherwise altered by the City of Detroit during years 2004 and 2005, and contain cuts that

suffer from one or more of the following defects:

A. Running slope in excess of 8.33%;

B. Cross slope in excess of 2%;

C. No level landing at the top of the ramp;

11

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 12 of 15 Pg ID 26
D. Obstructions or "lips" at the juncture of the ramp with the street; and/or,
E. Improperly oriented or maintained truncated dome detectible warnings.
Plaintiffs demands that these ramps, sidewalks and intersections be brought into compliance as soon as possible. In addition, CCA and MPVA seek an Order that all future resurfacing and alterations in Detroit comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and Michigan law.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: CLAIM UNDER TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT
27. Plaintiffs bring this count under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA) for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for damages.
28. Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by
reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any
such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II of the ADA defines the City of Detroit as a "public
entity." 42 u.s.c. § 12131(1).
29. Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that when a public entity
builds or alters any part of a facility after January 26, 1992, it shall to the maximum extent possible, be altered so that it is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12146 & 12147; 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a), (b) & (e); Ability Center ofGreater Toledo v. City ofSandusky, Ohio, 133 F.Supp. 2d 589, 591-92 (N.D.Ohio 2001), aff'd 385 F.3d 901 at 904 (61h Cir. 2004)(City must install ADA-compliant curb ramps at all
resurfaced intersections). The curb cuts must meet specific federal building and design
standards, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 (c); Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 1993
12

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 13 of 15 Pg ID 27
(2004). Detroit has resurfaced or otherwise altered the intersections and sidewalks described above, but failed to install proper sidewalks and curb cuts.
30. By their actions complained of herein, Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs due to their disabilities. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief ordering the City to bring these and future services, programs or activities into compliance, compensatory damages and attorneys fees and costs. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: CLAIM UNDER THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
31. Plaintiffs bring this claim for declaratory and injunctive relief and for damages. The Rehabilitation Act requires that when a public entity that receives federal funding builds or alters any part of a facility, it shall to the maximum extent possible, be made so
that it is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 794.
"[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Upon information and belief, the City receives Federal financial assistance. The Rehabilitation Act defines "program or activity'' as "all of the operations of' a qualifying local government. 29 U.S. C.§ 794(B)(1)(A).
32. As described above, the City has altered intersections and sidewalks without installing curb cuts that meet the required accessibility standards and codes. Each of these failures by the City has made each of these new or altered services, programs or activities not readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiffs. By their actions complained of herein, Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs due to its disabilities. Plaintiffs is entitled to injunctive relief ordering the City to bring these services, programs or activities into compliance, individual compensatory damages, and attorneys fees and
13

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 14 of 15 Pg ID 28
costs. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: CLAIMS UNDER MICHIGAN LAW
33. Plaintiffs bring this count for injunctive relief and damages. The above complained of failure by the City to construct, alter and maintain its services, programs or activities to be accessible to Plaintiffs also violates Michigan law at M.C.L. § 37.1301-02. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys fees and costs.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendants finding that: 1. The above described intersections and sidewalks have been altered by Defendants without meeting required federal and Michigan accessibility standards and codes; 2. Defendants are Ordered to bring the above described sidewalks into compliance with federal and Michigan accessibility laws; 3. Defendants intentionally violated the rights of Plaintiffs as set out above and award to Plaintiffs damages according to law; 4. In the future, Detroit is Ordered to meet all federal and Michigan standards when altering streets and intersections. 5. That Plaintiffs recovers an award of reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses. Plaintiffs further prays for such additional relief as the interests of JUstice may require.
14

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 12/06/05 Pg 15 of 15 Pg ID 29
Respectfully Submitted,
~;~,!~ J~enise M_ Heberle (P64145) 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI. 48103 Tel: (734) 302-3233 Fax: (734) 302-3234 Hffirm@comcastnet Attorneys for Plaintiffs Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 291h day of November, 2005, I have served the foregoing First Amended Complaint by first class mail, electronic means and facsimile transmission upon Counsel for all Defendants at the following address: Andrew Jarvis, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel City of Detroit Law Department 660 Woodward Avenue 1650 First National Building
Detroit, Ml 48226-3535
. Mark Finnegan
15

 
 2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 28 Filed 07/01/08 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 358

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS, and )

MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS

)

OF AMERICA,

)

Case No: 2:05CV73475

)

Plaintiffs,

)

HON. GERALD E. ROSEN

)

v.

)

)

MAG. JUDGE KOMIVES

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

)

)

Defendant.

)

*******************************************************************************************

J. Mark Finnegan (P68050)

Andrew Jarvis (P59191)

Denise M. Heberle (P64145)

City of Detroit Law Department

Heberle & Finnegan, PLLC

660 Woodward Ave, Ste. 1650

2580 Craig Road

Detroit, MI 48226

Ann Arbor, MI 48103

313 237-5038

734-302-3233

313 224-5505 fax

734-302-3234 fax

jarva@law.ci.detroit.mi.us

hffirm@comcast.net

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Attorney for Defendant

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANT CITY OF DETROIT, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ANDREW JARVIS AND PAL
BROOKS IN CONTEMPT WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT Plaintiffs Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America (MPVA) and Center for
Community Access (CCA) hereby move this Court find Defendant City of Detroit ,
Assistant City Attorney Andrew Jarvis and Pal Brooks in contempt of the Court’s
Order entered on March 28, 2008 (Doc. 27).
Plaintiffs state in support:
1. On March 28, 2008, the Court ent ered the parties’ St ipulated Order
Awarding Plaintiffs’ Attor ney Fees and Costs Throug h February 15, 2008, and

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 28 Filed 07/01/08 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 359
Regarding Future Claims for Fees and Costs. (Doc. 27) The Order provides: 1. Plaintiffs have presented Defe ndants with invoices for fees and
costs performed from the time peri od August 30, 2006 through February 15, 2008. The parties have agreed to liquidate those claims upon the payment of $5,846.60 to paralegal M egan Buffington, and the payment of $33,477.50 to Heberle & Finnegan, PLLC. It is hereby Ordered that payment of these amount s shall be made by Defendants by separat e checks to each of these parties in these amounts. Payment shall be made no later than 90 day s [June 26, 2008] fo llowing entry of this O rder. If Defendant fails to make payment as agreed herein, Plaintiffs’ c laim for payment to Heberle & Finnegan, PLLC shall revert to the full am ount of the invoice; $36,988.35. (Doc. 27, ¶ 1) No payment has been made. Defendant’s failure to act timely has automatically cost the City an addition al $3,512.00, and expos ed the Cit y to liabilit y for damages, the fees and costs incurred in this motion, and civil fines. 2. During February and March 2008, Attorney Jarvis assured Counsel for Plaintiffs that he would request the c hecks immediately upon ent ry of the Order and that his secretary Pal Brooks would follow through with the payment. 3. In late April (about a month a fter the Order was entered) Counsel for Plaintiffs inquired about t he status of the payments. Attorney Jarvis and secretary Brooks each inform ed Counsel for Plaintiffs t hat in early April, Ms. Brooks submitted the invoices to the finance Department, but with an inc orrect number. According to Ms. Brooks, when “F inance” told her about the error, she immediately “hand walked” the corrected invoice number “up two floor s to Finance.” If this is true, the Fi nance Department had the invoices, had determined that Ms. Brooks submitt ed an invalid invoice number and had received the corrected number sometime in the third week of April, 2008. On April 24, attorney Jarvis sent the following email to Plaintiffs:
2

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 28 Filed 07/01/08 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 360
From: Andrew Jarvis [mailto:jarva@law.ci.detroit.mi.us] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:03 PM To: Mark Finnegan Subject: Re: Fees Mark: Here is what I know: "the check has been requested. Finnegan's Check it will probably available next Tuesday (April 29th) or Friday (May 2nd), and Buffington's the week after."
But the checks did not materialize and despite repeated inquiries, neither Jarvis nor Brooks would provide any explanation.
6. Attorney Jarvis and secretar y Brooks have failed and refused to produce the checks or to tell Counsel for Pl aintiffs when they will be available. They have refused to provide any r eal information and have ignored emails, faxes and phone c alls. Each ha s claimed “there is no one else to speak to” about the situation. Jarvis told Counsel for Plaintiffs, “there is nothing I can do.”
7. Jarvis and Brooks ex pect Plaintiffs and this Co urt to believe t hat there is no one in the City of Detroit who can so much as trace t he requisition for a court-ordered payment of near ly $40,000.00, far less do anything to shake that payment loose. Jarvis and Brooks shoul d appear immediately to show why the Order has not been c omplied with and to ex plain why they should not be held in contempt along with the City.
8. Attorney Jarvis’ and Secretary Pa l Brooks’ willful failure to comply with the Court’s March 28, 2008 Order is great ly harming the non-profit Plaintiffs and their counsel, a small private law firm, bot h of whom are acti ng at great expense against great odds t o force the City of De troit to stop misspending millions of dollars building dangerous, inaccessible curb ramps and sidewalks.
3

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 28 Filed 07/01/08 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 361
9. Exact Repeat of Earlier Failure to Pay Ordered Fees. This is exactly what happened the last time the Court entered a Stipulated Order requiring Defendant to pay fees, August 31, 2006. (D oc. 14, ¶ 6) Jarvis and Brooks failed then as they have now to take any action whatsoever, they failed to respond in any way to repeated requests for informa tion, and did not even initiate the payment process until Plaintiffs draft ed and announced their intent to file a motion for contempt.
10. Failure to Build Thousands of Ordered Curb Ramps. The City has repeatedly failed to c omply with this Cour t’s Orders in other ways. As one of many examples, although the August 31, 2006 Order required t he City to build ADA compliant ramps, the City admitted to the Court that it continued to resurface city streets while failing to install nearly 4,000 Court-Ordered ramps.
11. Upcoming Contempt Motions. The City continues to violate the Court’s August 31, 2006 in myr iad ways. Plaintiffs have drafted and will file motions for contempt for Defendant’s fa ilures to correct deficiencies on the Woodward Project, the Bagley (Mexican Village) Project, and the East River Walk. These corrections were part of the Court’s August 31, 2006 Court Order. All deadlines have passed, and these projects are still not accessible to or readily usable by Plaintiffs Paralyzed Veterans of America and all s imilarly situated persons. In addition, the City has failed to correct any of the thousands of admitted defective curb ramps in the “spec ial survey area.” (Doc. 14, ¶ 5). Th e City is more than one year past the cour t-ordered deadline and gives no sig n of any intention to comply.
4

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 28 Filed 07/01/08 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 362
The Court Must Act Immediately to Protect the Integrity of Its Orders, and to Create Access for Thousands of Persons With Disabilities.
12. Plaintiffs implore this Court to act promptly to sanction the City’s, Attorney Jarvis’ and secretary Brooks’ misconduct, and to send the message that the Court expects Defendant and its dep artments to follow the Orders of the Court for the remainder of this lawsuit.
13. Plaintiffs ask the Court to dir ect Jarvis and Brooks to show cause why they should not be held in cont empt and held personally and j ointly liable along with the City of Detroit for:
a. the difference between the amount agreed to for ti mely payment and the full amount of the invoice,
b. damages to the Plaintiffs, and c. the additional attorney fees and costs generated by their failure to comply with the Order. 14. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order the City, attorney Jarvis and secretary Brooks to pay Plaintiffs $500.00 per day until they satisfa ctorily explain under oath their failure to comply with the Order and provide a date certain for the payment. Plaintif fs ask the Court to award an addition al $250.00 for each day that Defendant fails to pay t he full $36,988.35 to Heberle & Finnegan, PLLC and $5,846.60 to paralegal Megan Buffington after June 26, 2008. 15. Plaintiffs ask the Court to convene a scheduling conference requiring attendance by parties with authority fo r each side, and schedule a hearing as soon as possible to permit Plaintiff Para lyzed Veterans of America to testify about the harm caused by Defe ndant’s repeated failures to comply with an y of
5

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 28 Filed 07/01/08 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 363
the Court’s Orders in this lawsuit, including the attorneys fees Orders. s/ J. Mark Finnegan____ J. Mark Finnegan (P68050) Denise M. Heberle (P64145) 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT Compliance With Local Rule 7.1 By email dated June 11, 2008 (attached hereto), Plaintiffs notified attorney Jarvis of the legal bas is for this contempt motion and of Plaintiffs’ intent to file if the City did not conform, and attached a dr aft of this motion and memorandum. As of this writing, neit her the City, attorney Jarvis nor Ms. Brooks has responded or paid the fees.
APPLICABLE LAW Civil contempt sanctions are desi gned to enforce compliance with court orders and to compensate injured parties for losses sustained. Accordingly, a fine that is payable to t he complainant as c ompensation for damages caused by the contemnor's noncomplianc e or that is contingent upon performing the act required by the court's order is civil in nature. United States v. Koubriti , 305 F.Supp.2d 723 (E.D. Mich. 2003). The Court should proper ly use the remedy of civil contempt “to coerce the defendant into complia nce with the court’s order, and to compensate the complai nants for losses sustained.” Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union # 58, IB EW, et al., v. Gary’ s Electric Service Company, 340 F.3d 373, 378-79 (6th Cir. 2003)(internal citations omitted.) The City’s failure to pay the atto rney fees and costs along with attorney
6

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 28 Filed 07/01/08 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 364
Jarvis and secretary Brooks’ delay and obfuscation have caus ed Plaintiffs to divert resources to consult with their Counsel to authorize them how to proc eed, and to act to enforce the Court’s Order. Plaintiffs have also inc urred additional attorney fees due to the City’s, Jarvis’ and Brooks’ failure to comply immediately.
CONCLUSION The City of Detroit understood that payment of fees and costs was integral to successful settlement of this matter. Attorney Jarvis told Plaintiffs that he would begin the payment process promptly upon the entry of the March 28, 2008 Order. He then failed to follow through in any meaningful way. The 90 day period for payment has passed. Despite Plaintiffs’ agreement to make an incentive discount, Attorney Jarvis and secretary Brooks have ignored the Court’s Order, have willfully failed to provide accurate information, are needlessly delaying payment, and are increasing the costs of litigation, while harming Plaintiffs. The Court should grant the relief requested.
s/ J. Mark Finnegan____ J. Mark Finnegan (P68050) Denise M. Heberle (P64145) 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI. 48103 734 302-3233 734 302-3234 fax hffirm@comcast.net Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 28 Filed 07/01/08 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 365 Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on this 1st day of July, 2008, the for egoing Motion was filed electronically. Parties will rec eive notice of the filing th rough the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may a ccess the document thro ugh the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ J. Mark Finnegan____
8

 
 2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 34 Filed 09/30/08 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 433

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS and MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 05-73475

v.

Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

CITY OF DETROIT,

Defendant. _________________________________/

ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan on September 30, 2008

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen United States District Judge

Through a stipulated order entered on August 31, 2006 (the “Settlement Order”),

the parties to this suit agreed upon a partial settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims, under which

the Defendant City of Detroit is obligated, inter alia, to ensure that its street and sidewalk

resurfacing and alteration projects are carried out consistently with the pertinent federal

laws and regulations governing use of and access to public facilities by individuals with

disabilities, and to conduct a survey and formulate a proposed plan for bringing into

compliance all curb ramps within a designated portion of downtown Detroit. Since the

entry of the Settlement Order, Defendant has made some progress toward fulfilling these

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 34 Filed 09/30/08 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 434
obligations, but has often failed to meet promised deadlines, and at least some of the work performed or overseen by Defendant during this period has failed to meet the courtordered and agreed-upon standard of full compliance with federal law.
On a number of occasions — most recently, at a status conference held on September 10, 2008 — the Court has discussed with counsel and City of Detroit representatives the possibility of appointing a special master who can closely and carefully monitor Defendant’s compliance with the Settlement Order and assist in the development and implementation of appropriate plans and schedules for corrective action. In the course of these discussions, the parties have identified certain individuals and firms as qualified to serve in this role, and the Court also has looked into this matter.
In light of the numerous and significant problems and delays to date in Defendant’s compliance with the Settlement Order, the Court has determined that the timely implementation of the terms of this order cannot realistically be achieved through this Court’s own limited resources, and that more vigorous supervision and oversight, as well as specialized knowledge, is necessary to meet this objective. Accordingly, and as a last resort, the Court finds that it is now necessary and appropriate to appoint as a special master one of the individuals proposed and agreed upon by the parties: specifically, Robert Scott of H.R. Gray. The Court having addressed this matter with counsel at a September 10, 2008 status conference,1 as well as on other occasions, and being
1At this status conference, the Court and counsel were informed that H.R. Gray and Mr. Scott have performed work on behalf of the City of Detroit as a subcontractor on a project that
2

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 34 Filed 09/30/08 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 435
otherwise fully advised in the premises,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Robert Scott of H.R. Gray
is appointed as Special Master pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53. In this role, Mr. Scott will:
(i) review any reports, plans, surveys, and other materials that the parties file with the Court in accordance with the Settlement Order;
(ii) develop with the parties specific plans and detailed schedules for achieving prompt and timely compliance with the terms, requirements, and objectives of the Settlement Order;
(iii) meet and confer with the parties, whether together or separately, as deemed necessary and appropriate to facilitate Defendant’s performance of its obligations under the Settlement Order, and to otherwise assist in the implementation of the terms of this order;
(iv) be available to address and resolve any concerns or disputes that may arise between the parties with regard to the matters encompassed by the Settlement Order;
(v) make recommendations to the Court as to the appropriate resolution of any disputes or concerns that have been raised but remain unresolved and require the Court’s intervention;
(vi) perform any site visits, inspections, or other forms of monitoring deemed necessary and appropriate to ensure and facilitate compliance with the terms of the Settlement Order and the provisions of any plans or
bears some relationship to the subject matter of this suit. Accordingly, the Court requested, and Mr. Scott has provided, a letter disclosing the nature and extent of this work. In this letter, Mr. Scott states that the majority of H.R. Gray’s subcontracting work on this project has been completed, and he expresses H.R. Gray’s willingness to cease any further involvement with this project “if this becomes a disqualification issue.”
Having reviewed this letter and discussed this matter with counsel at the September 10 status conference, the Court is satisfied that no conflict presently exists and that, if one were to develop, it could readily be alleviated. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court has forwarded a copy of Mr. Scott’s letter to counsel, and any objections arising from this disclosure should be raised in accordance with the procedure noted below.
3

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 34 Filed 09/30/08 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 436
schedules developed pursuant to this order; and (vii) provide reports to the Court — initially on a quarterly basis, but less frequently if deemed appropriate in light of subsequent developments — regarding the progress toward implementing the terms of the Settlement Order and any issues, problems, or concerns about which the Court should be aware. In carrying out these tasks, the Special Master shall be provided with any and all materials he requests from the parties and shall be granted full access to all work sites, subject to the parties’ opportunity to lodge prompt and specific objections with the Court. If additional authority is needed to carry out the above tasks, the Special Master may return to the Court to seek such authority. The Court expects the parties to fully cooperate with the Special Master, and sanctions will be imposed if this cooperation is not forthcoming. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Master shall submit quarterly invoices to the Court for services rendered pursuant to the present order of appointment. Any objections to the amounts requested by the Special Master shall be filed with the Court within ten (10) days after receipt of an invoice, and these objections will be addressed by the Court or referred to a Magistrate Judge for resolution. Defendant shall pay the invoiced amounts, as modified by the Court in connection with any objections,
4

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 34 Filed 09/30/08 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 437
within 60 (sixty) days of its receipt of an invoice or the Court’s resolution of any objections, whichever is later.
SO ORDERED.2 s/Gerald E. Rosen United States District Judge
Dated: September 30, 2008 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on September 30, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry Case Manager
2As noted, the Court and counsel addressed the appointment of a special master at a September 10, 2008 status conference, and no objections were raised to the Court’s decision to appoint a special master. Moreover, the Court has selected as a special master an individual who was proposed and agreed upon by the parties. Nonetheless, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(1), the parties shall, within seven (7) days of the date of this order, file and serve any objections they might have to the appointment of Robert Scott as Special Master or any other terms of this order.
5

 
 2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 999

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS, and )

MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS,

)

OF AMERICA,

) Case No: 2:05CV73475

)

Plaintiffs,

)

HON. GERALD E.ROSEN:

)

v.

)

)

MAG. JUDGE KOMIVES

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

)

)

Defendants.

)

*******************************************************************************************

J. Mark Finnegan (P68050)

Andrew Jarvis (P59191)

Denise M. Heberle (P64145)

City of Detroit Law Department

Heberle & Finnegan, PLLC

660 Woodward Ave, Ste. 1650

2580 Craig Road

Detroit, MI 48226

Ann Arbor, MI 48103

(313) 237-5038

(734)-302-3233

(313) 224-5505 (Telefax)

(734)-302-3234 Telefax

jarva@law.ci.detroit.mi.us

Hffirm@Comcast.net

Attorneys for All Plaintiffs

Attorney for Defendant

*******************************************************************************************

ALL PARTIES’ STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AS TO

RETROFITTING OF 397 INTERSECTIONS,

This Court entered an Order (document 58) on September 24, 2010. Pursuant to

that Order, and with the assistan ce of the Special Master, R obert Scott of HR Gray, for

the last year the parties have been meeting and negotiating a solution to some of the

issues set forth in that Order.

Now, all parties have subm itted a joint proposed Order concerning these issues.

The Court, having been brief ed on these is sues, and finding that the jointly proposed

solutions are fair and equitable, hereby enters this Order:

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 1000
1) The Attached List . The City of Detroit has created a docum ent listing 397 intersections resurfaced or other wise altered by the City of Detroit during y ears 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 or year 2010. This document is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and is fully incorporated into this Order. For each in tersection contained on the City’s listing, the City of Detroit has set forth a year the intersection was altered by the City, and the Project Number and/or Permit Number under which t he intersection was altered. Each intersection also contains a number of ramp s that were “omitted” from being installed at that intersection. The list sets forth 1,809 curb ramps that were omitted at these intersections. 2) The Parties’ Negotiations Regarding these Ramps. Pursuant to the Court’s September 24, 2010 Order (document # 58), wit h the assistance of the Special Master, the parties negotiated a compromise as to these 397 intersections. Plaintiffs reviewed in detail the City’s financial s ituation, to determine a time frame for retrofitting curb ramps and the extent of retrofitting at these intersections. 3) General Principal of Retrofitting. The parties have agreed, given the City’s financial condition, and solely f or purposes of amicable settlement of this particular issue at these specific 397 intersections, on the following retrofit. At each intersection on the attached list, the City will install or otherwise ens ure that there are ADA-compliant curb ramps so that pe rsons with mobility impairments can cross vi a the ADA-compliant curb ramps both intersecting str eets, roads or highways. The parties recognize that this will generally mean that the City will need to in stall approximately one-half of the curb ramps set forth in the “omitted” column of the attached document, or approximately 905 curb ramps. In any ev ent, the Cit y commits that at each of the 397 intersections, that

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 1001
ADA-compliant curb ramps will result that at a minimum permit crossing of both streets, roads or highways listed. 4) Financial Commitment. The City has already committed $600,000.00 per year, for fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013, solely for the retrofitting of ramps described in the previous paragraph. In additi on, the City shall ens ure that sufficient money is budgeted to complete installation during year 2014 of any remaining omitted curb ramps, to be in full compliance with the terms of the previ ous paragraph. Force Majeure Clause: No failure or delay in performance under this Order , by either party, shall be deemed to be a breach t hereof when such f ailure or delay is caused by a force majeure event including, but not limited to, any Act of God, strikes, lockouts, wars, acts of terrorism, riots, epidemics, explosions, sabotage, break age or accident to equipment, the binding order of any court or governm ental authority, or any other cause, whether of the kind herein enumerated or otherwise, not within the control of a party; provided that, as a condition to the claim of non-liability, that promptly upon disco vering the alleged force majeure event, Defendant shall give via email to the Spec ial Master and Plaintiffs’ Counsel prompt written notice, with full details of the cause relied upon, and setting forth the date(s) Defendant proposes as the extended time f or performance. Dates by which performance obligations are scheduled to be met will be extend ed for a period of time equal to the time lost due to any delay so ca used. In the event of a dispute b etween the parties with regard to what constitutes a force majeure event, or to what date performance obligations shall be extended, either Party shall s ubmit the matter to the court for resolution.

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 1002

5) Retrofitting Section in Annual Reports. Beginning with the City’s Year 2011

Annual Report, and for each ye ar 2012 and 2013, an d 2014 the City shall include a

separate section setting forth, at a minimum, each of the 397 int ersections retrofitted in

whole or in part during that year, the measurement of curb ramps retrofitted, the amount

of the $600,000.00 spent during that year, and the percentage of the 397 intersections

fully retrofitted during that year. An appr opriate City official must sign a sworn

certification that he or she has reviewed t he City’s re cords and that this information is

true and correct.

6) Progress Meetings. The parties and their Counsel will meet wit h the Special

Master as necessary, and make all reasonable efforts to ensure that progress is being

made and that the retrofitting of the 397 intersections is proceeding timely.

7) Remaining Unresolved Retrofitting Issues. Plaintiffs have identified to the Cit y

and to the Special Master many additional intersections altered by the City during years

2006 through 2010, where Plaintiffs allege that the City omitte d curb ramps required by

the Court’s August 31, 2006 Order (doc. #14). Although the parties have reached

agreement as to the 397 intersec tions set forth above, the parties have not yet reached

agreement or other resolution as to curb ramps omitted by the City at these additional

intersections. Although the parties have not yet reached agreement as to many of these

ramps and intersections, for purposes of

this Order, the City has segregated

preliminarily some of these intersections under the following headings:

a) City roads intersecting with MDOT Roads,(approximately 247 ramps); b) City roads intersecting Wayne County Roads, (approximately 393 ramps); c) City roads intersecting with Service Drives, (approximately 182 ramps); d) The par ties agree that Plaintiffs and the City are s till negotiating regarding these intersections, as well as at additi onal intersections, corners, and cur b ramps, not resolved by this Order.

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 1003
7)(a) Defendant City and the Plaint iffs shall cooperate fully with the Special Mast er to identify all street, road and highway intersections newly c onstructed or altered during years 2006 through July 31, 2 010 specifying the locations at those inter sections still containing curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway. As the Court’s August 31, 2006 Order (Document 14) stated and is quoted here again: “Nothing in this document shall im pact in any way upon the rights or duties of an y parties concerning r esurfacing or alterati on of any sidewalks, curb ramps, or intersections in the public right of way in t he City of Detroit in construction projects primarily under the sole jurisd iction and the sole control of the State of Michigan and it s Department of Transportation or under the sole jurisdiction and sole control of Wayne County.” The City shall file with the Cour t and Plaintif fs’ Counsel a report comprehensively listing each such location no later than ninety days from today; 7)(b) The parties, with the assistanc e of t he Special Master, sha ll negotiate in good faith to establis h a sc hedule to install the omitted curb ramps at these locat ions. The City will file the schedule with this Court no later than 150 days from today. If the parties do not agree within this deadline, any party and/or the Special Master shall be permitted to file thereafter a motion or motions for resolution by the Court; 8) Retention of Jurisdiction to Enforce these Orders. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Order in no way affects the terms and condi tions of Document 14, the Court’s Order of August 31, 2006, nor Docu ment 58, the Court’s Order of September 24, 2010. Those Orders remain fully in force and effect. All par ties have specifically informed the Court that they fully concur, and th is Court specifically retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Court’s Order of today as well as its August 31, 2006 Order

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 1004 (doc. 14), and its September 24, 2010 Order (doc. 58).
Read on This 5th Day of December, 2011 and Approved for Form by:

____/s/ Andrew Jarvis________

Andrew Jarvis (P59191)

City of Detroit Law Department

660 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 1650

Detroit, MI 48226

2580

(313) 237-5038

(313) 224-5505 (Telefax)

jarva@law.ci.detroit.mi.us

Attorneys for all Defendants

__/s/ J. Mark Finnegan__________ J. Mark Finnegan (P68050) Denise M. Heberle (P64145) HEBERLE & FINNEGAN PLLC
Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 (734) 302-3233 hffirm@comcast.net
Attorneys for All Plaintiffs

All parties having agr eed, and the Court having reviewed it and found it equitable, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Settlement Order and Partial Settlement is ENTERED this 10th day of February , 20 12. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Order, as well as its previous Orders in this matter.

Chief

s/Gerald E. Rosen GERALD E. ROSEN
Judge, United Sates District Court

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1005

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 2 of 13 Pg ID 1006

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 3 of 13 Pg ID 1007

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 4 of 13 Pg ID 1008

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 5 of 13 Pg ID 1009

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 6 of 13 Pg ID 1010

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 7 of 13 Pg ID 1011

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 8 of 13 Pg ID 1012

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 9 of 13 Pg ID 1013

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 10 of 13 Pg ID 1014

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 11 of 13 Pg ID 1015

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 12 of 13 Pg ID 1016

2:05-cv-73475-GER-PJK Doc # 81-1 Filed 02/10/12 Pg 13 of 13 Pg ID 1017

 
 U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05−cv−73475−GER−PJK

CLOSED

Center For Community Access, Incorporated v. Detroit, City of Assigned to: District Judge Gerald E. Rosen Referred to: Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives Cause: No cause code entered
Special Master
Robert G. Scott 3770 Ridge Mill Drive Columbus, OH 43026 (614) 487−1335

Date Filed: 09/09/2005 Date Terminated: 03/23/2010 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Center For Community Access, Incorporated

represented by Denise M. Heberle Heberle & Finnegan 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 734−302−3233 Email: hffirm@comcast.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Mark Finnegan Heberle & Finnegan 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 734−302−3233 Fax: 734−302−3234 Email: jmarkfinnegan@comcast.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America

represented by John Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise M. Heberle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Detroit, City of

represented by Andrew R. Jarvis Detroit City Law Department 660 Woodward Avenue Suite 1650 Detroit, MI 48226−3491 313−224−4550 Fax: 313−224−5505 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason McFarlane City of Detroit Law Department

2 Woodward Avenue Suite 500 Detroit, MI 48226 313−237−0548 Fax: 313−224−5505 Email: mcfaj@detroitmi.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/09/2005 11/29/2005 12/06/2005 12/20/2005 01/18/2006 02/03/2006 02/03/2006 02/03/2006 02/07/2006 03/01/2006 03/27/2006 03/27/2006
06/29/2006
08/01/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Center For Community Access, Incorporated against Detroit, City of; Receipt No: 531050 − Fee: $ 250.(JJoh, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
2 MOTION to File First Amended Complaint by Center For Community Access, Incorporated. (LHack, ) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, Center For Community Access, Incorporated against Detroit, City of.(LHack, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
4 NOTICE by Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America of withdrawal of motion to amend complaint. (Heberle, Denise) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
5 ORDER for Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, Center For Community Access, Incorporated to Show Cause why LACK OF PROGRESS. Show Cause Response due by 2/8/2006. Signed by Honorable Gerald E Rosen. (DVin, ) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew R. Jarvis on behalf of Detroit, City of. (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
7 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand by Detroit, City of.(Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Detroit, City of re 7 Answer to Amended Complaint, 6 Notice of Appearance. (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
9 RESPONSE to 5 Order to Show Cause by all plaintiffs. (Heberle, Denise) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
10 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Scheduling Conference set for 3/27/2006 10:15 AM before Honorable Gerald E Rosen. (LSau, ) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
Minute Entry −Scheduling Conference held on 3/27/2006 before Honorable Gerald E Rosen. (DVin, ) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
11 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/1/2007 11:30 AM before Honorable Gerald E Rosen. Dispositive Motion Cut−off set for 9/29/2006 Trailing Trial Docket set for 2/6/2007. Signed by Honorable Gerald E Rosen. (Attachments: # 1) (Refer to image for additional dates)(DVin, ) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
12 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Megan Buffington# 3 Exhibit Declaration of Maurice Jordan# 4 Declaration of Michael Harris# 5 Exhibit Declaration of Carolyn Grawi# 6 Exhibit Detroit City Council Journal Entry March 29, 2006# 7 Exhibit Detroit City Council Journal Entry January 27, 2006# 8 Exhibit Detroit City Council Journal Entry February 15, 2006# 9 Exhibit MDOT Sidewalk Ramp Details R−28−E)(Heberle, Denise) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
13 ORDER Requiring Response to 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Response due: 8/31/2006. (see order for details) Signed by Honorable Gerald E Rosen. (LHack, ) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 8/31/2006 before Honorable Gerald E Rosen. (LSau, ) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
14 FIRST SETTLEMENT ORDER and partial settlement. Signed by Honorable Gerald E Rosen. (DPer, ) (Entered: 09/11/2006)

10/02/2006 10/02/2006 10/04/2006 10/16/2006 10/16/2006 10/17/2006 01/31/2007
03/14/2007 04/04/2007 04/13/2007 04/23/2007
04/23/2007 01/14/2008 01/24/2008 03/06/2008 03/28/2008 07/01/2008 07/14/2008
08/13/2008

15 MOTION for Contempt by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 letter to attorney Jarvis)(Heberle, Denise) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
16 EXHIBIT 1, CORRECTED re 15 MOTION for Contempt by all plaintiffs.(Heberle, Denise) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
17 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs for period between March 2, 2004 and July 31, 2006 by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of J. Mark Finnegan)(Heberle, Denise) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
18 RESPONSE to 15 MOTION for Contempt filed by all defendants. (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
19 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT In Compliance with August 31, 2006 Order by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − DEGC Letter)(Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
20 RESPONSE to 17 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs for period between March 2, 2004 and July 31, 2006 filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Ltr to Opposing Counsel Re Tax Info)(Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
21 City of Detroit First Annual Report REPORT by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Certification of Cathy Square# 2 Document Continuation Part One − 2006 Street Resurfacing# 3 Document Continuation Part Two − City of Detroit 06 Ramp Report)(Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
22 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 4/4/2007 10:00 AM before Honorable Gerald E Rosen. (LSau) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 4/4/2007 before Honorable Gerald E Rosen. (LSau) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
23 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 9/10/2007 10:00 AM before Honorable Gerald E Rosen (LSau) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
24 City of Detroit's April 4, 207 Status Report REPORT by Detroit, City of (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Contract for Professional Services# 2 Exhibit B − RFP for Evaluation, Survey, Design and Construction# 3 Exhibit C − Bagley Phase I and Pase II Survey# 4 Exhibit D − Letter of Assurance from DEGC) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
25 Defendant City of Detroit's List of Streets/Projects Intended for Resurfacing, Reconstruction or Improvement in Compliance with the August 31, 2006 Order REPORT by Detroit, City of (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 1/24/2008 10:00 AM before Honorable Gerald E Rosen (LSau) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
Minute Entry −Telephone Conference held on 1/24/2008 before Honorable Gerald E Rosen. (LSau) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
26 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by Center For Community Access, Incorporated. (Heberle, Denise) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
27 STIPULATED ORDER re 26 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (DOpa) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
28 MOTION for Contempt by Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, Center For Community Access, Incorporated. (Heberle, Denise) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
29 RESPONSE to 28 MOTION for Contempt Defendant's and Assistant Corporation Counsel Andrew Jarvis and Law Department Employee Pal Brooks filed by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Check Request for Payment, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Affidavit of Pal Brooks) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
30 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, Center For Community Access, Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 1 Declaration of Marguerite Finnegan, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 2 Declaration of Mike Harris, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 3 TRO Photos 1−12, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 4 TRO Photos 13−23) (Finnegan, John) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

08/13/2008
09/05/2008 09/10/2008 09/10/2008 09/30/2008 10/07/2008 10/28/2008 02/02/2009 02/24/2009 03/06/2009 05/08/2009 05/21/2009 05/26/2009 06/03/2009 06/08/2009
07/28/2009
08/05/2009
10/24/2009 10/28/2009

31 ORDER DENYING 30 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Center For Community Access, Incorporated, Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America., ( Status Conference set for 8/19/2008 03:00 PM before District Judge Gerald E Rosen) Signed by District Judge Robert H Cleland in the absence of Judge Gerald Rosen. (LWag) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
32 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 9/10/2008 10:00 AM before District Judge Gerald E Rosen (LSau) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 9/10/2008 before District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (LSau) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
33 ORDER regarding plaintiffs' motion for order holding defendant in contempt 28 . Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (LSau) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
34 ORDER Appointing Special Master Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (PPau) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
35 OBJECTION to Portions of the Court's Order Appointing a Special Master Undr FRCP 53(b)1 & Request to Amended Under FRCP 53(b)4 by Detroit, City of. (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
36 ORDER regarding defendant's objections to order appointing special master. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (LSau) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
37 City of Detroit's Third Annual Report REPORT by Detroit, City of (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Part 2 of City of Detroit's Third Annual Report) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
38 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 3/6/2009 02:00 PM before District Judge Gerald E Rosen (LSau) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 3/6/2009 before District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (LSau) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
39 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 5/21/2009 02:00 PM before District Judge Gerald E Rosen (RBri) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 5/21/2009 before District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RBri) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
40 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO PAY ATTORNEY FEES TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RBri) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
41 Ex Parte MOTION for Order To Pay Special Master, Robert Scott's Invoice for the Period of January 24, 2009 through March 31, 2009 by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Special Master's Invoice) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
42 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, PAY SPECIAL MASTER'S INVOICE FOR PERIOD OF JANUARY 24, 2009 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2009. Re 41 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RBri) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
43 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Special Master, Robert Scott's Invoice for the Period of April 2, 2009 through June 30, 2009 by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Special Master Invoice for 4/09 − 6/09) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
44 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY THE SPECIAL MASTER'S INVOICE FOR PERIOD OF APRIL 2, 2009 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2009 re 43 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RBri) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
45 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 11/13/2009 02:00 PM before District Judge Gerald E Rosen (RBri) (Entered: 10/24/2009)
46 Ex Parte MOTION Court issue an Order that the City of Detroit pay the Special Masters Invoice for the period July 3, 2009, through August 30, 2009. And that this order reflect that $4,439.12 be paid within 14 days of the entry of this order by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Speical Master's Invoice) (Jarvis, Andrew)

11/13/2009 11/14/2009 11/18/2009 01/27/2010 01/28/2010 03/04/2010
03/23/2010 04/30/2010 05/05/2010 05/24/2010 05/25/2010 06/23/2010 06/29/2010 09/24/2010 10/18/2010

(Entered: 10/28/2009)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 11/13/2009 before District Judge Gerald E Rosen. Parties discussed status and progress of case, to submit proposed order of dismissal preserving this court's jurisdiction over Consent Judgment. Another status conference to be scheduled in approximately 3 months. (RBri) (Entered: 11/14/2009)
47 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 3/4/2010 10:00 AM before District Judge Gerald E Rosen (RBri) (Entered: 11/14/2009)
48 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY THE SPECIAL MASTER'S INVOICE FOR PERIOD OF JULY 3, 2009 THROUGH AUGUST 30, 2009 re 46 Motion. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RBri) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
49 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Plaintiffs' Counsel's Invoices for the Period May 20, 2009 through December 9, 2009 by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Invoice) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
50 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL'S INVOICES FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 20, 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 9, 2009 re 49 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RBri) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 3/4/2010 before District Judge Gerald E Rosen. Disposition: Parties to submit appropriate stipulation and order closing case having the Court retain jurisdiction of the case only to enforce consent judgment. Closing documents to be submitted by the end of the month. (RGun) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
51 ORDER TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE ACTION. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
52 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Special Master, Robert Scott's Invoice for the Period of Jan. 1, 2010 − Mar. 31, 2010 by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Special Master Invoice Ending March 2010) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
53 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY SPECIAL MASTER'S INVOICE FOR PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2010 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2010 re 52 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
54 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Special Master's Invoice for October 8, 2009 − December 31, 2009 by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Special Master's Invoice Dec 2009) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
55 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY THE SPECIAL MASTER'S INVOICE FOR PERIOD OF OCTOBER 8, 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009 re 54 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
56 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Plaintiffs' Counsel's Invoices for December 2009−May 28, 2010 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Invoices, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Email Correspondence) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
57 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL'S INVOICES FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 2009 THROUGH MAY 28, 2010 re 56 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
58 ALL PARTIES' STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING PARTS OF PARAGRAPHS 1 THROUGH 3 OF THIS COURT'S AUGUST 31, 2006 ORDER 14 . Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
59 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Speical Master, Robert Scott's Invoice for July 1, 2010 thru September 28, 2010 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Special Master's Invoice) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

10/18/2010 10/21/2010
10/21/2010
12/13/2010 12/16/2010
02/04/2011 02/17/2011 02/18/2011
03/15/2011 03/16/2011
04/20/2011 04/21/2011 05/02/2011 06/29/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011
09/14/2011

60 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Plainitff's Counsel's Invoices for May 2010 thru August 2010 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Plaintiff's Counsel's Invoice) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
61 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY THE SPECIAL MASTER'S INVOICE FOR PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 re 59 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
62 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL'S INVOICES FOR THE PERIOD MAY 2010 THROUGHT AUGUST 2010 re 60 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
63 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Plaintiffs' Counsel's Invoices from Sept 1, 2010 thru Nov 19, 2010 by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Plaintiffs' Counsel's Invoice) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
64 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S INVOICES FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 19, 2010. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
65 City of Detroit's Fifth Annual Report to the Court REPORT by All Defendants (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
66 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Special Master Invoice for 10/01/10−12/31/10 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − HR Gray Invoice) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
67 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY THE SPECIAL MASTER'S INVOICE FOR PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010 re 66 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
68 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Plaintiff's Counsel's Invoice for 11/19/2010−3/02/2011 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Invoice) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
69 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S INVOICES FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 19, 2010 THROUGH MARCH 2, 2011 re 68 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
70 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Special Master, Robert Scott's Invoice Through March 31, 2011 by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Special Master Invoice Through March 31, 2011) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 04/20/2011)
71 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY SPECIAL MASTER'S INVOICE THROUGH MARCH 31, 2011 re 70 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
72 Resurfacing Report 2011−2012 REPORT ADA Ramp Compliance Program by Detroit, City of (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
73 ADA Ramp Progress Report 1/11/11 − 5/31/11 REPORT by Detroit, City of (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
74 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Special Master's Invoice for April 23, 2011 − June 30, 2011 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Invoice April 23, 2011 − June 30, 2011) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
75 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, PAY SPECIAL MASTER'S INVOICE FOR PERIOD OF APRIL 23, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011. Motions terminated: 74 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Special Master's Invoice . Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
76 Ex Parte MOTION for Order by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Invoice March 3, 2011−August 29, 2011) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 09/14/2011)

09/15/2011 01/31/2012 02/06/2012
02/06/2012
02/10/2012 03/08/2012 03/13/2012
05/04/2012 07/24/2012 07/26/2012 12/17/2012 12/18/2012
02/01/2013 02/01/2013 02/04/2013 04/29/2013 07/23/2013 09/25/2013

77 ORDER Directing Defendant, City of Detroit, To Pay Plaintiffs' Counsel's Invoices For The Period March 3, 2011 Through August 10, 2011. 76 Motion for Order terminated. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JCur) (Entered: 09/15/2011)
78 6th Annual Report − City of Detroit's ADA Ramp Compliance Program REPORT by All Defendants (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
79 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Special Master's Invoice for September 2011 through December 31, 2011 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Special Master Invoice Sept 2011−December 31, 2011) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
80 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY THE SPECIAL MASTER'S INVOICE FOR PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 2011 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2011 re 79 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
81 ALL PARTIES' STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AS TO RETROFITTING OF 397 INTERSECTIONS. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation) (RGun) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
82 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Plaintiff's Counsel's Invoice for August 29, 2011 − February 10, 2012 by Detroit, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Invoice for August 29, 2011 − February 10, 2012) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
83 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, CITY OF DETROIT, TO PAY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S INVOICES FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 29, 2011 THROUGH FEBRUARY 20, 2012 re 82 Motion for Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (RGun) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
84 Resurfacing List 2012−2013 for City of Detroits ADA Ramp Compliance Program REPORT by All Defendants (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
85 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Special Master July 2011 − June 2012 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Invoices through 6/30/2012) (Jarvis, Andrew) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
86 ORDER GRANTING 85 Directing Defendant, City of Detroit, To Pay Special Masters Invoices for July 2011 Through September 2011 and February 2012 Through June 30, 2012 Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (SJa) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
87 Ex Parte MOTION Order to Pay Plaintiff's Counsel's Invoice for Feb 2012 − Dec 2012 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Invoice Ending 12/11/2012) (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
88 ORDER Directing Defendant, City of Detroit to Pay Plaintiffs' Counsel's Invoices for the Period February 09, 2012 through December 11, 2012 re 87 Ex−Parte Motion for the Entry of an Order to Pay Plaintiff's Counsel's Invoice. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
89 Ex Parte MOTION for Order to Pay Special Master's Invoices Through December 31, 2012 by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Invoices Through December 2012) (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
90 City of Detroit's 7th Annual Report − ADA Ramp Compliance Program REPORT by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
91 ORDER granting 89 Motion for Order Directing Defendant, City of Detroit, to Pay Special Master's Invoices for September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2012. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
92 City of Detroit's ADA Ramp Compliance Program Resurfacing List 2013−2014 REPORT by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
93 City of Detroit's 2013 First Quarter Progress Report REPORT by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
94 Progress REPORT 2013 First Quarter SECOND Progress Report by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 09/25/2013)

12/18/2013 02/18/2014 05/01/2014 07/10/2014 08/29/2014
11/04/2014
01/28/2015 04/30/2015 06/30/2015 09/09/2015 11/03/2015 02/09/2016 05/10/2016 06/23/2016 10/05/2016 01/31/2017 05/09/2017 09/14/2017 10/31/2017 02/05/2018 05/01/2018 07/10/2018 11/01/2018

95 City of Detroit's ADA Ramp Evaluation 2013 Third Progress Report (8/1/13−9/30/13) REPORT by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
96 8TH ANNUAL REPORT CITY OF DETROIT'S ADA RAMP COMPLIANCE by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
97 City of Detroit's ADA Ramp Compliance Program Resurfacing List 2014−2015 REPORT by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
98 City of Detroit's ADA Ramp Evaluation 2014 First Progress Report (1/1/14−5/31/14) REPORT by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
99 ADA RAMP EVALUATION REPORT−SECOND PROGRESS REPORT (JUNE 1, 2014−JULY 31, 2014) REPORT by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
100 ADA RAMP EVALUATION REPORT− THIRD PROGRESS REPORT (August 1, 2014− September 30, 2014) REPORT by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
101 ADA RAMP COMPLIANCE PROGRAM 9TH ANNUAL REPORT REPORT by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
102 ADA RAMP COMPLIANCE PROGRAM RESURFACING LIST 2015−2016 REPORT by All Defendants (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
103 2015 First ADA Ramp Progress REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
104 ADA Ramp Evaluation REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
105 2015 ADA Ramp Report 3rd Quarter REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
106 10th Annual Report ADA Ramp Compliance Program REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
107 2016−2017 Resurfacing List re ADA Ramp Compliance Program REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
108 2016 ADA Ramp First Progress REPORT (January 1, 2016 − May 31, 2016) by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
109 2016 ADA Ramp Evaluation REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
110 City of Detroit ADA Ramp Compliance Program 11th Annual REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
111 2017−2018 ADA Compliance Program Resurfacing REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
112 2017 ADA Ramp Evaluation − Second Progress REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
113 ADA Ramp Evaluation − Third Progress REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 10/31/2017)
114 2017 Final ADA Ramp Compliance Program − Twelfth Annual REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
115 2018−2019 ADA Ramp Compliance Program − Resurfacing List REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
116 2018 ADA Ramp Evaluation REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
117 2018 ADA Ramp Evaluation Third Progress REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

05/01/2019 07/03/2019 08/29/2019 10/30/2019

118 2019−2020 City of Detroit's ADA Ramp Compliance Program REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
119 2019 ADA Ramp Evaluation − First Progress REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
120 2019 ADA Ramp Evaluation − Second Progress REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
121 2019 ADA Ramp Evaluation − Third Progress REPORT by Detroit, City of (McFarlane, Jason) (Entered: 10/30/2019)