Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:1

1 DISABILITY RlGHTS ADVOCATES

SIDNEY WOLINSKY (CA Bar No. 33716)

2 swolinsky@dralegal.org-

2001 Center Street; Fourth Floor

3 Berkeley, California 94704-1204

Telephone: ~51 OJ 665-8644 4 FacsImile: 510 665-8511

TTY:

510 665-8716

5

DISABILITY RlGHTS LEGAL CENTER

6 PAULA PEARLMAN (CA Bar No. 109038)

Paula.pe(irlman(a),lls.edu

7 SHAWNA L. PARKS (CA Bar No. 208301)

shawna.parks(a),lls .edu

8 DEBRA PAT1(IN (CA Bar No. 252197)

Debra. patkin@lls.edu

9 919 Albany Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015

10 Telephone: ~213j736-1031 FacsImile: 213 736-1428

11 TTY:

213 736-8310

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16 COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING 17 INDEPENDENT AND FREE, a
nonprofit corporation, and AUDREY 18 HARTHORN, an individual, on behalf 19 of themselves and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, 20
Plaintiffs,
21
22 v.
23 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public 24 entity, and COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, a public entity,
25

Caset\l09- 0287 CB
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT; SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973; CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 54, et s~.;. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENTLODE § 11135, et seq.

26

Defendants.

27

28

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:2

1

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys Disability Rights Advocates and Disability

2 Rights Legal Center, as and for their complaint against Defendants, allege as

3 follows: 4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, brought

6 pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-

7 12213, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,29 U.S.C. § 794, as well

8 as California Civil Code § 54, et seq. and California Government Code § 11135.

9

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

10 and 1343 for the federal law claims, and it has supplemental jurisdiction over the

11 state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a

U)~"'" "-lOo
<f-tO :..<..l'-l
ou:~ r:· :3
U>~)E~~o~-;r"-:-';""~'"
:of;~r-!:~W::2o:J\\O,O C2ti~8
>-~U;;:;
.f__...-.:EWI -WZ:..>W..<l"......,
U~ C;)u ~-°ow :~wl

12 declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

13

3. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. §

14 1391(b) because: (i) the organizational Plaintiff CALIF has members within the

15 District; (ii) Plaintiff Audrey Harthorn resides in the District; (iii) Defendants are

16 all located within the District; and (iv) the acts and omissions giving rise to this

17 claim have occurred within the District.

18

INTRODUCTION

19

4. This action arises out of discrimination by Defendants towards the

20 approximately 500,000 individuals with disabilities who live in the city of Los

21 Angeles. I Defendants have neglected to plan to meet the unique needs of residents

22 with disabilities during an emergency.

23

5. The types of disasters that could occur at any time in Los Angeles are

24 legion. The Southern California Earthquake Center has predicted an 80-90%

25 chance of an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or higher striking Southern California in

26 the next fifteen years. Los Angeles's climate and geography also render it

27
28 I According to the 2006 American Community Survey based on the most recent U.S. Census, 445,639 residents
have disabilities.

CALIF, et aI, v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.:

1

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:3

1 particularly susceptible to other natural disasters like wildfires and landslides, and

2 its status as a major metropolitan center makes it a likely target for a future terrorist

3 attack.

4

6. The City of Los Angeles ("City") and County of Los Angeles

5 ("County") are well aware of the area's vulnerability to disaster, as evidenced by

6 the County's Operational Area Emergency Response Plan, which states: "The

7 County of Los Angeles is located in one of the most disaster-prone areas of the

8 United States and is subject to exceptional earthquake hazard. The County has

9 also experienced other types of major emergencies such as wildland fires, floods

10 and civil unrest, and any of these could recur at any time."

11

7. Despite awareness of these exceptional risks, both the City and the

12 County have utterly failed to assure that people with disabilities will be protected

g:j<>::-.,r f-<0O
u--(<.L3,sO:!
o::r:3 > ~~E -.,-rt"--'.-.,,rr
c n (0. L<, -: o\ 0o f-< E-" Z ° :O:~r:l:L:l:l:(5\:O2
C2&3:;;!o
.f__>.-.<L-E ..L<Jll-Zl>l>>L:-:l-lul";;~;
c-oQ-n:~<Olo-Lu:~lll

13 when the next disaster strikes Southern California. Specifically, no agency or 14 organization with expertise in disability issues is represented on the City'S 15 Emergency Operations Board, and the section of the City's Emergency Operations 16 Master Plan concerned with disseminating information to the public makes no 17 mention of how such information will be communicated in formats accessible to 18 people with sensory disabilities.2 Moreover, the County's Operational Area 19 Emergency Response plan, despite being 455 pages long, makes just one reference

20 to the emergency needs of residents with disabilities.

21

8. The result of Los Angeles' failure to adequately plan to meet the

22 needs of people with disabilities is that it cannot assure that when a disaster

23 happens, the City and the County will be able to provide emergency services to all

24 residents with disabilities. Los Angeles' inability to provide critical emergency

25 services to people with disabilities means that the lives of this vulnerable

26 population are at extreme and unacceptable risk.

27

28 2 Emergency Operations Master Plan and Procedures §§ 3.1.3 and 4.3.3, available at
http://www.lacity.org/emd/epdp2a3a.htm.

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Allgeles, Case No.:

2

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:4

1

9. When natural or man-made disasters occur, men, women, and children

2 with disabilities are among the people most likely to suffer because they cannot

3 access critical information, transportation, or evacuation services. They are also

4 more likely to use emergency shelters because they are disproportionately low

5 income and do not have other options.

6

10. Because of Defendants' failure to structure their emergency

7 preparedness procedures and plans in a way that addresses the needs of people with

8 disabilities, Plaintiffs have been denied equal access to Los Angeles' emergency

9 preparedness program and accompanying services, in violation of the Americans

10 with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, California

11 Civil Code § 54, et seq., and California Government Code § 11135. Plaintiffs seek

12 injunctive and declaratory relief as to these ongoing violations of federal and state

13 civil rights laws.

14

PARTIES

15

11. Organizational Plaintiff Californians Actively Living Independent and

16 Free ("CALIF") is an independent living center ("ILC") based in downtown Los

17 Angeles: a private, non-profit community-based corporation providing advocacy,

18 resources and individualized assistance to people with disabilities in the Los

19 Angeles area. CALIF is devoted to the goal of full inclusion, equality, and civil

20 rights for all people with disabilities, especially in the underserved minority

21 communities of Los Angeles. CALIF's advocacy and direct service work is based

22 on a close association with its constituents. Many of the founders and leaders of

23 CALIF are themselves seniors and/or people with disabilities. Accordingly, the

24 interests that CALIF seeks to protect through this litigation are germane to its

25 mission and purpose.

26

12. CALIF is directly harmed by Defendants' failure to adequately plan

27 for the needs of people with disabilities in an emergency. Defendants'

28 discriminatory implementation of their emergency preparedness plans forces

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

3

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:5

1 CALIF to expend time and resources in advocating for its constituents whose

2 needs are not being met. CALIF is forced to provide direct assistance to those

3 individuals when government entities are unable to do so. A favorable decision in

4 this case would directly redress these injuries.

5

13. Plaintiff Audrey Harthom is a 51-year-old resident of the City of Los

6 Angeles who is physically disabled by arthrogryposis, a congenital condition

7 causing multiple joint contractures and lack of muscle development. Audrey uses

8 a power wheelchair for mobility but cannot get into and out of her chair

9 independently due to her lack of muscle coordination.

10

14. Audrey lives alone on the first floor of a two-story apartment building

11 on the border of Van Nuys and North Hollywood. Her family lives outside of

~~..;-
oU<Et-: :.0 0r.,..:.N ..o 3l'-
>I-<r-
CQ<t/:!)30",,";0.-~,\..;O..";;O--,
E- i-<"12.A
o::rg::j!.~Ll"o,",
;:2&;:;!S'
>-~U;;:;
;E-!j.L~l ~o~
_!.Ll....l
C<tQ:u- ~
C/)o!.Ll
25~CQ

12 California and although Audrey has some acquaintances in her building, she does

13 not trust any of them to assist her during an emergency. Audrey has two

14 caregivers who each visit her once a day to assist with daily living tasks. Both of

15 these caregivers have families living nearby. They have told Audrey that their own

16 families would be their first priority in the event of an emergency.

17

15. If Audrey needed to leave her home in an emergency, she would

18 require wheelchair-accessible transportation and a shelter with accessible

19 bathrooms and accessible paths of travel.

20

16. Audrey's wheelchair must be charged daily, and without a backup

21 generator, would become inoperable after twenty-four (24) hours without power.

22 This limits Audrey's ability to shelter in place for a prolonged period during a

23 power outage and makes it more likely that she would need to take refuge in an

24 emergency shelter

25

17. Audrey Harthom is directly harmed by Los Angeles' failure to

26 adequately plan for the needs of people with disabilities like herself during an

27 emergency. Audrey lives in fear that if an earthquake or fire was to strike her

28 home, requiring evacuation, she might not be able to leave on her own. In such a

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

4

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:6

1 scenario, if neither of her caregivers came to help her and telephones were not

2 working to enable her to call 911, she would have no other means of evacuating

3 because the City and County have not made provisions for identifying residents

4 with disabilities in need of assistance or of offering triage services to help those

5 who cannot evacuate independently. Audrey's injuries would be redressed by a

6 favorable decision in this case because a meaningful plan to address people with

7 disabilities in Los Angeles's emergency preparation efforts would allay her

8 justifiable fear and anxiety.

9

18. The Plaintiff class consists of all individuals with disabilities in the

10 City of Los Angeles who have suffered loss of life or physical or emotional harm

11 because of Defendants' failure to plan for the needs of people with disabilities in

12 past emergencies or who are at imminent risk of suffering such harms in the future

13 because of Defendants' continuing failure to address this population's needs in

14 their emergency planning.

15

19. Defendant City of Los Angeles is placed by California's State

16 Emergency Plan and Standardized Emergency Management System ("SEMS") at

17 the first level of response for meeting the disaster needs of people in its 18 jurisdiction.3 It is responsible for the protection of life, property, and the

19 environment during a declared emergency.

20

20. Defendant County of Los Angeles also provides emergency response

21 services to Los Angeles residents in coordination with the city. In fact, the

22 County's Operational Area Emergency Response Plan states that the County

23 Emergency Operations Center will be activated whenever the City of Los Angeles

24 opens its own Emergency Operations Center.

25

26

21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each

27
3 SEMS is a system established by California Government Code § 8607 for managing the response to multi-agency
28 and multi-jurisdictional emergencies in California. It helps unify all elements of California's emergency
management apparatus into a single integrated system.

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

5

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:7

1 defendant was the agent and employee of every other defendant and was at all

2 times acting within the scope of such agency.

3

22. Hereafter, references to Defendants shall be deemed to include all

4 named Defendants, unless otherwise indicated.

5

i:3~'<:I" f-<00M O
ou<t:>: r.. .L:.;...g·l -
>~t--
0<::t>:'<o:-10"<\'<'<\::O11""
fc-n<>f.-L-.."- Zo'o
o::rg:"j-:l:C:\§O:2
C2t;~§'
>.f...-..-.<.. ,"Jf~ -Z-l-.U">-<'l"n~ p:;Biil
<t:-~ con~°c"-ol

6

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7 The City o{ros Angeles Is Exceptionally Vulnerable to Emergencies

8

23. The City of Los Angeles is particularly susceptible to the following

9 emergency conditions because of its unique geography and topography:

10

a. Earthquakes on any of the 300 known faults running through

11

Southern California, as well as on any of those as yet unknown;

12

b. Urban firestorms;

13

c. Severe weather conditions resulting in flooding, landslides,

14

windstorms, extreme heat, drought, and power outages;

15

d. Hazardous material spills or toxic releases caused by

16

transportation and/or industrial accidents;

17

e. Tsunami;

18

f. Civil disturbance; and

19

g. Terrorist incidents.

20

24. Since 1980, the City of Los Angeles has declared at least sixteen (16)

21 local emergencies in response to fires, earthquakes, storm conditions, hazardous

22 material leaks, and civil disturbances.

23

25. Los Angeles County has declared a state of emergency over twenty-

24 four (24) times since 1980. In the 1990s, Los Angeles County was among the most

25 disaster-prone areas in the country, with severe floods in 1992, 1993, 1995 and

26 1998, fires in 1993 and 1996, riots in 1992, windstorms in 1997, and the

27 Northridge Earthquake in January 1994.

28

26. These declared disasters have resulted in billions of dollars in damage,

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

6

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:8

1 267 fatalities and 15,247 injuries. These figures provide a mere glimpse into the

2 area's disaster-ridden past and the potential for devastation in future disasters.

3

4 Earthquakes Pase a Particularly Grave Risk ta the City afLas Angeles

5

27. In 2001, FEMA designated a major earthquake on the San Andreas

6 Fault as third on the short list of most likely catastrophes to strike the United

7 States. The only two events listed as more likely to occur were a terrorist attack in

8 New York and a major hurricane in New Orleans. Just over seven years since

9 9/11, and three years since the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the Southern

10 California Earthquake Center's current estimates suggest an 80-90% chance of a

11 7.0 or greater magnitude earthquake hitting Southern California by the year 2024.

g]c>::.,jE- -< O.0. .O .Nl -
oU":'"r": 3
>f-t--
Q§5.,Oj--..,,jj--<0«\0
(/)"'"'-00
E-f-"Z'
o::r~::1J:.l:(\§:O2
C2t.l<!S
>--c>::u;;:; E_-fIJ- .l ~"~ -_l1ZJ.Il.J....ll t:r:lUIJ.l
(-a/~<)tO-:;Ir:J:1.ll

12

28. Since 1933, Southern California has seen 23 earthquakes of

13 magnitude 5.9 or higher. The largest earthquake in the region's recorded history

14 was the estimated 7.9 magnitude Fort Tejon earthquake in 1857, in which the fault

15 rupture spread over a 250-mile stretch of the San Andreas Fault traveling from

16 north to south at a speed of 6,000 miles per hour.

17

29. Earthquakes of this magnitude are estimated to occur along this

18 portion of the San Andreas Fault about every 150 years. It has now been 151 years

19 since the Fort Tejon earthquake and since that time the City of Los Angeles has

20 grown from a small settlement to the nation's second most populous city, with

21 nearly 4 million people spread over 470 square miles.

22

30. The Fort Tejon earthquake was the size of approximately 20

23 Northridge earthquakes laid end to end. In the 6.7 magnitude Northridge

24 earthquake of 1994, shaking lasted for only eight seconds but resulted in fifty-

25 seven (57) deaths and more than 9,000 injuries. The Northridge quake was also

26 the most costly earthquake in U.S. history, causing an estimated $20 billion in

27 damage. More than 20,000 people were displaced from their homes, over 1,600

28 buildings were "red-tagged" (declared so unsafe as to be uninhabitable), gas lines

CALIF, et ai, v. City and COllnty of Los Angeles, Case No.:

7

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:9

1 ruptured and exploded into fires, and freeway interchanges collapsed. In addition,

2 1,042 patients had to be evacuated from the area's hospitals due to structural

3 damage, including at least 100 psychiatric patients.

4

31. Southern California faces an imminent threat of a major earthquake.

5 Accordingly, the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior and State of

6 California, along with 300 contributors published a 2008 report outlining the

7 expected devastation resulting from one of any number of likely earthquake

8 scenarios along the southernmost portions of the San Andreas Fault. The report

9 makes clear that the San Andreas Fault, as well as others in the region, is capable

10 of producing earthquakes larger than the hypothetical 7.8 magnitude earthquake

11 detailed in the study, and therefore potential damage might exceed what the report

12 outlines. Despite the study's somewhat conservative approach, the predictions

13 generated by its simulations provide a sobering picture of the scope of potential

14 damage:

15

a. A financial loss of $200 billion;

16

b. Collapse of three high-rise buildings in downtown Los Angeles;

17

c. 1,060 fatalities in LA County alone;

18

d. Approximately half of the City's hospital buildings left with

19

significant risk of collapse;

20

e. 5-10 million gallons per hour of untreated sewage flowing into

21

the region's streets and creeks;

22

f. More than 121,339 residents of Los Angeles County displaced

23

from their homes;

24

g. Loss of drinking water for anywhere from a week to six

25

months;

26

h. Loss of electricity for several days;

27

1. 110,400 cases of new mental health disorders within Los

28

Angeles County;

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.:

8

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:10

1

J. The ignition of 1,600 fires, 1,200 of which will be too large to

2

be controlled by one fire engine company; and

3

k. A "super conflagration" burning hundreds of city blocks in

4

downtown Los Angeles.

5 Los Angeles Also Faces the Risk ofDevastating Fires

6

32. Los Angeles is also prone to destructive wildfires. In the four days

7 from October 20-23,2007 alone, Los Angeles County had 10 major fires in which

8 at least 104,267 acres were burned and 131 structures were destroyed. In 2003,

9 Southern California saw at least four major wildfires that collectively burned

10 529,431 acres and destroyed 6,110 structures. In October 2008, the Marek and

11 Sesnon fires raged throughout Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, endangering

i2o::-.r E---<0-OlO N-
oU:"r-:"2!;
>f-r--
Q!3O\::;l:
UE- --)<"e--0: '<2~O\o0OA
o::~J:=:W =:o\\OO P2t3~8
>-oo::u;;:;
E::- :lW~G;"~
_W-l
Uoi--3:<)~l-°oU:w~l

12 hundreds of lives and millions of dollars of property and prompting Los Angeles

13 Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to declare a local state of emergency.

14

15 Emergencies Disproportionately Affect Persons with Disabilities

16

33. When a disaster occurs, people with disabilities and the elderly are

17 more likely to suffer its direct impact. Many people with disabilities are unable to

18 evacuate themselves, see approaching danger, or hear announcements to evacuate,

19 making them especially vulnerable to natural disasters.

20

34. Evacuation announcements are often made using loudspeakers on

21 patrol cars, and television broadcasts often fail to include captions, leaving the deaf

22 and hard of hearing without critical emergency information. In addition, the lack

23 of accessible transportation makes it extremely difficult for people with disabilities

24 to evacuate and/or travel to emergency shelter.

25

35. People with disabilities are disproportionately dependent on electricity

26 because they need to power much of their assistive technology, such as

27 wheelchairs, scooters, and communications software. In addition, people with

28 certain disabilities are temperature-sensitive and cannot be exposed to extreme

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.:

9

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:11

1 temperatures, which may result from power outages. Thus, utility outages alone

2 may require people with disabilities to seek emergency shelter, if available.

3

36. Past disasters have shown that low-income families are nearly ten

4 times more likely to seek public shelter in a disaster than more moderate or upper-

S income families. People with more resources generally can find alternatives to

6 public shelters, whereas people who have a low income cannot. In addition, low-

7 income people are more likely to live in multi-family homes, which are more

8 vulnerable to collapse because they are not typically reinforced. Because people

9 with disabilities are disproportionately low-income, they tend to be

10 overrepresented among shelter residents.

11

37. In addition, the impact of major disasters on the elderly, a population

12 including large numbers of people with disabilities, has been clearly documented.

f-E:--3<e.0<O..:..O N1.;_-
oU:'r":';"g' >Cl1!- 13"d"t- :~
:CE-:I--)r<1:-&Ue"<l<z:o':I,'"--""""?l
ogj!:::,-" C2t:i~o ;><e<:u;;:; C...CE-.....O..-.....-l.)lU<1UOUZl--lU.UU>..~.1l-ll"~ o~co

13 A recent report published in the Journal of Disaster Medicine and Public Health 14 Preparedness, for example, found that approximately 50% of the people who died 15 as a result of Hurricane Katrina were 75 years old or older, while fewer than 10% 16 were younger than age 45. The report concludes that targeted emergency and 17 disaster preparedness plans for elderly adults, including those located in nursing 18 homes and other long-term care facilities, are necessary for adequate protection of 19 these vulnerable populations in times of great disaster.

20

21 The City ofLos Angeles is Home to Nearly Haifa Million Residents with

22 Disabilities

23

38. According to the 2006 American Community Survey based on the

24 most recent U.S. Census, as many as 445,639 residents, or approximately 12.5% of

25 the City of Los Angeles' popUlation five years of age or older, have disabilities.

26 The survey also estimates that up to 385,032 residents, or 10% of the city of Los

27 Angeles' population, are 65 years of age or older, and as of the 2000 U.S. Census,

28 25.3% of the City's population over the age of 65 were living below the poverty

CALIF, et ai, v. City and COUllty of Los Angeles, Case No.:

10

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 12 of 32 Page ID #:12

1 level. (A total of 801,050 or 22.11 % ofthe entire City population was living

2 below the poverty level in 2000.) Also as of the 2000 U.S. Census, 12,853

3 residents of the City of Los Angeles were residents of nursing homes, and

4 unspecified numbers of individuals resided in psychiatric hospitals and emergency

5 homeless shelters.

6

39. The City's Emergency Management department reports that these

7 statistics are even higher: "Approximately 21 % of our City's population has some

8 form ofdisability.,,4 With a city population of3,849,378 according to the most

9 recent U.S. Census Data (2006), there are therefore more than 800,000 residents

10 with disabilities in the city of Los Angeles.

11

40. In addition to the people with disabilities who reside in Los Angeles,

12 there will be untold additional numbers of people with injuries and temporary

13 disabilities who will need access to temporary shelter and support services in an

14 emergency.

15

16 Experiences orPeople With Disabilities in Past Disasters, in City orIos Angeles

17 and Elsewhere, Have Demonstrated Glaring Deficiencies

18

41. It is crucial that both the City and County provide for accessible

19 emergency shelters as part of their emergency planning efforts. Problems with

20 access to emergency shelters have been glaring deficiencies in previous disasters.

21

42. After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, trash and glass were scattered

22 everywhere, making it extremely difficult for wheelchair users and the visually

23 impaired to navigate the streets. Elevators were not functioning and there was very

24 little accessible transportation available, making it nearly impossible for most

25 people with disabilities to get to shelters.

26

43. Many people with disabilities who were able to get to emergency

27 shelters after the Northridge earthquake were turned away when they arrived.

28
4 See http://www.lacity.org/emd/epdpi2e.htm.

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

11

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 13 of 32 Page ID #:13

1 Some people were inappropriately referred to medical facilities when shelter

2 personnel misidentified their disabilities as acute medical conditions. A deaf

3 person was denied services by a shelter because no one understood sign language

4 and individuals with cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis were denied admission to

5 shelters because they were perceived as being under the influence of drugs or

6 alcohol. Other people with disabilities learned when they arrived at shelters that

7 guide dogs and other service animals were not allowed, they could not get to the

8 bathrooms because they were located upstairs, or shower stalls were inaccessible.

9

44. During the 2003 wildfires in Southern California, many individuals

10 who require mobility aids to walk were evacuated and brought to emergency

11 shelters without those items. As a result, they were restricted to their beds.

t3~~
oEu<t:::-":<0 -r'0l-:N _ 3o'
>QE~- t~-O-\~~
° .n E<o:<-:t<~:Z:C!lE(:"-I":'.-:l-~<o:O:\\\OO0O
C2t3~§'
>-~uv)
--El-z(<>I~.-l-j"~ P5U(I.l
<<Zt:l:0-(;I;2.l
5~co

12 Volunteers had to carry them to the restrooms, when needed. Evacuation planning

13 did not include vehicles that could also transport wheelchairs and walkers so

14 evacuees with disabilities could maneuver throughout the shelters without

15 assistance.

16

45. Many of the shelters used in the 2003 wildfires were inaccessible to

17 people with mobility disabilities. Those who use service animals were not initially

18 allowed to bring their animals into the shelters. People who are deaf were unable

19 to receive critical information in many of the shelters because there were no

20 interpreters available, they could not understand the public address systems, and

21 television broadcasts did not have captions. People who rely on medication and

22 who did not have their prescriptions or a sufficient supply of their mediCations with

23 them were placed in danger due to untreated medical conditions. Emergency

24 telephone access was provided through prior arrangements with a vendor that used

25 a trailer that had no telephones located within reach of people using wheelchairs

26 and no telecommunication devices for the deaf.

27

46. The problems encountered by people with disabilities after disasters in

28 other parts of the country are also representative of the types of difficulties that

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

12

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 14 of 32 Page ID #:14

1 people with disabilities experience when their needs are not taken into account in

2 emergency planning, and thus are indicative of the types of problems that Los

3 Angeles residents with disabilities will face in the future if the City and the County

4 continue to neglect this population in their emergency preparedness efforts. For

5 example, after Hurricane Katrina, community-based organizations that serve

6 people with disabilities complained that they were unable to obtain information

7 about where emergency shelters were opening, how to transport people there, or

8 what types of disabilities the shelters could accommodate. As a result, many

9 people with disabilities were transported to nursing homes where they could not

10 maintain their independence.

11

47. Many of the shelters used during Hurricane Katrina were not

iE<:r:3:-o-0.<:.:.0"N .'lo"-
oU;'r":"C" 1;
~8~~ >I-t--

(/)
E--<

't"i"~' -.0;0,

o::r:~!:o::: \\O0

02t;~8

>--o::u;;:;

E--< ~ o~

:::l!ZGJ

_~....l

a:lU~

( </r :):o- 2~

o~a:l

12 physically accessible to people with disabilities. Some shelters refused services to 13 people with service animals and obvious disabilities. Almost all shelters were 14 unable to make their programs accessible to people with disabilities or to meet 15 basic living needs of people with disabilities. For example, essential medical 16 services were offered on upper floors of shelters with no elevator access. People 17 who had lost their wheelchairs during evacuation had no way to stand in line for 18 shelter services. In addition, shelters were not equipped with durable medical 19 equipment, medications for people with mental illness, or insulin for diabetics.

20 Most shelters had no sign-language interpreters and no written announcements,

21 which meant that deaf evacuees were denied access to the information conveyed

22 over loudspeakers.

23

48. People with disabilities have experienced other problems besides

24 inaccessible shelters during past disasters. For example, during Hurricane Gustav,

25 no accessible transportation vehicles were provided to the evacuation center in

26 Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. As a result, people with mobility disabilities were

27 carried onto buses that could not accommodate their wheelchairs and where they

28 could not be strapped in place to maintain their position, placing them at extremely

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

13

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 15 of 32 Page ID #:15

1 high risk of injury.

2

49. During the 2007 wildfires in San Diego, emergency alert phone calls

3 did not reach any households that use TTY machines, a common

4 telecommunications device used by deaf and hard-of-hearing people, even though

5 that city had required deaf residents using TTYs to register their devices ahead of

6 time so that customized text messages could be sent to them. Because of this

7 failure to provide accessible communication, deaf and hard of hearing residents of

8 San Diego were deprived of critical information about evacuation and emergency

9 shelter.

10

50. Despite these well documented examples, both within Los Angeles

11 and around the country, of the problems faced by people with disabilities during

§ ~ ;g
..:t:3s:!
our.::tr:-.;g'
~B~~ >E-r--
~ ~ Z "'i' i:o:i2:~rt:;::w:~~\:8O2 >--c.::u;;:;
d j ~ E- W .'-'
~:::~
CoJ')~0coW

12 major disasters, the needs of people with disabilities in Los Angeles continue to be 13 unrnet in disaster planning.
14

15

The Elements ora Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (or People

16 with Disabilities: the Features that the City and County Must Address

17

51. The disability community has been reporting problems with

18 emergency services for decades. In order to prevent the above-described

19 experiences of people with disabilities during disasters, emergency planning must

20 take into account the unique needs of people with disabilities.

21

52. The features that the City and the County should address in their

22 Emergency Preparedness plan include but are not limited to: information specific

23 to emergency shelters; electricity and backup power; transportation; emergency

24 personnel training; emergency notification systems; contracts with community-

25 based organizations; evacuation plans and public awareness of these evacuation

26 plans; nursing home evacuation oversight; and post-disaster rehabilitation plans.

27 As a whole, these crucial components are Los Angeles' Emergency Preparedness

28 programs and services.

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

14

COMPLAINT

,.!

! i

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Parge 16 of 32 Page ID #:16

i ,

1

53. In order to comply with federal and state civil rights laws, Los

2 Angeles must ensure that people with disabilities have full and equal access to all

3 aspects of these emergency preparedness programs and services and that people

4 with disabilities are not prevented by virtue of their disability from participating in

5 and obtaining the benefits of such programs and services. In practice, this means

6 that the City's and the County's emergency preparedness plans must provide for

7 making every aspect of emergency preparedness programs and services accessible

8 to and usable by residents with disabilities: that is, ensuring that emergency

9 transportation includes accessible transportation, that emergency notification

10 includes accessible emergency notification, and that emergency shelter includes

11 accessible emergency shelter.

~<3Cl~;g
§u2 ~~'~
~ ~o ~ ~ Cl::>.0.,\.....,,..
:O~~::tc;:~:C<'!l-§~D'
>-~uV)
~ ~ ~r ~
5~:~:~§5

12

13 Los Angeles Has Not Adequately Planned to Meet the Emergency Needs ofPeople

14 with Disabilities

15

54. The City and the County have not learned the lessons of past disasters

16 in developing their current emergency preparedness policies and procedures. In all

17 aspects of their emergency preparedness programs and services, the City and the

18 County are failing to provide equal access to people with all kinds of disabilities.

19

55. At the core level, the Mission Statement of the Emergency

20 Management Department of the City of Los Angeles states that it "will lead the

21 City of Los Angeles in comprehensive emergency management including:

22 planning and preparedness for, response and recovery from, and mitigation of

23 natural, manmade, and accidental incidents of high consequence." Despite this

24 goal, the efforts of the City and County in emergency preparedness have utterly

25 failed to include the needs of people with disabilities in these crucial and

26 potentially life-saving activities.

27

56. The City and the County's current Emergency Plans do not take into

28 account the needs of persons with disabilities, nor do they ensure that emergency

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

15

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 17 of 32 Page ID #:17

1 preparedness programs and services will be accessible to and usable by persons

2 with disabilities. While the plans provide detailed instructions for various

3 elements of emergency response before, during, and after a disaster, they do not

4 discuss what steps to take to ensure that people with disabilities will be equally as

5 safe as the rest of the population.

6

57. Some of the deficiencies in the City's and the County's emergency

7 plans include, but are not limited to: no provisions for making emergency

8 notifications accessible to people with sensory and cognitive disabilities; no

9 comprehensive mechanism for identifying people with mobility impairments who

10 may need assistance in evacuating their homes; no plan for ensuring that sufficient

11 accessible vehicles will be on hand to transport people with disabilities in an

12 evacuation; and no discussion of what emergency shelters must contain in order to

13 accommodate people with disabilities, nor a survey of which city- and county-run

14 shelters meet these accessibility standards.

15

58. In addition, the Transition Plan created by the City of Los Angeles as

16 required by the Americans with Disabilities Act5 does not specifically contain a

17 section pertaining to emergency preparedness for the City. This Plan is supposed

18 to ensure that the City makes every one of its services accessible - including its

19 service of emergency response. Even at the most basic level, the City neglects to

20 include emergency preparedness when documenting its plans for making the City

21 more accessible.

22

59. The County last revised its Emergency Public Information Plan in

23 August 2002, and the Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Response

24
25 5 ADA's implementing regulations require that public entities create a transition plan to bring its facilities into
compliance with the Act. 28 C.F.R. 35.150(d). The County of Los Angeles last revised its Emergency Public
26 Information Plan in August 2002, and the Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Response Plan was last
approved in 1998. The Emergency Public Information Plan is entirely silent on what the county will do to address
27 the needs of residents with disabilities, and the Operational Area Emergency Response Plan contains a single
reference to residents with "special needs" in its 455 pages (at page R-24). Several components of emergency
28 preparedness include facilities - such as shelters, transportation vehicles, and means of communication, and hence
fall under the transition plan requirement.

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

16

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 18 of 32 Page ID #:18

1 Plan was last approved in 1998. The Emergency Public Information Plan is

2 entirely silent on what the County will do to address the needs of residents with

3 disabilities, and the Operational Area Emergency Response Plan contains a single

4 reference to residents with disabilities in its 455 pages.

5

60. While the City and the County have plans regarding communication,

6 transportation, shelter, and medical response, none of those plans account for

7 people with disabilities. Such plans cannot be one size fits all. A person in a

8 wheelchair requires vehicles for emergency transportation that can accommodate a

9 wheelchair and are equipped with safety restraints, and such accessible

10 transportation vehicles are not discussed in any of the City's or the County's

11 emergency plans. A person who is deaf would miss out on information conveyed

gj<>::-.,r ..... 00 N 0
-<t:: ...:1-
oU ": 'r": 3
>SE2-~t-~- ~
CIJ""~OO
""'~~.A :o:C~W~O\\OO
>-c-EG-C-..I.J,J-'<-'S"
._....E<W->::>U-o'~ n
-_lWZ..W .:I
C~ 5l~Ju -OCw ~W O

12 by the auditory emergency communication system that the City has in place. A 13 person with vision impairment cannot rely on verbal instructions to evacuate if 14 there is debris in his way. More shelters are inaccessible than accessible, forcing 15 people with disabilities to be segregated from their local communities and to travel 16 far to an accessible place to stay. There are no plans to keep families together, 17 often resulting in a person with a disability being separated from his or her loved 18 ones. This inaccessible one-size-fits-all system for elements such as 19 transportation, shelter, and communication effectively puts people with disabilities

20 at a much greater disadvantage compared to people without disabilities during and

21 after an emergency.

22

63. In the City's recent "After Action Reports," or reports regarding

23 particular emergency responses, there was very little or no information regarding

24 the City's response specifically towards people with disabilities.

25

64. Furthermore, the City's recent city-wide earthquake drill, "The Great

26 Shake-Out," failed to include people with disabilities. For example, although the

27 City put a lot of planning into this event, it did not ensure that people with hearing

28 loss would be able to understand verbal instructions that were given in its public

CALIF, et ai, v. City alld Coullty of Los Angeles, Case No.:

17

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 19 of 32 Page ID #:19

1 transportation vehicles. This reflects the lack of consideration the City has given to

2 the accessibility of its emergency preparedness programs and services.

3

65. By and through its neglect of people with disabilities, Defendants

4 have violated state and federal nondiscrimination requirements. Such actions

5 violate, inter alia, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act's requirement

6 that Defendants ensure that people with disabilities receive equal benefits and

7 equal access to the services offered by the City and the County. Upon information

8 and belief, Plaintiffs allege that these discriminatory practices continue through the

9 present.

10

66. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action seeking injunctive and

11 declaratory relief in order to compel Defendants to provide equal access to people

12 with disabilities in its emergency preparedness programs and services.

< O N E i2e>-:0:'<:oI" ....l_
oU":'r""::3
>~tCl::>'<:I"'<:I"
< 0 «0\'\<:01"
Ecn-"I'-""'-Zo,o o:~:!C:::U:J:~\:O2 C2t;~o E-->-l1-Ze-U>UJ>::uJ-";;':-;'
Ec5<n~O-OoB:U~ fil1J

13 CLASS ALLEGATIONS
14

15

67. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

16 named Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief on their own

17 behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The class that the named

18 Plaintiffs seek to represent is composed of all individuals with disabilities in the

19 City of Los Angeles who have suffered loss of life, physical harm, or emotional

20 harm because of Defendants' failure to plan for the needs of people with

21 disabilities in past emergencies or who are at imminent risk of suffering such

22 harms in the future because of Defendants' continuing failure to address this

23 population's needs in their emergency planning. The class claims herein are

24 asserted solely for injunctive and declaratory relief for the class.

25

68. The persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all such

26 persons is impractical and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a

27 benefit to the parties and to the Court.

28

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

18

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 20 of 32 Page ID #:20

1

69. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law

2 and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented in that they, or their

3 constituents, have been and continue to be denied their civil rights of access to, and

4 use and enj oyment of, Los Angeles' Emergency Preparedness programs and

5 services due to Defendants' discriminatory implementation of such programs and

6 services, resulting not only in a denial of meaningful access to those programs and

7 services for people with disabilities but also an extreme and unacceptable risk of

8 death or serious injury to such individuals.

9

70. Common questions of law and fact predominate, including questions

10 raised by Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants have failed to account for people

11 with disabilities in their emergency planning and that, as a result, key components

12 of Defendants' Emergency Preparedness programs and services exclude and

13 discriminate against people with disabilities.

14

71. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the

15 class as a whole because the named Plaintiffs, or their constituents, are similarly

16 affected by Defendants' failure to provide access to Emergency Preparedness

17 programs and services.

18

72. The named Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they,

19 or the constituents they serve, are directly affected by Defendants' discriminatory

20 implementation of their emergency preparedness and response policies, which

21 denies class members meaningful access to Defendants' Emergency Preparedness

22 programs and services. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic

23 to, or in conflict with, the interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys

24 representing the class are experienced in disability law and in class action

25 institutional reform litigation. Plaintiffs' counsel is qualified to fully prosecute this

26 litigation and possess adequate resources to see this matter through to a resolution.

27 \\

28 \\

CALIF, et ai, v. City and COllnty of Los Angeles, Case No.:

19

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 21 of 32 Page ID #:21

1

73. Defendants have acted and/or failed to act on grounds generally -

2 applicable to the class as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and

3 injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.

4

74. Plaintiffs contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed

5 class members that would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action.

6 Defendants' records may be used for assistance in the preparation of such notices.

7 To the extent that any further notices may be required, Plaintiffs contemplate the

8 use of additional media and/or mailings.

9

10

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

11

Violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

12

(42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.)

13

75. Plaintiffs incorporate, by reference herein, the allegations in

14 paragraphs 1 through 73, inclusive.

15

76. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") prohibits a

16 public entity from excluding a person with a disability from participating in, or

17 denying the benefits of, the goods, services, programs and activities of the entity or

18 otherwise discriminating against a person on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. §

19 12132.

20

77. The implementing regulations of Title II of the ADA require that, in

21 providing any aid, benefit or service, a public entity may not deny a qualified

22 individual with a disability the opportunity to benefit from any such aid, benefit or

23 service. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1 )(i).

24

78. The Title II implementing regulations also state that "a public entity

25 may not, in determining the site or location of a facility, make selections (i) that

26 have the effect of excluding individuals with disabilities from, denying them the

27 benefits of, or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination; or (ii) that have the

28 purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the

CALIF, et ai, v. City and COllnty of Los Angeles, Case No.:

20

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 22 of 32 Page ID #:22

1 objectives of the service, program or activity with respect to individuals with

2 disabilities." 28 C.F.R. § 35. 130(b)(4)(i)-(ii).

3

79. The Title II implementing regulations further provide that an

4 individual with a disability shall not be excluded from participation in, or be

5 denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity

6 because a public entity's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals

7 with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §35.149.

8

80. Plaintiff Audrey Harthorn is a qualified individual with a disability

9 within the meaning of the ADA.

10

81. By failing to plan to meet the Emergency Preparedness needs of

11 people with disabilities, Defendants have excluded them from participation in,

12 denied them the benefits of, and discriminated against them in their Emergency

13 Preparedness programs and services.

14

82. Defendants, both of which are public entities within the meaning of

15 the ADA, have failed to develop policies, practices and/or procedures that address

16 the Emergency Preparedness needs of individuals with disabilities, and, as such,

17 Defendants deny individuals with disabilities the opportunity to benefit from their

18 Emergency Preparedness programs and services.

19

83. Defendants' conduct constitutes ongoing and continuous violations of

20 the ADA, and unless restrained from doing so, Defendants will continue to violate

21 the ADA. This conduct, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict injuries for which

22 Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to

23 injunctive relief pursuant to section 308 of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12188), as well

24 as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

25

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

26 \\ 27 \\ 28 \\

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.:

21

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 23 of 32 Page ID #:23

1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2

Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

3

(29 U.S.C. § 794)

4

84. Plaintiffs incorporate, by reference herein, the allegations in

5 paragraphs 1 through 82, inclusive.

6

85. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and

7 its implementing regulations, prohibit discrimination against people with

8 disabilities by recipients of federal funding. Section 504 provides, in pertinent

9 part, that:

10

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability ...

shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be

11

excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits

12

of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program

or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ....
13

14

86. Plaintiff Audrey Harthom is a qualified individual with a disability

15 within the meaning of Section 504.

16

87. Defendants receive federal financial assistance to provide Emergency

17 Preparedness services during an emergency.

18

88. By failing to plan to meet the Emergency Preparedness needs of

19 people with disabilities, Defendants have excluded them from participation in,

20 denied them the benefits of, and discriminated against them in programs and

21 activities that receive federal financial assistance, solely by reason of their

22 disabilities, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 794 and the implementing regulations.

23

89. As a proximate result of Defendants' violations of Section 504 of the

24 Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiffs have been injured as set forth herein.

25

90. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and unless the relief

26 requested herein is granted, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in that they will

27 continue to be discriminated against and denied access to Defendants' Emergency

28 Preparedness programs and services. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

22

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 24 of 32 Page ID #:24

1 injunctive relief, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

3

4

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

5

Violation of California Civil Code § 54, et seq.

6

91. Plaintiffs incorporate, by reference herein, the allegations in

7 paragraphs 1 through 89, inclusive.

8

92. The emergency shelter facilities under the control of Defendants as

9 part of their Emergency Preparedness programs and services constitute places of

10 public accommodation and/or places to which the general public is invited within

11 the meaning of California Civil Code §§ 54.1 and 54.3.

gjO::"<1f-0c>
- - <.O. . JM_
Uo:w:r:.C..!'; >br-fCC--ll<5Jw"b0<"..1..0..Z-_\;""-<<.o1I0o,-o::r~::~w-(.5:o2
-E--l--
O::CIJ",;o
>-f-!-ZoW:G:ui;0 ;~ :; 5.iC-.l.-l.~i.Jl<uW cc->.o.w~w.J

12

93. Defendants have violated and are violating Plaintiffs' rights under

13 California Civil Code § 54, et seq., by denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to

14 and use and enjoyment of the Emergency Preparedness programs and services due

15 to the acts and omissions alleged herein.

16

94. Defendants' discriminatory conduct alleged herein includes, inter

17 alia, the violation of the rights of persons with disabilities set forth in Title II of the

18 ADA and accompanying regulations, all of which have been expressly

19 incorporated into California Civil Code § 54, et seq., since January 1, 1993.

20

95. Defendants' actions constitute a violation of Plaintiffs' rights under

21 California Civil Code § 54, et seq., and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to

22 injunctive relief remedying the discrimination.

23

96. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

24

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

25

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26

Violation of California Government Code § 11135, et seq.

27

97. Plaintiffs incorporate, by reference herein, the allegations in

28 paragraphs 1 through 95, inclusive.

CALIF, et aI, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

23

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 25 of 32 Page ID #:25

1

98. California Government Code § 11135 and the regulations

2 promulgated thereunder prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities by

3 any program or activity funded by the State. Section 11135 provides, in pertinent

4 part, that:

5

No Rerson in the State of California shall, on the basis of

... <iisability, be unlawfully denied the benefits of, or be

6

unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any

program or activity that is funded directly by the state or

7

receives any financial assistance from the State.

8

99. Defendants receive financial assistance from the State of California to

9 provide Emergency Preparedness services during an emergency.

10

100. Through their actions and inactions, by refusing to provide Plaintiffs

11 full and equal access to their Emergency Preparedness services, Defendants have

12 denied Plaintiffs the benefits of, or unlawfully subjected them to discrimination in,

13 such programs and activities solely because of their disabilities in violation of

14 Government Code § 11135 and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

15

101. As a proximate result of Defendants' violations of § 11135, Plaintiffs

16 have been injured as set forth herein.

17

102. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Unless the relief requested

18 herein is granted, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in that they will continue to

19 be discriminated against and denied full access to Defendants' facilities, programs,

20 services, and activities on the basis of disability. Consequently, Plaintiffs are

21 entitled to injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

22

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

23

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24

Declaratory Relief

25

103. Plaintiffs incorporate, by reference herein, the allegations in

26 paragraphs 1 through 101, inclusive.

27

104. Defendants deny failing to comply with applicable laws prohibiting

28 discrimination against persons with disabilities, specifically, the Americans with

CALIF, et ai, v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.:

24

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 26 of 32 Page ID #:26

1 Disabilities, Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, California Civil Code § 54,

2 et seq., and California Government Code § 11135.

3

105. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in

4 order that each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act

5 accordingly.

6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

7

8

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

10

106. A declaration that Defendants' failure to adequately plan to meet the

11 Emergency Preparedness needs of people with disabilities violates the Americans

CIlO::-qfu-:JOO No -'<-J-
ou:' "r :-g'
>o~!o-;t--q-
-.< ~ <:.;:l CIl .ZOO
f-!-o::,n
o:::c:U:ll=O'D'"
i;2t1:;;!8
>-o::u~ f_-!-;U>l -<.~ ._. .U. l Zl U- Jl cqUUl
C-5.<I~l-Oc;:U:q1l

12 with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, California Civil Code

13 § 54, et seq., and California Government Code § 11135.

14

107. An order and judgment enjoining Defendants from violating the

15 Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, California

16 Civil Code § 54, et seq., and California Government Code § 11135, and requiring

17 Defendants to develop and implement a Emergency Preparedness plan that

18 addresses the emergency needs of people with disabilities.

19

108. Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

20

109. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

21 \\ 22 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

23

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

24

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

25

26 27

By: ~.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28

CALIF, et ai, v. City and COllnty of Los Angeles, Case No.:

25

COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 27 of 32 Page ID #:27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
This case has been assigned to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Ralph Zarefsky. The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
CV09- 287 CBM (RZx)
Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on aI/ defendants (if a removal action is
filed, a copy of this notice must be served on aI/ plaintiffs).

Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:

[X] Western Division
312 N. Spring St., Rm. G-8 Los Angeles, CA 90012

U Southern Division

U Eastern Division

411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053

3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134

Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516

Riverside, CA 92501

Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you.

CV-18 (03/06)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 28 of 32 Page ID #:28
Sidney Wolinsky (CA Bar No. 33716) swolinsky@dralegal.org DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, California 94704-1204 Tel: 510-665-8644 (See attached for additional attys)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING
INDEPENDENT AND FREE, (See attached sheet)
PLAINTIFF(S)
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, and
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity,

CASE NUMBER
CV09-0287

(Rlx)

DEFENDANT(S).

SUMMONS

TO: DEFENDANT(S): See attached sheet for all defendants

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 20 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you

must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached IYf' complaint 0

amended complaint

o counterclaim 0 cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer

or motion must be served on the plaintiff's attorney, Sidney Wolinsky

, whose address is

Disability Rights Advocates, 2001 Center St., Fourth Fl., Berkeley, CA 94704

. If you fail to do so,

judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file

your answer or motion with the court.

Dated: __J_A_N_l4_2_00_9_ _ __

Clerk, U.S. District Court

[Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee ofthe United States. Allowed
60 days by Rule 12(a)(3)].

CV-01A (12/07)

SUMMONS

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 29 of 32 Page ID #:29

1

ATTACHMENT TO SUMMONS

2

3 ATTORNEY INFORMATION:
4
Paula D. Pearlman (CA Bar No. 109038) 5 2aula.pearlman@lls.edu
Shawna L. Parks (CA Bar No. 208301) 6 shawna.parks@}lls.edu
Debra Patkin ~A Bar No. 252197) 7 debra.patkinta),lls.edu
DISABILITY'RlGHTS LEGAL CENTER 8 919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, California 90015 9 Tel: (213) 736-1031; Fax: (213) 736-1428
10
ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS
11
12 a nonprofit corporation, and AUDREY HARTHORN, an individual, on behalf of 13 themselves and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

14
15 TO: DEFENDANTS 16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a 17 public entity,
18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Case

2:09-cv-0U0N2I8T7E-DCSBTMA(-R~\ZDISDToRcIuCmT eCnOtU1RT,FCilEeNdT0R1A/L1D4/I0S9T

Page 30
RICr'CALI

of 32 Page
FORNIA

ID

#:30

CIVIL COVER SHEET

I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you are representing yourself 0) COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDPENDENT AND FREE, a nonprofit corporation, and AUDREY HARTHORN, an individual, on behalf of themselves and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

DEFENDANTS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a
public entity

(b) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. Ifyou are representing yourself, provide same.)
Sidney Wolinsky Disability Rights Advocates, 20.0. I Center Street, Fourth Floor, Berkeley, CA 9470.4 Tel: 510.-665-8644 (See attached for additional attorney information)

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES - For Diversity Cases Only (Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant.)

o I U.S. Government Plaintiff

ri3 Federal Question (U.S.
Government Not a Party)

Citizen of This State

PTF DEF 01 01 Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in this State

PTF DEF 04 04

o 2 U.S. Government Defendant 0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizen of Another State
of Parties in Item III)

02 02 Incorporated and Principal Place 05 05 of Business in Another State

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation

06 06

IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)

li'l Original

o o 0 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from another district (specifY): 6 Multi- 0 7 Appeal to District

Proceeding

State Court

Appellate Court

Reopened

District

Judge from

Litigation

Magistrate Judge

Ii V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: 0 Yes No (Check 'Yes' only if demanded in complaint.)

r£ CLASS ACTION under F.R.C.P. 23: Yes 0 No

o MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.) Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 50.4 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; CA Civil Code § 54, et seq.; CA Govt Code § 11135, et seq.
VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only.)

OUIER STATUTES

CONTRACT

TORTS

040.0. State Reapportionment 0110. Insurance

0410. Antitrust

0120. Marine

0430. Banks and Banking 0130. Miller Act

0450. Commerce/lCC

0140. Negotiable Instrument

Rates/etc.

0150. Recovery of

0460. Deportation

Overpayment &

0470. Racketeer Influenced

Enforcement of

and Corrupt

Judgment

Organizations

0151 Medicare Act

0480. Consumer Credit

0152 Recovery of Defaulted

0490. Cable/Sat TV

Student Loan (ExcL

0810. Selective Service

Veterans)

0850. SecuritieslCommoditiesl 0153 Recovery of

Exchange

Overpayment of

0875 Customer Challenge 12

Veteran's Benefits

USC 3410.

0160. Stockholders' Suits

0890. Other Statutory Actions 0190. Other Contract

0891 Agricultural Act

0195 Contract Product

0892 Economic Stabilization

Liability

Act

o 196 Franchise

PERSONAL INJUR Y 03.10. Airplane 0315 Airplane Product
Liability 0320. Assault, Libel &
Slander 0330. Fed. Employers'
Liability 0340. Marine 0345 Marine Product
Liability 0350. Motor Vehicle 0355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability 0360. Other Personal
Injury 0362 Personal Injury-
Med Malpractice 0365 Personal Injury-
Product Liability 0368 Asbestos Personal

0893 Environmental Matters 0894 Energy Allocation Act 0895 Freedom of Info. Act 090.0. Appeal of Fee Determi-
nation Under Equal Access to Justice 0950. Constitutional ity of State Statutes

REAL PROPERTY

Injury Product

0210 Land Condemnation

Liability

0220. Foreclosure

IMMIGRATION

0230. Rent Lease & Ejectment 0462 Naturalization

0240. Torts to Land

Application

0245 Tort Product Liabil ity 0463 Habeas Corpus-

0290. All Other Real Property

Alien Detainee

0465 Other Immigration

Actions

TORTS

P.RISO.N. ER

LABOR

PERSONAL

PETITtONS

0710. Fair Labor Standards

PROPERTY

0510. Motions to

Act

0370. Other Fraud

Vacate Sentence 0720. Labor/Mgmt.

0371 Truth in Lending

Habeas Corpus

Relations

0380. Other Personal 0530. General

0730. LaborlMgmt.

Property Damage 0535 Death Penalty

Reporting &

0385 Property Damage 0540. Mandamusl

Disclosure Act

Product Liability

Other

0740. Railway Labor Act

BANKRUPTCY . 0550. Civil Rights

0790. Other Labor

o 422 Appeal 28 USC o 555 Prison Condition

Litigation

158

.' FORf/ElttiRE I 0791 EmpL Ret. Inc.

0423 Withdrawal 28

PENALTY

Security Act

USC 157

0610. Agriculture

PROPERTy RIGHTS

CIVIL RIGHTS 0620. Other Food & 0820. Copyrights

0441 Voting

Drug

0830. Patent

0442 Employment 0625 Drug Related 0840. Trademark

0443 HousingiAcco-

Seizure of

SOCrAL SECURITY

mmodations

Property 21 USC 0861 HIA (I 395ft)

:?,444 Welfare

881

445 American with 0630. Liquor Laws

0862 Black Lung (923) 0863 DIWC/DIWW

Disabilities Employment

0640. R.R. & Truck 0650. Airline Regs

(4D5(g»
o 864 ssm Title XVI

0446 American with 0660. Occupational 0865. RSI (4D5(g»

Disabilities -

Safety IHealth . FEDER.ALTAX SUITS

Other

0690. Other

0870. Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

0440. Other Civil

or Defendant)

Rights

0871 IRS-Third Party 26

USC 760.9

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Case Number: _ _--"'--CV-"--O-""'--9----'l0-=-=2,,-=-8-,,--7
AFTER COMPLETlNG THE FRONT SIDE OF FORM CV-71, COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW.

CV-71 (0.510.8)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page I of2

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-fR~Z Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Parg~e 31 of 32 Page ID #:31
UNITED STAT. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICTI. CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

VIII(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? fifNo 0 Yes If yes, list case number(s): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VIII(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? Ii'No 0 Yes If yes, list case number(s): ______________________________________________________

Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case: (Check all boxes that apply) 0 A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
DB. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions oflaw and fact; or DC For other reasons would entail substantial duplication oflabor if heard by different judges; or
o D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, and one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present.

IX. VENUE: (When completing the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.)

(a) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides.
o Check here I·f the_govemment, . Its ag. encies or empI lOye· es IS a named. pIia·mll·ff If th·IS box I.S checked,go to Item (b)

County in this District:' Los Angeles County

California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

(b) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides. 0 Check here ·If the government, its agenci.es or empI lOye· es IS a named deIiendant. If th·IS box I.S checked,go to I.tem (c).

County in this District:'

California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

Los Angeles County

(c) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State ifotherthan California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose. Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract ofland involved.

County in this District:'

California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

Los Angeles County

* Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Counties

Note: In land condemnation cases. use the location of the tract ofland involved

x.

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO

-Ll~"'" PER):

"-"""-_ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Date_/~)'--1-4---'-/-o-q--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Notice to CounseVParties: The CV-71 (1S-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose ofstatistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.)

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action

861

HIA

All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended.

Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the

program. (42 U.s.C 1935FF(b»

~2

BL

All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

(30 U.S.C 923)

863

DIWC

All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as

amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C 405(g))

863

DIWW

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security

Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C 405(g»

864

SSlD

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security

Act, as amended.

865

RSI

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42

U.S.C (g))

CV-71 (05/08)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 2 of2

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 01/14/09 Page 32 of 32 Page ID #:32

1

ATTACHMENT TO CIVIL COVER SHEET

2

3 ATTORNEY INFORMATION:
4
Paula D. Pearlman (CA Bar No. 109038) 5 paula.pearlman@l1s.edu
Shawna L. Parks (CA Bar No. 208301) 6 shawna.parks@211s.edu
Debra Patkin ~A Bar No. 252197) 7 debra.patkin(aJ,lls.edu
DISABILITY"'RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 8 919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, California 90015 9 Tel: (213) 736-1031; Fax: (213) 736-1428
10
11
12
13
14

15 16 17 18 19
20
21
22 23 24
25 26
27
28

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 81 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:610

1 DISABILITY RIGHTS

ADVOCATES

2 SID WOLINSKY (SBN 33716)

3 RONALD ELSBERRY (SBN 130880)

KARLA GILBRIDE (SBN 264118)

4 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

5 Berkeley, CA 94704

Telephone: (510) 665-8644

6 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

7 TTY: (510)665-8716

Email:
8

general@dralegal.org

9 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL

CENTER

10 PAULA PEARLMAN (SBN 109038)

11 Paula.pearlman@l1s.edu

SHAWNA L. PARKS (SBN 208301)

12 Shawna.parks(iVlls.edu

13 919 Albany Street

Los Angeles, CA 90015

14 Telephone: (213) 736-1031

15 Facsimile: (213) 736-1428

TTY:

(213) 736-8310

16

17

18

19

CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney LAURIE RITTENBERG, Assistant City Attorney (SBN 106683) Laurie.RittenbergCZ1)lacity.org GABRIEL S. DERMER, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 229424) Gabriel.DermerCii{lacity.org 200 N. Main Street, 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 473-6850 Facsimile: (213) 473-6818 ANDREA SHERIDAN ORDIN, County
Counsel KAREN A. LICHTENBERG, Asst. County Counsel ADRIENNE M. BYERS, Principal Deputy County Counsel (SBN 146022) abyers@counsel.lacounty.gov ROSA LINDA CRUZ, Deputy County Counsel (SBN 131541) rocruz@counsel.lacounty.gov 648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 974-7680 Facsimile: (213) 687-7337

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 81 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:611

1 COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING 2 INDEPENDENT AND FREE, a
nonprofit corporation, and AUDREY 3 HARTHORN, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and ALL OTHERS 4 SIMILARLY SITUATED,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
7 v.

8 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public
9 entity, and COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, a public entity, 10

11

Defendants.

Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
CLASS ACTION
ORDER APPROVING CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS
Action Filed: January 14, 2009

Judge:

Hon. Consuela B. Marshall

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)

Stipulation and [Proposed) Order Approving Certification of a Class

1

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 81 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:612

1

Order

2
Based upon the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown, IT IS
3
HEREBY ORDERED that this action is certified as a class action under Rule
4
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class shall be defined as:
5
All people with disabilities, as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act,
6
who are within the City of Los Angeles and the jurisdiction served by the City of
7
Los Angeles' and County of Los Angeles' emergency preparedness programs and
8
services. It is further ordered that named Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living
9
Independent and Free ("CALIF") and Audrey Harthom be designated as class
10
representatives and that Plaintiffs' counsel, Disability Rights Advocates and
11
Disability Rights Legal Center, be designated as counsel for the class. 12

13
DATED: 14

L{/r3/;()

A L---P-- ':2_-----.:"&.-_'-______

15

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL

16

United States District Judge

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)

Stipulation and (Proposed] Order Approving Certification of a Class

1

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 1 of 44 Page ID #:2269

1 THOMAS E. PEREZ

2

Assistant Attorney General SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS

3 Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

4 Civil Rights Division

5 ANDRE BIROTTE, JR. United States Attorney_
6 LEON W. WEIDMAN Chief, Civil Division
7 Central District of California 300 N. Los Angeles Street
8 Room 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012

9

10

JOHN L. WODATCH, Chief PHILIP L. BREEN, Special Legal Counsel

11 JEANINE M. WORDEN, Deputy Chief

12 DOV LUTZKER, Special Counsel WILLIAM F. LYNCH, Trial Attorney

13. Disability Rights Section

14 Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice

15 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (NYA)

16 Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-2008 (Lynch)

17 Facsimile: (202) 514-7821

FILED CLERK U.S. DiStRICT COURT

OCT -7 20/0

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CAUFORfltlA: i

BY

'"JTVI ) DEPtJ1..Y.- .-l

18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20 COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING
21 INDEPENDENTLY AND FREE, et aI.,

22

Plaintiffs,

23

v.

24 CITY OF LOS ANGELES and 25 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

26

Defendants.

Case No. CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES

Date: Time: Place:
Judge:

October 12,2010 12:00 Noon Courtroom 2 Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall

27

28

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 2 of 44 Page ID #:2270

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

3

4

II. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR FILING STATEMENT OF INTEREST .................................................................................................. 2

5

III. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 3
6

7

A. People with Disabilities Have Consistently Faced

8

Discrimination in Emergencies and Disasters Because

Emergency Managers Have Not Planned and Prepared to

9

Meet Their Needs ......................................................................................... 3

10
B. The ADA and Section 504 Prohibit Discrimination in

11

Emergency Management Programs............................................................ 5

12
C. The Department ofJustice Has Issued Guidance to Help

13

Eliminate Discrimination Against Individuals with

14

Disabilities in Emergencies and Disasters .................................................. 7

15

IV. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HAS FAILED TO PLAN

16

AND PREPARE TO ENSURE THE RIGHTS OF

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES DURING

17

EMERGENCIES ........................................................................................ 8

18
A. The City Plans and Prepares for Emergencies in General, but

19

Fails to Do So for Persons with Disabilities ............................................... 8

20
B. The City Receives Large Amounts ofFederal Funding that

21

Could Have Been Used to Plan and Prepare for the Disaster-

22

Related Needs ofPeople with Disabilities................................................. 10

23

V. THE ADA AND SECTION 504 REQUIRE MORE THAN

24

LOS ANGELES' GENERAL ASSERTIONS OF THE

ABILITY TO PROVIDE AD HOC REASONABLE

25

ACCOMMODATIONS UPON REQUEST ........................................... 11

26 A. The Equal Opportunity Guarantees ofthe ADA and Section
27

28

11

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 3 of 44 Page ID #:2271

1

504 in Emergency Management Cannot Be Met Without an Integrated Plan........................................................................................... 13

2

3

B. The City's Defenses Are Not Supported by the Facts or the Law ............................................................................................................. 15

4

5

1. Ad Hoc "Reasonable Accommodations" During a Disaster Are, by Themselves, Inadequate ........................................................... 15

6

7

2. The Outlay of Funds Is Not Tantamount to a Fundamental

Alteration or Undue Financial and Administrative Burdens ................. 16

8

9

3. Integrated Emergency Management Can Have Fiscal

Benefits .................................................................................................. 17

10

11

4. The Personal Devices and Services Exemption Does Not

Apply in the Emergency Management Context .................................... 19

12

13

5. Integrated Emergency Planning Cannot Be Delayed ............................ 20

14

6. Equal Opportunity Under Title II Requires Compliance with

15

the Regulation ........................................................................................ 22

16

VI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 25

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

111

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 4 of 44 Page ID #:2272

1

FEDERAL CASES

2 Alexander v. Choate,

469 U.S. 287 (1985) ............................................................................................. 22

3

Arc of Wash. State Inc. v. Braddock,

4

427 FJd 615 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 14

5 Armstrong v. Schwarzenefer,
No. 09-17144, 134T-13483 (9th Cir. Sept. 7,2010) ............................................. 7

6

Auer v. Robbins,

7

519 U.S. 452, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1977) .................................... 7,20

8

Baird

ex reI. 192 F

JBdai4r6d2v.(4RthosCelzr.

1999) ...................................................................................

6

9

Bird v. Lewis & Clark College,

10

303 FJd 1015 (9th Clr. 2002) ............................................................................. 21

11 Bragdon v. Abbott,

524 U.S. 624, 118 S. Ct. 2196, 141 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1998) ...................................... 7

12

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council Inc.,

13

467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984) ........................................ 6

14 City of Los Anteles v. Lyons, 461 U. ~ 95, 111, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983) .............................. 22
15

16

17 Goodman v. Geor~ia,

546 U.S. 1), 126 S. Ct. 877, 163 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2006) ...................................... 14

18

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

19

504 U.S. 555,560, 112 S. Ct. 2130,119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992) .....................21-22

20 Olmstead v. L.C.,

527 U.S. 581, 119 S. Ct. 2176, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1999) .............................passim

21

Pa. Dept. ofCorrs. v. Yeskev,

22

524 U.S. 206, 118 S:Ct. 1952, 141 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1998) .......................... 12, 14

23 Sanchez v. Johnson,

416 FJd 1051 (9th Cir. 2005)................................................................................. 6

24

Stinson v. United States,

25

508 U.S. 36, 113 S. Ct. 1913, 123 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1993) ...................................... 20

26 Townsend v. ~uasim, 328 F.3 511 (9th Cir. 2003)...................................................................... 16-17, 21
27

28

IV

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 5 of 44 Page ID #:2273

118 flaCcf:.SY 1 Yeske ~~3f15§

997).................................................................................... 6

2 Zukle v. Regents ofUniv. of Califomia, 166 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................... 6

3

FEDERAL STATUTES

4 28 U.S.C. § 517 ................................................................................................................. 3

5 29 U.S.C. § 780 et seq ....................................................................................................... 3

6 29 U.S.C. § 794 ...................................................... ..................................................passim

7 31 U.S.C. § 6101 note ................................................................................................ 10-11

8 42 U.S.C. § 12101 ....................................................................................................... 5, 12

9 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 ................................................................................................ 1

10 42 U.S.C. § 12132 ....................................................................................................passim

11 42 U.S.C. § 12133 ............................................................................................................. 6

12 42 U.S.C. § 12134 ......................................................................................................... 3, 6

13 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 .............................................................................................. 23

14 42 U.S.C. § 12201 ............................................................................................................. 6

15 42 U.S.C. § 12206 ......................................................................................................... 3, 6

16

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

17 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 ...................................................... ..................................................passim

18 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, App. A ...........................................................................................passim

19 28 C.F.R. § 35.105 ........................................................................................................... 21

20 28 C.F.R. § 35.130................................................ ....................................................passim

21 28 C.F.R. § 35.135 ........................................................................................................... 19

22 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-151 ............................................ ..............................................passim

23 28 C.F.R. § 35.150..................................................................................................... 16, 17

24 28 C.F.R. § 35.160........................................................................................................... 13

25 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.160-164 ................................................................................................. 14

26 28 C.F.R. § 35.164..................................................................................................... 16,17
27

28 v

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 6 of 44 Page ID #:2274

28 C.F.R. § 35.190............................................................................................................. 3

1

28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. A ...........................................................................................passim

2

28 C.F.R. pt. 41 .................................................................................................... ....passim

3

28 C·.F.R. § 41.51 ............................................................................................................. 13

4

28 C.F .R. pt. 42 subpt. G ................................................................................................... 3

5

FEDERAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, GUIDANCE, AND REPORTS

6

Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency, Guidance on Planning for

7

IntegratIOn of Functional Needs Support Services in

General Population Shelters .................................................................................. 14

8

Federal Emergen9' Mgmt. Ap;ency, Prepared Testimony Before the House

9

Comm. op. H~meland Security, Subcomm. on Emergency

CommUnICatIOns,

10

Preparedness, and Response ................................................................................. 15

11 Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency, Section 689 Guidelines .................................... 17-18

12 National Council on Disability, Effective Emergency Management: Making

Improvements for Communities and People with Disabilities ............................... 5

13

National Council on Disability, Emergency Management and People with

14

Disabilities: Before, During and After, Cong'l Briefing .................................... .4-5

15 National Council on Disability, Hurricane Affected Areas I and II ................................. 4

16 National Council on Disability, The Needs of People with Psychiatric

Disabilities During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita .................................................. 18

17

National Council on Disability, Saving Lives: Including People with

18

Disabilities in Emergency Planning ........................................................................ 4

19 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Chapter 7 of the ADA Best Practices Tool Kit

For State and Local Governments............................................. .....................passim

20

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Title II Technical Assistance Manual .......................................... 19

21

STATE STATUTES

22

2 Cal. Gov't Code §§ 8550-8899.24 ........................................................................... 8, 12

23

CITY OF LOS ANGELES ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

24

Los Angeles Admin. Code §§ 8.21-8.87 ..................................................................... 8, 12

25

CITY OF LOS ANGELES EMERGENCY PLANS AND

26

PROCEDURES

27 City of Los Angeles Citywide Logistics Annex................................................................ 9

28

VI

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 7 of 44 Page ID #:2275
1 City °fr~~e~y:~e!n1p~~~~dire~:'~~~~~~~~.?~~~~~~~~~~~......................................passim
2
3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
Vll

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 8 of 44 Page ID #:2276

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

This class action lawsuit alleges that the County and City of Los Angeles,

3
California discriminate against individuals with disabilities in their emergency
4

5 management programs in violation of federal law, including Title II of the

6 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("Title II" or "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§
7
12131-12134, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504" or 8

9 "Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 794. Plaintiffs contend that Los Angeles has

10 failed to conduct the planning required to meet the needs of individuals with
11
disabilities and ensure access for these individuals across the full spectrum of its
12

13 emergency programs, services, and activities. The City responds that it will meet

14 the needs of individuals with disabilities during or after an emergency by providing
15
ad hoc reasonable accommodations when individuals with disabilities request
16

17 them.

18

The United States agrees with, and supports, the Plaintiffs' Motion for

19

20 Summary Judgment. Simply put, Los Angeles cannot afford individuals with

21 disabilities an equal opportunity to survive and recover from emergencies unless it

22 plans and prepares in advance to meet the disability-related needs of its residents
23
24 and visitors. The evidence shows beyond dispute that Los Angeles has not

25 performed the advance planning and preparations necessary to provide individuals

26
with disabilities an equal opportunity to access and benefit from its emergency
27

28
1

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 9 of 44 Page ID #:2277

management programs, services, and activities despite the receipt of large amounts
1

2 of federal funding that could have been used for this purpose. For example, the

3
City has not:

4

5

• Established a system to notify individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing

6

about the need to evacuate or shelter in place;

7
• Conducted outreach to determine who will need assistance evacuating their 8

9

homes or established mechanisms that individuals with disabilities can use

10

to obtain assistance;

11
• Made arrangements for accessible vehicles to be available to transport to
12

13

emergency shelters individuals who use wheelchairs and need evacuation

14

assistance;

15
• Surveyed its emergency shelters to identify inaccessible features such as
16

17

inaccessible entrances with steps and inaccessible toilet rooms and taken

18

corrective actions to eliminate such barriers or find substitute shelters that

19
are accessible; 20

21

• Made plans to provide life-sustaining medications, consumable medical

22

supplies, durable medical equipment, or assistance in eating, dressing, or

23

toileting for individuals with disabilities who will require these things to
24

25

survive in an emergency shelter; or

26
• Made plans, when a shelter-in-place response is executed, such as during a
27

28 2

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 10 of 44 Page ID #:2278

power-outage, to provide in-home assistance or sheltering options for
1

2

individuals with disabilities whose survival depends on electrically powered

3

equipment.

4

5 For this reason, the United States joins the Plaintiffs in asking the Court to grant

6 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and order the City of Los Angeles to

7
amend and supplement its planning preparations, and take all other steps necessary,
8
9 to ensure that individuals with disabilities are afforded an equal opportunity to

10 survive and recover from emergencies.

11
II. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR FILING STATEMENT OF INTEREST

12

13

The U.S. Department of Justice enforces, regulates, implements,

14 coordinates, and provides technical assistance for the ADA and Section 504, which

15
includes the application of these laws to emergency management programs,
16
17 services, and activities. See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Justice, ADA Best Practices Tool

18 Kit for State and Local Gov'ts, Chapter 7, Emerg. Mgmt. under Title II of the
19
ADA (2007), at www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/toolkitmain.htm#pcatoolkitch7 (technical
20
21 assistance issued by Department of Justice on how to comply with the ADA and

22 Section 504 in emergency management programs, services, and activities)
23
("Chapter 7, ADA Tool Kit,,).l The United States submits the instant Statement of
24

25
26 I See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12134(a), (c) (requiring Department of Justice to issue regulations, including architectural standards, applicable to state and local governments); 42 U.S.c. § 12206
27 (authorizing the Department to issue technical assistance under Title II); 28 C.F.R. § 35.190

28 3

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 11 of 44 Page ID #:2279

1 Interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517 because this litigation implicates the proper

2 interpretation and application of the ADA, Section 504, and the related regulations

3
and technical assistance materials that it has issued.

4

5

III. BACKGROUND

6

A. People with Disabilities Have Consistently Faced Discrimination in

7
Emergencies and Disasters Because Emergency Managers Have 8

9

Not Planned and Prepared to Meet Their Needs.

10

11

Advance planning and preparations are critical to ensuring that the rights and

12 needs of individuals with disabilities are met during emergencies and disasters.

13
The National Council on Disability ("NCD"), an independent federal agency
14
15 authorized by Title IV of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,29 U.S.C. § 780 et seq.,

16 to conduct research, prepare reports, and develop recommendations on disability
17

18

(authorizing the Department to issue policy guidance to ensure consistent interpretation of Title 19 II and designating it as the agency responsible for Title II enforcement for state and local

government programs and facilities); Exec. Order 12,250 (assigning leadership role to 20 Department in the coordination and enforcement of federal civil rights laws applicable to

21 federally assisted programs, including Section 504, and directing agencies to issue regulations and policy guidance implementing the same (pt. 1-402)); 28 C.F.R. pt. 41 (implementing Exec.

22 Order 12,250, authorizing Department of Justice's role in coordination of federal disability rights

laws involving federal assistance, and requiring federal agency regulations under Section 504 to 23 be consistent with this part); 28 C.F.R. pt. 42 subpt. G (Nov. 2, 1980) (establishing Section 504

24

requirements for recipients of Department of Justice financial assistance); Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities in the Provision of Disaster Mass Care, Housing, and Human

25 Services, Reference Guide, Part III: FEMA Policy, at www.fema.gov/oer/reference/fema policy.shtm (confirming obligations of, among others,

26 recipients of federal financial assistance pursuant to Section 504).

27

28 4

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 12 of 44 Page ID #:2280

rights issues, has time and again identified pervasive discrimination against
1

2 individuals with disabilities in emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and

3 mitigation, always emphasizing in its recommendations the importance of
4
5 inclusive planning.

6

In April 2005 - only a few months before Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and

7
Wilma - NeD identified pervasive failures to include individuals with disabilities 8
9 in emergency preparedness and planning, failures to incorporate disability-related

10 lessons learned from prior disasters into emergency planning, and the resulting

11
unequal delivery of goods and services to people with disabilities during
12
13 emergencies. See NeD, Saving Lives: Incl. People w. Disabilities in Emerg.

14 Planning (2005) at

15
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/emergencyplanning.htm. In the
16
17 aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because of a lack of planning, NeD reported many

18 accounts of people with disabilities who were forced to abandon wheelchairs,

19
walkers, medical equipment, service animals, white canes, attendants for personal
20
21 assistance services, and medications. NeD on Hurricane Affected Areas I and II

22 (2005) at http://www.ncd.govInewsroom/publications/2005/katrina.htm and
23
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005lkatrina2.htm. Because of a lack
24
25 of planning and preparations, NeD reported, emergency information was not

26 disseminated via broadcasts in accessible formats, inaccessible facilities were used,
27

28
5

;
Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 13 of 44 Page ID #:2281

and persons with disabilities and organizations representing their rights were not
1
2 included in preparedness activities that could have mitigated many of the adverse

3 results. Id. NCD again emphasized the importance of preparation, that:

4

5

Relief and rescue operations must have the appropriate medical

6

equipment, supplies, and training to address the immediate needs of

7
people with disabilities. Affected individuals will require bladder

8

9

bags, insulin pumps, walkers, or wheelchairs. Relief personnel must

10

be equipped and trained in the use of such equipment. In addition,

11
relief personnel should provide training, particularly for personnel and

12

13

volunteers in the field, on how to support the independence and

14

dignity of persons with disabilities in the aftermath of Hurricane

15
Katrina.
16

17
Id.; see also NCD, Emerg. Mgmt. and People w. Disabilities, Cong'l Briefing
18
19 (Nov. 10,2005) (same) at

20 http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/transcriptemergencymgt.htm.
21
In 2009, NCD once again stressed that "[p]lanning is possibly the most 22 23 important, albeit the most difficult, stage in the emergency management process.

24 This is due, in part, to the unpredictable nature of disasters .... The generic, one-
25
size-fits-all approach to disaster planning does not work." NCD, Effective Emerg. 26
27 Mgmt. (2009) at

28
6

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 14 of 44 Page ID #:2282
1 http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2009INCD EmergencyManagement 2 HTMLlEffectiveEmergencyManagement.html. NCD emphasized:
3
The challenges faced by persons with disabilities (physical, sensory,
4
cognitive, psychiatric, etc.) ... in all disaster-threat situations have been made even more clear through events such as September 11, Hurricane Katrina, and the latest wildfires in Southern California. Problems with warning transmission and receipt, transportation, evacuation, shelter, and long-term recovery have been documented through both research studies and government investigations .... Lack of planning and lack of inclusion of persons with disabilities ... remains a problem across the nation, despite ... the Nationwide Plan Review, post-Katrina legislation, and U.S. Department of Justice Shelter Guidance, to list but a few.
B. The ADA and Section 504 Prohibit Discrimination in Emergency Management Programs.
The ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., is a comprehensive civil rights law enacted "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the 26 27 elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. 28
7

j
Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 15 of 44 Page ID #:2283

§ 12101 (b)(1). Its coverage is broad, prohibiting disability-based discrimination in
1

2 employment, state and local government programs and services, transportation

3 systems, telecommunications, commercial facilities, and the provision of goods
4
5 and services to the public by for-profit and nonprofit private entities. Title II of the

6 ADA was enacted to broaden the coverage of Section 504, which prohibits

7
discrimination under, exclusion from participation in, and the denial of benefits of 8
9 "any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance," including

10 emergency management programs and activities of state and local governments.

11
29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Title II extends these protections to all state and local
12
13 government programs, services, and activities, including emergency management

14 and other programs receiving no federal funds. Title II provides that:

15
[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such

16

17

disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits

18

of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be

19
subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 20

21

8

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 16 of 44 Page ID #:2284

1 Cir. 2005); Zukle v. Regents ofUniv. ofCalifomia. 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 n.l1 (9th
2 Cir. 1999).2
3
Congress explicitly delegated to the Department of Justice the authority to
4
5 promulgate regulations under both statutes. See 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a); 28 C.F.R.
6 pt. 35 (Title II); 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); 28 C.F.R. pt. 41 (Section 504 coordination
7
regulation for federally assisted programs that sets the baseline for 504 rules issued 8 9 by federal agencies). Congress also authorized the Department to issue technical
10 assistance on compliance with the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12206. Accordingly, the
11
Department's regulations and interpretation thereof are entitled to substantial
12
13 deference. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S.
14 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984); Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581,
15
597-98, 119 S. Ct. 2176, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1999) ("[T]he well-reasoned views of 16 17 the agencies implementing a statute constitute a body of experience and informed

18

19

2This principle applies not only because ofthe similar language and remedies 20 shared by the two acts but also because of the Congressional directive that

21 implementation and interpretation of the two acts "be coordinated to prevent[ ]

22

imposition of inconsistent or conflicting standards for the same requirements under the two statutes." Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462,468-69 (4th Cir.

23 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12117(b)) (omission in original). Title II provides that

24

"[t]he remedies, procedures, and rights" set forth under Section 504 shall be available to any person alleging discrimination in violation of Title II. 42 U.S.C. §

25 12133; see also 42 U.S.C. § 12201(a) (ADA must not be construed more narrowly

than Rehabilitation Act). See also Yeskey v. Com. of Penn. Dep't of Corrections, 26 118 F.3d 168, 170 (3d Cir. 1997) ("[A]ll the leading cases take up the statutes

27 together, as we will."), affd, 524 U.S. 206 (1998).

28
9

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 17 of 44 Page ID #:2285

judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.");
1

2 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, No. 09-17144, 13479-13483 (9th Cir. Sept. 7,

3 2010) (deference to Attorney General's interpretation of Title II); cf. Bragdon v.
4
5 Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 646, 118 S. Ct. 2196, 141 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1998) (citing same

6 for Title III of the ADA); see also Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S. Ct.

7 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1977) (agency's interpretation of its regulations 8
9 "controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation").

10

C. The Department ofJustice Has Issued Guidance to Help Eliminate

11
Discrimination Against Individuals with Disabilities in Emergencies

12

13

and Disasters.

14

15

To assist emergency managers in evaluating and remediating emergency

16 plans to ensure inclusion of people with disabilities throughout the phases of

17
disasters, the U.S. Department of Justice has developed technical assistance. See
18
19 Chapter 7, ADA Tool Kit. Chapter 7 of the ADA Tool Kit guides emergency

20 managers through obligations under the ADA and Section 504, including planning;
21
preparation; testing of preparedness; notification; community evacuation and 22 23 transportation; emergency shelter programs; temporary lodging and housing; social

24 services and emergency- and disaster-related benefit programs; emergency medical
25
care and services; relocation programs, activities, and services; transition and
26
27 transportation back to the community following an emergency or disaster; recovery

28
10

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 18 of 44 Page ID #:2286
1 programs; and remediation of damage caused by emergencies and disasters.
2 Evaluation of an emergency management plan for inclusion of people with
3
disabilities throughout is a critical first step in delivering a successful, inclusive,
4
5 and nondiscriminatory emergency response. As discussed more fully in the
6 following sections, it is also required by law.
7
The ADA and Section 504 require equal opportunity, and prohibit 8 9 discrimination against individuals with disabilities. When, as in this case,
10 emergency management involves advance planning and preparation to meet the
11
needs of the general public but similar advance planning and preparation are not
12
13 undertaken to meet the readily identifiable needs of individuals with disabilities,
14 people with disabilities are subjected to disparate treatment and denied equal
15
opportunities to participate in - and benefit from - emergency management
16
17 programs. Disparate treatment, and denial of equal opportunities, are the very
18 types of discrimination that the ADA and Section 504 were enacted to prevent.
19
See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (prohibiting various forms of discrimination in 20 21 programs, services, and activities, including unequal treatment in emergency
22 management planning for individuals with disabilities); 28 C.F.R. § 35. 130(b)(4)(i)
23
(prohibiting public entities from determining the site or location of a facility that
24
25 has the effect of excluding individuals with disabilities or otherwise subjecting
26 them to discrimination).
27
28
11

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 19 of 44 Page ID #:2287

1

IV. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HAS FAILED TO PLAN AND

2

PREPARE TO ENSURE THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH

3
DISABILITIES DURING EMERGENCIES
4

5

A. The City Plans and Prepares for Emergencies in General, but Fails to

6

7

Do So for Persons with Disabilities.

8

9

The California Emergency Services Act, 2 Cal. Gov't Code §§ 8550-

10 8899.24, and the Los Angeles Admin. Code §§ 8.21-8.87 establish the City's

11
emergency management program. The City's Emergency Management
12
13 Department ("LAEMD") coordinates the preparedness, planning, training, and

14 recovery activities of the City's Emergency Operations Organization ("EOO"). See

15
City of Los Angeles, Emerg. Mgmt. Dept., at
16
17 http://emergency.lacity.org/epdepd2b.htm#Communications; City of Los Angeles,

18 EOO Master Plan, at http://emergency.lacity.org/epdp2a3a.htm. The EOO Master

19
Plan sets out the authority, responsibility, and functions of various City agencies,
20
21 "[p]rovides a basis for the conduct and coordination of operations and the

22 management of critical resources during emergencies," and incorporates
23
responsibilities of non-governmental entities. See City of Los Angeles, EOO
24
25 Master Plan, Intro. at 1.2, at http://emergency.lacity.org/epdp2a3a.htm.

26

The EOO Master Plan reflects extensive planning and preparation to meet

27

28 12

-
/
Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 20 of 44 Page ID #:2288

1 the needs of the general population, including sheltering, temporary lodging, food,

2 portable toilets, shelter for pets, transportation, equipment, and personnel. By

3 contrast, it reflects no planning for accessible sheltering, toilets, transportation,
4
5 service animal support, or equipment and personnel to provide disability-related

6 assistance and support. Id. In fact, it is almost silent on meeting the rights and

7
needs of people with disabilities during disasters, as are its Division Plans and 8
9 Annexes, stating only:

10

DISABILITIES CONSIDERATIONS

11
During a disaster relief operation, the Logistics Section of the EOC is
12

13

responsible for the acquisition and deployment of resources for the

14

operations, both human and otherwise. The Department on Disability,

15
in pre-incident planning, will attempt to:
16

17

• Provide information on resources for people with disabilities so

18

that the Logistics Section can effectively and efficiently acquire

19
and deploy those resources. 20

21

• Provide information so that emergency workers and first

22

responders in a disaster can correctly identify and request

23
resources for people with disabilities.
24

25
City of Los Angeles, Citywide Logistics Annex at 50 (Sept. 15,2008) at
26
27 emergency.lacity.org/pdflepaiCitywide Logistics Annex.pdf. At best, this is an

28
13

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 21 of 44 Page ID #:2289

1 unimplemented plan to plan.

2

The City's Department on Disability ("DOD") is otherwise excluded from

3
the EOO and Master Plan and literally does not have a seat in the Emergency
4
5 Operations Center to coordinate disaster response for people with disabilities. The

6 City's DOD has itself admitted a serious lack of planning and preparedness to meet

7
the disaster-related needs of people with disabilities: 8

9

It is our belief that the City Emergency Management and Disaster

10

Preparedness Program is seriously out of compliance with the

11
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), [t]he Rehabilitation

12

13

Act of 1973, as amended, Section 504 ... Although the Department on

14

Disability (DOD) is responsible for ensuring that City Department

15
programs, services and activities are accessible to persons with
16

17

disabilities, there appears to be continued resistance and a lack of

18

responsiveness relative to suggested emergency management

19
preparedness plan updates and changes. DOD's recommendations for 20

21

ensuring accessibility are often overlooked and not included in reports

22

unless DOD staff are actually present at meetings and bring attention

23
to the issues....
24

25

The DOD strongly believes that Angelinos with disabilities will

26

continue to be at-risk for suffering and death in disproportionate

27

28
14

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 22 of 44 Page ID #:2290

numbers, unless the City family drastically enhances the existing
1

2

disability-related emergency management and disaster planning

3

process and readiness as required by the ADA and other statutes.

4

5
Mem. from Regina Houston-Swain, Exec. Director, DOD to James Featherstone,
6
General Manager, Emergency Mgmt. Dept. (Aug. 27, 2008), PI's M. Summ. J.,
7

8 Smith Decl., Ex L (Bates No. 4401). Indeed, having apparently reviewed the

9
technical assistance issued by the Department of Justice, the DOD itself
10
11 recommended that the City assess all emergency facilities for architectural

12 compliance with the ADA and Section 504 by using Chapter 7 of the ADA Tool

13
Kit, establish a memorandum of understanding with the Los Angeles Chapter of
14
15 the Red Cross to ensure personal assistance services during disasters, evaluate all

16 emergency plans, and "integrate people with disabilities, disability service

17
providers, and advocacy organizations into the planning process," and "all
18
19 emergency and disaster exercises." Id.

20

B. The City Receives Large Amounts ofFederal Funding that Could Have

21
Been Used to Plan and Prepare for the Disaster-Related Needs of 22

23

People with Disabilities

24

25

Since fiscal year 2000, the federal government, through its various agencies,

26 has allocated large amounts of federal financial assistance to the City. See 27

28
15

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 23 of 44 Page ID #:2291

1 www.transparency.gov, which is hosted by the U.S. Office of Management and 2 Budget.3 A search of this database reveals that the City has been allocated $48.9

3 million in assistance directly from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
4
5 ("FEMA") and a total of$2.78 billion in assistance from the federal government as

6 a whole. These totals do not include funds that are first allocated to the State of

7
California before distribution to the City (much ofFEMA's funding for emergency 8
9 management first goes through states), nor do they account for potential assistance

10 distributed in response to particular emergencies or disasters. As discussed above,

11
the receipt of federal financial assistance requires compliance with the
12
13 nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504. Notwithstanding this extent of

14 federal funding, emergency planning and preparation for persons with disabilities

15
is absent and, as admitted by LAEMD's Director, unequal to the planning for the
16
17 general population:

18

Q.: Do you think you are as well prepared to deal with the needs of

19
people with disabilities in an emergency as you are with the general
20

21

population.

22

A.: No.

23

24

25
3 This federal financial assistance database and website are developed pursuant to the Federal 26 Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of2006, P.L. 109-282 (2006), 31 u.S.C. § 6101
note, and was launched in December 2007. 27

28 16

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 24 of 44 Page ID #:2292

Dep. of James Featherstone, Director, LAEMD at 95:9-12 (Feb. 3, 2010), Smith
1

2 Decl., Ex A.

3

V. THE ADA AND SECTION 504 REQUIRE MORE THAN

4

5 THE CITY'S GENERAL ASSERTIONS OF THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE

6

AD HOC REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS UPON REQUEST

7

8

In response to Plaintiffs' allegations that Los Angeles has not planned or

9
prepared to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities, the City asserts that it
10
11 can nonetheless comply with the ADA and Section 504 by granting ad hoc

12 reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, upon request, when
13
emergencies and disasters occur. While the ADA and Section 504 certainly
14
15 require the City to grant reasonable modifications of policies, practices, and

16 procedures that are necessary to avoid discrimination against individuals with
17
disabilities in emergencies and disasters, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7); 28 C.F.R. pt.
18
19 41, both statutes require far more.

20

In enacting the ADA, Congress found that "historically, society has tended

21
to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some 22
23 improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities

24 continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2).

25
Congress also found that: 26

27

[I]ndividuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of

28
17

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 25 of 44 Page ID #:2293

discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the
1

2

discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and

3

communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to

4

5

make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary

6

qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to

7
lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other 8

9

opportunities.

10
11 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(6). Emergency management is one of these areas where

12 discrimination against individuals with disabilities continues to be a serious and
13
pervasive problem, as detailed in the numerous reports by NCD. See discussion
14
15 supra pp. 3-5. It is with this history of discrimination against individuals with

16 disabilities in emergency management that the Department of Justice issued
17
Chapter 7 of the ADA Tool Kit, providing emergency managers with authoritative
18
19 technical guidance they could use to avoid future disability discrimination.

20

A primary responsibility of state and local governments is to protect

21
residents and visitors from harm, including assistance in preparing for, responding 22
23 to, and recovering from emergencies and disasters. See The California Emergency

24 Services Act, 2 Cal. Gov't Code §§ 8550-8899.24; Los Angeles Admin. Code §§
25
8.21-8.87 (both authorizing the City's emergency management program). When a 26
27 public entity conducts programs, services, and activities relating to emergency

28
18

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 26 of 44 Page ID #:2294

management, it must ensure nondiscrimination consistent with the ADA and,
1

2 where federal funds are involved, Section 504. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 29 U.S.C.

3
§ 794; see also Pa. Dept. ofCorrs. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210,118 S. Ct. 1952,
4
5 141 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1998) (Scalia, J.) (finding unanimously that state prisons and

6 their activities fit squarely and unmistakably as programs, services, and activities

7
under Title II). The civil rights of individuals with disabilities must be met 8
9 throughout all facets of disaster-related programs, services, and activities,

10 including planning, preparation, testing of preparedness, notification, community

11
evacuation and transportation, emergency sheltering, temporary lodging and
12
13 housing, social services and emergency- and disaster-related programs, emergency

14 medical care and services, and transitioning back to the community. See Chapter 7,

15
ADA Tool Kit. The first three activities - planning, preparation, and testing of
16
17 preparedness - are all part of a public entity's emergency management program

18 that must occur before a disaster, and must address the needs of people with and
19
without disabilities. The remaining activities also require advance planning and
20
21 preparations. The City's emergency plans fail to address the rights of individuals

22 with disabilities for any of these issues or phases of emergency management.

23
A. The Equal Opportunity Guarantees ofthe ADA and Section 504 in 24

25

Emergency Management Cannot Be Met Without an Integrated Plan.

26

27

The Title II and Section 504 regulations provide a number of specific

28 19

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 27 of 44 Page ID #:2295

1 prohibitions of discrimination that apply across the spectrum of emergency

2 management. See generally 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130, 35.149-151, 35.160; 28 C.F.R.

3 pt. 41. Of fundamental importance, however, is the integration mandate, which
4
5 requires public entities to "administer services, programs, and activities in the most

6 integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with

7
disabilities." 28 C.F.R. § 35. 130(d); see also 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(d) (same under 8
9 Section 504). Eleven years ago, the Supreme Court explained the integration

10 mandate of the ADA and Section 504: "Unjustified isolation, we hold, is properly

11
regarded as discrimination on the basis of disability." Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S.
12
13 581, 597, 119 S. Ct. 2176, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1999). This holding reaffirmed what

14 the Department had observed in the Preamble to its Title II Regulation:

15
"Integration is fundamental to the purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
16
17 Provision of segregated accommodations and services relegates persons with

18 disabilities to second-class status." 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, App. A; see also Arc of Wash.

19
State Inc. v. Braddock, 427 F.3d 615,618 (9th Cir. 2005). 20

21

Emergency management programs, services, and activities include the

22 affirmative provision of life-sustaining goods, services, information, and facilities
23
- including, inter alia, medical assistance, triage, food and other provisions, safety,
24
25 comfort, a sheltering environment, and case management. Under Title II and
26 Section 504, public entities are required to provide resources and services that
27
28
20

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 28 of 44 Page ID #:2296

individuals with disabilities can readily access and use. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130,
1

2 35.149-151. This includes disability-related services for individuals who do not

3 have access to their social support network (e.g., transferring assistance, bowel and

4

5

bladder management, assistance in dressing, bathing, and wayfinding), necessary
.J

6 "consumable medical supplies" (e.g., sterile catheters, colostomy bags), and

7
"durable medical equipment" and other disability-related equipment (e.g., 8
9 wheelchair battery charger, walkers, crutches, canes). See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130;

10 Chapter 7, ADA Tool Kit, add. 2; FEMA, Guidance on Planning for Integration of

11
Functional Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters (Interim 2010);
12
13 Goodman v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 156, 126 S. Ct. 877, 163 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2006)

14 (noting medical services covered as programs, services, and activities under Title

15
II); Yeskey, 524 U.S. at 210 (finding Title II applies to essentially everything a
16
17 prison does with respect to inmates, regardless of whether it is voluntary).

18 Emergency management programs also involve the delivery of vital information,

19
which must include the use of auxiliary aids and services to achieve effective
20
21 communication with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, are blind or have

22 low vision, or have speech disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.160-164. Facilities used
23
during disasters, such as emergency shelters, must also be physically accessible. 28
24
25 C.F.R. §§ 35.130, 35.149-151.

26

Because of the exigent circumstances inherent in disasters, advance planning

27

28 21

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 29 of 44 Page ID #:2297

and preparation for these goods, services, auxiliary aids, and facilities are
1

2 imperative. As FEMA's Administrator Craig Fugate recently explained at the

3
2010 Inclusive Hurricane Conference: "[I]fwe wait and plan for people with
4
disabilities after we write the basic plan, we fail.,,4 An emergency management
5

6 plan that integrates the rights of individuals with disabilities throughout is the

7
cornerstone for a successful, nondiscriminatory emergency management response 8
9 and recovery. As the evidence plainly shows, the City lacks this type of integrated

10 plan and is unprepared to comply with the integration mandate of ADA and

11
Section 504 in an emergency or disaster.
12

13

B. The City's Defenses Are Not Supported by the Facts or the Law.

14

1. Ad Hoc "Reasonable Accommodations" During a Disaster Are, by

15
Themselves, Inadequate.
16

17
The City contends that it can meet the needs of individuals with disabilities
18
19 during the exigent circumstances of emergencies by granting "reasonable

20 accommodations" when individuals with disabilities request them. See Defs.'
21
Mem. Opp. Summ. J. 3. It is true that localities are required to provide reasonable 22 23 modifications of policies, practices, and procedures - often referred to as

24
25 4 See Prepared Testimony Before the House Comm. on Homeland Security, Subcomm. on Emergency Comm., Prep., and Response (June 15,2010) (Marcie Roth, Director, Off. of
26 Disability Integr. and Coord., FEMA, Dept. of Homeland Security) at http://www.fema.gov/txtlaboutlodic/written_statement_roth.txt.
27
28
22

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 30 of 44 Page ID #:2298
1 "reasonable accommodations" - during emergencies when they requested. For
2 example, if a public entity has a policy of providing certain types of assistance to
3 the general public only at emergency shelters (e.g., assistance in applying for
4
5 emergency financial assistance), the ADA and Section 504 may require a
6 reasonable modification of that policy in which people with disabilities can receive
7
such assistance, upon request, in their homes. However, general assurances to 8 9 individuals with disabilities of an ad hoc response during the exigencies of an
10 emergency are not equal to the access being afforded to individuals without
11
disabilities, for whom planning and preparations have already occurred. See City
12
13 of Los Angeles, EOO Master Plan, at htlp://emergency.lacity.org/epdp2a3a.htm. It
14 is simply unrealistic to assume that physically accessible shelters, wheelchair-
15
accessible transportation, and the ready availability of disability-related
16
17 medications, medical supplies, equipment, and disability-related support services
18 can be provided in an ad hoc manner when requested, without advance planning
19
and preparations. See Chapter 7, ADA Tool Kit. For example, ensuring
20
21 emergency shelters have backup generators for charging and operating assistive
22 technology, e.g., Plaintiff Audrey Harthom's wheelchair (Compl.ljf 16), and
23
communications devices for persons who are deaf, and air conditioning for people 24 25 with disabilities who cannot independently regulate their body temperature cannot
26 be met with an ad hoc approach that lacks advance planning and preparation. 27
28
23

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 31 of 44 Page ID #:2299

2. The Outlay of Funds is not Tantamount to a Fundamental
1

2

Alteration or Undue Financial and Administrative Burden.

3

4

In general, the ADA does not require any action that would result in a

5 fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or that would
6
7 impose undue financial and administrative burdens. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35. 130(b)(7),

8 35.l50(a)(3), 35.164. However, the fact that public entities are already planning to

9
provide and fund life-sustaining goods and services to the public generally belies
10
11 such arguments in the emergency management context. The entire purpose of

12 emergency management programs is to provide life-sustaining goods and services.

13
See, e.g., City of Los Angeles, EOO Master Plan, at
14
15 http://emergency.lacity.org/epdp2a3a.htm (objectives of the LAEMA EOO Master

16 Plan are to, among others, save lives, protect property, repair and restore essential

17
systems and services, and provide for the protection, use, and distribution of
18
19 resources). The Ninth Circuit has explained that "policy choices that isolate the

20 disabled cannot be upheld solely because offering integrated services would
21
change the segregated way in which existing services are provided." Townsend v. 22 23 Quasim, 328 F.3d 511,516 (9th Cir. 2003).

24

Further, "[i]f every alteration in a program or service that required the outlay

25
of funds were tantamount to a fundamental alteration, the ADA's integration 26
27 mandate would be hollow indeed." Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., 335

28 24

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 32 of 44 Page ID #:2300

F.3d 1175, 1183 (lOth Cir. 2003). Congress was aware that integration "will
1

2 sometimes involve substantial short-term burdens, both financial and

3
administrative," but the long-term effects of integration "will benefit society as a
4
5 whole." Id. Integrating individuals with disabilities into all phases of emergency

6 management will not only benefit society but will also save lives.

7
Defendants bear the burden of proving that an activity results in an undue 8
9 financial and administrative burden. This burden cannot be met absent a written

10 analysis, signed by a high ranking official of the public entity asserting this

11
defense, which includes a consideration of all resources available for use in the
12
13 funding and the operation of the service, program, or activity, including non-profit,

14 for-profit, federal, state, neighboring locality, and volunteer assistance and

15
donations. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.150(a)(3), 35.164. The evidence is clear: That burden
16
17 has not been - and cannot be - met in this case, particularly where the City is

18 allocated very large amounts of funding for emergency management and many

19
other activities.
20

21

3. Integrated Emergency Management Can Have Fiscal Benefits.

22

While some emergency managers may focus on the costs of ADA and

23
Section 504 compliance, they often neglect to consider the integration mandate's
24
25 practical consequence of maximizing available resources. As FEMA explains in

26 its Section 689 Guidelines, which were promulgated in response to Congressional
27

28
25

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 33 of 44 Page ID #:2301
1 directives: "The provision of services such as sheltering, information intake for
2 disaster services, and short-term housing in integrated settings keeps individuals
3
connected to their support system and caregivers and avoids the need for disparate
4
5 service facilities." FEMA, Section 689 Guidelines, Nondiscrim. Principles of the
6 Law, at http://www.fema.gov/oer/reference/index.shtm. The Supreme Court
7
reached a comparable conclusion in Olmstead: "Rejecting the State's 8 9 'fundamental alteration' defense, the [district] court observed that existing state
10 programs provided community-based treatment of the kind for which [the
11
plaintiffs] qualified, and that the State could 'provide services to plaintiffs in the
12
13 community at considerably less cost than is required to maintain them in an
14 institution.'" 527 U.S. at 594-95.
15
Often, individuals with disabilities seek shelter with their family, friends,
16
17 neighbors, and co-workers - all individuals who may provide disability-related
18 assistance in shelters and, thereby, reduce demands on public resources.
19
Segregating individuals with disabilities away from their family, friends, and the
20
21 rest of the population has the adverse effect of stressing precious resources. It
22 forces individuals with disabilities to seek assistance in facilities intended to
23
address acute medical needs, such as emergency rooms, hospitals, and medical
24
25 shelters - even if those facilities lack the capacity to admit, or in fact will not
26 admit, such individuals because they lack acute medical needs. See, e.g., NCD,
27
28 26

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 34 of 44 Page ID #:2302

The Needs of People with Psychiatric Disabilities During Hurricanes Katrina and
1

2 Rita (2006) at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroomlpublications/2006/peopleneeds.htm

3 (discussing segregated emergency management response). During disasters,
4
5 medical facilities typically experience a surge that exceeds their capacity.

6 Localities have improperly directed individuals with disabilities to these facilities

7
even if they do not require medical services, exacerbating those surges and 8
9 unnecessarily taxing medical resources. As the NCD reports make clear, there

10 have been circumstances where these medical facilities would not admit

11
individuals with disabilities because they did not have medical conditions - just
12
13 disability-related needs that emergency managers had neglected to plan to meet in

14 mass care emergency shelters. As a result, individuals with disabilities have been

15
left without facilities in which to shelter. There have also been many
16
17 circumstances where individuals with disabilities were unjustifiably

18 institutionalized simply because emergency managers had not planned to meet

19
their disability-related needs in emergency shelters, in complete contravention of
20
21 the integration mandate and Olmstead. 527 U.S. 581, 587; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).

22

4. The Personal Devices and Services Exemption Does Not Apply in

23
the Emergency Management Context.
24

25
In its Opposition brief, the City of Los Angeles contends that it is not
26
27 obligated to provide personal assistive devices or medications to individuals with

28 27

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 35 of 44 Page ID #:2303

1 disabilities during disasters, relying erroneously on 28 C.F.R. § 35.135. Defs.'
2 Mem. Opp. Summ. J. 1. While Section 35.135 of the Title II regulation provides a
3 general exclusion from providing such items in programs where provision of
4
5 goods and services is not part of the program, this regulatory provision is not
6 applicable to all programs. 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, App. A (noting that the § 35.135
7
restrictions only apply to those areas where relevant). When the purpose of a 8 9 program is to sustain life by providing goods (e.g., food, cots, blankets), services
10 (e.g., first-responder and medical response and stabilization, triage, case
11
management, security), and facilities (e.g., transportation vehicles, sheltering, toilet
12
13 facilities, showers) in response to a disaster, the restrictions in Section 35.135 do
14 not apply. As the Department of Justice's Title II Technical Assistance Manual
15
explains: "Of course, if personal services or devices are customarily provided to
16
17 the individuals served by a public entity, such as a hospital or nursing home, then
18 these personal services should also be provided to individuals with disabilities."
19
Title II Technical Assistance Manual § II-3.6200; 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. A at 704
20
21 (providing same with respect to senior center in the context of Title III of the

22 ADA, which applies to private entities). As the Department of Justice explained in

23
1991 in the Preamble to its Title II regulation:
24

25

[P]ublic entities may not require that a qualified individual with a

26

disability be accompanied by an attendant. A public entity is not,

27

28 28

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 36 of 44 Page ID #:2304

1

however, required to provide attendant care, or assistance in toileting,

2

eating, or dressing to individuals with disabilities, except in special

3
circumstances, such as where the individual is an inmate ofa

4

5

custodial or correctional institution.

6
7 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, App. A (emphasis added); Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36,

8 45, 113 S. Ct. 1913, 123 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1993) (preambles and commentaries

9
accompanying regulations, like the regulations themselves, are entitled substantial
10
11 deference as both are part of a department's official interpretation oflegislation);

12 Auer, 519 U.S. at 461 (Department's interpretation of its own regulations and

13
technical assistance merits substantial deference).
14

15

Emergency management is another example of special circumstances.

16 Medical services, individualized assistance by first-responders, life-sustaining
17
food, medication, medical care, durable medical equipment, and a sheltering
18
19 environment are central to the City of Los Angeles' emergency response. See, e.g.,

20 City of Los Angeles, EOO Master Plan, Public Welfare and Shelter Division, at
21
http://emergency.lacity.org/epdp2a3a4a.htm. The entire purpose of the program is 22 23 to support people with goods, services, and facilities necessary for basic human

24 functioning. Los Angeles and other localities must provide the goods, services,
25
and facilities that will ensure equal opportunities and integration for individuals 26
27 with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130, 35. 130(d); Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 587.

28 29

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 37 of 44 Page ID #:2305

5. Integrated Emergency Planning Cannot Be Delayed.
1

2

Plaintiffs' challenge to the City's emergency management plan - and,

3 specifically, to the City's failure to integrate the rights and needs of individuals
4
5 with disabilities throughout its plan - need not wait for an emergency to strike in

6 order for the Court to find that ADA and Section 504 violations have already

7
occurred. The ADA and Section 504 do not require individuals with disabilities to 8
9 experience discrimination during a disaster before they can challenge a public

10 entity's discriminatory emergency planning and preparations. The Title II

11
regulation required localities to evaluate programs, services, and activities close to
12
13 twenty years ago, and to ensure these activities were not discriminatory. See 28

14 C.F.R. §§ 35.105,35.130. Furthermore, the Title II regulation affirmatively

15
requires that a public entity's programs, services, and activities be readily
16
17 accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-151,

18 and prohibits a public entity from determining the site or location of a facility or

19
making selections that "have the effect of excluding individuals with disabilities
20
21 from, denying them the benefits of, or otherwise subjecting them to

22 discrimination." 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(4)(i).
23
Emergency planning and preparations to respond, mitigate, and recover are
24
25 constant obligations. Planning and preparations to meet the emergency- and

26 disaster-related needs of citizens generally, without regard to the rights and needs 27

28
30

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 38 of 44 Page ID #:2306

of individuals with disabilities, is plain and simple discrimination. 42 U.S.C.
1

2 § 12132; 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). See also Townsend, 328 F.3d at 516 (holding by

3
Ninth Circuit that individual with diabetic peripheral vascular disease and
4
amputation of both legs who was at risk of losing, but had not yet lost, community-
5

6 based assistance, could still prevail on his Title II disability discrimination claim).

7
In the emergency management context - in light of the exigencies, the 8
9 unpredictability and likelihood of disasters, and the numerous obligations to ensure

10 equal opportunity that cannot be met without advance planning - individuals with

11
disabilities (and consequently the Plaintiffs in this case) are "threatened with a
12
13 'concrete and particularized' legal harm, coupled with 'a sufficient likelihood that

14 [they] will again be wronged in a similar way.'" Bird v. Lewis & Clark College,

15
303 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
16
17 555, 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992) and City of Los Angeles v.

18 Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983)).

19
6. Equal Opportunity Under Title II Requires Compliance with the
20

21

Regulation.

22

Some discussion is raised by the parties concerning the "meaningful access"

23
requirement, a concept formulated in case law by the Supreme Court in Alexander
24

25 v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 83 L. Ed. 2d 661,105 S. Ct. 712 (1985), under Section

26 504 before the ADA became law and several years before the Department's 27

28
31

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 39 of 44 Page ID #:2307

regulations implementing Title II of the ADA were issued. While the parties agree
1

2 that "meaningful access" must be afforded under Title II and Section 504, their

3
memoranda devote relatively little discussion to the regulatory provisions that
4
5 plainly must inform the meaning of this term. Equal opportunity and

6 nondiscrimination in the emergency management context require compliance with

7
Title II requirements, including those set out in the Department's Title II regulation 8
9 at 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, subpt. A.

10

In addition to the integration mandate and the general obligation to not

11
discriminate on the basis of disability in programs, services, and activities, the Title
12
13 II regulation provides numerous other specific prohibitions of discrimination that

14 also apply to emergency planning. For example, the Title II regulation prohibits

15
the outright denial of the benefits of emergency management programs, services,
16
17 and activities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.13 O(b)(1), as well as unequal, different, or separate

18 opportunities to participate in programs, services, and activities, 28 C.F.R. §§

19
35. 130(b)(ii)-(iv), (vii). Furthermore, public entities may not employ eligibility 20
21 criteria that screen out or tend to screen out people with disabilities from program

22 benefits or participation, 28 C.F.R. § 35. 130(b)(8). In addition to the previously
23
discussed obligation to make reasonable modifications (sometimes referred to as
24
25 reasonable accommodations) in rules, policies, practices, or procedures, 28 C.F.R.

26 § 35.130(b)(7), public entities must also provide sign language interpreters,
27

28 32

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 40 of 44 Page ID #:2308

provide accessible websites, furnish written materials in Braille and other
1

2 alternative formats, and provide other auxiliary aids and services necessary to

3 ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities. Nor may public
4
5 entities avoid these responsibilities by seeking to delegate or contract with third

6 parties. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3); Chapter 7 of the ADA Tool Kit ("Th[ese]

7
requirement[s] appl[y] to programs, services, and activities provided directly by 8
9 state and local governments as well as those provided through third parties, such as

10 the American Red Cross, private nonprofit organizations, and religious entities.");

11
42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (prohibiting discrimination by private entities).
12

13

In the emergency management context, for example, the Title II regulatory

14 provisions would prohibit a public entity from:

15
• Denying an individual who uses a wheelchair the opportunity to
16

17

evacuate because of a lack of accessible transportation;

18

• Excluding an individual from accessing a general population shelter

19
and its toilet facilities because he or she requires transferring or
20

21

toileting assistance;

22

• Denying an individual with diabetes sustenance from a food service

23
program because the food and drink made available do not provide
24

25

any items he or she can safely consume;

26

• Providing sleeping accommodations in shelters that accommodate the

27

28
33

. "
Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 41 of 44 Page ID #:2309

general public but do not provide stable, accessible cots that are at the
1

2

right height to allow individuals with disabilities to transfer from

3

wheelchairs;

4

5

• Providing services and facilities at a mass care shelter that are

6

essential for daily living, in general, but requiring people who need

7
disability-related assistance ("DRA"), consumable medical supplies 8

9

("CMS"), or durable medical equipment ("DME") (collectively

10

known as functional needs support services, "FNSS") to bring their

11
own or else go to a "special needs" or separate evacuation shelter; and
12

13

• Providing emergency management services through contractual or

14

other arrangements with entities that do not comply with ADA

15
requirements.
16

17

These are but a few examples of the types of disability discrimination that

18 can occur in emergency management. The Department has provided a much fuller.
19
explanation of the ADA's nondiscrimination obligations applicable to emergency
20
21 management in Chapter 7 of the ADA Tool Kit, together with checklists that can

22 be used by a public entity to achieve ADA compliance. Obviously, meeting these
23
responsibilities ad hoc during disaster response is not possible without having
24
25 planned, tested, trained, and prepared to meet them in advance. For this reason,

26 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted and the City should
27

28
34

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 42 of 44 Page ID #:2310
be ordered to amend and supplement its emergency management plan, and take all
1
2 other steps required, to comply with ADA and Section 504 requirements, including 3 those described in Chapter 7 of the ADA Tool Kit.
4 5 6 7
8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
35

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 43 of 44 Page ID #:2311

1

VI. CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated herein, the United States respectfully requests

3 consideration of this Statement of Interest in rendering any decisions in this
4
5 litigation.

6

Respectfully submitted, this i h day of October 2010.

7
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.

8

Attorney General of the United States

9 ANDRE BIROTTE, JR. 10 United States Attorney
LEON W. WEIDMAN 11 Chief, Civil Division
12 Central District of California

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

13

JOHN L. WaD 1 H, Chief

14

PHILIP L. J....#'....,.,1~~J....J.:-'L..f.l"...., Special Legal Counsel

JEAN

0 N, Deputy Chief

15

DOV """'}'-L.;..Iy,,-vj<.,pecial Counsel

16

17

WILLIAM F. tYNCH, Tria

18

Disability Rights Section

Civil Rights Division

19

U.S. Department of Justice

20

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (NYA)

Washington, D.C. 20530

21

Telephone: (202) 305-2008 (Lynch)

22

Facsimile: (202) 514-7821

William.Lynch@usdoj.gov

23

Counsel for United States ofAmerica

24

25

26

27

28 36

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 111 Filed 10/07/10 Page 44 of 44 Page ID #:2312

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1

2

I hereby certify that on October 7,2010, a copy of the foregoing Statement of

3

4 Interest of the United States was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-

5 mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access
6
this filing through the Court's CMlECF System. Counsel for the parties served through
7
8 the Court's CMlECF System include:

9 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 10 Sid Wolinsky, Esq.
Mary-Lee Smith, Esq. 11 Karla Gilbride, Esq.

12
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 13 Paula Pearlman, Esq. 14 Shawna L. Parks, Esq.

15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES 16 Carmen A. Trutanich, Esq.
Gary G. Geuss, Esq. 17 Laurie Rittenberg, Esq. 18 Gabriel S. Dermer, Esq.

19 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 20 Andrea Sheridan Ordin, Esq.
Adrienne M. Byers, Esq. 21 Rosa Linda Cruz, Esq. 22
23
24
25
26 27
28

sf William F. Lynch WILLIAM F. LYNCH, Trial Attorney Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (NYA) Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-2008 (Lynch) Facsimile: (202) 514-7821 William.Lynch@usdoj.gov Counsel for United States ofAmerica

1

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:2567

1

2

3 4

~

PILED

;_r~RK' U.S. D/!)iRICT COURT

.L~B 102011

5

CENI RAL DISTRICT OF CALrFORmA

I!Y

,.....)

DEPUTY

6

--p

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

1 1

)

COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY

) No. CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)

12 LIVING INDEPENDENT AND

)

FREE, ET AL. 13
Petitioner,

ORDER: (l)GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'

14 v.
15

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

)

)

AJUDICATION ON LIABILITY;

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. )

(2) GRANTING IN PART

16

Respondents.

)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO

)

17

)

STRIKE;

)

(3) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'

18

)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL

19

NOTICE

)

(4) SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS'

20

)

)

OBJECTION; AND

21

)

(5) OVERRULING DEFENDANT

22

)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES'

)

)

OBJECTIONS

23 There are four matters pending before the Court: (1) Plaintiffs Communities

24 Actively Living Independent and Free's ("CALIF") and Audrey Harthom's

25 ("Harthom") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion for Summary Judgment against

26
Defendant City of Los Angeles ("the City"), [Doc. No. 93]; (2) Plaintiffs' Motion

27 to Strike five declarations filed by the City in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for

28

1

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:2568

1 Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 98-6]; (3) Plaintiffs' Objection to Reply

2 Declaration of Angela Kaufman, [Doc. No. 106]; and (4) the City's Objections to

3 Evidence Submitted by Plaintiffs in Support of Their Motion for Summary

4 Judgment. [Doc. No. 97-12.]

5

JURISDICTION

6

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1334, and 1367.

7

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

8

On January 14, 2009, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action against the

9 City and Defendant County of Los Angeles ("the County") (collectively,

10 "Defendants") alleging four causes of action: (1) violation of Title II of the

11 Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); (2) violation of Section 504 of the

12 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"); (3) violation of the California

13 Disabled Persons Act ("CDPA"), California Civil Code § 54, et seq.; and (4) 14 violation of California Government Code § 11153. 1 [Doc. No.1.] The dispute

15 concerns whether Defendants' emergency preparedness programs adequately

16 serve the needs of the more than 800,000 individuals with disabilities who live

17 within the jurisdiction of the City. (Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and

18 Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pis.' Mem. re Mot. for

19 Summary Judgment") at 2:13-15,4:1-2; Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants'

20

Statement

of

Genuine

Issues

("SGI")

at

~

25.

2 )

Plaintiffs contend that these

21 individuals suffer discrimination as a result oftheir disabilities because

22 Defendants' emergency preparedness programs fail to address their unique needs.

23 (PIs.' Mot. for Summary Judgment at 2:13-15,17:21-23.) Due to their exclusion

24 from such programs, Plaintiffs further maintain that they are disproportionately

25

26

IOn April 13, 2010, the Court signed the parties' Stipulation Approving Certification ofa Class. [Doc. No.8!.] The class is comprised of all people with disabilities, as defined by the ADA, who are within the City and the

27

jurisdiction served by Defendants' emergency preparedness programs and services. (Order Approving Certification ofa Class at 1:4-9.)

2 The Court refers only to the Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Statement of Genuine Issues when the referenced
28 fact is undisputed by the parties.

2

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:2569

1 vulnerable in the event of an emergency. (Id. at 2:12-13.)

2

On June 7, 2010, the Court approved a stipulation filed by Plaintiffs and the

3 County, which requested a stay of action in consideration of an agreement

4 between Plaintiffs and the County to develop an Access and Functional Needs

5 Annex to address the needs of individuals with disabilities with respect to the

6 County's emergency preparedness and planning. [Doc. No. 88.] Therefore,

7 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is brought solely against the City.

8

Effective emergency preparedness plans must include the following

9 essential components: (1) development of a comprehensive emergency plan,

10 (Declaration of Michael C. Collins, Plaintiffs' Expert, ("Collins Decl.") at,-r 11(a);

11 Deposition of Steve Dargan, Liaison between the County's Department of Public

12 Health's Emergency Preparedness and Response Program and the City's

13 Emergency Management Department, ("Dargan Dep.") at 38:10-13; SGI at,-r 2);

14 (2) assessment of the efficacy of the emergency plan, (Collins Decl. at,-r 11 (b);

15 Dargan Dep. at 38: 14-18); (3) advance identification of needs and resources,

16 (Collins Decl. at,-r 11(c); Dargan Dep. at 38:19-22); (4) provision of public

17 notification and communication, (Collins Decl. at,-r 11(d); Dargan Dep. at 38:23-

18 39:1; Deposition of Keith Garcia, the City's Emergency Coordinator I, ("Garcia

19 Dep.") at 33 :23-34: 1; Deposition of Andrew Neiman, Lieutenant with the Los

20 Angeles Police Department, ("Neiman Dep.") at 51:22-52:1; Deposition of Anna

21 Burton, Assistant General Manager of the City's Emergency Management

22 Department, ("Burton Dep.") at 18:12-14); (5) provision of policies or procedures

23 concerning the concept of sheltering in place, (Collins Decl. at,-r 11(e); Dargan

24 Dep. at 39:2-5; Declaration of Robert Freeman, Chief of the Operations Division

25 of the City's Emergency Management Department, ("Freeman Decl.") at,-r 10); (6)

26 provision of shelter and care for individuals forced to evacuate their homes,

27 (Collins Decl. at,-r 11(g); Dargan Dep. at 39:10-13; Garcia Dep. at 34:12-15;

28 Neiman Dep. at 51:14-21; Burton Dep. at 18:9-11,19:1-4); (7) provision of

3

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:2570

1 assistance with evacuation and transportation, (Collins Decl. at,-r 11(f); Dargan

2 Dep. at 39:14-17; Garcia Dep. at 34:2-11,34:16-20; Neiman Dep. at 52:2-6;

3 Burton Dep. at 17:25-18:8); (8) provision of temporary housing, (Collins Decl. at

4 ,-r 11 (h); Dargan Dep. at 39:24-40:2; Burton Dep. at 18: 15-18); and (9) provision

5 of assistance in recovery and remediation efforts after an emergency or disaster.

6 (Collins Decl. at,-r II(i); Dargan Dep. at 40:3-7; Garcia Dep. at 34:21-25.)

7

The City's emergency preparedness program - which consists of a 200-plus

8 page Emergency Operations Plan, twenty-one (21) incident-specific annexes, an

9 Emergency Operations Board, and an Emergency Management Committee -

10 addresses "preparation, planning, response and recovery for the city in a disaster"

11 or other emergency. (SGI at,-r,-r 35,37,39-40; Burton Dep. at 11 :22-12:4,24:4-10;

12 Deposition of James Featherstone, General Manager of the City's Emergency

13 Management Department, ("Featherstone Dep.") at 34:20-35:3.) Such

14 emergencies include earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, landslides, and terrorist

15 attacks. (SGI at,-r 33.) According to the City's Chief of the Operations Division

16 of the Emergency Management Department ("EMD"), the City's emergency plans

17 "are designed to save lives, protect property and return the City to normal service

18 levels" by "assist[ing] in the response and recovery efforts following a disaster."

19 (Freeman Decl. at ,-r,-r 4, 5.)

20

Although the City's emergency preparedness program requires coordination

21 from numerous departments, (id. at,-r 6), California's state emergency plan and

22 Standardized Emergency Management System place the City at the first level of

23 response for meeting the disaster needs of its residents in the event of an

24 emergency. (Burton Dep. at 128:15-21,129:2-5; Garcia Dep. at 71:7-15.)

25 Despite the fact that individuals with disabilities have special needs and may

26 require reasonable accommodations during an emergency, the City's emergency

27 preparedness program does not include provisions to notify people with auditory

28 impairments or cognitive disabilities of an emergency, or evacuate, transport, or

4

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:2571
1 temporarily house individuals with disabilities during or immediately following an
2 emergency or disaster. (Burton Dep. at 41 :9-42: 1, 44:5-8, 44: 16-45:4, 52: 18-22,
3 54:11-15,127:5-13; Garcia Dep. at 36:1-4,36:23-37:13,41:8-123,42:15-19,55:84 56: 1; Deposition of Robert Freeman, Chief of the Operations Division of the 5 City's EMD, ("Freeman Dep.") at 27:7-28:2, 56:21-25, 57:3-7, 78:8-12; 6 Featherstone Dep. at 20:15-18,67:21-25,68:16-71:11; Deposition of Angela 7 Marie Kaufman, ADA Compliance Coordinator with the Department on 8 Disability, dated July 22, 2010 ("Kaufman Dep.") at 129: 12-19, 131: 19-22, 132:29 6.) Although the City's employees testified that such responsibilities are 10 delegated to specific departments, such as the Los Angeles Fire Department 11 ("LAFD"), the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD"), and the Department of 12 Parks and Recreation, (Freeman Dep. at 15:14-23,28:18-29:4; Declaration of 13 James Featherstone, General Manager of the City's EMD, ("Featherstone Decl.") 14 at ~ 18), there is no evidence in the record of any City documents explaining how 15 these departments shall assist individuals with disabilities during an emergency or 16 disaster. (Freeman Dep. at 30:3-7,61 :7-25; Neiman Dep. at 32:17-33:2.) The 17 individual departments which have been delegated the responsibility of assisting 18 such individuals similarly have no plans for addressing the needs of individuals 19 with disabilities in the event of an emergency or disaster. (Freeman Dep. at 72: 1120 14; Neiman Dep. at 32:12-16,54:23-55:17,59:18-60:16; Deposition of Stacy 21 Gerlich, Captain with the LAFD, ("Gerlich Dep.") at 23: 15-22, 38: 11-15, 39:9-
22 18.) Indeed, the departments have not assessed whether they have the "capacity to
23 respond to the needs of people with disabilities during a disaster" or emergency. 24 (Neiman Dep. at 31 :22-32:3; Gerlich Dep. at 34: 15-20.) The City has likewise not 25 done a study of whether it has "the resources or capacity to respond to the needs of 26 people with disabilities in an emergency." (Kaufman Dep. at 188:24-189:4.) 27
3 Garcia, however, testified that the City can request buses that are accessible for people with disabilities. (Garcia
28 Dep. at 37:3-9.)
5

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:2572

1

In 2008, the City's Department on Disability ("DOD") reported that the

2 City's emergency preparedness program "is seriously out of compliance" with the

3 ADA and Section 504 and the City's residents with disabilities "will continue to

4 be at-risk for suffering and death in disproportionate numbers unless the City

5 family drastically enhances the existing disability-related emergency management

6 and disaster planning process and readiness as required by the ADA and other

7 statutes." (Declaration of Mary-Lee Smith, Plaintiffs' Counsel, ("Smith Decl.") at

8 ~ 14, Ex. L (Memorandum from the DOD to the City's EMD (Aug. 27,2009).)

9 The DOD issued numerous recommendations, including, but not limited to, the

10 following: (1) The City should conduct a survey of all shelters, warming centers,

11 cooling centers, relocation sites, and evacuation assistance centers, for

12 accessibility pursuant to the U.S. Department of Justice's ADA Checklist for

13 Emergency Shelters; (2) the City should establish a Memorandum of

14 Understanding with the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Red Cross to

15 outline and address the provision of reasonable accommodations and personal

16 assistants during activations; (3) the City should forward certain information

17 regarding an Alert and Notification System, if one is purchased, to the DOD,

18 including how the system provides functional equivalency to the disability

19 community; and (4) the City should take other actions to ensure that all emergency

20 plans meet the needs of people with disabilities and that such needs are

21 communicated and understood by all of the City's relevant departments. (Smith

22 Decl. at ~ 14, Ex. L.) Other than surveying shelter sites, there is no evidence that
23 the City has adopted any of the DOD's recommendations.4 (Kaufman Dep. at

24 66:23-67:14,69:19-70:10,72:9-14; Featherstone Dep. at 21:19-23; Declaration of

25

26

4 Two EMD employees report a new requirement to take an online Federal Emergency Management Agency course addressing persons with disabilities in emergencies as the only change made after the filing of this lawsuit. (SGI at

27

~ 31; Garcia Dep. at 51 :17-52:4; Featherstone Dep. at 49:6-50:9.) The City also indicated that the City's Oversight Committee has recommended the purchase of 5 portable lifts and 56 evacuation chairs but it is unclear whether the

items have been purchased by the City. (Declaration of Angela M. Kaufman, ADA Compliance Coordinator with
28 the DOD, ("Kaufman Decl.") at ~ 25.)

6

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:2573

1 Albert Torres ("Torres Dep.") at 20:7-25.)

2

With respect to shelter and care, specifically, the City, through the

3 Department of Parks and Recreation, has a responsibility to provide shelter to

4 residents displaced by an emergency. (Featherstone Dep. at 89:2-18; Torres Dep.

5 at 12:8-18.) The City, however, has conducted full disability compliance surveys

6 for only a fraction of its approximately 200 shelter sites. (Torres Dep. at 16:13-

7 16,20:7-25,47:12-18.) Of the surveyed sites, few - ifany- of the shelters meet

8 all requirements mandated by the ADA. (Id. at 21:15-21.) The City maintains

9 that the American Red Cross is responsible for mass shelter and care along with

10 temporary housing, (Burton Dep. at 72:18-73:6, 73:25-74:5; Featherstone Dep. at

11 75: 16-25, Garcia Dep. at 60: 11-18; Gerlich Dep. at 18: 16-21); however, there is

12 no agreement between the City and the American Red Cross setting forth any

13 specific responsibilities of the American Red Cross with respect to individuals

14 with disabilities. (Deposition of Michael Kleiner, Director of Emergency and

15 Disaster Response of the American Red Cross of Greater Los Angeles, ("Kleiner

16 Dep.") at 14:24-15:3,24: 16-25: 10,25: 17-22.) Indeed, the Director of Emergency

17 and Disaster Response of the American Red Cross of Greater Los Angeles

18 testified that it is not his understanding that the American Red Cross is solely

19 responsible for shelter compliance with the ADA or accessibility of shelters for

20 individuals with disabilities. (Id. at 20:22-21:5.) The emergency preparedness

21 program has no provision addressing the inspection or evaluation of the American

22 Red Cross' policies and procedures at shelters. (Burton Dep. at 74:18-22.)

23

Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on August 2,

24 2010. [Doc. No. 93.] An opposition and reply were filed thereto.5 [Doc. Nos. 97,

25 98.] Along with its reply, Plaintiffs concurrently filed a Motion to Strike five of

26

27

5 Plaintiffs' reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment and their reply to the Motion to Strike exceeded the tenpage limit prescribed by the Court's Standing Order. The parties are reminded that all papers must be filed in

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this District, and the Court's Standing
28 Order. Future violations of these rules may result in the imposition of sanctions.

7

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:2574

1 the nine declarations filed by the City in support of its opposition.6 [Doc. No. 98-

2 6.] An opposition and reply were filed thereto. [Doc. Nos. 99, 103.] On October

3 7,2010, a Statement of Interest of the United States in support of Plaintiffs'

4 Motion for Summary Judgment was filed with the Court. [Doc. No. 111.] The

5 Court heard oral argument from the parties. [Doc. No. 112.]

6

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE

7

Plaintiffs request that the Court strike five declarations submitted by the

8 City in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs

9 contend that the subject declarations are deficient in one or more of the following

10 respects: (1) they introduce new witnesses and information not previously

11 disclosed by the City in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and

12 26(e); (2) they clearly and unambiguously contradict prior deposition testimony of

13 the declarant(s); (3) they set forth opinions from witnesses lacking the requisite

14 qualifications to be experts; and/or (4) they reference material contained in written

15 documents without attaching such documents as required by Federal Rule of Civil

16 Procedure 56(e)(I). (Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

17 Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike ("PIs.' Mem. re Mot. to Strike") at 1:9-21.)
18 I. LEGAL STANDARD

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) requires that parties provide certain

20 initial disclosures. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a). The parties must thereafter supplement

21 or correct discovery responses and disclosures as necessary. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e).

22 "If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule

23 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply

24 evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially

25 justified or is harmless." FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c)(1); see also Wong v. Regents a/the

26
6 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike was filed in violation of Local Rule 7-3, which requires that a conference of counsel
27 take place at least ten (10) days prior to the filing of the motion. L.R.7-3. Because the parties did meet and confer
prior to the filing ofthe motion, the Court concludes that judicial economy is best served by the Court's
28 consideration of the Motion to Strike but cautions Plaintiffs' counsel that future violations may warrant sanctions.

8

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:2575

1 Univ. a/Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Parties must understand that

2 they will pay a price for failure to comply strictly with scheduling and other

3 orders, and that failure to do so may properly support severe sanctions and

4 exclusions of evidence."). The party facing sanctions bears the burden of

5 establishing that the delay was either substantially justified or harmless. Yeti by

6 Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2001). In

7 determining whether a violation of a discovery deadline was substantially justified

8 or harmless, courts are guided by the following considerations: (1) prejudice or

9 surprise to the party against whom the evidence is offered; (2) the ability of that

10 party to cure the prejudice; (3) the likelihood of disruption of the trial; and (4) bad

11 faith or willfulness involved in not timely disclosing the evidence. Lanard Toys,

12 Ltd. v. Novelty, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 705, 713 (9th Cir. Apr. 13,2010). The Ninth

13 Circuit affords "particularly wide latitude to the district court's discretion to issue

14 sanctions under Rule 37(c)(l)." Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106.

15 II. DISCUSSION

16

a. The Court Strikes Only Paragraph 14 of the Declaration of Eric

17

Baumgardner

18

Baumgardner is an Emergency Preparedness Coordinator I with the City's

19 EMD assigned to the Operations Division, Planning Unit as the Planning Officer.

20 (Declaration of Eric Baumgardner, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator I with

21 the City's EMD, ("Baumgardner Decl.") at,-r 2.) The City designated

22 Baumgardner as one of its two experts on July 6, 2010. (Declaration of Karla

23 Gilbride, Plaintiffs' Counsel, in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike

24 Declarations ("Gilbride Decl.") at,-r 5, Ex. C.) The designation did not provide

25 any information about the scope or substance of his testimony.? (Id.) Plaintiffs

26
7 Baumgardner was not required to submit an expert report because he is a City employee who was not retained or
27 compensated to testify in this action, and his duties do not routinely involve giving testimony. See FED. R. CIV. P.
26(a)(2)(B); see also Armatis v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7995, *1-2 (E. D.
28 Cal. Jan 14, 20lO) (Kar1ton, l).

9

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:2576

1 contend that "the first opportunity [they] had to inquire into [Baumgardner's]

2 opinions was at his deposition on July 22[,2010], at which he stated, on multiple

3 occasions that he formed no opinions tentative or otherwise, that he was prepared

4 to testify to at that time or planned to testify to in the future either in a sworn

5 declaration or in other sworn testimony." (PIs.' Mem. re Mot. to Strike at 2:2-7.)

6 Less than one month later, on August 17, 2010, Baumgardner executed a

7 declaration regarding emergency management planning in support of the City's

8 opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

9

Plaintiffs argue that the City cannot rely on late disclosed documents

10 referenced by Baumgardner in his declaration. (Pis.' Mem. re Mot. to Strike at

11 3:13-24.) The Court finds that the City's failure to disclose the Federal

12 Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") Comprehensive Preparedness Guide

13 101 is harmless because it is a publicly available planning document. The Court,

14 however, strikes paragraph 14 because it refers to "procedural documents or 15 Standard Operating Procedures" that were not produced by the City.8

16

Plaintiffs also argue that Baumgardner's declaration should be stricken

17 because it contains late-disclosed expert opinions. (Id. at 5:12.) Although

18 Baumgardner was disclosed as an expert witness and it is disconcerting to the

19 Court that Baumgardner was so ill-prepared for his deposition, the Court finds that

20 the City may rely on Baumgardner as a fact witness due to his employment as the

21 Emergency Preparedness Coordinator I with the City's EMD assigned to the

22 Operations Division, Planning Unit as the Planning Officer. (See Baumgardner

23 Decl. at,-r 1.) The statements made in Baumgardner's declaration are well within

24 the realm of permissible testimony given his professional experience. Moreover,

25 Plaintiffs had the opportunity to depose him and likely could have anticipated

26 most, if not all, of these issues. Therefore, the Court strikes only paragraph 14 of

27
8 The City maintains that Baumgardner'S declaration refers only to the FEMA Comprehensive Preparedness Guide
28 101. (The City's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declarations at 6:1-7.)

10

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:2577

1 Baumgardner's declaration because it refers to "procedural documents or Standard

2 Operating Procedures" that were not produced by the City.

3

b. The Court Strikes Only Paragraph 26 of the Declaration of

4

Angela Kaufman

5

Angela Kaufman ("Kaufman") is the ADA Compliance Coordinator with

6 the DOD. (Declaration of Angela Kaufman, ADA Compliance Coordinator with

7 the DOD, ("Kaufman Decl.") at ~ 2.) The City designated Kaufman as an expert

8 on July 6,2010. (Gilbride Decl. at ~ 5, Ex. C.) During her deposition on July 22,

9 2010, the City's counsel stated that Kaufman was being offered as a rebuttal

10 expert to Plaintiffs' designated expert witnesses. (Id. at ~ 4, Ex. B at 94:10-95:2.)

11 Kaufman also testified that she was a rebuttal expert witness and that she intended

12 to offer testimony only on the issue of personal preparedness in the event of a

13 disaster and rebuttal testimony to the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses.

14 (Id. at ~ 4, Ex. B at 94:17-95:2, 98:1-10.)

15

The Court finds that Kaufman possesses the necessary qualifications to

16 testify as an expert witness because she has significant work experience in the

17 field of emergency planning, and has served on several committees and advisory

18 boards involving disability and emergency planning and management. (Kaufman

19 Decl. at ~~ 4-18.) Because Kaufman was designated as an expert witness for the

20 purposes of opining on personal preparedness in the event of a disaster and

21 rebutting the testimony of Plaintiffs' designated experts, the Court does not

22 consider her opinions as to any other issues because the City has failed to

23 demonstrate substantial justification or harmlessness for the failure to disclose

24 such opinions. Due to her employment as the ADA Compliance Coordinator with

25 the DOD, Kaufman may also address the DOD's policies and practices and her

26 personal experiences in her capacity as the ADA Compliance Coordinator.

27 Accordingly, the Court strikes paragraph 26 of Kaufman's declaration.

28

11

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:2578

1

c. The Court Strikes the Declaration of Ralph Acuna

2

Ralph Acuna ("Acuna") is a Management Analyst II for the DOD.

3 (Declaration of Ralph Acuna, Management Analyst II for the DOD, at,-r 2.)

4 Although the City never disclosed Acuna as either a fact or expert witness, (Pis.'

5 Mem. re Mot. to Strike at 16:7-12), it argues that Acuna was known to Plaintiffs

6 as having relevant testimony and the City's failure to formally designate him as a

7 witness is harmless. (The City'S Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Strike

8 Declarations ("Def. 's Opp'n to Mot. to Strike") at 3: 18-20; 4:23-5: 1.)

9

The record before the Court reflects that the City never disclosed Acuna as a

10 witness. The Joint Rule 26(t) Report limited the number of declarations and

11 depositions available to each party; therefore, it is entirely reasonable to conclude

12 that Plaintiffs' discovery strategy was dictated by the disclosed witness lists.

13 Because the City has failed to meet its burden, the Court strikes Acuna's

14 declaration in its entirety.

15

d. The Court Strikes the Declaration of Timothy Ottman

16

On July 9,2010, Plaintiffs served a deposition notice on the City seeking to

17 examine the person most knowledgeable about the "[p]olicies, procedures and/or

18 protocols of the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) related to (1) notifying

19 people with disabilities; (2) providing evacuation assistance to people with

20 disabilities; and (3) providing transportation assistance to people with disabilities

21 in the event of a disaster." (Gilbride Decl. at,-r 8, Ex. F.) The City produced Stacy

22 Gerlich, who was deposed on July 12,2010. (PIs.' Mem. re Mot. to Strike at 18:5-

23 6.)

24

In opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, the City filed

25 the declaration of Timothy Ottman ("Ottman"), the Battalion Chief of the LAFD

26 and the LAFD's Safety Officer. (Declaration of Thomas A. Ottman, Battalion

27 Chief of the LAFD and the LAFD's Safety Officer, at,-r 1.) Ottman was not

28 disclosed as a witness and the City concedes that Plaintiffs had no actual notice of

12

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:2579

1 this witness. (Def. 's Opp'n re Mot. to Strike at 9:5-7.) The City, however, argues

2 that its failure to disclose was substantially justified and harmless because the City

3 could not reach Gerlich and Ottman's declaration is consistent with her deposition

4 testimony. (Def.'s Opp'n re Mot. to Strike at 9:19-10:6; Dermer Decl. at,-r 14.)

5

The City fails to demonstrate that the late disclosure is substantially justified

6 and it fails to explain why it did not use Gerlich as its declarant in support of the

7 opposition. Moreover, the Court does not need to rely on the allegedly disputed

8 fact, (SGI at ,-r 206), to rule on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

9

The City likewise fails to establish that the late disclosure is harmless.

10 Plaintiffs are prejudiced by the City's reliance on an undisclosed witness,

11 particularly when they specifically requested that the City produce the person with

12 the most knowledge about the areas discussed in Ottman's declaration. Therefore,

13 the Court strikes Ottman's declaration in its entirety.

14

e. The Court Strikes the Declaration of Luann Pannell

15

On July 9,2010, Plaintiffs served a deposition notice on the City seeking to

16 examine the person most knowledgeable about the "[p]olicies, procedures and/or

17 protocols of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) related to (1) notifying

18 people with disabilities; (2) providing evacuation assistance to people with

19 disabilities; and (3) providing transportation assistance to people with disabilities

20 in the event of a disaster." (Gilbride Decl. at,-r 8, Ex. F.) The City produced

21 Andrew Neiman ("Neiman"), who was deposed on July 12,2010. (PIs.' Mem. re

22 Mot. to Strike at 19:19-20.)

23

In opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, the City filed

24 the declaration of Luann Pannell ("Pannell"), the Director of Police Training and

25 Education for the LAPD. (Declaration of Luann P. Pannell, Director of Police

26 Training and Education for the LAPD, at,-r 2.) The City contends that its failure to

27 disclose was substantially justified and harmless because the City could not reach

28

13

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:2580

1 Neiman and Pannell's declaration is consistent with his deposition testimony.

2 (Def.'s Opp'n re Mot. to Strike at 9:16-10:6; Dermer Decl. at ~ 14.)

3

The City again fails to demonstrate that the late disclosure is either

4 substantially justified or harmless. The City fails to explain what attempts it made

5 to contact Neiman. It similarly fails to establish that its reliance on an undisclosed

6 witness was harmless to Plaintiffs. Regardless, the Court does not need to rely on

7 the allegedly disputed fact, (SGI at ~ 208), to rule on Plaintiffs' Motion for

8 Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Court strikes Pannell's declaration in its

9 entirety.

10

The Court notes that the City strenuously objects to the exclusion of these

11 declarations because they comprise a substantial portion of its evidence in

12 opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Def. 's Opp'n to Mot. to

13 Strike at 2:3-3:17.) Yet the City could have submitted other evidence - such as

14 deposition testimony or declarations from disclosed witnesses - produced in

15 accordance with the discovery rules rather than rely so heavily on declarations

16 involving late-disclosed information or witnesses. The Court will not permit the

17 City to circumvent discovery rules where it could have easily complied with such

18 rules and where it has failed to establish that the late disclosures were either

19 substantially justified or harmless. Thus, the Court strikes the declarations of

20 Baumgardner and Kaufman to the extent set forth above and the declarations of

21 Acuna, Ottman, and Pannell in their entirety.

22 OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF AND IN

23 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

24

In addition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, both parties separately filed

25 objections to evidence submitted by the opposing party in support of or in

26 opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

27

I. THE CITY'S OBJECTIONS

28

The Court summarily overrules all of the City's 419 objections to evidence

14

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 15 of 31 Page ID #:2581

1 submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment as

2 unduly vague and overbroad. The City's objections concern the following

3 evidence: (1) the deposition testimony of Anna Burton (Objection Nos. 1-57); (2)

4 the deposition testimony of Steve Dargan (Objection Nos. 58-73); the deposition

5 testimony of James Featherstone (Objection Nos. 74-127); (4) the deposition

6 testimony of Robert Freeman (Objection Nos. 128-58); (5) the deposition

7 testimony of Keith Garcia (Objection Nos. 159-217); (6) the deposition testimony

8 of Stacy Gerlich (Objection Nos. 218-53); (7) the deposition testimony of Angela

9 Kaufman (Objection Nos. 254-78); (8) the deposition testimony of Michael

10 Kleiner (Objection Nos. 279-92); (9) the deposition testimony of Andrew Neiman

11 (Objection Nos. 293-327); (10) the deposition testimony of Albert Torres

12 (Objection Nos. 328-57); (11) the declaration of Michael Collins (Objection Nos.

13 358-77); (12) the declaration of Harthorn (Objection Nos. 378-82); (13) the

14 declaration of June Kailes (Objection Nos. 383-403); (14) the declaration of

15 Shannon Murray (Objection Nos. 404-08); (15) the declaration of Lilibeth

16 Navarro (Objection Nos. 409-16); and (16) the declaration of Norma Jean

17 Vescovo (Objection Nos. 417-19). [Doc. No. 97-12.]

18

In Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., the defendant raised "hundreds, if not

19 thousands, of [evidentiary] objections" to the 114 declarations filed by the

20 plaintiffs. 222 F.R.D. 189, 198 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (Jenkins, J.). The district court

21 concluded that the objections were unduly vague because the defendant failed to

22 provide any individualized discussion of the objections. Id. at 199. The district

23 court further observed that the defendant's "grossly overbroad approach is more

24 suggestive of an intent to harass than a good faith effort to address genuine

25 objections." Id. at 199.

26

Similarly, in Californians/or Disability Rights, Inc. v. California

27 Department o/Transportation, the defendants submitted 121 boilerplate,

28 evidentiary objections to various declarations offered by the plaintiffs in support

15

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 16 of 31 Page ID #:2582

1 of their motion. 249 F.R.D. 334, 349-50 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (Armstrong, J.). The

2 Court therefore "decline[d] the defendants' invitation to analyze objections that

3 defendants did not themselves bother to analyze, and the objections [were]

4 overruled on those grounds alone." Id. at 350.

5

It is not the Court's responsibility to attempt to discern the City's grounds

6 for objecting to evidence submitted by Plaintiffs where the City merely repeats the

7 same categorical objections but provides little to no explanation as to why the

8 subject evidence is objectionable. Accordingly, the Court summarily overrules all

9 of the City's objections.

10 II. PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION

11

The Court sustains Plaintiffs' objection to the City's filing of the

12 unaccompanied Declaration of Angela M. Kaufman in Reply to June Kailes'

13 Reply Declaration filed on September 21,2010. [Doc. No. 106.] Although not

14 styled as a response to a reply, the City should have sought leave from the Court

15 prior to filing Kaufman's reply declaration. L.R. 7-10 ("Absent prior written

16 order of the Court, the opposing party shall not file a response to the reply.").

17 However, the Court also strikes paragraph 7 of June Kailes' reply declaration

18 because it addresses facts related to the FEMA's Comprehensive Preparedness

19 Guide 30 I which were not previously addressed in the City's opposition to

20 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

21

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

22

Plaintiffs request that the Court take judicial notice of the following

23 documents in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment: (1) website of the

24 City's EMD page entitled "Caring for those who depend on you - Persons with

25 Disabilities"; (2) Los Angeles QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau; (3)

26 website of the City's EMD page entitled "Emergency Plans and Annexes"; (4)

27 website of the City's EMD page entitled "Emergency Management Committee";

28 (5) Excerpts of the City's Citywide Logistics Annex; (6) The City's Tsunami San

16

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 17 of 31 Page ID #:2583

1 Pedro Area Evacuation Maps; and (7) excerpts from the City's Recovery and

2 Reconstruction Plan. (Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of

3 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment at 1:1-2:26.)

4

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides that "[a] judicially noticed fact must

5 be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known

6 within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and

7 ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

8 questioned." FED. R. EVID. 201 (b). Generally, courts take judicial notice of

9 governmental websites provided that they have sufficient indicia of reliability.

10 See, e.g. Lemperle v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107204, *7-8 (S.D.

11 Cal. Oct. 7,2010) (Anello, J.); see also Woods v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding,

12 Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76804, *5-6 (E.D. Cal. July 28,2010) (Shubb, J.); see

13 also Jarvis v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84958, *3-4

14 (C.D. Cal. July 23,2010) (King, J.). All of the above-referenced documents are

15 public materials available on governmental websites. Therefore, the Court takes

16 judicial notice of these documents.

17

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

18

I. LEGAL STANDARD

19

On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether,

20 viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are

21 any genuine issues of material fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also Simo v. Union

22 ofNeedletrades, 322 F.3d 602,609-10 (9th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment

23 against a party is appropriate when the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

24 admissions on file, together with the affidavits or declarations, if any, show that

25 there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is

26 entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a), (c). The moving

27 party bears the initial burden of establishing the basis for its motion and

28 identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses that

17

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 18 of 31 Page ID #:2584

1 demonstrate an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.

2 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party meets its initial burden, the

3 nonmoving party must then set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule

4 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v.

5 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,250 (1986).

6

In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not

7 make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence. T. W. Elec. Serv.,

8 Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass 'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Rather,

9 "[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences

10 are to be drawn in [the nonmovant's] favor." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The

11 evidence presented by the parties must be admissible. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).

12 Conclusory, speculative testimony is insufficient to raise genuine issues of

13 material fact and defeat summary judgment. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc.,

14 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007).

15 II. DISCUSSION

16

Plaintiffs request that the Court enter summary judgment on each of their

17 causes of action with respect to liability because, despite the special

18 accommodations that individuals with disabilities require, the City admits that it

19 has no plan to notify, evacuate, transport, or shelter these individuals in the event

20 of an emergency or natural disaster. (Pis.' Mem. re Mot. for Summary Judgment

21 at 1:6-2:24.) Plaintiffs argue that the City's residents with disabilities are

22 consequently at a higher risk than the general population to be harmed in an

23 emergency or natural disaster. (Id.) The named plaintiffs also maintain that they

24 have experienced immediate fear, apprehension, and unease because they believe

25 they have a right to be, but are not, included in the City's emergency preparedness

26 program. (Id.; Declaration of Audrey Harthom, Plaintiff, ("Harthom Decl.") at,-r

27 11; Declaration of Lilibeth Navarro, founder and Executive Director of CALIF,

28 ("Navarro Decl.") at,-r,-r 10, 12.)

18

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 19 of 31 Page ID #:2585

1

The City, meanwhile, contends that Plaintiffs are not entitled to judgment as

2 a matter of law because "there is no evidence presented by Plaintiffs as to what

3 service the City actually provides (not ideally should provide) for its residents

4 generally that it does not provide for [Plaintiffs]." (The City's Memorandum of

5 Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

6 ("Defs.' Opp'n to Mot. for Summary Judgment") at 4:22-24.) According to the

7 City, Plaintiffs cannot establish actual discrimination because "the City has not

8 taken any action which disproportionately burdens people with disabilities." (Id.

9 at 4:8-9.) (emphasis in original) Thus, the City argues that they cannot be held

10 liable for any alleged violations because they have not "exclude!dJ people with

11 disabilities by reason of those disabilities" from any public program or service.

12 (Id. at 4:19-21.) (emphasis in original) Finally, the City argues that Plaintiffs

13 cannot prevail on a motion for summary judgment because they have presented no

14 evidence that the class representatives requested, but were refused, a reasonable

15 accommodation from the City. (Id. at 4:24-26.)

16

a. Plaintiffs are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law as to

17

Liability on their ADA and Section 504 Claims Against the City

18

Congress enacted the ADA "to remedy widespread discrimination against

19 disabled individuals." PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 674 (2001). Title

20 II of the ADA, in particular, prohibits discrimination against individuals with

21 disabilities in the provision of services, programs, or activities by public entities.

22 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Section 504, in tum, requires that "[n]o otherwise qualified

23 individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of her

24 or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of,

25 or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal

26 financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Due to the similarities between the

27 statutes, the Ninth Circuit has held that "there is no significant difference in the

28 analysis of rights and obligations created by" the ADA and Section 504. Vinson v.

19

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 20 of 31 Page ID #:2586

1 Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1152 n.7 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Pierce v. County of

2 Orange, 519 F.3d 985,1010 n.27 (9th Cir. 2008) ("Title II of the ADA was

3 expressly modeled after § 504 ... and essentially extends coverage to state and

4 local government entities that do not receive federal funds.").

5

To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, "a plaintiff must show: [(i)]

6 he is a 'qualified individual with a disability'; [(ii)] he was either excluded from

7 participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity's services, programs or

8 activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and [(iii)]

9 such exclusion, denial ofbenefits, or discrimination was by reason ofhis

10 disability." Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metro. Trans. Auth., 114 F.3d 976,

11 978 (9th Cir. 1997) (emphasis in original); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12132. To

12 establish a Section 504 violation, a plaintiff must also show that the program

13 receives federal funding. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

14

The plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case,

15 including that a reasonable accommodation is available. Pierce, 519 F.3d at 1011.

16 The public entity may rebut the plaintiff's showing by demonstrating that the

17 requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration or cause an

18 undue burden. Id.

19

i. The Named Plaintiffs and Class Members are Qualified

20

Individuals with Disabilities

21

Pursuant to the ADA, "[t]he term 'disability' means, with respect to an

22 individual[,] (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or

23 more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an

24 impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment." 42 U.S.C. §

25 12102(1); see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.l04.

26

Plaintiffs have established that they are, or advocate on behalf of, qualified

27 individuals with disabilities. Harthorn is a resident of Los Angeles who suffers

28 from arthrogryposis, a congenital condition causing multiple joint contractures and

20

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 21 of 31 Page ID #:2587

1 lack of muscle development. (Harthom Decl. at ,-r 2.) She uses a power

2 wheelchair for mobility but cannot get into or out of her chair independently. (Id.)

3 CALIF, meanwhile, is a private, non-profit community-based corporation

4 providing advocacy, resources, and individualized assistance to people with

5 disabilities in the Los Angeles area. (Navarro Decl. at,-r 3.) It is devoted to the

6 goal of full inclusion, equality, and civil rights for all people with disabilities,

7 especially in the underserved minority communities of Los Angeles. (Id.) The

8 Court also notes that the City stipulated that the named plaintiffs be designated as

9 the class representatives for purposes of this action. [Doc. No. 81.]

10

Plaintiffs have also established that the class consists of individuals with

11 disabilities. Indeed, the parties stipulated that the class is comprised of all people

12 with disabilities, as defined by the ADA, who are within the City and the

13 jurisdiction served by the City's and the County's emergency preparedness

14 programs and services. (Order Approving Certification of a Class at 1:4-9.)

15 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs and all class members are qualified

16 individuals with disabilities.

17

ii. Plaintiffs are Excluded from Participation in the City's

18

Emergency Preparedness Program

19

The ADA is a comprehensive mandate designed to eliminate both "outright

20 intentional exclusion" and "the discriminatory effects of architectural,

21 transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies,

22 [and] failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices." 42 U.S.C.

23 § 12101(a)(5). It applies with equal force to facially neutral policies that

24 discriminate against individuals with disabilities. See McGary v. City ofPortland,

25 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the Ninth Circuit has

26 "repeatedly recognized that facially neutral policies may violate the ADA when

27 such policies unduly burden disabled persons, even when such policies are

28 consistent enforced."); see also Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480, 1483-84 (9th

21

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 22 of 31 Page ID #:2588

1 Cir. 1996). With respect to facially neutral policies, courts must determine

2 whether individuals with disabilities are denied "meaningful access" to state-

3 provided programs, services, and activities. Crowder, 81 F.3d at 1484. If

4 qualified individuals are denied "meaningful access" to a benefit because of their 5 disability, the public entity must provide reasonable modifications.9 Mark H

6 Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922,937 (9th Cir. 2008). The accompanying regulation

7 provides that a "[b]enefit includes provision of services, financial aid or

8 disposition (i.e. treatment, handling, decision, sentencing confinement, or other

9 prescription of conduct)." 28 C.F.R. § 42.5400).

10

In Crowder v. Kitagawa, the Ninth Circuit held that a facially neutral and

11 uniformly enforced Hawaii law requiring an 120-day quarantine on carnivorous

12 animals entering the state violated the ADA because it "burden[ed] visually-

13 impaired persons in a manner different and greater than it burden[ed] others." 81

14 F.3d at 1484. The Court explained that, "[b]ecause of the unique dependence

15 upon guide dogs among many of the visually-impaired, Hawaii's quarantine

16 effectively denierd] these persons ... meaningful access to state services,

17 programs, and activities while such services programs, and activities remain[ed]

18 open and easily accessible by others." Id.

19

Relying on Crowder, the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction

20 precluding Los Angeles County from closing a hospital dedicated primarily to

21 providing rehabilitative services to individuals with disabilities. Rodde v. Bonta,

22 357 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2004). Because no other facility in the County could

23 provide comparable services, the Court held that "the closure of [the facility]

24 would deny certain disabled individuals meaningful access to government-

25 provided services because of their unique needs, while others would retain access

26 to the same class of services." Id. at 998.

27
9 "Reasonable accommodation" and "reasonable modification" are interchangeable terms. McGary, 386 F.3d at
28 1266 n.3.

22

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 23 of 31 Page ID #:2589

1

In this case, the City provides a governmental program - its emergency

2 preparedness program - to its residents. According to the Chief of the Operations

3 Division of the City's EMD, the emergency preparedness program is "designed to

4 save lives, protect property and return the City to normal service levels" by

5 "assist[ing] in the response and recovery efforts following a disaster." (Freeman

6 Decl. at ~~ 4, 5.) To this end, the City provides a variety of "benefits," including,

7 but not limited to, the provision of services to notify, evacuate, transport, and

8 shelter its residents in the event of an emergency or disaster.

9

The City's emergency preparedness program is designed to apply equally to

10 all of its residents. (Id. at ~ 12.) Plaintiffs, however, have provided substantial

11 evidence demonstrating that individuals with disabilities lack meaningful access to

12 the City's emergency preparedness program due to the City's failure to address or

13 provide for their unique needs. Although it is not necessary for the Court to

14 enumerate every deficiency at this stage in the litigation, Plaintiffs have

15 established, and the City has failed to dispute, that the City's emergency

16 preparedness program does not include provisions to notify people with auditory

17 impairments or cognitive disabilities of an emergency, or evacuate, transport, or

18 temporarily house individuals with disabilities during or immediately following an

19 emergency or disaster despite the fact that such individuals have special needs and

20 may require reasonable accommodations during an emergency or disaster.

21 (Burton Dep. at 41:9-42:1,44:5-8,44:16-45:4,52:18-22, 54:11-15,127:5-13;

22 Garcia Dep. at 36:1-4,36:23-37:13,41:8-1210,55:8-56:1, 42:15-19,55:8-56:1;

23 Freeman Dep. at 27:7-28:2, 56:21-25, 57:3-7, 78:8-12; Featherstone Dep. at

24 59:22-60:15,67:21-25,68:16-71:10; Kaufman Dep. at 129:12-19,131:19-22,

25 132:2-6; Gerlich Dep. at 50:1-5.)

26

27

28

10 The Court notes that the City can request buses that are accessible for people with disabilities. (Garcia Dep. at 37:3-9.)

23

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 24 of 31 Page ID #:2590

1

The City contends that the emergency preparedness program is intended to

2 be general - not tactical - in nature, and actual responsibilities are to be delegated

3 to other departments. (Freeman Dep. at 15:14-23,28:18-29:4, Featherstone Dep.

4 at 67:17-22.) Yet there is no evidence in the record that the individual

5 departments which have been delegated the responsibility of assisting such

6 individuals, including the LAFD, the LAPD, and the Department of Parks and

7 Recreation, have any plans for addressing the needs of individuals with disabilities

8 in the event of an emergency or disaster. (Freeman Dep. at 72: 11-14; Neiman

9 Dep. at 32:12-16, 54:23-55:17, 59:18-60:16; Gerlich Dep. at 23:15-22,38:11-20,

10 39:9-18.) Neither the City nor the individual departments have assessed whether

11 they have the capacity to respond to the needs of individuals with disabilities

12 during an emergency or disaster. (Neiman Dep. at 31:22-32:3, 43:12-16; Gerlich

13 Dep. at 34:15-20, 35:13-18, 47:20-24; Kaufman Dep. at 167:6-13,188:24-189:4.)

14 The City also has failed to provide any evidence of the provision of reasonable

15 accommodations to specific disabled individuals by any of its departments during

16 an emergency or disaster.

17

The DOD recognized that the City's emergency preparedness program "is

18 seriously out of compliance" with the ADA and Section 504 and the City's

19 residents with disabilities "will continue to be at-risk for suffering and death in

20 disproportionate numbers unless the City drastically enhances the existing

21 disability-related emergency management and disaster planning process and

22 readiness as required by the ADA and other statutes." (Smith Decl. at ~ 14, Ex.

23 L.) The Court therefore concludes that individuals with disabilities are

24 disproportionately burdened by the City's failure to consider their unique needs in

25 the administration of its emergency preparedness program.

26

The City's provision of shelters provides one of many examples in which

27 individuals with disabilities lack meaningful access to the City's emergency

28 preparedness program. The City, through its Department of Parks and Recreation,

24

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 25 of 31 Page ID #:2591

1 has a plan for providing mass shelter and care for residents who are forced to

2 evacuate their homes and it has identified approximately 200 shelter sites to be

3 used in the event of an emergency or disaster. (Torres Dep. at 16:13-19; 47:12-

4 18.) However, the City does not know which, if any, of these shelters are

5 architecturally accessible to individuals with disabilities. (Id. at 21: 15-21.)

6 Likewise, the City does not know which, if any, of these shelter sites could

7 accommodate people with specific special needs, such as service animals. (Id. at

8 35:24-36:6, 38:7-12,42:2-5.) Individuals with disabilities currently have no way

9 of knowing which shelters have been designated as accessible. (Burton Dep. at

10 66:4-8.) In the event of an emergency or disaster, individuals with disabilities are

11 therefore disproportionately burdened by the City'S failure to provide or identify

12 accessible shelters when such shelters are available to other residents. While the

13 Court commends the City for continuing to conduct full accessibility surveys of its

14 shelters and for identifying the need for evacuation devices, such as portable lifts

15 and evacuation chairs, (id. at 19:13-17,20:7-22; Kaufman Decl. at~ 25), such

16 efforts - in isolation - are not sufficient.

17

The City's response that its lack of affirmative action with respect to

18 individuals with disabilities somehow absolves the City of liability is not only

19 unavailing but also contrary to clearly-established precedent. See McGary, 386

20 F.3d at 1266 (explaining that the ADA "guard[s] against the fa9ade of 'equal

21 treatment' when particular accommodations are necessary to level the playing

22 field."). Because individuals with disabilities require special needs, the City

23 disproportionately burdens them through its facially neutral practice of

24 administering its program in a manner that fails to address such needs. (See Defs.'

25 Opp'n to Mot. for Summary Judgment at 8:11-13.)

26

The City's contentions that it can make ad hoc reasonable accommodations

27 upon request or that Plaintiffs' claims are somehow deficient because the named

28 plaintiffs have not sought individual accommodations are both legally inadequate

25

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 26 of 31 Page ID #:2592

1 and practically unrealistic. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' complaint is that the City

2 fails to provide for the unique needs of individuals with disabilities in its

3 emergency preparedness program. The purpose of the City's emergency

4 preparedness program is to anticipate the needs of its residents in the event of an

5 emergency and to minimize the very type oflast-minute, individualized requests

6 for assistance described by the City, particularly when the City's infrastructure

7 may be substantially compromised or strained by an imminent or ongoing

8 emergency or disaster.

9

The Court is similarly not persuaded by the City's argument concerning the

10 importance of personal planning and preparedness. (Defs.' Opp'n to Mot. for

11 Summary Judgment at 1:11-13.) Although it is certainly important for all of the

12 City's residents to prepare for an emergency, it is the City's emergency

13 preparedness program that is at issue in this action. The City provides a

14 comprehensive emergency preparedness program and such program must be open

15 and accessible to all of its residents. It is irrelevant for purposes of this action

16 whether individuals should also personally plan and prepare for emergencies

17 and/or disasters. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are denied the

18 benefits of the City's emergency preparedness program because the City's practice

19 of failing to address the needs of individuals with disabilities discriminates against

20 such individuals by denying them meaningful access to the City's emergency

21 preparedness program.

22

iii. The Exclusion ofPlaintiffs from the City's Emergency

23

Preparedness Program is by Reason of Their Disabilities

24

To be actionable, the exclusion from participation in or denial of the

25 benefits of services, programs or activities by a public entity must be by reason of

26 a disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132. In McGary, the City of Portland's Office of

27 Planning and Development Review ("OPDR") issued a Notice to Remove

28 Nuisance because it concluded that the amount of trash and debris in the plaintiff's

26

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 27 of 31 Page ID #:2593

1 yard constituted a nuisance in violation of the city code. 386 F.3d at 1260. The

2 plaintiff, an individual with AIDS, was subsequently hospitalized with meningitis,

3 but the OPDR refused to provide the plaintiff with additional time to remove the

4 debris. Id. at 1260-61. Although it did not reach the merits, the Ninth Circuit held

5 that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that he was discriminated against by reason of

6 his disability due to the City's failure to provide a reasonable time

7 accommodation. Id. at 1269-70.

8

Here, too, the denial of meaningful access to the City's emergency

9 preparedness program is by reason of Plaintiffs' disabilities. The City provides a

10 comprehensive emergency preparedness program to the general public but it

11 denies individuals with disabilities meaningful access to the program while the

12 benefits of the program remain open and easily accessible to other residents.

13 Because of the City's failure to address their unique needs, individuals with

14 disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to harm in the event of an emergency

15 or disaster.

16

The City's reliance on Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp.

17 Auth., 114 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 1997), is inapposite. In Weinreich, the Ninth Circuit

18 held that Los Angeles County's Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA")

19 did not discriminate against the plaintiff on the basis of his disability by refusing

20 to exempt him from a recertification requirement of the MTA's Reduced Fare

21 Program. 114 F.3d at 978. The Reduced Fare Program served elderly and eligible

22 disabled patrons but, to qualify, disabled participants must provide updated

23 medical information every three years demonstrating the ongoing existence of a

24 disability. Id. The plaintiff sought an exemption from the recertification

25 requirement because he was indigent and could not afford to pay a private doctor

26 to recertify his disability. Id. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs "lack of

27 'meaningful access' to the Reduced Fare Program was not due to his medical

28 disability, but rather to his inability to satisfy a condition of eligibility because of

27

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 28 of 31 Page ID #:2594

1 his financial circumstances." Id. at 979.

2

Unlike Weinreich, the City's failure to address the unique needs of

3 individuals with disabilities in its emergency preparedness program is by reason of

4 their disabilities. The City contends that the emergency preparedness program is

5 intended to be general, not tactical, in nature, and actual responsibilities are to be

6 delegated to other departments. (Freeman Dep. at 15:14-23,28:18-29:4,

7 Featherstone Dep. at 67: 17-22.) Because of this practice, individuals with

8 disabilities are burdened "in a manner different and greater than it burdens

9 others." Crowder, 81 F.3d at 1484. For example, although the City has a plan to

10 provide shelter at designated sites, the record reflects that many, if not all, of these

11 sites are not ADA-compliant. (Torres Dep. at 21:15-21.) Because the City does

12 not know which of its shelters are accessible, individuals with disabilities do not

13 know how to locate an accessible shelter. Accordingly, the Court finds that

14 Plaintiffs' exclusion from the City's emergency preparedness program is by

15 reason of their disabilities.

16

iv. The City Receives Federal Funding

17

To assert a Section 504 claim, a plaintiff must establish that the program at

18 issue receives federal funding. 29 U.S.C § 794(a). It is undisputed that the City

19 receives federal funding for its emergency preparedness program. (SGI at,-r 243.)

20 Plaintiffs have therefore established this element of their Section 504 claim.

21

v. Reasonable Modifications are Available

22

"When a state's policies, practices or procedures discriminate against the

23 disabled in violation of the ADA, Department of Justice regulations require

24 reasonable modifications in such policies, practices or procedures 'when the

25 modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability,

26 unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would

27 fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. '" Crowder, 81

28 F.3d at 1485 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)).

28

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 29 of 31 Page ID #:2595

1

Plaintiffs have established that reasonable modification(s) to the City's

2 emergency preparedness program are available, including those identified in the

3 DOD's recommendations to the EMD and the U.S. Department of Justice's ADA

4 Checklist for Emergency Shelters. (Smith Decl. at,-r 14, Ex. L; Collins Decl. ,-r,-r

5 15,30, Ex. A; Declaration of June Kailes, Plaintiffs' Expert, at,-r,-r 18,21,39,48.)

6 Although the City disputes whether some of the reasonable modifications

7 enumerated by Plaintiffs are necessary or purely "aspirational," it has presented no

8 evidence demonstrating that any specific reasonable modification would

9 fundamentally alter the nature of its emergency preparedness program or cause

10 undue burden. Plaintiffs, however, seek an entry of summary judgment solely on

11 the issue of liability, and the Court consequently makes no finding as to the

12 appropriate remedy at this stage of the litigation.

13

b. Plaintiffs are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law as to

14

Liability on Their State Law Claims Against the City

15

vi. The City Violates the CDPA by Failing to Provide Full and

16

Equal Access to the City's Emergency Preparedness Program

17

The CDPA provides that "[i]ndividuals with disabilities shall be entitled to

18 full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations,

19 advantages, [and] facilities." CAL. CIV. CODE. § 54.1. A violation of the ADA

20 also constitutes a violation of the CDPA. CAL. CIV. CODE. § 54(c); see also

21 Hubbard v. SoBreck, 554 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiffs

22 are entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw as to liability on their CDPA claim

23 because, as set forth above, they have established a violation of the ADA.

24

vii. The City Violates California Government Code Section 11135

25

by Failing to Provide Full and Equal Access to the City's

26

Emergency Preparedness Program

27

Section 11135 prohibits any program or activity receiving financial

28 assistance from the state from denying "full and equal" access to or discriminating

29

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 30 of 31 Page ID #:2596

1 against individuals with disabilities. CAL. Gov. CODE. § 11135. This section "is

2 identical to the Rehabilitation Act except that the entity must receive State

3 financial assistance rather than Federal financial assistance." D.K. v. Solano

4 County Office ofEduc., 667 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1190-91 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (England,

5 J.). It is undisputed that the City receives state funding for its emergency

6 preparedness program. (SGI at,-r 244.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs

7 are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to liability on their Section 11135

8 claim because, as set forth above, they have established a violation of Section 504

9 and the City receives state funding.

10

CONCLUSION

11

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby orders as follows:

12

1. The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike as set forth

13

above;

14

2. The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiffs' Objection;

15

3. The Court OVERRULES Defendants' Objections;

16

4. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice;

17

5. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication as

18

to the City's liability on Plaintiffs' claims for: (1) violation of Title II of

19

ADA; (2) violation of Section 504; (3) violation of the CDPA,

20

California Civil Code § 54, et seq.; and (4) violation of California

21

Government Code § 11153;

22

6. The Court finds that the City violated (1) Title II of ADA; (2) Section

23

504; (3) the CDPA, California Civil Code § 54, et seq.; and (4)

24

California Government Code § 11153, and Plaintiffs are entitled to

25

judgment as a matter of law as to liability on all of these claims;

26

7. The pretrial conference date and trial date, presently scheduled for

27

March 28,2011 and April 12, 2011, respectively, are hereby vacated;

28

8. Plaintiffs and the City shall participate in a settlement conference with

30

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 140 Filed 02/10/11 Page 31 of 31 Page ID #:2597

1

Magistrate Judge Andrew 1. Wistrich, to take place within twenty-one

2

(21) days of the date of this Order. The parties shall meet and confer at

3

least once prior to the settlement conference with Judge Wistrich to

4

attempt to fashion a proposal to the Court for injunctive relief. Such

5

relief shall apply to all components of the City's emergency

6

preparedness program and shall include a proposal for monitoring and a

7

schedule for implementation. Within ten (10) days of the completion of

8

the settlement conference with Judge Wistrich, the parties shall file a

9

joint status report with the Court and, if necessary, the Court shall

10

thereafter schedule a status conference and set new pretrial and trial

11

dates; and

12

9. All parties who have authority to settle and lead trial counsel for

13

Plaintiffs and the City shall attend both the meet-and-confer session and

14

the settlement conference with Judge Wistrich in person.

15

16
17 DATED: February iQ., 2011
18 19

By ~--.

k!. (3 ~.

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 254 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:5200

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

14 COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING

15

INDEPENDENT AND FREE, a nonprofit corporation, and AUDREY

16 HARTHORN, an individual, on behalf

17

of themselves and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

18

Plaintiffs,

19 v.

20 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public

entity, and COUNTY OF LOS 21 ANGELES, a public entity,

22

Defendants.

Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
CLASS ACTION
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 254 Filed 06/10/13 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:5201

1

Plaintiffs have applied to the Court for an order for final approval of the

2 settlement of this action with Defendant County of Los Angeles in accord with the

3 Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), which sets forth the terms of and conditions

4 of a proposed settlement and dismissal of the action with prejudice upon the terms

5 and conditions set forth therein. [Docket No. 229.] Defendant County of Los

6 Angeles does not oppose the motion.

7

Mr. Steven Stanwyck, a class member, objected to the Settlement

8 Agreement. On May 21, 2013, the Court heard Mr. Stanwyck’s objections, which

9 are as follows (in italics):

10 1. That the Agreement does not empower individuals to “independently act on

11

our behalf in the event of the first 72 hours of an emergency and to act as a

12

resource for others.”1 Class Counsel responded that the Agreement does

13

not prevent anyone from acting independently on their own behalf in the

14

first 72 hours of an emergency, nor does it prevent the individuals from

15

serving as a resource for others.

16 2. That the Agreement does not provide a comprehensive plan for cities within

17

the County of Los Angeles, where in the event of an emergency there will not

18

be coordination or a “centralized communications and coordination

19

system.” This objection is made after Mr. Stanwyck brought Santa

20

Monica’s Emergency Preparedness Plan to the attention of class counsel,

21

who admitted that Santa Monica’s input has not been solicited and that

22

Santa Monica, and all other cities in the County, will be “affected” by the

23

Agreement. Counsel for the County of Los Angeles responded that the

24

County will coordinate with cities located within the County prior to an

25

emergency, but do not have control over those cities’ emergency plans.

26

27 1 Quotes come from Mr. Stanwyck’s written objections that were provided to Class Counsel

28

prior to the May 21, 2013 hearing, and made available to the Court in hard copy on May 21, 2013. The document was not filed with the Court.

1
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 254 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:5202

1 3. That the State of California and the United States are indispensable parties,

2

and the United States has not filed a Statement of Interest nor joined in the

3

Settlement. Additionally, these entities were placed on mailing lists “with

4

no orders or direction from the Court,” which is “meaningless in terms of

5

the required participation.” He requested that the Court should abstain

6

from this case. In response, class counsel indicated that these parties were

7

served with a copy of the Complaint and that they have been kept abreast of

8

the proceedings in this case. During negotiations, parties drafted an Interim

9

Agreement, which this Court approved on June 7, 2010. [Doc. No. 88.] The

10

Interim agreement involves developing a document, with class counsel’s

11

input, that identifies the County’s key policies, procedures, and issues

12

directly related to the preparedness, response, and recovery of access and

13

functional needs populations (“Persons with Disabilities and Access and

14

Functional Needs Annex”). The draft Annex was provided to the U.S.

15

Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which responded and provided feedback.

16

The United States was not named as a party in the Complaint, but the DOJ

17

did file a Statement of Interest in the case. [Doc. No. 111.]

18 4. That class counsel from the Disability Rights Legal Center (“DRLC”) and

19

Disability Rights Advocates (“DRA”) have been “in contempt of their four

20

(4) year monitoring duties, for which they were already compensated, in the

21

related ADA case Miles v. County of Los Angeles, 02-3932

22

(DT)(JTLx)….[t]herefore, they cannot be allowed to act in this ADA case, or

23

be compensated.” The Miles case is currently closed and any Motions

24

regarding that case should not be filed under the Communities Actively

25

Living case number. Additionally, the Court understands that class counsel

26

stated that in Miles, progress reports were not filed with the Court and that

27

these two entities provided reports to the parties. After reviewing the

28

2
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 254 Filed 06/10/13 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:5203

1

docket, there is no record that either DRLC or DRA were cited for contempt

2

or found in contempt.

3 5. That class counsel “incorrectly cite to cases of non-party governmental

4

participation as a settlement factor because the County is a “public

5

entity.”” Mr. Stanwyck further states that the cases cited require

6

“meaningful nonparty governmental participation,” and due to this, and

7

because “DOJ and FEMA should have been included, the settlement must be

8

denied.” The Court finds that the United States has been involved in the

9

case, as indicated above.

10 6. That class representatives are uninformed and have divergent interests

11

because in an email exchange with lead class representative Lillibeth

12

Navarro, she did not request damages since “we did not know that we

13

could” and that she is allegedly “afraid to object because that might cast a

14

negative light on [her organization’s] good intentions.” Mr. Stanwyck

15

further objects that “[i]f Ms. Navarro had been fully informed, she would

16

not have approved DRLC or this settlement.” Ms. Navarro was present at

17

the hearing and was questioned by the Court. She stated that she does not

18

object to the settlement and believes class counsel fully represents her and

19

the class’ interests;

20 7. That Class Counsel have disqualifying conflicts, and there is a wide

21

divergence of interests among the class representatives;

22 8. That Class Counsel, “operating out of Berkeley, California,” were never

23

qualified to bring this case in Los Angeles County. Class Counsel noted that

24

though DRA is based in Berkeley, DRLC is based out of Los Angeles,

25

California, which is the city and county that is the subject of the suit;

26 9. That Class Counsel have not disclosed their malpractice insurance;

27 10.That Mr. Stanwyck is confused by the Agreement, and what he is

28

“apparently giving up is too great and what [he] is getting is not adequate.”

3
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 254 Filed 06/10/13 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:5204

1

The Court questioned Mr. Stanwyck and Class Counsel whether Mr.

2

Stanwyck could opt-out of the class, and counsel responded that he could

3

have opted out of the class earlier, but that period had ended.

4 11.That while class members are required to give up injunctive and declaratory

5

relief under a general release and under California Civil Code § 1542, there

6

are no similar releases or admissions of liability by the County, and this is

7

against public policy in the Ninth Circuit. Class counsel said that class

8

members do not give up claims for damages under this release2;

9 12.That the fees of $2.1 million dollars “already paid by the City [of Los

10

Angeles], the additional $1.25 million dollars, with no monetary benefits to

11

any class member, the general releases” and no admission of liability by the

12

County is “improper and overlapping.” The Court is unclear about the

13

nature of this objection, since the case is still active as to the City, which is

14

not party to the settlement.

15 Mr. Stanwyck’s objections were heard and considered on the record. While the

16 Court finds it appropriate that class members, such as Mr. Stanwyck, bring their

17 concerns to the attention of the Court, the Court further finds that his objections

18 were adequately addressed, and overrules each of them. In spite of the objections

19 raised, the settlement is in the best interests of the class and the community of Los

20 Angeles in that the purpose of the lawsuit is to provide representation from the

21 disability community regarding emergency planning within the County and the

22 City, and to provide a comprehensive emergency plan. Rather than spending

23 money in discovery, the Court finds that the money and time can be better spent on

24 securing an emergency plan to serve the community.

25

26

27

2 Cal. Civil Code § 1542 states that “[a] general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release,

28

which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”

4
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 254 Filed 06/10/13 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:5205

1

Having read the papers submitted and carefully considered the arguments

2 and relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS

3 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

5

1. Due and adequate notice of the proposed Agreement was provided to

6 the class through the following methods:

7

a. Mailed and/or emailed to all organizations that received or

8

commented on the draft Disability and Functional Needs Annex;

9

b. Posted on the websites of Disability Rights Legal Center, Disability

10

Rights Advocates, the County of Los Angeles, and the County’s

11

Office of Emergency Management for a period of no less than thirty

12

(30) days;

13

c. Published in the Los Angeles Times at least two occasions within

14

twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of the Court’s Preliminary

15

Approval Order;

16

d. Translated into the following languages: Spanish, Hindi, Khmer, Thai,

17

Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, Chinese, and Vietnamese, which are the

18

current voting languages in Los Angeles County, and published in

19

newspapers that correspond to those languages as follows: La Opinion

20

(Spanish), India Post (Hindi), The Khmer Post Media Center (Khmer),

21

Siamtown US (Thai), Rafu Shimpo (Japanese), The Korean Times

22

(Korea), Philippine Media (Tagalog), World Journal Chinese Daily

23

News (Chinese), and Nguoi Viet (Vietnamese) at least two occasions

24

within twenty-one (21) calendar days, with the exception of The

25

Khmer Post Media Center, which publishes bi-monthly, and said

26

Notice was published in The Khmer Post Media Center twice within

27

thirty (30) calendar days, of the date of the Court’s Preliminary

28

Approval Order.

5
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 254 Filed 06/10/13 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:5206

1

2. The form and manner of delivery to the class met the requirements of

2 Rule 23 and due process, constituted the best notice practicable under the

3 circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all members of the

4 class. There has only been one objector to the settlement. The Court has

5 considered the submission and argument provided by the objecting class member,

6 as well as Class Counsel’s and Defendant County of Los Angeles’ response to the

7 objection, and has determined that the objection does not warrant disapproval of

8 the Agreement.

9

3. The Court hereby approves the Agreement and finds that it is, in all

10 respects, fair, adequate and reasonable to all potential class members. It appears

11 that extensive evaluation of the merits has been conducted by counsel for the

12 Parties, who have evaluated their respective positions. It also appears to the Court

13 that settlement at this time will avoid substantial additional costs to all Parties, as

14 well as avoid the delay and the risks presented by further prosecution of issues

15 addressed by the Agreement. It further appears that the Agreement has been

16 reached as the result of intensive, prolonged, serious and non-collusive arms-length

17 negotiations, including several settlement sessions supervised by Honorable

18 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich and Honorable Judge Edward A. Infante

19 (retired). The Court has reviewed the relief granted as part of the Agreement and

20 recognizes the significant value to the class of the injunctive relief provided by the

21 settlement.

22

4. The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over this matter for a period

23 of six years from the date of entry of this Order in order to supervise the

24 implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Agreement

25 and this Order. Is it hereby Ordered that progress reports be filed with the Court

26 every six (6) months by parties, and the first report should be filed no later than

27 December 10, 2013.

28

6
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 254 Filed 06/10/13 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:5207

1

5. The Court hereby Orders a copy of Mr. Steven Stanwyck’s Objections

2 be filed forthwith.

3

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

6 DATED: June 10, 2013

_____________________________

7

HON. CONSUELO B. MARSHALL

8

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 255 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:5208

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY

13 LIVING INDEPENDENT AND

14

FREE, a nonprofit corporation, and AUDREY HARTHORN, an

15 individual, on behalf

16

of themselves and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

17

Plaintiffs,

18

vs.

19

20 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, and COUNTY OF
21 LOS ANGELES, a public entity,

22 Defendants.
23

)

) )

CASE NO. CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)

) )

CLASS ACTION

) ) ) )

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

24 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Application for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees
25 and Costs. [Docket No. 234.] Plaintiffs have applied to the Court for an order
26 approving attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation costs to Class Counsel
27 in the amount of $1,225,000, and up to $75,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs for
28

1

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 255 Filed 06/10/13 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:5209

1 monitoring the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). Defendant County of Los

2 Angeles does not oppose the motion, and these are the amounts contained in the

3 proposed class settlement agreement between the Plaintiffs and the County.

4 Having read the papers submitted and carefully considered the arguments and

5 relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

6 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and finds and rules as follows:

7

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

8

1. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence

9 supporting their claim for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and hereby

10 approves the settlement of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $1,225,000

11 for work performed on this matter, as stated in Section VII of the Agreement. The

12 Court also approves the availability of fees and costs for monitoring the

13 Agreement after Final Approval, in an amount up to $75,000, as stated in Section

14 VI.G of the Agreement.

15

2. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence,

16 including time records detailing the tasks performed on this matter and

17 declarations from practitioners in the field, supporting the reasonableness of their

18 2012 requested hourly rates. The Court finds that the requested hourly rates

19 correspond to the prevailing market rate in the relevant community, considering

20 the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorneys in question.

21

3. Class counsel stated that no other litigation in the country has sought

22 to determine the nature and extent of a municipality’s obligation to include

23 persons with disabilities in its emergency preparedness and planning efforts.

24 Therefore, counsel had to conduct considerable research, familiarize themselves

25 with the fact intensive literature on the subject of emergency planning, and

26 explore untested legal theories. The active litigation included extensive,

27 voluminous discovery, numerous depositions, and thousands of pages of

28

2

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 255 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:5210

1 documents. The negotiations were thorough, involving many teleconferences, in-

2 person meetings, and conferences and mediation sessions before two judges.

3 Additionally, after a joint request to stay the litigation, the Court approved a

4 process where Plaintiffs and the Defendant County would coordinate to draft a

5 “Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex,” (“Annex”)

6 for which the experts conferred and resolved many issues, and any disputes were

7 referred to counsel. Resolving the issues involved many settlement conferences

8 on the phone and in person, and multiple proposals and drafts by both parties.

9 After the Annex was sent out for public comment in late 2011, the U.S.

10 Department of Justice detailed its concerns, after which a second draft was

11 developed and Defendant County of Los Angeles developed a work plan.

12 Negotiations continued for five months regarding the scope of the Annex and

13 workplan. Parties then attended two mediation sessions in February and July 2012

14 and were able to resolve all outstanding substantive issues. After the July

15 mediation session, parties continued to work together to finalize the Agreement

16 and other matters, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The proposed settlement

17 was approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on October 15,

18 2012.

19

4. The Court finds that Class Counsel was efficient in allocating work.

20 Counsel states that only four attorneys performed the majority of the work

21 required, that discrete tasks were given to other attorneys as needed, and that a

22 small group of attorneys litigated the entire case. Counsel also states that

23 Attorneys Wolinsky, Smith, and Gilbride from Disability Rights Advocates

24 ("DRA"), and Attorney Parks from Disability Rights Legal Center (“DRLC”), did

25 a majority of the work.

26

5. In support of the hourly rates quoted by lead attorneys in this case,

27 Attorney Wolinsky is a graduate of Yale Law School in 1961 and has been

28

3

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 255 Filed 06/10/13 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:5211

1 practicing law and trying cases for over 50 years. He has been the lead and trial

2 attorney in well over 150 class action and high-impact cases, and has tried and

3 argued cases before the California and New York Federal Courts, the California

4 and Hawaii Supreme Courts, and many other appellate courts. He is the Director

5 of Litigation at DRA and is considered one of the foremost experts nationally on

6 civil rights and disability law, and is requesting an hourly rate of $860. Attorney

7 Parks is a 1999 graduate of University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall, and is

8 nationally recognized as a leading disability rights attorney and has been co-

9 director of litigation at DRA since April 2012. From 2005 to March 2012, she

10 was at the DRLC, where she was a litigation attorney, and later the legal director

11 from 2009 to 2012, and is requesting an hourly rate of $665. Attorney Smith is

12 managing attorney at DRA, and graduated from U.C. Berkeley, Boalt Hall Law

13 School in 2005. She received the 2013 California Lawyer Magazine Attorney of

14 the Year Award in the area of Disability Law for her work on this litigation and

15 the 2010 California Lawyer Attorney of the Year Award in the area of Disability

16 Law for her work on the above referenced Caltrans case, and is requesting an

17 hourly rate of $555. Attorney Gilbride is a 2007 graduate of Georgetown Law

18 School and worked on this case as part of DRA. Attorney Gilbride served as a

19 law clerk to Judge Ronald Gould on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

20 Circuit in Seattle. She conducted much of the written discovery and took and

21 defended several depositions. She was also responsible for all expert discovery,

22 and is knowledgeable in the requirements for emergency preparedness under the

23 law, and is requesting an hourly rate of $430.

24

6. In support of the hourly rates quoted by other attorneys in this case,

25 Attorney Uzeta is a 1992 graduate of University of California at Davis, King Hall

26 School of Law, with a Certification in Public Interest Law. She has practiced

27 exclusively in the area of civil rights law, in particular disability rights, since

28

4

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 255 Filed 06/10/13 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:5212
1 1993. From February 1995 to August 2008, she worked as an attorney at 2 Disability Rights California (“DRC”), the largest disability rights organization in 3 the nation, where she represented individuals and classes with disabilities in 4 federal and state litigation. From August 2008 to December 2010, she was 5 employed as the Litigation Director of the Southern California Housing Rights 6 Center, a Los Angeles based nonprofit whose mission is to combat housing 7 discrimination, where she engaged mostly in disability discrimination cases, and is 8 requesting an hourly rate of $700. Attorney Paradis is the Executive Director and 9 Co-Director of Litigation at DRA. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 10 1985 and has extensive experience with disability rights litigation, and has 11 received several awards for his work on precedent setting disability rights cases, 12 including the California Lawyer Magazine Attorney of the Year Award in 2003 13 and 2011 and the Trial Lawyer of the Year Award from the San Francisco Trial 14 Lawyers Association. Mr. Paradis assisted with advising the litigation team on 15 settlement strategy and potential experts, and is requesting an hourly rate of $800. 16 Attorney Elsberry is a 1987 graduate of University of California, Hastings College 17 of Law. He was a Managing Attorney at DRA from 2009 to 2012, and is currently 18 a Senior Staff Attorney at DRLC. He assisted with certain tasks relating to class 19 certification, and is requesting an hourly rate of $725. Attorney Weed is a 2002 20 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. She was involved in the 21 preliminary investigation and review of the voluminous public records, and is 22 requesting an hourly rate of $600. Attorney Biedermann is a 2007 graduate of 23 Yale Law School and was an Arthur Liman Fellow at DRA from 2007 to 2009. 24 She assisted with the review of many public records and drafting the complaint, 25 and is requesting an hourly rate of $430. Attorney Chuang is a 2007 graduate of 26 University of Pennsylvania Law School and has been a Staff Attorney at DRA 27 since 2011. Previously, she was a Litigation Associate at Latham & Watkins LLP. 28
5

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 255 Filed 06/10/13 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:5213

1 She primarily worked on finalizing the settlement agreement, providing notice to

2 the class, and drafting the motions for preliminary and final approval, as well as

3 the motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and is requesting an hourly

4 rate of $430. Attorney Janssen is currently a Staff Attorney at DRA and graduated

5 from New York University School of Law in 2010. She assisted with discrete

6 tasks relating to the negotiation of the County’s Work Plan and draft Annex, and

7 is requesting an hourly rate of $330. Attorneys Patkin, Lee, and Strugar worked

8 on the case in their capacity as attorneys at DRLC. Former DRLC staff attorney

9 Patkin is a 2007 graduate of UCLA School of Law, and is requesting an hourly

10 rate of $450. Former DRLC staff attorney Strugar is a 2004 graduate of USC

11 Gould School of Law, and is requesting an hourly rate of $525. Former DRLC

12 staff attorney Lee is a 2003 graduate of Loyola Law School, and is requesting an

13 hourly rate of $550. The Fee Experts cited by Attorneys indicate that the hourly

14 rates requested by all of these attorneys is reasonable.

15

7. The Court finds that the rate of $240 for DRA’s paralegals and $250

16 for its summer associates is reasonable. DRA’s paralegals are college graduates

17 that have worked under attorney supervision for over a year. DRA’s summer

18 associates generally have two full years of law school experience before working

19 at DRA for their second-year summer. The Court further finds that the hourly rate

20 of $230 for DRLC’s law clerks and litigation assistants is reasonable.

21

8. The Court hereby approves the following 2012 hourly rates and hours

22 expended:

23

24

DRA

Rate Hours Fees

25

Sid Wolinsky

$860.00 700.00 $602,000.00

26

Shawna Parks

$665.00 81.40

$54,131.00

27

Mary-Lee Smith

$555.00 139.50

$77,422.50

Karla Gilbride

$430.00 494.40 $212,592.00

28

6

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 255 Filed 06/10/13 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:5214

1

DRA

Rate Hours Fees

2

Larry Paradis

$800.00 15.80

$12,640.00

3

Ron Elsberry

$725.00 18.30

$13,267.50

4

Katherine Weed

$600.00 20.50

$12,300.00

Stephanie Biedermann $430.00 184.00

$79,120.00

5

Christine Chuang

$430.00 125.00

$53,750.00

6

Kara Janssen

$330.00 36.40

$12,012.00

7

Summer Associates

$250.00 26.70

$6,675.00

8

Paralegals

$240.00 260.90

$62,616.00

9

10

DRLC

Rate Hours Fees

11

Michelle Uzeta

$700.00 35.50

$24,850.00

12

Shawna Parks

$665.00 285.60

$189,924.00

13

Debra Patkin

$450.00 143.50

$64,575.00

Jennifer Lee

$550.00 16.00

$8,800.00

14

Matthew Strugar

$525.00 20.20

$10,605.00

15

Law Clerk

$230.00 122.90

$28,267.00

16

Steve Cueller

$230.00 4.70

$1,081.00

17

(Litigation Assist.)

18

9. The Court finds that the hourly rates and hours expended are

19 reasonable under established Ninth Circuit law. See Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214

20 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing the lodestar figure and the requirement to

21 consider factors outlined in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th

22 Cir. 1975)).1

23

24 1 The requested Attorneys’ Fees and Costs stem from negotiations between Class Counsel and

25

the County of Los Angeles, and are much lower than the fees calculated under the lodestar method. The calculated fees, without any multiplier, are $1,526,628.00 and the costs expended

26 are $47,903.05, for a total of $1,574,531.05, which is $349,531.05 greater than the amount
negotiated by the Settlement. Since this case involved injunctive and declaratory relief, the Fee

27 award will not result in an “inequity” between Counsel and Class Members. See In re HP Inkjet

Printer Litig., 11-16097, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 1986396, *1, *5 (9th Cir. May 15, 2013)
28 (reasoning that “coupon” settlements may create inequity where Class Counsel request fees and

7

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 255 Filed 06/10/13 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:5215

1

10. The Court further finds that Counsel has submitted sufficient

2 evidence of the time and effort undertaken by Class Counsel in prosecuting and

3 settling the claims, and that this time and effort was reasonable and necessary in

4 light of the needs of the litigation.

5

In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, the County of Los Angeles

6 shall pay attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation costs to Class Counsel in

7 the amount of $1,225,000 within ninety (90) days of this Order (September 9,

8 2013) and up to $75,000 for monitoring the Agreement within six (6) years of this

9 Order.

10

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 DATED: June 10, 2013 13 14

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 28 costs).

8

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 264 Filed 07/18/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:5435

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES SID WOLINSKY (SBN 33716)
2 swolinsky@dralegal.org
3 SHAWNA L. PARKS (SBN 208301) sparks@dralegal.org
4 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
5 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 665-8644
6 Fax: (510) 665-8511; TTY: (510) 665-8716

7
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 8 PAULA PEARLMAN (SBN 109038)

9 paula.pearlman@lls.edu MICHELLE UZETA (SBN 164402)
10 michelle.uzeta@lls.edu

11 800 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1120 Los Angeles, CA 90017
12 Telephone: (213)736-1496

13

Fax: (213) 736-1428; TTY: (213) 736-8310 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx) 18 INDEPENDENT AND FREE, a

19 nonprofit corporation, and AUDREY HARTHORN, an individual, on behalf
20 of themselves and ALL OTHERS 21 SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, 22 v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE RE DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

23
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public 24 entity, and COUNTY OF LOS
25 ANGELES, a public entity, Defendants.
26

27

28

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 264 Filed 07/18/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:5436

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

ORDER

2

Pursuant to the settlement reached by and between Plaintiffs and Defendant

3 County of Los Angeles and as approved by the Court on June 10, 2013, the terms

4 of which are memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, a fully executed copy of

5 which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, all claims by Plaintiffs against Defendant

6 County of Los Angeles are hereby dismissed, with prejudice. It is the obligation of

7 the parties requesting dismissal to comply with the terms of the Settlement

8 Agreement.

9

The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Judge

10 Consuelo B. Marshall, specifically retains jurisdiction over this case for a term of

11 up to six years from the date of the Court's final approval to enforce the Settlement

12 Agreement forming the basis of this dismissal, with the condition that no party

13 may seek to enforce the settlement in Court without first meeting and conferring in

14 good faith and following the agreed upon dispute resolution procedure as set forth

15 in the Settlement Agreement.

16

The Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice, subject to the terms of

17 the Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated into the

18 record herein.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21 Dated: July 18, 2013
22

By: ___________________________ Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

CALIF, et al. v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No. CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE RE DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 172 Filed 11/09/11 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2760

1

~~

PllED

2
3

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COU T
~ . [NOV .•. 9 20II

4

CENTRAL. DisT '. OF. i\LlFORNIA

5

BY

DEPUTY

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11
12 COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING 13 INDEPENDENT AND FREE, a
nonprofit corporation, and AUDREY 14 HARTHORN, an individual, on behalf of 15 themselves and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,

CASE NO.: CV-09-0287 CBM (RZx) [PbijA6b Jj-erder Re Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs,

18

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public

19 entity, and COUNTY OF LOS

20 ANGELES, a public entity,

21

22 Defendants.
23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 172 Filed 11/09/11 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:2761

1

[Proposed] ORDER

2

Pursuant to this Comi's Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary

3 Adjudication (Dkt. 140), the Court issues the following order with respect to Defendant

4 City of Los Angeles ("the City"):

5

A. Expert Review and Revision of the City's Emergency Preparedness

6

Program

7

The City will hire BCFS to serve as the independent expert to address all

8 components of the City's emergency preparedness program. See Order re Expert

9 Selection (Dkt. No. 169), dated 9/29/11. BCFS shall subcontract with June Kailes in

10 order to utilize her subject matter expertise in disability issues. See id. The expert will

11 evaluate the City's current plans and develop revised emergency plans as to all

12 components of the City's emergency preparedness program to address the needs of

13 persons with disabilities. Components to be addressed are listed in the Court's Order

14 Granting Summary Adjudication (Dkt. No. 140), dated 2110/11, pages 3-4.

15

In evaluating and revising the City's current emergency plans, the expert will,

16 among other tasks, review relevant documents, meet with City personnel and meet with

17 other governmental and non-governmental representatives (e.g. other local, state or

18 federal emergency planners, and representatives of community organizations that

19 represent people with disabilities). Throughout this process, the expert will also work

20 cooperatively with City employees. In order to avoid unnecessary and duplicative costs,

21 the expert should attempt to utilize the time and resources of City employees, if available,

22 so long as the expert determines that City employees have the requisite expertise and

23 skill. All work performed pursuant to this Order will be under the direction of the expert

24 and ultimate decision-making authority remains with the expert. As the City'S emergency

25 plans are revised, the expert will oversee the implementation of these revised emergency 26 plans. I

27
28 I Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12206(c)(l), the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") may provide technical assistance to the Parties and the expert throughout the review and
1
r er e nJunctIve e Ie

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 172 Filed 11/09/11 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:2762

1

B. Compliance Period, Continuing Jurisdiction and Reporting

2

The revision of the City's emergency plans and the implementation thereof shall be

3 completed in a time period of three years commencing with the entry of this Order. The

4 Parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for three years following the entry of

5 this Order. The Court notes that this three year period is designed to allow the City a

6 thoughtful and complete review of its emergency plans, and to provide time to implement

7 the plans once revised. However, the Court orders that the City begin this review and

8 revision without delay, and that it proceed as expeditiously as possible in this process.

9

During the three year period, the exp~li will provide bi-annual reports to the Court

10 and counsel for the Parties such that they may monitor the progress being made. These

11 reports shall include sufficient detail such that the Court and counsel for the Parties can

12 evaluate progress of the review and revision of the plans, and at a minimum shall include

13 the following information:

14

1. Identification of key City personnel involved in the process;

15

2. Identification of community groups and governmental agencies consulted or

16

otherwise involved in the process;

17

3. Work plans, including time lines and completion dates, for revision of each

18

of the City's emergency plans, broken down by type of plan;

19

4. The status of the revision of the City's emergency plans, per the work plans

20

developed by the expert;

21

5. Identification of any obstacles or problems identified by the expert in the

22

review and revision of the plans.

23

To the extent they believe it is necessary, the Parties may provide comments on

24 these bi-annual reports and request additional information from the expert as to the

25

26 revision and implementation phases. The DO] will be the lead federal agency in this case
27 and all communications and interactions related to this litigation between Counsel and
28 any federal agency, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, will go through the DO].

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 172 Filed 11/09/11 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:2763

1 progress made under this Order, within 30 days of the report's issuance. The Parties will

2 meet and confer if after receiving such additional information, either party believes

3 further information is required. The Parties shall share with each other all additional

4 information provided by the expert and shall file their comments, if any, with the Court.

5

At the conclusion of the three year period, the expert will submit a final report to

6" the Court describing the work completed to date. Within thirty (30) days of said

7 submission, the Parties may submit briefing to the Court as to their position on whether

8 the work required to remedy the violations identified by this Court is complete and/or

9 whether jurisdiction by the Court should be retained. Based on the expert's reports and

10 the Parties' briefing, the Court will make a determination whether to terminate the case 0

11 to extend the jurisdiction of the Court.

12

C. Dispute Resolution

13

If any disputes arise and if the Parties are unable to resolve those disputes through

14 a good faith meet and confer process, such disputes shall first be referred to Magistrate

15 Judge Andrew J. Wistrich or a successor that he shall designate, if Magistrate Judge

16 Wistrich becomes unavailable. Any unresolved disputes may be submitted to this Court

17 for final resolution.

18

D. Attorneys' Fees and Cost~

19

Following the entry of this Order by the Court, the Parties will negotiate in good

20 faith for three weeks in order to attempt to reach an agreement as to the amount of

21 attorneys' fees and costs for Class Counsel in this matter. If the Parties can reach

22 agreement as to the amount of attorneys' fees and costs within three weeks but require

23 additional time for the Los Angeles City Council to approve the amount, the Parties will

24 inform the Court of the date by which the City Council will consider the fee amount and

25 / / /

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / /

Case 2:09-cv-00287-CBM-RZ Document 172 Filed 11/09/11 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:2764

1 request an extension until that date. If the Pmiies cannot reach agreement as to the 2 amount of attorneys' fees and costs after three weeks of negotiations, Plaintiffs will file a 3 motion with the Court within one week.

4 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: /I,/~,/;/

6

_ _ _ __ e.-.ACA'~_ ~ ~--.,,;e:::
By: _________F_A____________
Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

i

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 [Proposed] Order Re Injunctive

 
 1 SID WOLINSKY (SBN 33716)

swolinsky@dralegal.org 2 SHAWNA L. PARKS (SBN 208301)

3 sparks@dralegal.org

MARY-LEE SMITH (SBN 239086)

4 msmith@dralegal.org

5

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

6 Berkeley, CA 94704

Tel: 510-665-8644 • Fax: 510-665-8511 7

8 MICHELLE UTEZA (SBN 164402)

Michelle.uzeta@lls. edu

9 PAULA PEARLMAN (SBN 109038)

10

Paula.pearlman@lls.edu DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

11 800 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1120

Los Angeles, CA 9001 7 12 Tel: 213-736-1031 • Fax: 213-736-1428

13 JOHN F. KRATTLI, County Counsel

14 THOMAS J. FAUGHNAN, Assistant County Counsel

15

ADRIENNE M. BYERS, Principal Deputy County Counsel (SBN 146022) • abyers@counsel.lacounty.gov

16 648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration

500 West Temple Street 17 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713

18 Telephone: (213) 974-7680 • Fax: (213) 687-7337

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21 COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING

22

INDEPENDENT AND FREE, a nonprofit corporation, and AUDREY HARTHORN,

23 an individual, on behalf of themselves and

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

24

Plaintiffs,

25 v.

Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx) CLASS ACTION
[Proposed] CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

26 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, Action Filed: January 14, 2009

27 and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity,

Judge: Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall

28

Defendants.

RECITALS

2

1. Plaintiffs in the above action are Communities Actively Living

3 Independent and Free, a nonprofit corporation, and Audrey Harthorn, an individual

4 (collectively, "Plaintiffs").

5

2. One of the Defendants in the above action is the County of Los

6 Angeles (the "County"). Also a Defendant in the above action is the City of Los

7 Angeles (the "City"), who is not a party to this Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs

8 and the County are hereinafter referred to as the "Settling Parties."

9

3. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in United States District Court for the

1o Central District of California in January 2009 alleging that the emergency plans of

11 both the City and County do not include or adequately meet the needs of people

12 with disabilities living in the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs further alleged that

13 these planning deficiencies constituted violations of the Americans with

14 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

15 29 U.S.C. § 794; California's Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq,

16 and California Government Code section 11135.

17

4. The County denies the allegations against it and enters into this

18 Settlement Agreement solely to terminate all controversies regarding the matters

19 settled and compromised, and to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and further

20 litigation, without any admission of any liability whatsoever by Defendant.

21

5. The Settling Parties now desire to resolve their differences and

22 disputes by settling the suit. The Settling Parties have engaged in negotiations to

23 resolve claims concerning disability access to the County's emergency programs,

24 plans and facilities, as well as potential claims regarding injunctive relief, and

25 reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

26

6. These negotiations have entailed, among other things, discussions

27 regarding the Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex

28 ("the Disability and AFN Annex"). This Annex was developed by the County with
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta!., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
1 of22

1 assistance from its disability policy consultant (the "County Consultant") and

2 includes feedback from Plaintiffs and their disability policy consultant ("Plaintiffs'

3 Consultant"), and from organizations representing the disability community, in

4 accordance with the terms of the Interim Agreement re County of Los Angeles

5 Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs ("Interim Agreement")

6 entered into between the Settling Parties on May 26, 2010 and adopted by the

7 Court with jurisdiction over this litigation in an order dated June 7, 2010. There

8 have been multiple iterations during the course ofthe negotiations of this Annex.

9 The current version of the Disability and AFN Annex continues to be a work in

10 progress and, as developed, components within the Annex have been implemented

11 throughout the settlement discussion and will continue to be implemented

12 throughout the Oversight Period.

13

7. The current version of the Disability and AFN Annex is set forth in

14 the attached Appendix A, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

15 I. DEFINITIONS

16

As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning

17 ascribed to them in this Section, which are consistent with the provisions of

18 existing Federal and State law, including the regulations promulgated thereunder.

19 Except to the extent expressly stated to the contrary, any term not expressly

20 defined in this Section or elsewhere in this Agreement that has an expressly

21 defined meaning in either the ADA or the regulations promulgated thereunder

22 ("Regulations") shall have the meaning ascribed to it by the ADA or the

23 Regulations, in that order of preference. All other terms shall be interpreted

24 according to their plain and ordinary meaning.

25

A. ADA I ADAAG I ADA Standards

26

"ADA" means and refers to the Americans with Disabilities Act as

27 contained at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. "ADAAG" means and refers to the

28 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, codified at Appendix A
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
2 of22

1 to 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 36 and at Appendix A to 49 Code of

2 Federal Regulations part 37. "ADA Standards" refers to the ADA Standards for

3 Accessible Design means the ADA standards published on September 15, 2010.

4

B. Accessible

5

"Accessible" for purposes of any shelters covered under this Agreement

6 means that, to the extent it is being used for a shelter, the site meets the applicable

7 provisions of either the ADAAG or the ADA standards as well as the applicable

8 provisions of Title 24 of the California Building Code in effect at the time

9 modifications and alterations are commenced and includes all temporary

10 modifications and means that may be utilized to accommodate the specific use of

11 the site as a shelter. Analysis of accessibility will be conducted utilizing, among

12 other tools, the guidance of the DOJ ADA Toolkit for emergency shelters and/or

13 FEMAs Guidance on Planning for Integration of Functional Needs Support

14 Services in General Population Shelters, unless clearly inapplicable.

15

C. Agreement

16

"Agreement" means and refers to this document.

17

D. Disability and AFN Annex (Appendix A)

18

"Disability and AFN Annex" means and refers to the document called

19 County of Los Angeles Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs

20 Annex developed by the County pursuant to the Interim Agreement in this case

21 with the assistance of the County Consultant and with input from Plaintiffs and

22 Plaintiffs' Consultant. The "Current Version of the Disability and AFN Annex"

23 means and refers to the version of the Disability and AFN Annex attached as

24 Appendix A.

25

E. County

26

"County" means and refers to the County of Los Angeles, California.

27

F. County Consultant

28
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
3 of22

"County Consultant" means EAD & Associates, LLC, which was chosen by

2 the County to assist with developing the Persons with Disabilities and Access and

3 Functional Needs Annex attached to this Agreement as Appendix A.

4

G. Defendants

5

"Defendants" means and refers to, collectively, the County of Los Angeles

6 and the City of Los Angeles.

7

H. Effective Date

8

"Effective Date" (EDSA) means and refers to the date by which this

9 executed Agreement, complete with Appendices, has been granted Final Approval

10 by the Court pursuant to Section II below.

11

I. Final Approval

12

"Final Approval" means and refers to the Court's granting of final approval

13 of this Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), and pursuant

14 to Section II below.

15

J. Interim Agreement

16

"Interim Agreement" means and refers to the Interim Agreement re County

17 of Los Angeles Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex,

18 entered into between the Settling Parties on May 26, 2010 and adopted by the court

19 with jurisdiction over this litigation in an order dated June 7, 2010 (Dkt. 88).

20

K. Monitor

21

"Monitor" means and refers to the entity mutually agreed to by the Settling

22 Parties and appointed or hired by the County to supervise progress with the

23 Disability and AFN Annex and compliance with this Agreement during the

24 Oversight Period.

25

L. OAAB

26

"OAAB" means and refers to the Operational Area Advisory Board, which

27 is the forum for the county government, all cities, and other local governments

28 within county borders to work collaboratively on emergency preparedness issues.
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta!., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
4 of22

1

M. Oversight Period

2

"Oversight Period" means and refers to the period of time for which this

3 Agreement will be in effect and under the Court's jurisdiction. The Oversight

4 Period starts from the Effective Date of this Agreement until the date which is six

5 years from the Effective Date.

6

N. Parties

7

"Parties" means and refers to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. "Parties to

8 this Agreement" refers to the Plaintiffs and the County.

9

0. Plaintiffs

10

"Plaintiffs" means and refers to, collectively, Communities Actively Living

11 Independent and Free, Audrey Harthom and the Plaintiff Class as defined as all

12 people with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, who are

13 within the City of Los Angeles and the jurisdiction served by the City of Los

14 Angeles's and County of Los Angeles's emergency preparedness programs and

15 services.

16

P. Settlement Agreement

17

"Settlement Agreement" or "Agreement" means and refers to this document

18 and Appendices.

19

Q. Settling Parties

20

"Settling Parties" means and refers to Plaintiffs and the County.

21

R. Work Plan (Appendix B)

22

"Work Plan" means and refers to the County's Work Plan for meeting key

23 deliverables during the Oversight Period as set forth in Appendix B. The Work

24 Plan is as agreed upon by both Parties.

25 II. SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

26

A. Following execution of this Agreement, Plaintiffs will within twenty-

27 one (21) days move the Court for an Order granting preliminary approval of this

28
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
5 of22

1 Agreement, and setting a hearing for Final Approval of this Agreement, allowing

2 for notice as set by the Court. The County will not oppose this motion.

3

B. The Court will hold a hearing to establish the fairness of the

4 Agreement and to decide whether there will be Final Approval. This hearing will

5 take place at a date to be set by the Court, allowing for a period of notice to

6 Plaintiff Class as the Court may direct.

7

C. The Parties will issue a Settlement Notice in the form attached hereto

8 as Appendix C, advising Plaintiff Class of the terms of the proposed Agreement

9 and their right to object to the proposed Agreement. The parties will make any

10 edits or modifications to the notice should such edits or modifications be directed

11 by the Court.

12

D. This notice will be (1) mailed via U.S. mail and/or email to all

13 organizations identified as recipients of the draft Disability and AFN Annex in the

14 Interim Agreement and any organizations that commented on the draft Disability

15 and AFN Annex; (2) published in the Los Angeles Times and La Opinion

16 newspapers, (3) posted on DLRC's and DRA's web sites, and (4) posted on the

17 County's main website and OEM website. All postings will be in accessible

18 formats. All parties will provide alternate format copies of the notice upon request.

19 Other than the newspaper notice, notice will be posted/distributed by the parties

20 within three (3) working days of the date of Preliminary Approval, and shall

21 remain posted for no less than thirty (30) days. The newspaper notice will be

22 posted on at least two occasions within twenty-one (21) days of the date of

23 Preliminary Approval. The parties will submit declarations to the Court as part of

24 the motion for Final Approval confirming notice has been issued according to this

25 paragraph.

26

E. Any Class Member may object to the proposed Agreement by

27 submitting their objection to Class Counsel in writing, via regular or electronic

28 mail, or by leaving a message with their objection via telephone, TTY and/or
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
6 of22

1 Video Relay Service on a toll free number to be established by Class Counsel

2 ("Objections") no later than a date set by the Court in this case after preliminary

3 approval of the Agreement. All Objections will be provided to County Counsel

4 within five calendar days and filed with the Court. Only such objecting Class

5 Members will have the right, if they seek it in their Objections, to present

6 objections at the fairness hearing. 7 HI. CHANGES TO COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EMERGENCY

8

PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

9

The Settling Parties hereby agree that County shall do, or already has done

10 in accordance with this Settlement Agreement, the following:

11

A. The County agreed to retain and has retained a disability policy

12 Consultant ("County Consultant") who was selected by the County, and who

13 Plaintiffs have approved for the purposes of carrying out the tasks described in this

14 paragraph. The County Consultant is EAD & Associates, LLC. The task of the

15 Consultant has been to review the County's current policies and procedures

16 regarding its Emergency Plans, including meeting with appropriate County

17 representatives where necessary, and making recommendations to develop

18 appropriate emergency policies and procedures for adoption by the County that

19 specifically address the needs of persons with disabilities. These policies and

20 procedures have been encapsulated in the cun·ent version of the Disability and

21 AFN Annex or in the Work Plan as issues to address during the Oversight Period,

22 attached to this Agreement as Appendices A and B respectively. The County

23 agrees that the Disability and AFN Annex will be utilized as part of the County's

24 emergency preparedness planning.

25

B. The current version of the Disability and AFN Annex addresses, inter

26 alia, critical issues with respect to the needs of people with disabilities. This

27 Disability and AFN Annex includes the full spectrum of disability including, but

28
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
7 of22

1 not limited to, mobility disabilities, sensory disabilities, intellectual disabilities,

2 and mental health conditions.

3

C. The County has also solicited and considered feedback and comments

4 on the scope and content of the Current Version of the Disability and AFN Annex

5 by Plaintiffs, as well as incorporated comments from the public, the U.S.

6 Department of Justice, and from a consultant retained by Plaintiffs for the purpose

7 of reviewing the Current Version of the Disability and AFN Annex ("Plaintiffs'

8 Consultant"). Plaintiffs' Consultant is June Isaacson Kailes. The terms of the

9 County's required consultation with the public, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs'

10 Consultant, and other disability community representatives are set out in full in the

11 Interim Agreement, entered into between the Settling Parties on May 26, 2010 and

12 adopted by the Court with jurisdiction over this litigation in an order dated June 7,

13 2010 (Dkt. 88).

14

D. In the development of the Disability and AFN Annex, the parties

15 identified a number of issues that required development of additional annexes or

16 policies, as well as additional work that is required to finalize the Current Version

17 of the Disability and AFN Annex, and to integrate the concepts from the Disability

18 and AFN Annex into the emergency preparedness planning in the County of Los

19 Angeles more generally. In order to develop and complete these additional items,

20 the County has developed the Work Plan, which is attached to this agreement as

21 Appendix B and which is incorporated by reference as though set forth in full

22 herein. The Work Plan supersedes the current version of the Disability and AFN

23 Annex to the extent the Work Plan requires additional and/or different provisions

24 than those contained in the Disability and AFN Annex.

25

E. The County shall accomplish all of the specific tasks set forth in the

26 Work Plan. More specifically, the Work Plan includes: 1) deliverables directly

27 related to planning activities that incorporate persons with disabilities and access

28 and functional needs into emergency plans, policies, and procedures; and 2) time
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
8 of22

1 frames for meeting deliverables. All dates in the Work Plan run from the date of

2 board approval of this Agreement by the Los Angeles County Board of

3 Supervisors.

4

F. The County will integrate disability and access and functional needs

5 issues into all departmental emergency plans county-wide.

6

G. To the extent this Agreement calls for disability organizations to

7 participate in or be invited to participate in activities related to emergency

8 preparedness planning, the County will ensure that, at a minimum, the

9 organizations listed in Appendix D to this agreement receive such invitations.

1o

H. As part of this Agreement the County has also hired an Access and

11 Functional Needs ("AFN") Coordinator who shall be the lead County employee

12 who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the emergency planning of the

13 County of Los Angeles meets the needs of persons with disabilities. The AFN

14 Coordinator will be located in the County's CEO's office but will work directly

15 and coordinate with other agencies and personnel in the County responsible for

16 emergency planning.

17 IV. MONITORING AND REPORTS

18

A. Definitions and Functions for Purposes of Monitoring

19

1. The County's Access and Functional Needs Coordinator

20

(AFN Coordinator). The AFN Coordinator is the primary

21

person responsible for coordinating relevant groups and

22

individuals and implementing the Work Plan deliverables.

23

The AFN Coordinator will be responsible for providing

24

information to the Monitor about the County's progress on the

25

Work Plan.

26

2. Monitor. The Monitor's role is to evaluate the County's

27

compliance with and progress on implementing the Work Plan

28

(WP), write the Progress Reports, and submit the report(s) to

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
9 of22

1

County Counsel.

2

3. The "\Vork Plan. The Work Plan is the master schedule of

3

tasks and timelines by which the County will implement the

4

inclusion of people with disabilities and others with access and

5

functional needs into the emergency planning. (Appendix B).

6

4. Progress Report. The Progress Report is the document,

7

written by the Monitor using the Progress Report Template.

8

The Monitor submits the Progress Report to County Counsel

9

in compliance with the Reporting Timeline.

10

5. Progress Report Template. The Progress Report Template is

11

a pre-formatted document for use by the Monitor to record and

12

submit information regarding the completion of the Work

13

Plan. It shall be included in the Progress Report. (Appendix

14

E).

15

6. Operational Area Advisory Board (OAAB). Members of

16

the OAAB include governmental partners (including County,

17

cities, and local jurisdictions within the County); special

18

districts like public school, sanitation, and water districts; and

19

non-governmental emergency services partners including

20

community-based and faith-based organizations. It also

21

includes three positions designated for organizations

22

representing physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities.

23

(Appendix F).

24

a. The mission of the OAAB is to provide a forum for the

25

county, cities, special districts, and other key agencies to

26

work together cooperatively to help ensure the successful

27

functioning of the Operational Area. Part of the OAAB's

28

responsibilities includes the review and approval of all

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta!., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
10 of22

1

County/Operational Area emergency plans prior to

2

submission to and final approval of the Emergency

3

Management Council (EMC).

4

b. In terms of the monitoring process, the OAAB will review

5

and approve the emergency plans and procedures necessary

6

to implement the Work Plan

7

7. AFN Committee of the OAAB. The AFN Committee

8

includes representation of government and non-government

9

agencies that have an interest in, advocate for, and/or provide

10

services to people with disabilities and work towards

11

integration of disability and access and functional needs issues

12

in the Operational Area's emergency plans and related

13

programs, policies, and activities. (Appendix G)

14

a. This committee supports the work of the AFN Coordinator,

15

reviews County emergency plans, and advises the OAAB on

16

disability and other access and functional needs issues as

17

they pertain to the Operational Area's emergency

18

management program. The Committee is chaired by the

19

AFN Coordinator and meets on a monthly basis.

20

B. Monitor Selection

21

1. Monitor Selection. The County will hire a third-party

22

monitoring firm, as agreed to by both parties during

23

mediation. The firm will assign qualified individuals to carry

24

out the responsibilities of the monitoring functions which

25

include; evaluating the County's progress on implementing the

26

Work Plan, writing the Progress Reports, and submitting the

27

report(s) to the Court via County Counsel.

28

2. Monitor Qualifications. The Monitor shall meet the

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)

11 of22

1

following qualifications:

2

a. Experience as an emergency manager in a large, complex,

3

urban area who has integrated disability and other access

4

and functional needs issues into planning and response

5

activities; strong knowledge of intergovernmental relations

6

i.e., how the County relates to local emergency management

7

(the 88 cities and unincorporated areas within the County)

8

and to State/Federal emergency management agencies.

9

b. Government experience at the State, County or local level,

10

particularly understanding bureaucratic structure; budgeting;

11

governance; etc. Preference is for someone who is familiar

12

with LA County and its complex relationship to the cities

13

and unincorporated areas, other County agencies, and the

14

State.

15

c. Experience working with and/or as a member of the

16

disability community, with an understanding of the political,

17

social, and economic impact of disability; particularly how it

18

intersects with emergency management.

19

d. Ability to apply planning principles and goals to persons

20

with disabilities and access and functional needs. For

21

example; someone familiar with emergency management

22

planning and response for the aging, children, immigrants,

23

non-English speakers, and people who are homeless, among

24

others.

25

e. Ideally, persons who have a blend of both emergency

26

management and disability related experience-

27

understanding the complexity and nuances of both fields.

28

f. The parties agree that Global Vision Consortium (GVC)

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta!., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
12 of22

meets the above qualifications and will act as the monitor

2

in this action. The monitor will select and retain as part of

3

their contract with the County additional subject matter

4

experts on website and shelter accessibility, as well as other

5

issues which the monitor may determine additional

6

expertise is needed. In the event GVC is unable to perform

7

the role of monitor at any time, the parties will meet and

8

confer to select a new monitor, and will utilize the dispute

9

resolution provisions of this Agreement if the parties

10

cannot reach agreement on this issue.

11

C. Monitoring Scope

12

1. Throughout the evaluation period, the Monitor shall be allotted

13

up to 60 hours per month to complete the monitoring tasks. An

14

time exceeding the 60-hour limit must be pre-approved by the

15

County.

16

2. The Monitor's evaluation as included in the Progress Report

17

will be limited to the deliverables and tasks as described in the

18

Work Plan, but will include an analysis of the extent to which

19

the County's work is successfully addressing the needs of

20

people with disabilities in the context of its emergency

21

planning.

22

3. The Monitor shall submit completed progress reports using the

23

Progress Report template, and will also submit a written

24

evaluation of the extent to which the County's actions meet the

25

needs of people with disabilities in emergency planning.

26

D. Monitoring Process

27

1. The AFN Coordinator shall serve as the primary point of

28

contact for the Monitor, and provide information and

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)

13 of22

1

supporting documentation to the Monitor.

2

a. The information provided to the Monitor may include, but is

3

not limited to: progress on the Work Plan, various

4

informational reports, AFN Committee Minutes, other

5

documents, emergency plans, letters, and emails.

6

2. The Monitor is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the

7

progress and completion of the Work Plan as implemented by

8

the County.

9

a. In making this evaluation, the Monitor shall coordinate

10

activities and information requests with the AFN

11

Coordinator.

12

b. The Monitor may conduct appropriate site inspections,

13

review documents, and meet with both County personnel

14

and community organizations. The Monitor may also

15

participate in AFN Committee meetings and activities.

16

c. The Monitor will submit the completed Progress Report to

17

County Counsel according to the schedule in the Reporting

18

Timeline section of the Work Plan.

19

3. The AFN Committee will assist and advance the

20

implementation of the Work Plan by asking clarifying

21

questions; expressing areas of concern; and making

22

suggestions for how the implementation of the Work Plan may

23

be improved or completed. New and emerging issues,

24

challenges and solutions will be addressed through the AFN

25

Committee process.

26

4. County Counsel shall receive the completed Progress Reports

27

from the Monitor, and will provide the report to Plaintiffs'

28

Counsel. Counsel for both parties will have thirty days to

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
14 of22

1

review and comment on the Progress Report before the report

2

is filed with the Court. To the extent Plaintiffs' counsel

3

receive any comments from the community or class members,

4

Plaintiffs' Counsel may include those comments as well. At

5

the conclusion of the thirty days the parties will file the

6

Monitor's Report with the district court, along with comments

7

from Plaintiffs and Defendants, if any.

8

5. There are nine Progress Reports.

9

6. Any disputes between the parties as to progress under this

10

Agreement or monitoring will be resolved via the dispute

11

resolution procedure contained in Section V of the Agreement.

12

7. Should any disputes as to compliance impact the time frames

13

required by the Work Plan, the parties will also address any

14

potentially necessary deadline extensions in their meet and

15

confer.

16

E. Reports

17

The primary reporting tool during the monitoring process will be the

18 Progress Report which will be prepared by the Monitor. Additional reporting

19 elements required for the third and sixth year reports are listed under Section F.

20 Reporting Timeline of the Work Plan.

21

F. Reporting Timeline

22

Reporting will begin six months after the EDSA and continue for a

23 maximum of six years. The Work Plan may be completed in a period of

24 time less than six years. In that instance, there is no penalty against the

25 County and the obligations set forth in the Settlement Agreement shall be

26 concluded, and the Court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement

27 Agreement shall end.

28 I I I

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta!., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
15 of22

1

2 Report Time Frame Type of Report

3 6 months after EDSA Disability and AFN Progress Report

4 1 year after EDSA

Disability and AFN Progress Report

5
1.5 years after EDSA Disability and AFN Progress Report

6
2 years after EDSA
7

Disability and AFN Progress Report ·

8 2.5 years after EDSA Disability and AFN Progress Report

9 3 years after EDSA- To include:

10 Three year report

@ Executive Summary of past 3 years of

11

activity/evaluation ofProgress.

~ Disability and AFN Progress Reports .5-2.5
12

Years
13

14 4 years after EDSA

Disability and AFN Progress Report

15 5 years after EDSA 6 years after
16
(EDSA) - Final
17
Report
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Disability and AFN Progress Report To include:
® Disability and AFN Progress Report ® Executive Summary of past three years of
activity/evaluation of progress ® Revised PWD/AFN Work Plan (should any
work remain) ® Full updated version of the Annex and any
other deliverables completed during the full six-year period

25

26

G. Monitoring Fees for Plaintiffs' Counsel

27

The County agrees to pay Plaintiffs' Counsel up to $75,000 in attorneys'

28 fees and costs for purposes of monitoring this Agreement during the Oversight

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta!., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
16 of22

1 Period. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall submit annual bills to the County for payment.

2 V. CONTINUING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

3

The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Settlement

4 Agreement for the duration of the Oversight Period. The Settling Parties agree to

5 request that this authority be delegated to Judge Consuelo Marshall. Should Judge

6 Marshall become unavailable at any time during the Oversight Period, the Settling

7 Parties will request that another Judge or Magistrate Judge be assigned authority

8 over this matter.

9 VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

10

A. Procedure for Dispute Resolution

11

All disputes concerning compliance with this Agreement shall be resolved as

12 follows:

13

The Settling Parties will first meet and confer in good faith in order to

14 attempt to resolve the dispute directly. In the event Plaintiffs believe that the

15 County is not in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Plaintiffs will notify

16 the County within 30 days of its purported noncompliance.

17

The County will have 30 days following receipt of this notification to

18 respond to Plaintiffs concerning the alleged noncompliance.

19

If the Settling Parties cannot resolve a dispute directly, they shall request a

20 meeting with Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich (or another pre-agreed to

21 Magistrate Judge) who will attempt to mediate the dispute.

22

If Magistrate Judge Wistrich (or other pre-agreed to Magistrate Judge) is not

23 available within forty-five days (45) the parties will utilize the services of a

24 mutually agreed upon mediator.

25

Plaintiffs and the County agree not to file any motion to enforce this

26 Agreement until this dispute resolution process has been completed.

27

After the above steps, if either Party believes the dispute has not been

28 resolved it may bring a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement before the
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta!., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
17 of22

Trial Judge for a final determination.

2

B. Fees and Costs for Dispute Resolution

3

Fees and costs incurred in the resolution of any disputes will be

4 awarded in accordance with the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co.

5 v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978).

6 VII. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

7

A. The County agrees to pay Class Counsel a total of$1,225,000 in

8 attorneys' fees and costs in this matter.

9

B. This amount of fees will be included in notice to the class and

10 approved by the Court pursuant to FRCP 23.

11

C. Such fees will be paid within ninety (90) days of Final Approval to

12 Disability Rights Advocates to be distributed between Plaintiffs' Counsel.

13 VIII. RELEASE

14

Upon Final Approval of this Agreement by the Court, and subject to the

15 fulfillment of the conditions set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree that the

16 Plaintiff Class waives and releases all class-wide claims for declaratory and

17 injunctive relief against the County and its agents, successors, assigns, and officers,

18 that were alleged in the Complaint filed on January 14,2009, for the duration of the

19 Court's jurisdiction over the matter. This includes any and all class-wide claims for

20 declaratory and injunctive relief, or demands, causes of action, obligations and

21 liabilities based on declaratory or injunctive relief.

22

Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as a release or waiver of any

23 claims for damages by the Plaintiff Class.

24

CALIF and Audrey Harthom, for themselves and as representatives of the

25 Class, expressly waive and relinquish all rights and benefits afforded by Section

26 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, and any similar law, and do so

27 acknowledging the significance and consequence of such specific waiver of

28
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
18 of22

1 Section 1542. Section 1542 of the Civil Code ofthe State of California states as

2 follows:

3

"'A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor

4

does not know o.r suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of

5

executing the release~ which if known by him or her must have

6

materially affected his/her settlement with the debtor."

7 IX. MISCELLANEOUS

8

A. Dismissal

9

Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Plaintiffs'

10 Counsel shall file a signed form of Request for Dismissal of the County from this

11 litigation with prejudice, except that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce

12 this Agreement for the Oversight Period. This dismissal will have no bearing on

13 Plaintiffs' claims against the City.

14

B. Entire Agreement

15

This Agreement (including Appendices A through G) contains the entire

16 agreement between the Settling Parties regarding access to the County's emergency

17 plans and services in the City and County of Los Angeles for members of the

18 Plaintiff class. No modifications or limits will be binding on the Settling Parties

19 unless expressly provided for in this Agreement or made by writing signed by all

20 of the Settling Parties. This Agreement expresses the complete and final

21 understanding with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. The Settling

22 Parties hereto understand and agree that the terms of this Agreement supersede any

23 prior discussions, understandings, or agreements between them related to the

24 subject matter hereof.

25

C. Counterparts

26

This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be

27 considered an original, but all of which, when taken together, will constitute one

28 and the same instrument.
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
19 of22

1

D. Interpretation

2

The language of this Agreement will be construed as a whole according to

3 its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the Settling Parties. The

4 headings in this Agreement are solely for convenience and will not be considered

5 in its interpretation. Where required by context, the plural includes the singular and

6 the singular includes the plural. This Agreement is the product of negotiation and

7 joint drafting so that any ambiguity will not be construed against any of the

8 Settling Parties.

9

E. Severability

10

In the event any portion of this Agreement is deemed to be unenforceable, or

11 is in conflict with applicable law, the remainder of this Agreement will be enforced

12 and will remain in full force and effect. Nothing in this Agreement shall be

13 construed to require the County to act contrary to state or federal laws, regulations

14 or guidelines

15

F. Additional Documents

16

To the extent any documents are required to be executed by any of the

17 Settling Parties to effectuate this Agreement, each party hereto agrees to execute

18 and deliver such and further documents as may be required to carry out the terms

19 of this Agreement.

20

G. Plaintiffs Have Consulted with Attorneys

21

CALIF and Audrey Harthom, for themselves and as representatives of the

22 Class, represent and warrant that they have consulted with and have had the advice

23 of counsel of attorneys and that they have entered into this Settlement Agreement

24 voluntarily, after independent investigation, and without fraud, duress or undue

25 influence. 26 I I I

27 I I I

28 I I I

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, et al., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
20 of22

1 X. JOINT PRESS RELEASE

2

In the event that Plaintiffs desire to issue a press release about the resolution

3 
 of this litigation, the Settling Parties agree that the release will be agreed to and/or

4 
 issued by both of the Settling Parties.

5 XI. SIGNATURES

6 FOR PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS

: Dated:fbfi(p

,2012

,lidjkt~

9 
 10
11 
 Dated: _ _ _ _ _, 2012

Lilibeth Navarro, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (CALIF), Plaintiff

12

13

Audrey Harthom, Plaintiff

14
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
15

16
WILLIAM T FUJIOKA

17

Chief Executive Officer

18

19 

20
21 I I I 

22
I I I

23
24 I I I 


Natoya Hend son Senior Manager
[SIGNATURES CONTINUED NEXT PAGE]

25 I I I 

26
I I I

27

28 I I 


Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta!., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
21 of22

1 X. JOINT PRESS RELEASE

2

In the event that Plaintiffs desire to issue a press release about the resolution

3 of this litigation, the Settling Parties agree that the release will be agreed to and/or

4 issued by both of the Settling Parties.

5 XI. SIGNATURES

6
FOR PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS
7
8 Dated: _ _ _ _ _, 2012

9
10
11 Dated: r;tfR~2- , 2012

Lilibeth Navarro, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (CALIF), Plaintiff

12

~/\'\---·"'

n

' ()l~~tvVt--~

13

Audrey Harthom, Plaintiff

14 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
15

16
17 Dated: - - - - -, 2012
18

WILLIAM T FUJIOKA Chief Executive Officer

19
20
21 I I I 22
I I I 23 24 I I I

By: -----------------­ Natoya Henderson Senior Manager
[SIGNATURES CONTINUED NEXT PAGE]

25 I I I
26
27 I I I

28 I I

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta/,, v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No,: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
21 of22

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

3

4

5

ks laintiffs CALIF, Harthorn

6

_ _ _ _ _,2012

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER

Michelle Uzeta Attorneys for Plaintiffs CALIF, Harthorn and the Class
JOHN F. KRATTLI, County Counsel

Adnenne M. Byer Principal Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Defendant County of Los Angeles

Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta!., v. City and County of Los Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
22 of22

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

2 Dated: _ _ _ _.,2012

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

3

4

5

Shawna L. Parks Attorneys for Plaintiffs CALIF, Harthom

6

and the Class

/15 7 Dated: -W{QJ-+.L=...--' 2012 8 9 10 11 12 13 Dated: _ _ _ _ _,2012

DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
Th~~---
Michelle uzeta 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs CALIF, Harthorn and the Class
JOHN F. KRATTLI, County Counsel

14

15

Adrienne M. Byers

16

Principal Deputy County Counsel

17

Attorneys for Defendant

County of Los Angeles 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Class Settlement Agreement CALIF, eta!., v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No.: CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
22 of22

CALIF v. City ofLos Angeles & County ofLos Angeles SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
APPENDICES Appendix A. DRAFT ANNEX Appendix B.. WORK PLAN Appendix C. SETTLEMENT NOTICE Appendix D,. DISABILITY ORGANIZATIONS Appendix E.. PROGRESS REPORT TEMPLATE Appendix F.. OAAB LIST Appendix G,. AFN LIST
HOA.910997.1

$33(1',X A

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 
 OPERATIONAL AREA 
 EMERGENCY 
 RESPONSE PLAN 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND ACCESS AND 
 FUNCTIONAL NEEDS ANNEX 

SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED 


HOA.803586

Page 1 of 106

lETTER OF PROMUlGATION
TO: OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND RESIDENTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Preservation of life and property is an inherent responsibility of local, state, and federal government. The County of Los Angeles developed this Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex to ensure the most effective allocation of resources for the maximum benefit and protection of populations with disabilities and access and functional needs in times of emergency.
While no plan can guarantee prevention of injury, death and destruction, well-developed plans carried out by knowledgeable and well-trained personnel, can minimize losses. The Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex establishes the County's emergency policies and procedures in the event of an emergency. This Annex provides for the coordination of planning efforts among the various emergency departments, agencies, special districts, and jurisdictions that comprise the Los Angeles County Operational Area (LACOA). The Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex conforms to the requirements of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS).
The Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex is an extension of the Operational Area Emergency Response Plan (OAERP). The objective of the OAERP is to incorporate and coordinate all County facilities and personnel, along with the jurisdictional resources of the cities and special districts within the County, into an efficient organization capable of responding to any emergency using SEMS, mutual aid, and other appropriate response procedures. The Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex will be reviewed and exercised at least every three years and revised as necessary to meet changing conditions.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors gives its full support to the Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex and urges all officials, employees, and residents, individually and collectively, to share in our commitment to effective preparedness and response for emergency events.
This letter promulgates the Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex which becomes effective upon approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
Signed---------------­
Date: xxxxxx Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 2 of 106

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
History shows that disasters disproportionately impact persons with disabilities and access and functional needs. Recognizing this, efforts are being made through the Los Angeles County Operational Area (LACOA or OA) to better prepare the community ­ individuals, local and county government agencies, key decision-makers, organizations, and emergency management responders - to take appropriate and informed actions as well as to empower individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs in response and recovery efforts. The Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex (Annex) describes key policies, procedures and issues directly related to the preparedness, response, and recovery of access and functional needs populations.
This Annex is an extension of the Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Response Plan (OAERP). It is intended to expand on the concepts ofthe OAERP and work in conjunction with other State, County, and city plans, and their responding agencies' standard operation procedures. This Annex addresses the Operational Area's role in responding to the needs ofindividuals with access and functional needs and provides guidance to local jurisdictions in an effort to enhance existing plans.
The County will work towards coordinating the many community partners that are required to effectively respond to the needs of individuals with access and functional needs. This involves the active participation and involvement of a multi'-'disciplinary group of stakeholders. The Annex outlines roles and responsibilities of these key organizations and agencies.
The Los Angeles County's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) convenes and chairs the Operational Area Advisory Board's Access and Functional Needs Committee. This committee is responsible for developing and updating this Annex. Currently, this Committee consists of representatives from the OEM, County Public Health, County Health Services, County Mental Health, County Sheriff, County Fire, County Public Social Services, Los Angeles City Emergency Management Department, City ofSanta Clarita, Emergency Network Los Angeles (ENLA), American Red Cross, Regional Centers, Independent Living Centers, Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness (GLAD), Braille Institute, and the California Community Foundation. The committee meets on a monthly basis and can be expanded, as needed, to ensure inclusivity of emergency plans, policies and procedures.

HOA.so3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 3 of106

FOREWORD 

Overview
The Los Angeles County OAERP Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex consists of five sections. Each section has a specific purpose, as stated below.
Section 1 - Introduction
This section provides the context for this Annex and includes background information, purpose, scope, and mission. It also provides assumptions, authorities, and definitions, specifically pertaining to people with access and functional needs.
Section 2 - Preparedness
This section describes the OA's efforts in preparedness including information on identification and assessment, registries, networks, community education and outreach, training, and drills and exercises.
Section 3 - Operational Framework
This section provides a framework for how the OA addresses key operational components with regard to persons with disabilities and access and functional needs. Key OA roles and responsibilities are described, as are support mechanisms for local jurisdictions. This includes communications, evacuation and transportation, mass care and sheltering, and transition to recovery.
Section 4- Roles and Responsibilities
This Section defines the various roles and responsibilities of County departments and agencies to implement this Annex.
Section 5- Maintenance This Section outlines the policy and responsibilities for ongoing management and maintenance of this Annex.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 4of 106

Table of Contents

Executive Summary Foreword

1. Introduction ..............................,; .............................................................,; .................. 8 
 1.1 Background 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Scope 1.4 Definition 1.5 Assumptions 1.6 Responsibilities 1.7 Mission 1.8 Authorities 1.9 Relationship to Other Plans 1.1 0 Hazard Impact

2.

Prep_aredness It. II." II.' II~ .22 a II If II II II II II. II·- ••• II. II. II II

II II

a a a . : , II"' I I . " - - · . II • • • • • II.- . . . . . H II . . . . . : . . . ,j II II I! . . . . . . II II I I . II II II

II. l.

2.1 Community Assessment

2.2 Community Preparedness Education

2.3 Training

2.4 Drills and Exercises

3 II

Operational Framework . lr. !I"" ll36 II. I.·- II II •• II II •• -. II '1-t. lrl

i.- •• II' •• If a·-·. II. If II I II. 611 e •.• II :I'll

II·-· ••• II It'll II. I II •• II ... II·-·

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Communications

3.3 Evacuation and Transportation

3.4 Sheltering and Mass Care

3.5 Transition to Recovery

4.

Roles and R_espons.ibiJities ••••. 75 ".II •• II II' I . I II.··-· a II IIIII' II •• II II II !IIII-I! BIIR. 811 II .... II. II IIIII! •• -..-.1111. II &-• •• I . II. II!! II

5. Maintenance ~~··~··-·11i········, ....._........ -................ -."-~~··,·~~····-······li•••--•·••-······~~~~·,···•····~~·81

6.. Appendices ........ , .... Rtl a••••••••a•• ••••• -•••••••••• .-,.'. '' ••••• ISIJGI •• -.Ill Ill·~····-··· ••• -.-,."~ ItS I. ,82 


Appendix A: Reference List 
 Appendix B: Glossary- Definitions and Acronyms 
 Appendix C: LA County OA Organizational Matrix 

Appendix D: SNAP Overview 

Appendix E: Planning Checklists 
 Appendix F: Website Accessibility 
 Appendix G: Federal Communications Commission's Requirements 
 Appendix H: Functional Needs Transportation Inventory list 

Appendix 1: Department of Justice's Sheltering Guidelines 


HoA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 5 of 106

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 BACKGROUND
Past disasters have demonstrated that people with all types of disabilities, older adults, and those with various types of access and functional needs are disproportionately impacted by those disasters. Consider that nearly 75% of those who perished as a result of Hurricane Katrina were seniors. Further, research shows that 61% of people with disabilities have not made plans to quickly and safely evacuate their homes, and that 58% of people with disabilities do not know whom to contact about emergency plans for their community in the event of a disaster (Source: National Organization on Disability, 2009. Functional Needs of People with Disabilities: A Guide for Emergency Managers, Planners, and Responders).
The Los Angeles County Operational Area (OA or LACOA) recognizes the need to continue to move towards a more inclusive emergency management system and to develop a strong public awareness campaign about the necessity for personal preparedness, as both are key factors in reducing the impact of disasters on people with disabilities and access and functional needs. (See Section 1.4 below for the County definition of disabilities and access and functional needs populations)
As the largest county in the Unites States with a population of over 10 million, an elderly population of 1 million, a disabled population of 1.75 million, and a population of over 150,000 residents who receive In-Home Social Services (IHSS), Los Angeles County must address the needs of a substantial number of people with disabilities and access and functional needs on a regular basis. Disasters create new physical barriers and eliminate and/or lessen services available to everyone. For people with disabilities and/or access and functional needs, this may take away their ability to perform certain functions that were previously possible, and/or impact their capacity to live independently, and/or navigate the available response and recovery systems effectively. Ensuring that preparedness and emergency information is accessible and available in multiple formats and provides content that addresses the needs of access and functional needs is critical. Further, plans for sheltering, evacuation, transportation, and recovery, among other areas, must carefully integrate access and functional needs issues to ensure that they are considered and addressed before a disaster occurs so that they can be responded to appropriately during and after the event.
Public agencies cannot wait until they are in the middle of a disaster to start planning and training their staff to address access and functional needs. Planning ahead will foster collaboration between agencies and the non-governmental organizations and community before, during, and after disasters.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 6 of 106

1..2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex (Annex) to the Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Response Plan (OAERP) is to provide guidelines and procedures for disaster planning, response, and recovery efforts to address populations with disabilities and access and functional needs in the County of Los Angeles.
This Annex also: (1) provides the framework for the OA response to persons with disabilities and access and functional needs, including assignment of responsibilities and a description of the actions to be taken by the County upon a disaster; and (2) establishes a countywide understanding of the unique operational concepts, organization, tasks, and coordinated emergency actions of public agencies, special districts, and other organizations and institutions to address persons with disabilities and access and functional needs during disasters. Detailed descriptions of how County departments or jurisdictions respond to access and functional needs populations will be located in their respective department/jurisdiction*specific plans or procedures.
This is not a stand;..alone plan. This Annex pulls together information from existing Operational Area plans, annexes, and procedures that address access and functional needs before, during, and after disasters. This Annex is intended for use in conjunction with these other plans and to highlight the key preparedness, response, and recovery steps that the County will take in addressing populations with disabilities and access and functional needs. (See Appendix A for a list of the documents that support this Annex.)
1.3 SCOPE
This Annex applies only to the Los Angeles County Operational Area and does not address response and recovery operations for local governments or agencies outside the OA The primary audience for this Annex is County departments, emergency response agencies, and special districts (transit and school districts) within the OA that hold the responsibility for implementing this Annex and/or have responsibilities detailed herein.
1.4 DEFINITION
The term "persons with disabilities and access and functional needs" is defined as:
Persons who may have additional needs before, during, and after an incident in functional areas including but not limited to: maintaining independence, communication, transportation, supervision, and medical care. Individuals in need of additional response assistance may include those who have disabilities; who live in institutionalized settings; who are elderly; who are children; who are from diverse cultures; who have limited English proficiency or are non-English speaking; or who are transportation disadvantaged. This is consistent with the definition that FEMA uses in the National

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 7 of 106

Response Framework to define the term "special needs." The LACOA has decided to use "persons with disabilities and access and functional needs" in place of "special needs" as this terminology is consistent with current trends in California and nationally (including U.S. Department of Justice recommendations). Thus, be aware that these interchangeable terms mean the same thing.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the term "disability'' with respect to an individual means as follows: (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment. Major Life Activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working. A major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions. An individual meets the requirement of "being regarded as having such an impairment" if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under the ADA because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. This shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.
In addition, in accordance with FEMA's Guidance on Planning for Integration of Functional Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters (November 201 0), Functional Needs Support Services (FNSS) are defined as services that enable individuals to maintain their independence in a general population shelter. FNSS includes:
• reasonable modification to policies, practices, and procedures; • durable medical equipment (DME); • consumable medical supplies (CMS); ·personal assistance services (PAS); • other goods and services as needed.
Children and adults requiring FNSS may have physical, sensory, mental health, and cognitive and/or intellectual disabilities affecting their ability to function independently without assistance.
Others that may benefit from FNSS include women in late stages of pregnancy, elders, and people needing bariatric equipment.
All other terms and acronyms are defined in Appendix B.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 8 of 106

1.5 ASSUMPTIONS 

This Annex is based on the following assumptions: 

• that key components highlighted in the Annex will be incorporated into response plans, checklists, and integrated into the emergency response system to create a fully inclusive approach;
• that in a county of over 10 million people there are significant, diverse populations with disability and access and functional needs during emergencies;
• that government agencies must create strong networks with the community to reach those with disabilities and access and functional needs;
• that populations with disabilities and access and functional needs, as well as their caregivers and families, must be empowered to take steps to learn about preparedness and make plans for disasters;
• that individuals with disabilities, during disasters, may be disconnected from life­ sustaining goods and services, auxiliary aids, and other important assistive technology, devices, or equipment to maintain function and independence;
• that Los Angeles County's emergency management programs and plans will include providing and reconnecting individuals with disabilities with goods and services in the same way as it does for the population as a whole;
• that agencies providing temporary or long-term residency services or custodial care to people with disabilities and access and functional needs must develop comprehensive emergency plans according to their regulatory authorities and ensure that emergency policies and procedures are adequate and up to date:
• that the County will provide support in accordance with SEMS and the State Emergency Plan to local jurisdictions in order to address emergency-related issues for populations with disabilities and access and functional needs;
• that local jurisdictions and the County for the unincorporated areas within the LACOA are responsible for developing and maintaining plans that take into consideration people with disabilities and access and functional needs; and
• that the Annex will be reviewed at least every three years and updated as needed.

1.6 RESPONSIBiliTIES
The responsibilities for developing, implementing, maintaining, and supporting this Annex are as follows:
• Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is responsible for the development, implementation, and maintenance of this Annex and does this through the OAAB Access and Functional Needs Committee.

HOA.so3ss6.Llune 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 9 of 106

• Other assigned County departments and agencies will carry out their responsibilities as described in this Annex and according to the LACOA Organization Matrix (see Appendix C) detailed in the OA Emergency Response Plan (OAERP). All County departments will operate under the umbrella of the County OA using SEMS/NIMS.
• County communities and special districts are responsible for developing access and functional needs population emergency response plans compatible with this Annex. Additionally, each OA jurisdiction is responsible for developing their own emergency operations plans as well as standard operating procedures for possible implementation of plans in response to local- or distant-source incidents. The expectation is that local governments, response agencies and special districts in the predicted impact areas will implement their plans and standard operating procedures, when appropriate.
• County departments will coordinate with OEM and inform them of additional planning activities they are involved with, particularly in terms of populations with access and functional needs.

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 10 of 106

1.7 MISSION
The mission of the LACOA is to reduce the potential for loss of life and property from disasters for all populations, including those with disabilities and access and functional needs by: (1) providing timely, accurate, reliable, and effective disaster preparedness information and support to all populations and emergency management within their area of responsibility; and (2) advancing other aspects of disaster mitigation such as community preparedness and public education.
1.8 AUTHORITIES
This section outlines key Federal, State and local legislation, regulations, and practices that pertain specifically to emergency management and persons with disabilities and access and functional needs.
1.8.1 Federal
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a broad civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. The law covers a wide range of areas, from employment, public accommodations, transportation, telecommunications, and the accessibility of public buildings.
State and local governments must comply with Title II of the ADA in the emergency- and disaster-related programs, services, and activities they provide. This requirement applies to programs, services, and activities provided directly by state and local governments as well as those provided through third parties, such as the American Red Cross, private nonprofit organizations, and religious entities. Under Title II of the ADA, emergency programs, services, activities, and facilities must be accessible to people with disabilities and generally may not use eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out people with disabilities. The ADA also requires making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination against a person with a disability and taking the steps necessary to ensure effective communication with people with disabilities.
Those working in the field of emergency management should become familiar with "Chapter 7: Emergency Management" of DOJ's ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments located at httg://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/toolkitmain.htm#pcatoo!kitch7. Chapter 7 of the Toolkit provides guidance on the ADA in relation various aspects of emergency management programs. This includes specific information on

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 11 of 106

communications, transportation, evacuation, and sheltering, among other activities.

• ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). The ADAAA revises the definition of disability and broadens the scope of the definition regarding substantially limiting a major life activity and clarifies the use that mitigating measures have no impact in determining disability. These changes went into effect January 1, 2009. These amendments make it easier for people with disabilities to seek protection under the law. For more information, visit: http://www.ada.gov.
• Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG} The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) sets out architectural standards for accessibility with which public facilities must comply. The ADA treats facilities that were built before it went into effect differently from those built or renovated afterwards. A key date to remember is January 26, 1992, when Title ll's accessibility requirements for new construction and alterations took effect. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151.
Before January 26, 1992 Facilities built before January 26, 1992, are referred to as "pre-ADA" facilities. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.150-35.151. If there is an architectural barrier to accessibility in a pre-ADA facility, you may remove the barrier using the ADA Standards for Accessible Design or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) as a guide, or you may choose to make the program, service, or activity located in the building accessible by providing "program access." 28 C.F.R § 35.150. Program access allows you to move the program to an accessible location, or use some way other than making all architectural changes to make the program, service, or activity readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
After January 26, 1992 Any facility built or altered after January 26, 1992, must be "readily accessible to and usable by" persons with disabilities. 28 C.F.R § 35.151. For ADA compliance purposes, any facility where construction commenced after January 26, 1992 is considered "new," "newly constructed," or "post-ADA." "Readily accessible to and usable by" means that the new or altered building must be built in strict compliance with either the ADA Standards for Accessible Design or UFAS.
Altering (renovating) a building means making a change in the usability of the altered item. Examples of changes in usability include: changing a low pile carpet to a thick pile carpet, moving walls, installing new toilets, or adding

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 12 of 106

more parking spaces to a parking lot. Any state or local government facility that was altered after January 26,1992 was required to be altered in compliance with the ADA Standards or UFAS.

When part of a building has been altered, the alterations must be made in strict compliance with architectural standards, including creating an accessible path of travel to the altered area.

After September 15,2010

On September 15, 2010, the Department of Justice amended its regulation

implementing Title II of the ADA, which applies to public entities and their

departments, subdivisions, and special purpose districts. In the amendment of

the Title II regulation, the Department has adopted revised ADA design

standards that include the relevant chapters of the U.S. Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's (Access Board) 2004 ADA/ABA

Accessibility Guidelines, as modified. The 2010 ADA Standards for

Accessible

Design

are

located

at

http://www.ada.gov/201 OADAstandards_index.htm. On March 15, 2010,

compliance with the 201 0 Standards will be required for facilities that are

newly constructed or altered. In the period between September 15, 2010 and

March 15, 2010, covered entities may choose between the 1991 Standards,

UFAS, and the 2010 Standards. Covered entities that should have complied

with the 1991 Standards or the UFAS during any new construction or

alteration of facilities or elements, but have not done so by March 15, 2012,

must comply with the 2010 Standards.

• Executive Order 13347 - Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness In 2004, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13347 Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness. This Order established the Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities (ICC).
Chaired by the Department of Homeland Security and assigned to the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the ICC helps to ensure that the federal government accounts for the safety and security of people with disabilities during disasters. Although the ICC is essentially a policy and coordinating body, it has been involved during major disaster activations. The ICC is made up of representatives from federal agencies including: Environmental Protection Agency, General Services, Office of Personnel Management, Social Security, Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Justice, among others. Other invited members include the U.S. Access Board, the National Council on Disability, and the Federal Communications Commission.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 13 of 106

• Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of
1988
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, was signed into law on November 23, 1988 as an amended version of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. The Act provides the statutory authority for FEMA to coordinate most Federal disaster response activities. It also established a system through which financial and physical assistance can be obtained from FEMA following a presidential declared disaster. For more information on the Act, visit: http://www.fema.gov/about/stafact.shtm.

• Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 As a result of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, President George W. Bush signed into law the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA), to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Effective March 31, 2007, the Act aims to strengthen the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA's ability to prevent, prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from disaster.

The PKEMRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, among

others, by recipients of federal financial assistance. Additionally, the Act

requires that new leadership roles are created within DHS, including the

position of National Disability Coordinator (NDC) (now part of the Office of

Disability Integration and Coordination as of February 201 0). The Act also

includes provisions for the inclusion of people with disabilities in evacuation

plans, accessible housing, and regional disability coordinators, among many

other changes.

More information is available at

http://www.govtrack.us/congresslbill.xpd?bill=s1 09-3721.

• The Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 The Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and requires State and local emergency preparedness plans to take into account the needs of individuals with household pets and service animals, prior to, during, and after a major disaster or emergency.

• Federal Communications Commission - Emergency Alert System Rules In October 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expanded the Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules to require EAS participation by digital television broadcasters, digital cable television providers, digital broadcast radio, Digital Audio Radio Service, and Direct Broadcast Satellite systems. The FCC's EAS rules require that an EAS provide access to people with disabilities by providing both visual and aural alerts. Under the rules, a visual EAS alert does not have to be an exact transcription of an audio alert, but must be "any method of visual presentation which results in a legible message conveying the essential emergency information."

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 14 of 106

• Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Section 504
Section 504 states that "no qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under" any program or activity that either receives Federal financial assistance or is conducted by any Executive agency or the United States Postal Service. Each Federal agency has its own set of section 504 regulations that apply to its own programs. Agencies that provide Federal financial assistance also have section 504 regulations covering entities that receive Federal aid.
Title II extends to all state and local government programs, services, and activities, whether or not it receives federal funds.
Section 508
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d), requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. Section 508 also requires that individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal agency, have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.
• FEMA Initiatives o In 2009, President Barack Obama created and staffed the new position of Senior Advisor on Disability Issues within FEMA to report to the administrator. This senior staff position is responsible for addressing emergency management issues relating to the disability community and is intended to enhance preparedness efforts at the agency's highest levels. As of February 2010 this advisor became the Director of the newly created Office of Disability Integration and Coordination. In addition, a Disability Integration Specialist position was added in each of the ten FEMA regions.
o As a result of lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina, FEMA drafted Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 302 (CPG-302) to provide planning considerations for a variety of hazards, security, and emergency functions. It also offers general guidelines for developing a state, territorial, tribal, and local government Household Pets and Service Animals Plan (HPSAP). FEMA has also developed Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 301: Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 15 of 106

Populations (CPG-301 ), which aims to help tribal, state, territorial, and local governments develop emergency plans for people with functional needs. The principles underlying these Guides were subsequently incorporated into CPG 101.2.
o In 2009, FEMA released its National Disaster Housing Strategy, which calls for national and state efforts to plan for accessible housing that can be made available after a disaster. The National Council on Disability (NCO) recommends that each state create task forces on disaster housing consistent with the Strategy, and involve disability organizations.
• SARA Title Ill - 1986 Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act This Act directs the creation and membership of Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC). For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/contentlepcra/epcra plan.htm#LEPC.
• The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) JCAHO oversees standard setting for healthcare facilities and the accreditation of healthcare facilities, such as nursing homes and hospitals. For more information, visit: http://www.jointcommission.org.
1.8.2 State
• California Emergency Services Act (California Government Code, Title 2, Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 12, Sections 8550- 8668). This Act provides the basic legal authorities for emergency management in the State and for conducting emergency operations in the State following the proclamation of emergencies by appropriate local officials and/or the Governor. The provisions of the Act are further reflected and expanded upon by local emergency ordinances.
• Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 1; Government Code, Section 8607).
• California Government Codes, §§111 35, -This code section indicates that no person in the State of California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.
• California Govemmenr Code 8588.15 - This code section states that the Secretary of the California Emergency Management Agency shall appoint representatives of the disabled community to serve on the evacuation, sheltering, communication, recovery, and other pertinent Standardized

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 16 of 106

Emergency Management System committees, including one representative to the Technical Working Group. Also, the secretary shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that the needs of the disabled community are met by ensuring all committee recommendations regarding preparedness, planning, and procedures relating to emergencies include the needs of people with disabilities.
• California Government Code 8608 - This code section states that the California Emergency Management Agency shall approve and adopt, and incorporate the California Animal Response Emergency System (CARES) program developed under the oversight of the Department of Food and Agriculture into the standardized emergency management system established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 8607.
• California Health and Safety Codes, §§1010.25 and 34070-3408.2- This code section states that the board of supervisors of each county shall take measures as may be necessary to preserve and protect the public health in the unincorporated territory of the county, including, if indicated, the adoption of ordinances, regulations and orders not in conflict with general laws, and provide for the payment of all expenses incurred in enforcing them.
• California Health and Safety Code 34070--3408.2 - This code section pertains to the provision of shelter to persons who are rendered homeless as the result of a natural disaster at as low a cost as possible, to encourage people to move from shelters to a self-supporting environment as soon as possible, and to encourage the provision of shelters at as low a cost and as quickly as possible without compromising the health and safety of shelter occupants.
• California Education Code, §3.2.28.2 - This code requires school safety plans to include disaster procedures, routine and emergency, including adaptations for pupils with disabilities in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S. C. Sec. 12101 et seq.). The disaster procedures shall also include, establishing an earthquake emergency procedure system, a school building disaster plan, a drop and cover procedure, protective measures to be taken before, during, and following an earthquake, and establishing a procedure to allow a public agency, including the American Red Cross, to use school buildings, grounds, and equipment for mass care and welfare shelters during disasters or other emergencies affecting the public health and welfare.
• Title .2.2, California Code of Regulations (CCR), §7.2551 -This code pertains to external disaster and mass casualty programs of long-term care facilities. Specifically, this relates to a written external disaster and mass casualty program plan being developed and adopted with the advice and assistance of county or regional and local planning offices and shall not conflict with county and community disaster plans.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 17 of 106

• Title 24 California Building and Standards Code (Physical Access Regulations)- This code pertains to California accessibility regulations of the California building standards administrative code
• Unruh Act. California Civil Codes Sections 54 through 55.2 - This Act provides that Access for persons with disabilities is also addressed under California Civil Code Section 54 through 55.2 which provides that "individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, public facilities, and other public places."
1.8.3 local
• los Angeles County Emergency Ordinance, Chapter 2.68 In accordance with the County's Emergency Ordinance (Chapter 2.68), this Annex is applicable to all County departments, cities, and special districts. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors recognized the critical nature of providing for the protection of access and functional needs populations during disasters in Los Angeles County and directed the development of this Annex.
• County Charter Los Angeles County Emergency Ordinance, Los Angeles County Code Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 2.68 Emergency Services, known as the "Emergency Ordinance", defines the duties and provides the basic legal authorities for emergency management in the County in the event of a disaster.
1.9 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
This document is an Annex to the OAERP and is not meant to stand alone, but is intended to be used in support of and in conjunction with State, OA!County, city, and special districts' emergency response plans, and their responding agencies' standard operation procedures.
This Annex is consistent with and augments the OAERP and the County Emergency Operations Center (CEOC) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), and the County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The OAERP outlines broad emergency response concepts with appendices detailing emergency response for each hazard faced by the County, including, but not limited to, fires, earthquakes, and floods.
County departments and agencies with assigned tasks outlined in the OAERP, CEOC SOP, and in this Annex, are responsible for developing specific mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery procedures and checklists to support these plans.

HOA.803S86.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 18 of 106

Plans, policies, and procedures to be used in support of, and in conjunction with this Annex are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: los Angeles County Operational Area Access and Functional Needs
. Annex Associated Plans., Policies., and Procedures
COUNTYfOperational Area

Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency

Response Plan (OAERP)

Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency

Operations Center Standard Operating Procedures

JCEOCSOP)

Los Angeles County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Los Angeles County Operational Area Disaster

Information Reporting Procedures

Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency

Public Information Plan (Revised)

Sheriff Evacuation Plan
~and Warning Plan

s Flood Plan

Public Works Disaster Routes Plan

Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) Care and

Shelter Plan (Draft)

Adverse Weather Plan (Draft)

Animal Response Plan

Family Assistance Plan

County Department Plans '-­ ~- ~~

-

-~-

--

-

' --

~

'-~~

• ~-

-

'

~'V

- - - -~-- --=· '

Responsible Entities
OEM
OEM
OEM OEM
Sheriff, OEM Sheriff Sheriff
Public Works Public Works
DPSS DPSS,OEM DACC, DPH VPH, OEM DMH, OEM Individual County ~gencies

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 19 of 106

1.10 HAZARD IMPACT
The County of Los Angeles is located in one of the most disaster-prone areas of the United States. The County is subject to an exceptional earthquake hazard in addition to other types of major emergencies, such as:
• Wildland fires • Flooding • Hazardous materials • Civil unrest • Utility Outages • Dam Failure • Tsunami • Extreme Heat or Cold • Pandemic Flu • Terrorism
The vulnerabilities and risks created by these and other hazards can have lasting effects on people, their property, and their surroundings. These vulnerabilities and risks can severely interfere with the ability of people, especially those persons with disabilities and access and functional needs to take proactive preventative and precautionary actions before, during, and following an emergency. For a more detailed hazard analysis, see the Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plan.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 20 of 106

2. PREPAREDNESS 

This section outlines key factors in preparedness including: • Community Assessment • Community Education • Training • Drills/Exercises
Planning for specific operational areas is included in Section 3, Operational Framework, (e.g. communications, mass care, sheltering, and recovery).
2.1 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
Los Angeles County Operational Area, which is home to over 10 million people, includes significant numbers of persons with disabilities access and functional needs. With a county this large, the task of community assessment is done through multiple measures, combining statistical data, registries, and networking and outreach within the community.
2.1.1 Statistical Information Statistical information is always changing, underscoring the need to continually review and update the data provided in this Annex. Although this is not all­ encompassing of all statistical data pertaining to Los Angeles County, below is a sampling of relevant information pertaining to Los Angeles County and its' residents. The Department of Public Health produced a report on Adult Disability in LA County in the September 2006 edition of LA Health. The trends noted in the report parallel national statistics. Some of the findings from this report, as well as other relevant statistics are listed below.
• Nearly 20% of adults (1.3 million) in Los Angeles Cqunty reported having a disability. The likelihood of reporting a disability increased with age, with 7% of 18-24 year aids reporting a disability compared to over one-third (36%) of those 65 years or older.
• The prevalence of reported disability was highest in the South Service Planning Area (SPA), Antelope Valley SPA, and South Bay SPA (23% in each), while the total number of adults who reported having a disability was highest in the San Fernando Valley SPA (266,000).
• Over three-quarters of people with disabilities reported having a physical disability defined by a lack of mobility, a limitation in body movement such as standing, crouching, bending, or sitting; or difficulty gripping, holding, or manipulating small objects; or carrying light loads; 45% reported a sensory disability of difficulty hearing or problems seeing; 17% reported a mental health condition as a disability; and 16% reported problems with learning.
• Among people with disabilities, 46% reported having only one type of disability, 29% reported having two types of disabilities, 9% reported having three types of disabilities, and 6% having all four types of disabilities

HOA.ao3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 21 of 106

measured (physical, sensory, mental health, learning). Another 10% reported that their type of disability was not captured in any of the four categories. • According to 2008 U.S. Census estimates, approximately 10.7% of the population in LA County is 65 years old and over, which represents approximately 1,055,239 people. • Approximately 224 languages are spoken in LA County.
2.1.2 In-Home Support Services (IHSS) Data As of March 2010, the latest caseload data for IHSS consumers indicates that there are 184,321 clients in the system. Of this population 63% are female and 37% are male. The charts below demonstrate the ethnicity of and languages spoken by clients within the IHSS system. (See Section 2.1.3 for additional information on IHSS)
ETHNICITY

LAOTIAN HAWAIIAN GUPMANIAN TOTAl

0.01% 0.01% 100.00%

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 22 of 106

lANGUAGE
-ENGLISH

Building upon the information gleaned from statistical reports, the County also carries out additional measures to assess the community. As described below, the County has developed a voluntary disaster registry program - Specific Needs Awareness Planning (Mapping) system (SNAP). SNAP identifies individuals in the community with disabilities and access and functional needs who voluntarily register with SNAP, as well as the organizations and resources throughout the county that support these populations. The County has also developed networks with agencies that work directly with persons with disability and access and functional needs.
2.1.3 Registries To better identify people with access and functional needs, the County has developed the Specific Needs Awareness Planning (mapping) System (SNAP). Another resource the County uses to identify people with disability access and functional needs is the In-Home Support Services (network). Appendix E1 includes a Registry Checklist that outlines key considerations when developing a registry program.

HOA.amsa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 23 of 106

• SNAP Registry The County has developed the SNAP voluntary disaster registry program. The SNAP Registry is located at httg:J/snag.lacountvJJov. The SNAP program integrates Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping platforms and sophisticated database connectivity to both store data and make it available to emergency operations managers and first responders in a timely manner. SNAP organizes and maps three different kinds of data:
o People/organization data: individuals/organizations with specific needs (or access and functional needs) within the County can voluntarily register information such as name, address, contact information, and personal short and long-term post disaster needs via the SNAP website;
o Accessibility data: maps and details of the accessibility features of pre­ planned reception and evacuation centers and Points of Dispensing (PODs); and
o Resource data: organizations will be listed which have resources that could be made available in a disaster specific to the post-disaster needs of people with a wide array of disabilities and frail, at-risk seniors.
A public outreach campaign is underway to inform the public about this new program and to encourage persons with disabilities and access and functional needs to register. Appendix D provides an overview of the SNAP program.
• In-Home Support Services (IHSS) The IHSS disaster policies and procedures are documented in the LA County DPSS IHSS Handbook and are summarized below. IHSS is a program within the DPSS, that helps pay for services provided to eligible persons who are 65 years of age or older, or legally blind, or adults and children with disabilities, so that they can stay safely in their own homes. As of March 2010, there are over 184,000 clients currently enrolled in IHSS.
IHSS has created a system for contacting their most "at-risk" applicants/recipients during times of disaster. The /HSS Caseload Disaster Preparedness Assessment Profile Listing helps caseworkers identify at-risk IHSS applicants/recipients who require contact by emergency personnel or social services staff during or immediately following a disaster. Utilizing the assessment process, IHSS Social Workers code each applicant/recipient based on a risk assessment scale, which establishes a priority for contact. The factors that contribute to this assessment are:
o Primary factors: including the quality and availability of applicant's/recipient's social support systems, and access to adequate transportation and geographic isolation; and

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 24 of 106

o Secondary factors: including conditions such as blindness, deafness, and medical supply needs in conjunction with the applicant's/recipient's primary factors.
Based on the assessment, individuals will be given a designation that indicates the time in which they should be contacted:
o Critical: these individuals are first priority and will be contacted within 24 hours;
o Urgent: these individuals will be contacted within 48 hours; or o Moderate: these individuals will be contacted within 72 hours.
The State generates a monthly report called the "Caseload Disaster Preparedness Profile" which includes the consumers name, phone number, address, and social worker file number. It also identifies the vulnerability of the consumer, any disabilities, or medical needs such as oxygen, insulin, respirator, etc., and languages spoken other than English. This report is distributed to the IHSS social worker so they can make contact with consumers when a disaster occurs or when alerts are issued for severe weather conditions.
.2.1.4 Networks In a county with over 10 million people, there is a need to utilize strong networking partners in all aspects of emergency management - preparedness, response, and recovery - to identify and address emergency related issues of access and functional needs populations. The following is a list of such groups that are made up of government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community based organizations (CBOs), and faith based organizations (FBOs) that provide services directly and/or indirectly to people with disability and access and functional needs living in the County.
The Operational Area (OA) continues to initiate and develop existing networking relationships. The OA strongly recommends that local jurisdictions ensure that these kinds of partners are established and maintained at the local level as well. See Appendix E2 Creating and maintaining an Access and Functional Needs Planning Group.
• Operational Area Advisory Board (OAAB) and OAAB Access and Functional Needs Committee The mission of the Los Angeles County OAAB is to provide a forum for the county, cities, special districts, and other key agencies in the OA to work together cooperatively to help ensure the successful functioning of the operational area. Three of 46 seats on the OAAB are dedicated to organizations that represent people with disabilities.

HDA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 25 of 106

In December 2010, the OAAB formed the Access and Functional Needs Committee. The OAAB AFN Committee meets monthly is a forum for discussion and planning on issues that impact disaster planning for people with disabilities and access and functional needs. The OAAB AFN Committee reports directly to the OAAB; members include key County Departments, community-based organizations, disability-serving organizations, and transportation-related organizations serving residents throughout Los Angeles County.
• Emergency Network of los Angeles (ENLA) The LACOA recognizes ENLA as the official VOAD (Volunteer Organizations Active in Disasters) networking agency for community based organizations (CBOs) in regard to emergency management. The mission of ENLA is to enhance preparedness for and to coordinate response efforts during disasters by fostering connections between CBOs in the county and the government and private sector. The group consists of a network of non-profit, CBOs that provide assistance to individuals, families, and organizations following emergencies and disasters. With representation of over 60 organizations, ENLA members provide services to various populations with access and functional needs throughout the OA. ENLA has several recruitment activities throughout the year and has made it an expressed goal to increase communication and collaboration with agencies providing services to individuals with disabilities or other access and functional needs populations, specifically those populations who are homeless, have a disability, have , children, non-English speaking and older adults.
• Senior Emergency Preparedness Action Committee (SEPAC) SEPAC was started by the two Los Angeles Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) representing both the County and City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH). The mission of SEPAC is to improve outcomes related to emergency preparedness and response among LA's older adult population. SEPAC identifies and evaluates projects and plans to improve emergency preparedness among seniors and people with disabilities. Membership in SEPAC now involves 12 agencies including several Los Angeles City and County offices such as emergency management, recreation and parks, social services, senior health, mental health, and American Red Cross, Greater Los Angeles Chapter.
• In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Through DPSS, IHSS helps to pay for services provided to eligible persons who are 65 years of age or over, or legally blind, or adults and children with disabilities, so they can remain safely in their homes. There are approximately 184,000 clients currently enrolled in IHSS. Prior to disasters, IHSS conducts a risk assessment with applicants/recipients to identify individuals who are most at-risk during emergencies. IHSS has established a

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 26 of 106

call-down system to check in on clients using a priority system based on the risk assessment.

2.2 COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS EDUCATION
The public's response to any emergency is based on their understanding of the nature of the emergency, potential hazards, likely response from emergency services, and the knowledge of what individuals and groups should do to increase their chances of survival and recovery.
Ensuring that members of the community with disabilities and access and functional needs have plans in place for times of disaster warrants the implementation of a comprehensive public education program. The County of Los Angeles is committed to running a proactive public information program to prepare disabilities and access and functional needs populations for the threat of disasters.
Appendix E3 is a checklist of recommendations on how to include considerations for populations with disabilities and access and functional needs in community education programs. The County encourages local jurisdictions to ensure that community education programs and efforts are inclusive. In addition, any outreach programs must ensure that communication and architectural barriers do not prohibit participation, and that reasonable modification of policies, practices, and procedures are implemented.
2.2.1 Emergency Survival Program The Emergency Survival Program (ESP) is Los Angeles County's public awareness campaign that strongly emphasizes personal preparedness and planning at home, at work, at school, and in the community for all residents. ESP is a statewide program, created by Los Angeles County, and replicated by a number of jurisdictions throughout the State and nationwide. It is governed by the ESP Coordinating Council with representation from 16 counties in California. OEM serves as Chair of the Council. Council representatives include individuals from area non-profits, businesses and the local media.
Each year, ESP releases a list of monthly action steps to help the public prepare for all hazards. Also, those who visit the website (www.espfocus.org) can download all materials developed as part of ESP's campaign. These materials include a number of publications that cover a range of topics, to encourage and assist individuals and neighborhoods in preparing for potential disasters.
ESP offers two emergency preparedness documents that are specifically geared for people with disabilities and access and functional needs:
• ESP's Emergency Preparedness: Taking Responsibility for Your Safety ­ Tips for People with Activity Limitations and Disabilities. This comprehensive

HOA.ao3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 27 of 106

guide was created for anyone with activity limitations, whether due to a disability, aging, or even allergies. The guidance covers all aspects of emergency preparedness, from conducting a self-assessment to developing a personal plan.
• ESP Bulletin on Special Needs This bulletin offers recommendations for serving those with disabilities and access and functional needs. The bulletin suggests that neighborhoods establish planning committees and/or response teams to work on issues related to each phase of emergency management (mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery). It also recommends that planning committees identify members of an disability and access and functional needs branch as well as a coordinator to oversee efforts when it comes to assisting those with disabilities and access and functional needs.
ESP materials are available in accessible formats Braille, and audio format. Materials are also available in multiple languages, including Spanish. In additional to availability on the website (www.espfocus.org), requests for materials can also be made via the ESP Hotline (213-974-1166) or 211 LA County.
2.2.2 ESP Hotline and 211 LA County The public can receive free information on how to prepare for emergencies in English or other (up to 12) other languages by calling the ESP Hotline at 213­ 974-1166. Members of the public can also call 211 LA County to ask for information or request a preparedness presentation. 211 LA County operators are trained to handle TTY and Relay calls from the public.
2.2.3 OEM Website los Angeles County makes several preparedness guides and documents available through their website (http://lacoa.orgl). In addition to the ESP materials, the following preparedness materials are available on the website and targeted to people with disabilities and seniors:
• Emergency Evacuation and Preparedness: A Guide for People with Disabilities and Other Activity Limitations (Center for Disability Issues and the Health Professions)
• Saving Lives: Including People with Disabilities in Emergency Planning (National Council on Disability).
• Serving and Protecting All by Applying Lessons Learned Including People with Disabilities and Seniors in Disaster Services (California Foundation for Independent Living Centers)
OEM also created the Emergency Survival Guide for residents who live in the County as a way to help them better prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters they may face. Individuals will find numerous tips throughout this guide

HDA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 28 of 106

to help them become self-sufficient after a disaster. Moreover, the guide prompts residents to make provisions in emergency plans for those with disabilities and access and functional needs who live in the area. The guide also asks residents to help care for those with disabilities during an emergency and to assist them when there is a need to evacuate. This guide is available for viewing and can be downloaded at: J:lttp://lacoa.org/doc!ibrary.htm
The OEM website is 508 compliant (see Appendix F on website accessibility).
2.2.4 Community Events County Departments participate throughout the year at expos and other events to share preparedness material with communities in the County. Organizations, business, and individuals throughout the county can request emergency preparedness presentations and/or information at an event, meeting, or expo.
2.2.5 Department of Public Health (DPH) The County also supports the Department of Public Health's Just Be Ready campaign. This campaign includes a focus on people with disabilities and other access and functional needs and provides materials in accessible formats .
.2.3 TRAINING
One objective of OEM is to train and educate County department emergency management staff on issues pertaining to Emergency Operations Centers, Department Operations Centers and Building Emergency Plans. The County will make efforts to ensure that training is inclusive of populations with disabilities and access and functional needs.
2.3.1 Access and Functional Needs Annex Training Key personnel will be trained on the proper use of this Annex and its components. Moreover, to ensure the Annex is fully effective and functional, it will be reviewed and revised as necessary to meet changing conditions.
2.3.2 Functional Assessment Service Teams (FAST) Training The County, led by the Department of Public Social Services, is working in conjunction with the State to identify and train FAST members who can support populations with disabilities and access and functional needs during emergencies. Working primarily in emergency shelters, FAST members would assist shelter managers to assess needs in shelters and help identify resources, as well as work with EOC personnel to secure necessary resources for persons with disabilities and access and functional needs.
FAST training includes information regarding emergency management, activation, sheltering, and identifying and addressing emergency related issues regarding populations with disabilities and access and functional needs.

HoA.so3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 29 of 106

2.3.3 Shelter Training The County collaborates with the American Red Cross (ARC) to provide select County employees with training in shelter operations. This covers instruction on how to manage and operate shelters during emergencies. ARC has been working towards developing shelter training that is inclusive of people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
2.3.4 local Jurisdictions Local jurisdictions are encouraged to develop a comprehensive training program based upon their own training needs assessment that includes populations with disabilities and access and functional needs. This may include training such as:
• Development of a "Disability and Access and Functional Needs Response Training Program" for first responders and emergency managers that reviews specific emergency issues and experience regarding populations with disabilities and access and functional needs;
• Training on emergency management structure and plans for agencies and community organizations that serve people with access and functional needs, as well as individuals with access and functional needs and their caregivers/families;
• Emergency preparedness training and information that is inclusive of emergency related issues of populations with access and functional needs.
• Volunteer training that is open and accessible to people with disabilities or other access and functional needs such as CERT;
• Offering FEMA's G197 Course, Emergency Planning and Special Needs Populations, through the State Training Office.
2.4 Drills and Exercises
Both emergency response personnel and members of the community can benefit from developing and implementing a comprehensive exercise program to test emergency plans. Offerings may consist of workshops, tabletops, and functional exercises that test the effectiveness of the various components of such plans, which focus on the coordination of response and recovery efforts of agencies in assisting people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
The County will make every reasonable effort to include populations with disabilities and access and functional needs and the organizations that serve these populations in drills and exercises-from development and participation to post-exercise evaluation, debriefing and after action reports.

HDA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 30 of 106

The County encourages local jurisdictions to include populations with disabilities and access and functional needs in drills and exercises. Further, local jurisdictions are encouraged to test components of plans that specifically deal with emergency related issues of populations with access and functional needs.

HOA.smss6.1J une 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 31 of 106

3. OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Operational Priorities The County of Los Angeles considers the following issues when prioritizing emergency response and recovery operations for people with disabilities and access and functional needs:
• Protecting life and property; • Meeting the needs of persons with disabilities and access and functional
needs, including rescue, medical treatment, evacuation, transportation, and shelter; • Temporary restoration of facilities essential to the health, safety, and welfare of persons with disabilities and access and functional needs.
3.1.2 Concept of Operations In order to successfully accomplish the mission statement of this Annex, County departments, agencies, special districts, and other jurisdictions will use a multi­ agency, multi-disciplinary coordinated approach in response to any threat or event. The County will use the Incident Command System (ICS) component of the SEMS and the NIMS to manage all events.
This Annex becomes effective upon notification of a disaster. Authorized personnel may activate the CEOC (County Emergency Operations Center) according to the CEOC Standard Operating Procedures. Activation protocols are based on the potential threat and its scope. If the CEOC is activated, the CEOC Manager will direct implementation of this Annex or applicable portions, as appropriate. If the CEOC is not activated, this Annex may be implemented in whole or in part, based on the potential threat and its scope.
Any city or special district may activate their respective disability and access and functional needs emergency response plans for areas under their incident command authority. Each jurisdiction or community must consider the estimated time needed to thoroughly evacuate an area, including how to communicate and reach people with disabilities or access and functional needs, in addition to any support services required of the evacuees, the identification of all densely populated areas, and how best to handle the complicating factors of impending impacts and damage resulting from the specific disaster.
3.2 COMMUNICATIONS
This section addresses communications during emergencies in two distinct ways. The first section, Alert and Warning, primarily deals with initial warning and notification of the public. The second section, Information Sharing During Response and Recovery,

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 32 of 106

addresses both interagency communications as well as public information through the response and recovery phases.
This section addresses specific communication considerations with the persons with disabilities and access and functional needs and builds upon the procedures and guidance outlined in the County of Los Angeles Emergency Public Information Plan, the Operational Area Emergency Response Plan, and the Operational Area Mass Evacuation Process Guide. The County plans to use diverse and redundant mechanisms to reach the public, as this kind of approach better takes into account varying communications needs.
3.2.1 Alert and Warning Redundant and diverse methods are used to alert the public prior to or during an emergency as described in the Los Angeles County Emergency Public Information Plan. This approach benefits the entire community, including people with disabilities and access and functional needs, as it offers multiple options to access critical and timely information thus enabling all people to take the appropriate steps for the circumstance.
Alert and warning is primarily coordinated through the Sheriff's Department at the County level, or city law enforcement agencies at the city level. The Sheriffs Department is responsible for implementing the Emergency Alert System (EAS). The Public Information Office (PIO) is responsible for coordinating communication to the public, working closely with the media, and promoting greater interagency communication.
The following section expands upon the alert and warning methods described in the plans listed above to specifically address notifying individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs. None of these approaches will be used exclusively, but instead, multiple and redundant mechanisms will be used to reach the public.
• Alert LA County Emergency Mass Notification System
Alert LA County is an automated system with capabilities of alerting via phone message, text message, or email messages. The system is TTY/ TDD compatible, as indicated on the Alert LA website (http://portal.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/alertla).
o The Alert LA system has access to all county listed and unlisted land line telephone numbers. Individuals can also register additional cell phone numbers, Voice over IP phone numbers, and email addresses at http://portal.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/alertla. The website is the only way to register additional numbers to the Alert LA system.
o Los Angeles County's main website is 508 compliant. For more information about website accessibility, see Appendix F.

HoA.803586.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 33 of 106

o Alert and warning messages are disseminated through the LA County Sheriffs Office, via Alert LA. Messages may contain critical information about an imminent or active emergency and provide directions regarding necessary actions to be taken by the public. The user has the option for the message to be repeated. Often the messages include a hotline number (including TTY capability) or website in the event that the individual receiving the call wants or needs additional information. This is especially beneficial to people with functional or access needs who may need to hear the message multiple times, or who may need additional information or clarification of the information provided in the original scripted message. This also enables emergency management to include a greater depth of detail not possible in the scripted message.
• local Mass Notification Systems Some local jurisdictions have mass notification systems in addition to, or in place of Alert LA. Local jurisdictions are encouraged to ensure availability and usability of their systems by individuals with disabilities. This includes:
o Ensure that the system complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. Specifically, the system should be functionally equivalent for individuals who are deaf, deaf-blind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability.
o Ensure there are multiple ways for signing up for the system such as: 11 Accessible website and software (see Appendix F); 11 Phone registration with capabilities for TTYITDD, other language operators (and access to a language bank), and information regarding Relay 711 options; 11 Collaboration with service agencies that work directly with persons with disabilities and access and functional needs that can offer suggestions for making the process more accessible and that can assist constituents with signing up for the services; • Ensure that the system is capable of disseminating messages in multiple languages. The seven (7) preferred languages include English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese dialects), Japanese, Korean, Tagalog and Vietnamese.
o Ensure that those with disabilities and access and functional needs are aware of the mass notification systems: • Provide information about the system in accessible formats via web, fliers, PSAs (Public Service Announcements), etc.; • Include specific language about the accessibility of the system in messages; • Collaborate with service agencies that can help share the information.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 34 of 106

o Provide a means for people to follow up with questions or clarification via live operator or alternate phone/email (ensure that these options are accessible).
o Test the system regularly and include people with disabilities, e.g., deaf, hard of hearing, deaf/blind, blind individuals, etc.
• Media In the event of an emergency, the County will alert the media as outlined in the Emergency Public Information Plan. The media will make information available to the public. The Emergency Public Information (EPI) communications network includes a list of key contacts for radio, television, daily newspapers, multilingual media, and specialized publications.
o According to FCC laws and regulations, broadcast media is responsible for ensuring that information is accessible. A brief explanation of these responsibilities can be found in Appendix G;
o The designated County PIO will work with the various media outlets to ensure that information is accessible and relevant to individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs. The County will encourage local jurisdictions to do the same. The Media Checklist, Appendix E4, includes a number of suggestions that the County and local jurisdictions should encourage the media to take to ensure greater access.
• 211 LA County Hotline 211 LA County provides information and access to a comprehensive range of human services for County residents. The 211 system is available 24 hours a day/7 days a week. During emergencies, the County will utilize the 211 hotline system to provide information to callers. The 211 system is TIYITDD compatible and operators are available to communicate in multiple languages.
• 711 Telecommunications Relay Services 711 Relay Services (California Relay Services in California) is one of eight N11 codes for abbreviated dialing in the North American Numbering Plan. California Relay Service (CRS) provides specially- trained operators to relay telephone conversations back and forth between people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or speech-disabled and all those they wish to communicate with by telephone. Information regarding the 711 resource should be provided on all public documents, materials and/or websites that list agency phone numbers, hotlines, etc. To access California Relay Service: o Users dial 711 (additional numbers available at:
http://www.ddtp.org/california_relay_service/Default.asp#phone_numbers);
o The service is available 24 hours a day/7 days a week; o The service offers information in English, Spanish, American Sign
Language, and conversational English.

HoA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 35 of 106

o Video Relay Service (VRS) is an Internet- based form of TRS allows persons whose primary language is American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate with the sign language interpreter, as known as video interpreter, using video conferencing equipment. The video interpreter speaks what is signed to the called party, and signs the called party's response back to the caller. VRS allows conversations to flow in near real time and in a faster and more natural manner than text- based TRS. Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service is a text-based form of TRS that uses the Internet, rather than traditional telephone lines to bridge communication between the person with a hearing or speech disability and the Communication Assistance (CA). The user may use a computer or other web-enabled device to communicate with the Communication Assistance.
• OEM Website During emergencies, OEM may post information to its website throughout the course of the event. The website is http://www.lacoa.org/ and is accessible.
• Door-to-Door Notifications The Alert LA County system described in Section 3.1.1 is used to make initial contact with individuals in the event of an emergency. When additional contact is necessary and practical, field level personnel (including Sheriff's Department personnel and volunteer disaster service workers) may conduct door-to-door notifications. When conducting notifications, personnel should take the following into consideration:
o Individuals, who are deaf, deaf/blind, have speech disabilities, cognitive disabilities or mental health disabilities may have difficulty understanding instructions or even the urgency to evacuate.
o Become familiar with special push button unit(s), which may be a doorbell signal system designed to alert individuals who are deaf, deaf­ blind or hard of hearing through a strobe, vibrator or other alerting device.
o Become familiar with one of the procedures to notify individuals who are deaf/blind by using your index finger to draw an "X" on their back and then assisting them with exiting the building.
o A communication protocol should be developed to ensure that all individuals are provided with the same information. Messages should be clear, consistent, and include directives as necessary;
o Become familiar with the communities where notifications are taking place and then make appropriate adjustments. If a language other than English is predominantly spoken, bring along an interpreter.
o Try to identify unique communication needs from the start. Carry communications tools, such as non-text signs, pictograms or pen and paper, to facilitate communications;

HDA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 36 of 106

o Partner with trusted community groups when possible; o Ask the individual if they need any assistance with evacuating and be
specific about the kind of assistance needed. There may be a need to assist with transporting mobility devices, pets or service animals. o Be sure to inform individuals to bring their durable medical equipment, medications, consumable medical supplies, pet and/or service animal information (vet cages, food, medications, toys etc.) and their personal/family emergency kits.
• Public Address Systems The County and local jurisdictions plan to use public address systems, when deemed necessary, to make notifications via helicopters, sirens, and police and fire vehicles. Public address systems will not be used exclusively in emergencies, as those who are hard of hearing, deaf, deaf-blind, or who have cognitive or mental health disabilities may not be able to hear or comprehend these alerts. When possible, written posters or leaflets will be posted or distributed in conjunction with public address systems.
• Social Service Networks/Call Downs The County may utilize existing social service networks to share critical information with staff and constituents. The County will provide notifications and information to the agency or network, which will in turn contact its staff, member agencies, and constituents.
The following is a list of networks that DPSS and/or the CEOC Care and Shelter Branch will reach out to prior to, during, and after emergency events. Local jurisdictions are also encouraged to establish relationships with public and private agencies that work directly with people with disabilities and access and functional needs to utilize existing networks and establish communication protocols. The networks listed below are described in more detail in Section 2, Preparedness.
o In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS). IHSS will be contacted via the DPSS liaison to OEM. IHSS has established a call-down system to check in on clients using a priority system based on a risk assessment;
o Emergency Network of Los Angeles (ENLA). ENLA has a seat in the CEOC through DPSS (which is a government member of ENLA). DPSS will make the initial contact to ENLA to activate the initial call down to all member agencies;
o Los Angeles Area Senior Emergency Preparedness Action Committee (SEPAC). Notifications will be made to SEPAC members.
• Other Resources There are other resources available that are aimed at getting emergency information to people with disabilities and access and functional needs.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 37 of 106

Individuals with functional needs are encouraged to use these devices, and emergency management officials should be familiar with this technology:
o A special-needs weather radio that activates a strobe light and/or shakes a pillow or bed to alert those who are deaf or hard of hearing of an emergency. The device can even turn on alarms, pagers, personal computers, text printers, and other devices once the receiver registers a warning. The radio can also be adapted to send messages in large print or Braille for persons who are visually impaired or blind. The National Weather Service (NWS) uses something called Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME) technology to send warnings of imminent severe weather or other hazard conditions from any of 122 Weather Forecast Offices directly into homes, offices, public buildings, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and to many other locations using the National NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) network of transmitter stations. The NOAA Weather Wire Service (NWWS) provides the direct delivery of text warning messages via Email by subscription. This provides Email delivery to any device (pager, cell phone, PDA, PC) capable of receiving text Email. Messages are selected by event type (tornado, flash flood, etc.) and issuing office (Washington, DC, New York City, etc.) and can be used to supplement NWR SAME warnings or to get specific information on severe weather anywhere in the country;
o Handheld sign language translators can also be helpful when interpreters or video conferencing systems are not available.
• Specific Needs Awareness Planning (Mapping) System (SNAP) . The Specific Needs Awareness Planning (SNAP) Mapping System is a comprehensive planning and response tool developed to address the needs of residents without the ability to self-evacuate, or who may require specialized care during a disaster. The System integrates Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping and database connectivity, which allows emergency operations managers and first responders to assess the impact of an emergency incident in a particular area on its most vulnerable residents. See Section 2.1.3 and Appendix D for more detailed information.
• Internet/Social Networking (in development) The County is in the process of setting up accounts with Facebook, Twitter, and other popular social networking websites to share preparedness, response, and recovery information.
3.2.2 Information Sharing through Response and Recovery
The County of Las Angeles Emergency Public Information Plan outlines critical components of the County's plan to share information during emergencies and through recovery. This section highlights specific areas pertaining to communication with individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 38 of 106

The first part of this section addresses different modalities used to communicate with regard to interagency communications and to the public. The second part of the section addresses the importance of developing content that is appropriate for people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
• Interagency Communications This section addresses interagency communications between departments and organizations that serve people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
o Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs)
County agency liaisons will be present in the CEOC, and have been assigned functional responsibilities in accordance with the OAERP and SEMS. The CEOC and County Departments will provide Agency representatives to impacted jurisdiction EOCs, as appropriate and practical, to facilitate interagency communications. Situational awareness and the development of a common operating picture will be supported through data-sharing systems which may include integrated GIS data.
The DPSS liaison is the CEOC Care and Shelter Branch Coordinator and is responsible for communicating with all facets of the agency, DPSS contracted agencies, IHSS, and other agencies such as the County's Community and Senior Services Department, American Red Cross, ENLA, as needed.
When the need arises, additional agencies that serve individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs will be given a seat in the CEOC during activation.
o Joint Information Center (JIC)
Local and Operational Area Joint Information Centers (JIC) are responsible for providing information updates to the public and to the media. The Public Information Officer (PIO) is the designated lead in the JIC and is responsible for coordinating crisis communications with County offices and each district's public information officer. The PIO will make every effort to work with subject matter experts among different populations with disabilities and access and functional needs to identify effective communications tactics.
The PIO Checklist {Appendix E5) includes suggested action steps that the PIO should consider during emergency events pertaining specifically to individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs.

Ho>tso3ssli.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 39 of 106

• Communications with the Public Many factors should be considered to ensure effective communication before and during disasters and during recovery. This section addresses modalities for sharing information with the public specifically regarding people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
o Media
Print and broadcast media offer primary means for sharing information before, during, and after disasters. The use of press releases and press conferences are two methods the County (and cities) utilize to reach out to the public. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's PIO works closely with the media on an everyday basis and works to increase media contacts that go directly into diverse communities throughout the County. The PIO works with media to identify ways to enhance communications to persons with disabilities and access and functional needs. Appendix E4 (FCC Regulations Part 79 ­ Accessibility of Emergency Information) is a tool for the PIO to use to help guide media to better ensure that the needs/issues/capabilities of people with disabilities and access and functional needs are addressed before, during, and after emergencies.
o Hotlines
211 will serve as the hotline for the County during emergencies. The County will work directly with 211 to ensure information is available to individuals who call 211.
o Websites
The County will provide critical response and recovery information on the County OEM website. In addition, local jurisdictions, organizations, and other entities are likely to utilize the Internet to post critical information to the public. See Appendix F.
• California Disaster Response Interpreter Program (DRI) The California Emergency Management Agency (Cai-EMA) Office of Access and Functional Needs (OAFN), in collaboration with NorCal Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the American Red Cross and the California Specialized Training Institute (CSTI) have developed the DRI program to assist local jurisdictions with engaging sign language interpreters during emergencies and all press conferences.
The purpose of the program is to ensure the rapid deployment of sign language interpreters to press conferences and shelters when requested during the time of a declared emergency. The program is statewide and utilizes local community-based organizations that currently provide on-call sign language interpreting services on 24/7 basis for medical, mental health

HOA.ao3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 40 of 106

and law enforcement emergencies. Organizations agreeing to participate in the program have a current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cai­ EMA OAFN. By agreeing to participate in the program, these organizations assume responsibility to locate, recruit and dispatch Cai-EMA credentialed sign language interpreters as quickly and efficiently as possible during a declared emergency.
Requests for assistance from DRI's should occur through the SEMS/NIMS process and partner agencies will be mission-tasked by Cal EMA, following requests made by the OA CEOC, through the Southern Region Emergency Operations Center, to the State Operations Center. It is recommended that local governments establish agreements with organizations in their community to ensure that qualified sign language interpreters can be rapidly deployed to press conferences and shelters.
• Community Outreach
The County may create outreach teams to share information in the response or recovery phase of an emergency. The County will also encourage local jurisdictions to create outreach teams, in collaboration with County teams, or separately. The County will engage first responders, volunteers, and specialists/experts who work with people with disabilities and access and functional needs to ensure that outreach efforts are effective. The County will outreach to individuals with disabilities and organizations that work on behalf of or for the benefit of individuals with disabilities. Some examples of these organizations may include; Emergency Network los Angeles (ENlA), Regional Centers, Independent living Centers, Greater los Angeles Agency on Deafness (DlAD), Braille institute, and other disability-serving organizations. The Outreach Team Checklist found in Appendix E6 includes considerations specific to populations with disabilities and access and functional needs.
• Community/Town Hall Meetings
During the recovery phase, the County and/or local jurisdictions may hold town hall meetings to share critical information about the recovery effort such as services being provided, rebuilding, etc. The Town Hall Meeting Checklist in Appendix E7 outlines key considerations when these events are planned.
• Community Groups/Stakeholders
The County and local jurisdictions, where possible, will engage community organizations that work directly with individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs during the response and recovery phases. These organizations provide a valuable resource because they know their constituents, understand communication and information needs, and are trusted by the community. These organizations can help develop the content

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 41 of 106

of messages and disseminate information appropriately. They may also share information with OEM regarding the information needs and requests of their constituents.
• Recovery Sites and Distribution Points
The County and/or local jurisdictions will target recovery centers as distribution points to share information with the public. Information will be made accessible, where possible, to individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs at these sites.
• Message Content
The County will work towards developing information content that is relevant to the public including those with disabilities and access and functional needs and encourage local jurisdictions to do the same. Message content should include, when appropriate, incident facts, health risk concerns, pre-incident and post-incident preparedness recommendations, and where/how to access assistance. Messages should be in a format or language that a broad spectrum of the community can understand.
Message content checklists can be found in Appendices 02, 07, 08 and 09.

3.3 EVACUATION AND. TRANSPORTATION
3.3.1 Introduction
When a local jurisdiction has initiated or is considering the evacuation of an area, the County's Emergency Operations Bureau is alerted. LA County's operational role in evacuation is to conduct evacuations in the unincorporated areas and to support local jurisdictions with equipment, personnel, communication and guidance. The County's Evacuation EOP defines procedures to be followed during evacuation operations.
To ensure that jurisdictions in the LACOA have a consistent approach to evacuation, the County along with LA City has developed the Los Angeles Operating Area Mass Evacuation Process Guide. This document provides guidance and a framework for local jurisdictions on best practices for jurisdictions in developing their own local evacuation plans.
This section of the Annex both reiterates and supplements the material in the aforementioned documents, focusing on issues related to people with disabilities and access and functional needs. Although most practices identified here can apply to any scale evacuation, this Annex is meant to address the particular challenges of large-scale events, such as those with which the County would most likely be engaged.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 42 of 106

3.3.2 Preparedness
• Community Inventory
o Methods LA County engages in various activities to identify and to continually refine data that helps to inform preparedness and response efforts regarding people with disabilities and access and functional needs. This data is essential for evacuation planning. These data-gathering efforts include:
11 Developing documents such as the Special Needs Population Summary, 2006. The Department of Public Health produced the summary as part of the Bioterrorism Preparedness Program. The purpose of the summary was to identify and determine the current state of knowledge and level of preparedness concerning the population with disabilities and access and functional needs. The summary examined existing data on populations with disabilities and access and functional needs, but also highlighted areas where there was limited or no available information in order to inform future efforts;
11 Working with the Departments of Public Social Services, Mental Health, and Public Health as well as umbrella agencies that work with people with disabilities and access and functional needs to identify locations, needs and nuances of the populations they serve;
11 Using publically available data to identify locations of various critical facilities and those facilities that serve, house or are related to people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
Data Types of data that reference populations with disabilities, access and functional needs available to LA County Emergency Management (or data in the process of being identified) include:
Individuals
• OEM has initiated and is currently developing the Specific Needs Awareness Planning (SNAP} mapping initiative. Individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs within the county can register vital information via the internet that can be used by public safety personnel during evacuations and other emergencies. The program has a GIS component that will allow maps to be made which identify clusters of populations

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 43 of 106

with disabilities and access and functional needs. (See Section 2.1.3 and Appendix D for more details)
• IHSS has emergency procedures for contacting clients before during and after emergencies that help to identify and assist with emergency related issues. (See Section 2.1.3 for more details)
• Organizations/critical facilities/census tracts
• Knowing the location and approximate size of a given population, as well as the general numbers of people with disabilities and access and functional needs within the facility/organization allows emergency management and public safety personnel to quickly identify transportation and other needs of a given evacuating population. These tools can assist in gathering this information:
SNAP
• In addition to information on individuals, SNAP also allows organizations that serve people with disabilities and access and functional needs to register their organization's information.
Enterprise GIS (EGIS)
Under development of the Los Angeles County Information Office, the EGIS system is a hardware and software investment to support Countywide GIS storage and access to over 200 layers of authoritative GIS data. Data most relevant to serving population with disabilities and access and functional needs that the Operational Area utilizes includes, but is not limited to:
o Census data, demographics, and population estimates including areas where the public is likely to rely on public transportation, where languages other than English are primarily spoken, areas with high concentrations of homelessness and/or with high concentrations of people of 65 years of age.
o Hospitals o Assisted Living Communities o Colleges/Universities o Day-care centers o Schools o Dialysis/Infusion Centers o Group Homes o Hospice o Long-term care facilities o Nursing Homes o Senior Centers o Senior Housing

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 44 of 106

• Transportation Resources The County is engaging in various activities to ensure an adequate number of accessible transportation resources will be available during evacuations and other emergency activities. Activities associated with identification of transportation resources include, but are not limited to:
o Identification of accessible transportation needs 11 The Department of Public Social Services has determined that approximately 9,149 of the 176,566 people to whom IHSS provides homecare services require wheelchairs for mobility. In addition, IHSS has also identified which clients are most likely to need assistance during evacuations. 11 The County will continue to develop other access and functional needs related transportation estimates based on engagement with organizations serving people with access and functional needs and through examination of the community inventory lists above, as well as current statistics.
o Identification and inventory of accessible transportation resources and engagement in Memoranda of Understanding that identify clear activation procedures 11 Current accessible transportation resources identified in lACOA Mass Evacuation Guide include Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) buses and rail (including qualified personnel). MTA buses will most likely be the main sources of transportation during evacuations. Each MTA bus can accommodate two wheelchairs; 11 Other transportation agreements being considered by the lACOA are those with the School Districts, municipal bus services, and private charter bus companies; 11 The Functional Needs Transportation Inventory Guidance worksheet is a planning tool that was developed to expedite the matching of transportation resources with the specific functional needs of evacuating populations, and to ensure that transportation resources can be activated quickly (See Appendix H).
o Coordination and Prioritization of Transportation Resources Coordination of transportation resources in the County is accomplished through the transportation branch under the CEOC logistics Section.
• Facilities/Gathering Points Used During an Evacuation Event local jurisdictions, coordinated through the County, may identify and use the following facilities/gathering points for evacuating populations:

HOA.803S86.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 45 of 106

o Evacuation points and reception and care areas are gathering locations where individuals can access evacuation transportation out of the threatened area and/or to a shelter. Well known areas such as shopping centers, libraries, and schools are used for these points. These areas must, at a minimum, have bathrooms, food, and water. They are not meant to house individuals overnight. Disabilities and access and functional needs considerations include: • Accessible path of travel to the site; • Entrances (if the site has an enclosed structure attached to it) and bathrooms are accessible; • Accommodations to ensure access to food and water (e.g., straws available, dietary considerations, allergies, etc.); • Provide reasonable accommodation and ensure that information is made accessible for people with various disabilities or other disabilities and access and functional needs (e.g. providing sign language or other language interpreters, provide real time captioning and have documents available in alternate formats ­ large print, Braille, audio, facilitated communication devices etc. 11 Boarding areas should be level to facilitate use by persons using wheelchairs and other mobility aids; 11 Accessible transportation (from home to evacuation points and from evacuation points to reception and care areas).
o Shelters will be opened if the duration of an evacuation is expected to continue overnight. See Section 3.4 for more details.
• Congregate Care Facilities The County encourages congregate care settings to have strong emergency plans, such as evacuation, sheltering, and continuity of operations plans, in place and to ensure the safety and continuity of care for all their clients. Licensed facilities will be held to the rules and regulations governing their licensing (usually but not always the state department of health). Congregate care facilities include: nursing homes, adult homes, group homes, children's homes, daytime activity centers, and rehabilitation centers. The County recognizes the reality that informal congregate arrangements also exist, and that they need to be taken into account in the planning process.
The County encourages local jurisdictions to support congregate care facilities, and to be familiar with their emergency plans. This includes their staffing and equipment capabilities, alternate site movement plans, transportation assets and ability to transfer people, medical records, data, etc. In the event that the needs of one or more congregate care facilities cannot be met at the local level, the County will support that jurisdiction as needed.
• Family reunification

HDA.so3sso.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 46 of 106

Due to the unplanned nature of most evacuations, families can become separated from each other, and individuals can become separated from other support systems and caregivers.
County DPSS, as the lead for human services has overall responsibility for family re-unification during disasters. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) is specifically responsible for working with unaccompanied minors, including those who are at shelters.
As part of their planning process home-based care providers are required to have plans to ensure continuity of care for their clients. IHSS has emergency procedures in place for keeping in contact with and identifying client needs before, during, and after disasters.
For large scale events, the County and local jurisdictions will also encourage evacuees and the general public to utilize the American Red Cross' Safe and Well Website (https:l/disastersafe.redcross.org/). The Federal Department of Health and Human Services may also activate the National Emergency Family Registry Locator System (NEFRLS) and the National Emergency Child Locator Center (NECLC), in order to assist displaced adults and medically evacuated patients in reunification with their families.
People with disabilities and access and functional needs may need additional assistance in utilizing all of these systems.
3.3.3 Operations
• Agency and Organizational Notifications When a local jurisdiction is considering an evacuation or has decided to call a voluntary or mandatory evacuation, initial notifications and contacts may include: o American Red Cross: for identification of reception and care centers and shelters; o Department of Social Services IHSS: as the major contractor of Home Health Services; o ENLA: as the link to numerous social services agencies with clients who may have functional needs; o Accessible transportation resources: in order to activate resources or place them on stand-by (private resources especially may require additional lead time; o Facilities with concentration of individuals with functional needs in the area such as those listed above in Section 3.3.2. (Allows these facilities time to prepare for possible evacuation). o Communication resources; contracted interpreters/interpreter service providers and computer aided real-time captioner/computer aided real­ time caption service provider (CART).

HOA.B03S86.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 47 of 106

• Public Information and Communication See the Section 3.2 of this Annex for details on how LA County ensures public information messages and mechanisms take into account the access and functional needs of the community.
• Decision Making/Assessment o Immediate Considerations When making initial evacuation decisions, incident commanders and other decision makers conduct an analysis of the community to be evacuated. Factors related to people with disabilities and access and functional needs that should be considered in these decisions include: 11 What concentrations of individuals likely to have functional needs are in the area? (See Community Inventory, Section 3.3.2 above) What are the associated functional needs of these populations? How large are these populations? 11 What critical and other facilities are in the area? 11 How quickly will those in the area with functional needs be able to evacuate? Should a phased evacuation be considered to allow more time for these populations to evacuate? Is it safer for some critical facilities to shelter in place with support instead of evacuating? 11 Is public transportation still operating? Will paratransit providers assist in evacuating their clientele? How would an individual request assistance in evacuating? 11 Is this an area with a large percentage of low income population and others who may rely on public transportation? 11 Is this an area where languages other than English are primarily used? 11 Is this an area with a large percentage of individuals with disabilities who rely on paratransit services?
• Continued Operational Planning Considerations As an evacuation operation continues, the following disability access and functional related needs are addressed: o Evaluate the status of, and assisting critical and other facilities either as they evacuate or shelter in place. If nursing homes or other facilities need to evacuate, confirm that necessary arrangements are in place including: 11 an alternate accessible facility; 11 appropriate accessible transportation resources; and 11 accessible communication to family members regarding evacuation status.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 48 of 106

o Ensure designated evacuation sites, reception and care areas and/or shelters are accessible and plans for family re-unification are in place.
o Transportation Issues 11 Ensure various types of accessible transportation are available at all designated evacuation areas and that additional accessible vehicles are staged and available for deployment as needed. 11 Ensure estimates for transportation needs include room for companion and/or service animals, DME, and companions/family members/personal assistants/aides. Additional information can be found in the Los Angeles OA Animal Response Annex. 11 Ensure that the length of time to evacuate frail elderly and other vulnerable populations are kept to a minimum
• Access Control/Security In some circumstances officials may allow residents to remain in their dwellings but restrict access for all non-residents. In this event, LACOA officials work with law enforcement, DPSS, and other social services providers to ensure continued delivery of services including: o Home health aides/visiting nurse services/personal attendants; o Meals on Wheels; o Para transit.
• Temporary Re-Entry If residents are temporarily allowed access to dwellings to retrieve belongings, officials will ensure, where possible and practical: o Escorts from American Red Cross, DPSS, or other organizations are available to assist people with access or functional needs; o Accessible transportation is available to and from sites; o Protocol modifications are made to allow designated other individuals if resident is not able to be present; o For other long-term reentry issues see Transition to Recovery, Section 3.5.
3.4 SHELTERING AND MASS CARE
3.4.1 Introduction This section of the Annex describes how the County supports the unincorporated areas and local jurisdictions in addressing mass care and sheltering during emergencies specifically in regard to people with functional and access needs. The Annex builds upon policies/procedures that are detailed in the Care and Shelter Appendix to the EAP. The Annex is also consistent with the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Guidelines for Inter-County Sheltering

HOA.B03SB6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 49 of 106

Caused by Large-Scale Evacuations of People. The American Red Cross (ARC) also maintains a plan detailing ARC's role in shelters, site selection, shelter operations, and shelter closing/transition.
The LACOA also offers the Mass Care and Shelter Guidance for Emergency Management Planners, outlining key planning considerations for a multi­ jurisdictional approach to sheltering. Currently in draft form this document offers guidance specifically regarding the integration of people with disabilities and access and functional needs in shelters including a section called "Assisting persons with special needs" and a list of countywide resources.
This Annex highlights the key components of these plans that pertain especially to populations with disabilities and access and functional needs. This Annex should be considered in conjunction with the aforementioned plans.
3.4.2 EOC - Care and Shelter Branch DPSS leads and coordinates the functions of mass care, emergency assistance, housing, and human services with state and federal agencies, local governments, and non-governmental organizations. Within the SEMS structure, DPSS serves as the Care and Shelter Coordinator, which is under the Operations Section. DPSS coordinates closely with supporting agencies to assist and augment local governments' resources and abilities in the areas listed below: • Sheltering • Feeding • Bulk distribution of food and emergency relief supplies • Emergency first aid • Identifying and tracking disaster survivors
3.4.3 Sheltering According to the Statement of Understanding (SOU) between the ARC and the State of California Department of Social Services (CDSS), ARC is designated as the lead agency in all sheltering operations throughout the State. ARC works cooperatively with local government to clarify roles and responsibilities.
In the OA, DPSS is the designated County agency responsible to support sheltering operations during emergencies and works closely with ARC, local government, and other OA sheltering partners.
• ADA and Sheltering The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) generally requires shelters to provide equal access to the many benefits that shelters provide, including safety, food, services, comfort, information, a place to sleep until it is safe to return home, and the support and assistance of family, friends, and neighbors. In general, the ADA does not require any action that would result

HOA.B03SB6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 50 of 106

in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity that would impose undue financial and administrative burdens.
As stated in the SOU between the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and American Red Cross (ARC), pursuant to Title II of the ADA, Public Law 336, enacted, July 26, 1990 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, ARC will provide care and shelter in facilities that comply with current government ADA requirements and meet all health and safety requirements, whenever possible. The County works with ARC to ensure that these standards are adhered to whenever possible.
See Appendix I, Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Shelter Guidance, for more explanation on how the ADA impacts sheltering.
• Shelter Site Selection The ARC is responsible for selecting shelter sites within the County. To assess shelters, ARC uses ARC Shelter Site Guidelines and the DOJ's ADA Checklist for Emergency Shelters (which is part of the DOJ guidance listed above), to determine the most appropriate sites and to determine ADA accessibility of sites. This includes, for example, an accessibility review of shelter elements including: o Parking o Entrance o Toilets o Bathing facilities o Drinking fountains o Sleeping area o Food distribution and dining areas o First aid/medical unit o Emergency notification system
• Ensuring Access and Making Accommodations in Shelters The County works with ARC to ensure that a general atmosphere of inclusion is maintained and that reasonable accommodations are made in shelters. The ADA generally requires emergency managers and shelter operators to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination. A reasonable modification must be made unless it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden. Examples of reasonable accommodations that emergency managers and shelter operators may need to make include, but are not limited to: o Intake • ARC conducts an intake process at the shelter, which the County will work with ARC to ensure that an opportunity for people to self-identify any dietary, medical, medication, or accommodation needs is made.

HDA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 51 of 106

o Physical accessibility (Every effort will be made to make accessible shelters available and to publicize which shelters are available) • Modifications to facilities - offering accessible portable toilets/showers if not available at the shelter. 11 Building a ramp if there are barriers to accessing the facility or areas within the facility. • Modification of kitchen access policies for people with medical conditions that may require access to food. • Offering refrigeration for medication management. • Providing a verbal orientation to the shelter for those who are blind or with low vision or those with cognitive or mental health disabilities. • Providing information and orientation on animal relief areas to handlers of service/companion animals.
o Shelter layout • Modifying sleeping arrangements to meet disability-related needs. 11 Identifying private areas for reasons such as lessoning the stress for people with mental health disabilities or who may have medical conditions, or to allow persons to attend to personal hygiene needs or breast feeding an infant.
o Communications • Ensure that the provision of auxiliary aids and services are provided to individuals with communication needs, i.e., sign language/oral interpreters, captioning services, TIYNideo phone access, communication cards, facilitated communication assistance, etc. • Providing materials in alternate format for people who are blind or who have low vision and when not possible have a volunteer assist by reading printed documents and helping to fill out documents. • Ensuring that audible information is made accessible to people who are deaf, deaf-blind, or hard of hearing through qualified sign language or oral interpreters, posting messages and announcements in written format on a centrally located bulletin board, or writing notes back and forth with residents who are deaf or hard of hearing, when appropriate. • Providing a TIY for the use of people who are deaf or hard of hearing if standard voice telephones are available. • Using Pictogram Signage. • Provision and availability of communication cards and facilitated communication devices.
o Assistance with Daily living Activities • Identify and volunteers to help people who need assistance with activities of daily living.
o Transportation

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 52 of 106

11 Evacuees may require transportation services, including accessible transportation, from the shelter to places such as recovery assistance sites, neighborhoods, work, etc.
o Supply Requests 11 Assistive technology, durable medical equipment and/or consumable medical supplies. • Accessible/Medical cots. • Refrigerators or coolers for medications.
• Service Animals Service animals are permitted in shelters to assist their owners. The ADA defines "service animal" as any "guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability." Service animals do not have to be licensed or certified by the government or any agency, and the ADA does not require service animals to have specific training. A service animal may be excluded from a place ONLY if its behavior is a direct threat to the health or safety of people. Service animal tasks include, but are not limited to: o Guiding individuals who are blind or have low vision; o Alerting individuals who are deaf, deaf-blind, or hard of hearing; o Pulling a wheelchair; o Fetching dropped items; o Alerting people to impending seizures; o Assisting people with mobility disabilities with balance or stability. The Los Angeles County OAERP's Animal Emergency Response Annex goes into additional detail regarding service animals.
• Public Information See the Section 3.2, Communications, which addresses public information regarding shelters.
• Shelter Resource Requests The role of the County is to provide support to local shelters including securing necessary Operational Area shelter resources. DPSS may be requested to support populations with functional and access needs in shelters in a number of ways such as providing staffing, supplies and/or equipment. To fulfill many of these resource requests, the County relies on existing vendor contracts identified through an "approved vendor list". Included on this list are vendors that provide medical supplies, durable medical equipment, personal hygiene supplies, and other items, which may be needed during a sheltering operation.
Additionally, DPSS will coordinate with other governmental agencies (e.g. DCFS and Los Angeles County Department of Senior and Community Services (CSS), non-profit entities (e.g., ENLA member organizations,

HOA.so3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 53 of 106

community based organizations), and local businesses and industry to obtain necessary resources.
Requests for resources such as communication equipment, assistive technology (AT), durable medical equipment (DME}, consumable medical supplies (CMS), generators, etc. will be communicated to the Logistics Branch and coordinated through the Shelter/Mass Care Branch as defined in the CEOC SOP.
When resource needs exceed the capabilities of the County, requests will be made to the Region and the State.
o Staffing • DPSS trained employees: Upon request, DPSS will deploy trained staff to work in shelters. As of April 2010, nearly 1,000 DPSS employees have participated in ARC Shelter Operations Training. In addition, an estimated 75% of the trained staff are bilingual; • DPH supports provision of nurses, where feasible in shelters; • DCFS staff will be deployed to shelters to assist with unaccompanied minors; • CSS staff will be deployed to shelters to address senior, elder issues; • DMH will deploy licensed and trained staff to provide mental health services to ARC shelters (to both evacuees and staff}; • FAST Teams: The County is in the process of developing the State recommended concept of FAST teams in terms of policy and protocol and training staff. The concept of the FAST teams is that they aredeployed to shelters (when deemed necessary) to provide assistance to and supplement existing shelter staff in meeting accommodation requests, and providing other support for populations with disabilities and access and functional needs in the shelter. Made up of government and CBO personnel, members of FAST teams are trained to deploy to disaster areas to work in shelters, temporary housing, and other disaster recovery centers. Tearn members have in-depth knowledge of the populations they serve, cultures, and support service systems including housing, resources, benefit programs, and disaster aid programs.
o Assistive Technology (AT), Durable Medical Equipment (DME} and Consumable Medical Supplies (CMS) The CEOC, upon request, will assist in supporting AT, DME, and CMS resource needs at shelters. Evacuees are likely to request DME and/or CMS at the shelter. The evacuation process may also create

HOA.ao3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 54 of 106

additional needs. Often times, during evacuation, these items may be lost, are unable to be transported, or are broken or in limited supply.
The LAGOA Mass Care and Shelter Guidance for Emergency Planners includes an appendix listing possible shelter logistics supplies. The types of DME/CMS supplies that may be requested include, for ,example:
• Wheelchairs fjunior, adult, and large sizes) • Walkers • Walking canes • White canes • Shower chairs • Commode chairs • Raised toilet seats • Magnifiers • Gauze pads • Catheters 11 Ostomy supplies • Gloves 11 Bandages 
 11 Padding 11 Adult and child diapers • Baby formula and food • Transfer boards • Oxygen
The types of Assistive Technology (AT) that may be requested include, but not limited to, for example
• Communication boards made of cardboard or fuzzy felt. • Special purpose computers. .. Prosthetics, attachment devices (mounting systems), and
positioning devices. .. Computer hardware, like special switches, keyboards, and
pointing devices. .. Computer software such as screen-readers or communication
software. .. Specialized learning materials and curriculum aids. .. Specialized curricular software. .. Electronic devices, wheel chairs, walkers, braces, educational
software, power lifts, pencil holders, eye-gaze, and head trackers
o Prescribed Medications

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 55 of 106

The County will work with ARC to ensure that they can support persons within shelters who have individualized medical regimes that cannot be interrupted without consequences by ensuring that:
• Medications are stored in a secure setting and that a cooling mechanism such as refrigerators or coolers are in place if refrigeration is required;
• Prescriptions can be refilled through local pharmacies.
o Generators It is likely that the request for generators will arise if power outages are occurring during the emergency. Continued power supply is critical for functional and access needs populations who require power to maintain or operate life-sustaining medical devices, motorized wheelchairs, and for storing medications that require refrigeration. The County will help to support ARC in obtaining, transporting, connecting, and refueling generators at the locations identified.
3.4.4 Mass Care
• Feeding The County, if requested, will work directly with ARC to coordinate feeding efforts in disaster-impacted areas. Feeding will be provided to disaster victims and emergency workers through a combination of fixed sites, mobile feeding units, and bulk distribution of food. Such operations will be based on sound nutritional standards and will include efforts to meet the requirements of disaster victims with special dietary needs. This may require direct delivery rather than providing food at a selected mass fixed site.
• Bulk distribution of emergency relief supplies to disaster victims Sites may be established within the affected area for bulk distribution of emergency relief items to meet urgent needs of disaster victims. The County will help support these efforts to ensure that people with disabilities and access and functional needs can access these supplies. This may require direct delivery rather than providing supplies at a mass fixed site. Supplies may include: o Potable water/ice o Food o Clean-up kits (shovels, pails, cleaning products) o Personal hygiene supplies
• Support with reporting victim status and assisting in family reunification The County will support ARC, where practical, to collect information to operate a Disaster Welfare Information (OWl) system for the purpose of reporting victim status and assisting in family reunification. Specifically, the County will help ensure, where possible, that people with disabilities and

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 56 of 106

access and functional needs have full access to the DWI system. Information regarding individuals residing within the affected area will be collected and provided to immediate family members outside the affected area through a DWI system. DWI will also be provided to aid in reunification of family members within the affected area who were separated at the time of the disaster.

3.5 TRANSITION TO RECOVERY
3.5.1 Introduction The lines between response and recovery are fluid and diverse depending on the scope and nature of a particular disaster. In addition, actions taken during response impact directly on the way in which a jurisdiction undertakes recovery. Therefore, although this Annex focuses on preparedness and response, this section will identify the major mechanisms and issues that are relevant to the early stages of recovery specifically in regards to people with functional and access needs. See Appendix E10, E11, and E12, Recovery Checklists.
This section includes and augments information found in draft documents and plans of individual County Departments such as DMH and DPSS.
3.5.2 Recovery Coordination/Advisory Entities The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the County of Los Angeles, as the designated Director of Recovery Operations, may establish - as warranted and at his/her discretion- one or both of the following entities:
• Recovery Advisory Council The Recovery Advisory Council will advise and assist the Director of Recovery on all matters pertaining to the recovery operations.
• Recovery Coordination Center (RCC) When activated, the RCC can coordinate initial recovery operations of the County departments and provide information, liaison and recovery coordination between state and federal agencies, impacted Cities and other OA partners. Branches may include Housing, Transportation, Medical, Mental Health, Education, Identification, Security, and Access and Functional Needs. Depending on need, the CEO will designate specific departments to participate.
3.5.3 Initial Damage Assessment The Finance, Administration and Recovery (FAR) Section of the CEOC, or OEM if the CEOC is not activated, will coordinate gathering of initial damage assessments to document and support a request to the Governor of California for an Emergency Proclamation and appropriate State or Federal assistance.

HOAB03ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 57 of 106

Initial damage assessments for private nonprofit organizations will be requested from the chair of Emergency Network Los Angeles (ENLA) whose membership includes organizations serving diverse populations. This information, along with reports from County and private entities serving people with disabilities and access and functional needs, will help to establish initial estimates on the impact to organizations that serve various communities and thus inform initial recovery needs and prioritizations.
3.5.4. Continuity of Care and Family & Caregiving Reunification
In addition to personal losses and injuries, individuals with disabilities or other access and functional needs might lose vital connections with family members, personal care providers, service animals, community liaisons, accessible public transportation and routes, medical care, neighbors, and other people integral to their everyday support network. These disconnections will create disruptions in services that people with disabilities and access and functional needs rely on to participate independently in everyday activities including work, school, commerce, worship, etc.
The County will support both public and private social services providers who provide essential services to people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
Some mechanisms used to ensure continuity of services are as follows:
• Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP) The County encourages local and city government departments and non­ governmental organizations to develop COOP plans during a phase of preparedness to ensure continuity of essential functions during and after emergencies. This becomes especially important when working to ensure community based essential services without which support networks can quickly fail for people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
• In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) IHSS caseworkers conduct health and welfare checks on high risk persons with disabilities and elderly IHSS recipients immediately following a disaster. As part of their planning process Home-based Care providers are required to have plans to ensure continuity of care for their clients.
• Family Reunification In the early stages of recovery, a coherent system for the reunification of support networks and to reunite children with their parents or guardians, adults with disabilities or older adults with their caregivers or support services is essential.
DPSS, as the lead for human services, has overall responsibility for family re­ unification during disasters. Department of Children and Family Services is

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 58 of 106

specifically responsible for working with unaccompanied minors, including those who are at shelters.
For large scale events the County and local jurisdictions will also encourage evacuees and the general public to utilize the American Red Cross' Safe and Well Website. The Federal Department of Health and Human Services may also activate the National Emergency Family Registry Locator System (NEFRLS) and the National Emergency Child Locator Center (NECLC), in order to assist displaced adults and medically evacuated patients in reunification with their families.
3.5.5 Recovery Players As the transition to recovery occurs, the County, with DPSS in the lead, will work closely with ENLA member organizations as well as other NGOs, CBOs, and FBOs that are working to provide recovery services. The County will work with all recovery organizations to ensure that populations with disabilities and access and functional needs are taken into account in all aspects of recovery services.
• DPSS will coordinate services they are providing {e.g. food cards, disaster unemployment) with other governmental and non-governmental agencies;
• DMH may be asked to augment the Public Health and Medical Divisions by providing disaster mental health services as requested through the CEOC. The department may coordinate and provide mental health services to community disaster victims and disaster workers throughout the entire duration of the disaster and its recovery period;
• While ENLA member organizations will provide recovery services to those impacted. ENLA organizations will work towards collaboration to avoid duplication of services and to ensure that resources are directed to need and gap areas of service. ENLA will coordinate closely with DPSS throughout the recovery period;
• Spontaneous groups and volunteers are likely to participate in the recovery period to provide services to those impacted by the disaster; Additional information is available in the Los Angeles Operational Area's Volunteer Management Plan.
• National organizations may also participate in recovery efforts, especially during large disasters. OEM and DPSS will work closely with these organizations as well.
3.5.6 Local Assistance Centers Following a major disaster, residents will need accelerated access to County and other government and non-government services. Local Assistance Centers may

HOA.so3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 59 of 106

be established to meet the need. OEM is charged with setting up Local Assistance Centers (LAC); a temporary one-stop center designed to provide family, individual and business victims of disasters with a place to begin the recovery process.
A LAC is a starting point; agencies and organizations that can provide direct or immediate assistance should be included when forming a LAC, but referrals should be given to groups not represented such as counseling and support groups, senior citizen organizations, Chambers of Commerce, the Humane Society, etc.
When setting up a LAC, OEM will take critical steps to ensure that people with disabilities and access and functional needs will be accommodated. The following are some examples:
• The LAC will meet ADA requirements in regard to physical and programmatic accessibility;
• OEM will coordinate transportation services to ensure that transportation is provided to and from the LAC including accessible transportation resources;
• OEM will work with LAC staff to ensure accommodations are provided to individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs;
• OEM will work with LAC staff to ensure that lines into the Center are manageable and that accommodations are provided for those waiting in line;
• OEM will work with the governmental and non-governmental agencies that are working in the LAC to ensure that programs take into account disabilities and access and functional needs including: o Application processes; o Information is in multiple and accessible formats; o Program information specifically addresses concerns of people with disabilities and access and functional needs; and o Sign Language interpreters and other language interpreters are available;
• OEM will work with the governmental and non-governmental agencies that are working in the LAC to ensure that referrals are provided to community resources serving people with disabilities and access and functional needs;
• OEM will work with the facility to ensure full accessibility and will take steps to make modifications to the facilities when necessary ensuring access to bathrooms, wide aisle space to navigate through the Center.
3.5.7 Assistive Technology, Durable Medical Equipment and other resources The County will work with governmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as private industry, to ensure that services are available to people to replace lost or missing AT, DMEs or other critical items, required to allow someone to maintain a certain level of independence. The County will also work with agencies to ensure that people who did not need this equipment before, but now, as a result of the disaster or their experience, require it. This may be done in

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 60 of 106

several phases, identifying temporary equipment or fixes, and then move into long~term solutions.
3.5.8 long-term Sheltering, Housing, and Re-entry The County will work with governmental and non-governmental organizations and private industry to ensure that people with disabilities and access and functional needs are part of the plans for long-term sheltering, housing, and re­ entry into the community. The following are examples of the kinds of considerations that will be taken into account: • Involving people with and organizations that serve people with disabilities and· access and functional needs • Availability of accessible temporary and permanent housing; • Keep people as close as possible to support and health networks that are operating; • Re-building with universal design principals.
3.5.9 Communications Recovery information should be provided frequently, reliably, and in multiple modalities and formats. See Communications Section that outlines the County's approach.
3.5,10 Utility Restoration The County will work with utility companies and local jurisdictions to develop a priority facility restoration list to expedite the recovery process. Hospitals are a major priority, as are dialysis facilities. The County will work with partners to determine additional priorities such as schools, day care centers, nursing homes, and othersimilar types of facilities.
3.5.11 Transportation Restoration The County will work closely with the MTA and other transportation agencies to ensure that accessible resources are restored alongside and in proportion to pre­ disaster percentage for people who need it.
4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The County Emergency Operations Center (CEOC) may activate based upon a disaster threat or an actual event. Each CEOC section of the Incident Command Structure must focus on several key response and recovery issues unique to the specific disaster. In addition, County departments, communities, and special districts have hazard-specific roles and responsibilities, outlined below, in addition to their assignments and functional requirements as outlined in the OAERP and CEOC SOP (see Appendix C for the County's OA Organization Matrix).

HoA.so3S86.IJune 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 61 of 106

4.1 Management Section The CEOC will activate the appropriate ICS Sections and staffing assignments based upon the specific threat or actual event. The County will use multi-agency, multi­ discipline coordination in its response to a specific threat or event. The CEOC will facilitate coordination among all responding agencies and disciplines. CEOC staffing will be augmented to expedite response activities, as necessary. Detailed information on the CEOC operations are found in the County's Standard Operating Procedure Manual. Areas of special concern for CEOC management include:
• CEOC coordination; • Information sharing and dissemination, including Board reports and warning the
public; • Coordination with government departments, external community organizations, and
congregate care facilities/agencies that work directly with people with disabilities and access and functional needs; • Collaboration with regional, State, and Federal authorities when appropriate.
4.2 Organizational Roles & Responsibilities - County Agencies The following is a brief description of the functions of County departments and their roles during an emergency or major disaster, both in general, and specifically for people with disabilities and access and functional needs. All departments serve as a potential resource for the Finance, Administration, and Recovery (FAR) Section during such events. Also, there are ten Lead Departments for emergency response, and all other departments are Support Departments to these Leads.
los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management 
 The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) provides overall project coordination for 
 the Specific Needs Awareness Planning (Mapping) System (SNAP) Project, this Annex, 
 the SNAP Committee and Specific Needs Plan Task Force, and for coordinating with 
 County Departments to incorporate SNAP into their emergency planning and training 
 activities. 

Executive Office, Chief 
 The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) serves as the Chair of the Emergency Management 
 Council and is the Director of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM). The CEO 
 is charged with other duties and responsibilities, as defined in the Emergency 
 Ordinance, in coordination of countywide emergency preparedness activities, response 
 at the CEOC and cost-recovery efforts following major emergencies and disasters. 

County Fire Department 
 The Fire Department's mission is to "proudly protect lives and property and the 
 environment providing prompt, skillful, cost effective protection and life safety services." 
 This includes response to emergencies of all types: fires, floods, earthquakes, wildland 
 fires, hazardous materials incidents, civil disturbances, emergency medical rescues, 
 Urban Search and Rescue incidents and ocean lifeguard rescues. 


HoA.B03S86.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 62 of 106

The Fire Department is responsible for coordinating rescue and evacuation and emergency medical services for all populations including people with disabilities and access and functional needs. Fire may also provide evacuation support as necessary to law enforcement to support people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
County Sheriff's Department The Sheriff's Department performs mandated law enforcement functions regardless of the level of the emergency. Standard operating policies and procedures are in place to keep the peace, to enforce applicable laws fairly and impartially, to protect the rights of all people involved, and to prevent property damage and personal injury. During an emergency where the CEOC is activated, the Sheriff is the Director of Emergency Operations. It is anticipated that only in worst case emergencies involving the entire County would the supporting County law enforcement agencies be mobilized. The support law enforcement departments are: Superior and Municipal Courts, District Attorney, Public Defender, Alternate Public Defender and Probation.
The Sheriff's Department is responsible for coordinating evacuations (mandatory and voluntary) alerting and warning (including responsibility for Alert LA County), and message dissemination to those affected by the incident including those with disabilities and access and functional needs.
County Department of Public Health This Department provides and coordinates public health services during disaster response conditions. Public health services may include preventive health services, including the control of communicable diseases; coordinating inspection of health hazards in damaged buildings; inspection of vital foodstuffs, water, drugs, and other consumables; mosquito and other vector control; and detection and identification of possible sources of contamination dangerous to the general physical and mental health of the community.
The Department of Public Health is responsible for providing public education materials for guidance to residents of Los Angeles County, including those with disabilities and access and functional needs.
County Department of Health Services The mission of the Department of Health Services (DHS) during disaster response conditions is to provide for the medical and health needs of the population of the Los Angeles County Operational Area (OA) by organizing, mobilizing, coordinating and directing public and private medical and health resources. The Director of Health Services is responsible for the countywide management and allocation of medical and health resources, both public and private. DHS is unique in that a majority of its medical response capability is provided by private sector health facilities. These facilities include hospitals, clinics and skilled nursing facilities that may also be designated as Casualty Collection Point (CCP) sites to handle mass casualties.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 63 of 106

County Department of Public Social Services The Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) is designated as the los Angeles County Area Branch Coordinator for Care and Shelter. DPSS is the OA liaison with private, not-for-profit human services agencies, including community based organizations. DPSS is also the OA liaison with the grocery industry.
DPSS manages the Emergency Food Stamp program when activation is requested by the County and approved by the USDA DPSS In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) social workers conduct health and welfare checks on high risk disabled and elderly HISS recipients immediately following a disaster.
County Department of Mental Health The Department of Mental Health (DMH) is responsible for providing care and treatment of individuals with mental health disabilities through County-operated mental health clinics and hospitals, State hospitals and private contract providers.
In response to a disaster, DMH may augment the Public Health and Medical Divisions of the Department of Health Services by providing disaster mental health services as requested through the los Angeles County Emergency Operations Center. The Department will coordinate and provide mental health services, including Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) Teams, to community disaster victims and disaster workers throughout the entire duration of the disaster and its recovery period.
County Department of Animal Care and Control During emergencies, the Department of Animal Care and Control patrols disaster areas to rescue domestic animals displaced by catastrophic events and provides support to fire and law enforcement agencies responding to the crisis. Additionally, the Department offers emergency animal housing at its shelters. Depending on the circumstances, the Department may also set up temporary emergency animal shelters to assist persons who have taken their pets from evacuated areas. This department also acts as a support department to the Sheriff. Additional information on animal care and control can be found in the Los Angeles Operational Area's Animal Emergency Response Annex.
County Department of Children and Family Services
The primary concern of the DCFS is the safety and well being of the children in its care, the department's employees, and children otherwise known as "unaccompanied minors" who may be left unsupervised as a result of a disaster.
In a major disaster, DCFS is a support for DPSS and provides a variety of services for displaced children and offer various programs, including: 1) deployment of DCFS staff to designated ARC shelters to process the initial intake and registration of unaccompanied minors, including follow-up action to reunite them with their parents/guardians or to provide appropriate placement; 2) support DPSS, on request, in the provision of emergency welfare services, including assigning staff to emergency

HOA.803S86.1JUne 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 64 of 106

shelters or relief programs to assist in interviewing victims, processing requests for disaster assistance and other related tasks; and 3) continuing commitment to provide services to children under DCFS care, including the placement of children affected by a disaster.
County Internal Services Department It is the primary responsibility of the Internal Services Department (lSD) to gather safety assessment information relative to County facilities and report their status to the CEOC. Additionally, lSD must determine if County facilities are mechanically safe for occupancy; then if feasible, facilitate the repair or alterations of damaged/unsafe County facilities to safe operating levels, or secure them.
lSD leads the Logistics Section of the CEOC. lSD supports other emergency services by providing and repairing communications, by providing and repairing vehicles and off­ highway equipment; by providing fuel, water and temporary power, by providing procurement support for essential emergency supplies, and by maintaining and/or restoring computer operations to support critical applications required for the operation of the County. lSD provides a liaison with utilities (except water) concerning the status of electrical, natural gas and telecommunications systems. lSD is also the transportation coordinator for mass transportation resources (including paratransit) such as the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA).
lSD will expedite departments' requests for specific needs-related purchases of supplies, services, equipment, and facilities required for both the response and recovery phases. lSD will also assist impacted cities having difficulty with procurement, or specific requests. Cities have financial responsibility for goods and services the County procures at their request.
During emergency operations, lSD will place particular emphasis on maintaining the operational capabilities of computer systems and telecommunications, including the SNAP registries and website.
County Department of Public Works The Department of Public Works (DPW) is the lead County department in conducting Safety Assessment and Construction and Engineering Recovery activities and has a lead role in responding to major emergencies. DPW is responsible for maintenance and repair of infrastructure, including the road network, flood control system, general aviation airports administered by the department, sewer and waterworks districts and building and safety functions.
Department of Community and Senior Services The Department of Community and Senior Services (CSS) is designated as a support department to DPSS for disaster-response efforts. CSS will provide liaison through a human services community-based network of contractors through the operational units (Aging and Adult Services, Employment and Training, Community Services Block Grant) at Senior Centers, Community Centers, Senior Congregate and Home-Delivered

HDA.so3s86.1J une 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 65 of 106

Meals, Food Pantries and shelters throughout the County. 

CSS also manages Adult Protective Services (APS) for high-risk individuals aged 18 
 and over, who are a danger to themselves and others. APS, which is a State mandated 
 service program, investigates situations of individuals who are reported to be 
 endangered by physical, sexual or financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, 
 neglect, or self-neglect. APS social workers will conduct health and safety checks on 
 high-risk individuals, in coordination with DPSS IHSS social workers immediately 
 following a disaster, to determine their status and need for assistance. 

CSS will also assist in providing information, where possible, for the elderly and frail 
 population in Los Angeles County. . 

County Special Districts 
 County Special Districts will implement SNAP into their overall emergency response 
 planning where possible, including the printing or distribution of emergency 
 preparedness materials and publication on agency websites. 

Disaster Management Area Coordinators (DMAC's) 
 Disaster Management Area Coordinators will coordinate information flow from the 
 County to their respective cities. They will also facilitate the dissemination of 
 information on the use of the SNAP database. 

Affirmative Action Compliance 
 As a support department to the Chief Executive Office, Affirmative Compliance's role in 
 a disaster is to provide guidance on disability and access and functional needs issues. 
 This includes the County's compliance with the American's with Disabilities Act, as well 
 as coordination of specialized vendors that provide services to populations with 
 disabilities and access and functional needs. 

Parks and Recreation 
 The role of the Department of Parks and Recreation in the event of a disaster is to make 
 its parks and facilities available to relief and disaster agencies for use as evacuation 
 centers or mass care shelters to provide care and shelter for disaster victims. Park 
 Rangers will act as the primary security resource at these facilities. In a widespread 
 disaster, DPSS and Parks and Recreation personnel may be used to assist staff from 
 the relief agencies. Parks and Recreation is a support Department t for DPSS during 
 an emergency. 


HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 66 of 106

4.3 ORGANIZATIONAL ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES-NON-COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Cities in Los Angeles County Cities in Los Angeles County are responsible for coordinating emergency response activities pertaining to their cities, including coordinating any information and/or resource requests with the Operational Area.
Rapid Transit (MTA) The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) is the primary source of mass transportation equipment used by the Los Angeles County OA and a support to lSD. Both busses and mass transit trains are available for use in evacuations, transportation of equipment and supplies, transportation of emergency response workers and establishment of temporary bus/train lines for the transportation of victims to Disaster Assistance Centers and other relief locations such as mass shelters. Requests for MTA resources are handled through the Logistics Section, Transportation Coordinator in the CEOC.
4.4 ORGANIZATIONAL ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES-NON-GOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT AGENCIES
American Red Cross (ARC} 
 Congress mandated the ARC to provide care, shelter and Disaster Victim Information 
 assistance for victims of natural disasters. DPSS works in cooperation with the ARC to 
 provide these services following a natural disaster. 

Emergency Network los Angeles (ENLA) 
 ENLA is a network of community based organizations working together to coordinate 
 volunteers and resources after disasters. ENLA is Los Angeles County's official 
 Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD). 


une HOA.B03586.1J 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 67 of 106

5. MAINTENANCE 

The County of Los Angeles Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is responsible for coordinating the development and maintenance of this Annex. OEM will review this Annex every three years and as necessary for any updates.

HOA.ao3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 68 of 106

6. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A: REFERENCE LIST 

Federal:
Accessibility of Emergency Information Part 79, Federal Communications Commissions 
 (FCC), 2004. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/emergenc!£ info regs.html. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), United States Department of Justice, 1990. 
 http://www. ada. gov. 

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), The Access Board, 
 2002. http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/about/index.htm. 

ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), United States Department of Justice, 2008. 
 http://www. ada gov. 

ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments, Department of Justice, 
 2006-2007. http://www. ada.gov/pcatoolkit/toolkitmain. htm 

ADA Checklist for Emergency Shelters, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights 
 Division, Disability Rights Section, July 2007. 
 www. ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap7shelterchk. htm. 

ADA Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in the State and Local Government 
 Services, Title II of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Law 336, 
 Department of Justice, January 26, 1992. httf2://www.ada.gov/reg2.html 

Disaster Preparedness for People with Disabilities, American Red Cross (ARC) Disaster 
 Services. 

Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards (Section 508), United 
 States Access Board, December 2000. http://www.access­
 board.gov/sec508/standards.htm. 

Electronic and Information Technology: Amendment to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation 
 Act (29 U.S.C. 794d), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), August 1998. 
 http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm or 
 http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&10=14. 

Executive Order 13347 - Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness 
 (Federal Register Doc. 04-17150), United States Office of the President, July 2004. 
 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/pdf/04-17150.pdf. 


HOA.smss6.1J une 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 69 of 106

Functional Needs of People with Disabilities: A Guide for Emergency Managers, Planners, and Responders, National Organization on Disability's Emergency Preparedness Initiative's. http://www. nod. orglindex. cfm?fuseaction=Feature. showFeature&FeatureiD= 1034
G197: Emergency Planning and Special Needs Populations Course, Emergency Management Institute, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). http://training.fema,gov/EMIWeb/gub/register.asg
GSA: Access to resources and tools to help you meet Section 508 requirements. http://buyaccessible.gov.
Incorporating Household Pets and Service Animals Considerations into Emergency Operations Plans, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 302 (CPG-302), Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA), March 2009. www.iaem.com/.. ./CPG 302 HPSA CoordDRAFT 20090506.pdf.
Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center (ITIATC) www.ittatc.org.
Interim Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs Populations, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 301 (CPG-301 ), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), August 2008. www.fema.gov/pdf/media/2008/301.pdf.
Making Community Emergency Preparedness and Response Programs Accessible to People with Disabilities: An ADA guide for Local Governments, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 2004. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/emergencyprep.htm or http://www. ada. gov/emerprepguidescrn.pdf.
National Disaster Housing Strategy, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), January 16, 2009. http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=47305.
National Emergency Family Registry and Locator System (NEFRLS) and the National Emergency Child Locator Center (NECLC), Department of Homeland Security, August 7, 2009. www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacv. pia fema nefrls.pdf.
National Response Framework (NRF), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), January 2008. http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/#.
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, 1ogth Congress, 2005-2006. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s1 09-3721.
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, and
Related Authorities, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), June 2007. http://www. fe ma. gov/about/stafact. shtm.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 70 of 106

Safe and Well list, American Red Cross (ARC), https://disastersafe.redcross.org/.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Title Ill: Implementation of Hazardous Materials Training for Tribal Nations (CFDA No. 97.020), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2006. http://www.fema.gov/government/grantlsara.shtm.
The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), The Joint Commission. http://www.jointcommission.org.
The Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006, 1091h Congress, Public law 109-308, 2006. http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfd2006pl109 308.htm.
Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C), http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibilitv.php.
WebAIM: Web Accessibility in Mind. www.webaim.org.
State:
711 Relay Services, California Relay Service (CRS), http://www.ddtQ.org/california rela~ service/Default.asp#phone numbers/.
California Disaster Response Interpreter Program (DRI), Office for Access and Functional Needs, California Emergency Management System. http://www.calema.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/O/CF550341643F892B882574980 080867F?OpenDocument.
California Education Code, §32282. http://law.onecle.com/california/education/32282.html
California Emergency Services Act (California Government Code, Title 2, Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 12, Sections 8550- 8668), Governor's Office of Emergency Services, 2006. httQ://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/dpcs/ESA-all8-06-finai.Qdf.
California Government Codes, §§11135, 8588.15 and 8608. http://law.onecle.com/california/governmentlindex.html.
California Health and Safety Codes, §§101025 and 34070-34082. http://law. justia. com/california/codes/hsc. html.
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 1; Government Code, Section 8607), Office of Emergency Services, 2006. www.cesa.net/.. ./SEMS%20Calif%20Code%20of%20Regs, %20Title%2019,%2012­ 95.pdf.

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 71 of 106

Statement of Understanding Between The American Red Cross and The California Department of Social Services, California Department of Social Services (CDSS), 2006.
Title 22, California Code of Regulations (CCR), §72551, California Office of Administrative Law, Revised April 1990. http://www.archive.org!stream/gov.ca.ccr.22.3/ca.ccr.22.3 djvu.txt.
Title 22, California Code of Regulations (CCR), §87223. State of California. http://www.canhr.org/factsheets!rcfe fs/htmllrcfe rightsoutline fs.htm.
Title 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Accessibility Regulations, State of California. http://www.dsa.dgs.ca.gov/Code/title24.htm.
local:
Adverse Weather Emergency Plan, Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), 2008.
Alert LA website, Los Angeles County, http://portal.iacounty.gov/wps/portal/alertla,
All-Hazard Emergency Management Plan, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH), 2009.
Animal Emergency Response Annex to the Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Response Plan (OAERP), Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management, Los Angeles County Operational Area, and Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), 2010.
Department of Mental Health Emergency Plan, Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (DMH), 2009
Disaster Response Plan, Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), 1997.
Emergency Evacuation and Preparedness: A Guide for People with Disabilities and Other Activity Limitations, Center for Disability Issues and the Health Professions, available at: http://lacoa.org/.
Emergency Evacuation Procedures for Persons with Disabilities, Los Angeles County Office of Affirmative Action Compliance and Office of Emergency Management (OEM), 2006.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 72 of 106

Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP) 2-6: Evacuations, Los Angeles County Sheriff's 
 Department, 2006. 
 Emergency Survival Guide, Emergency Survival Program (ESP), 
 http://lacoa.org/doclibrarv.htm. 

ESP's Emergency Preparedness: Taking Responsibility for Your Safety-- Tips for 
 People with Activity Limitations and Disabilities, Emergency Survival Program (ESP), 
 (Requests can be made via the ESP Hotline (213-974-1166), 211 LA County, or the 
 Community Outreach Coordinator.) www.espfocus.org. 

ESP Bulletin on Special Needs, Emergency Survival Program (ESP), (Requests can be 
 made via the ESP Hotline (213-974-1166), 211 LA County, or the Community Outreach 
 Coordinator.) www.espfocus.org. 

Guidelines for Inter-County Sheltering Caused by Large-Scale Evacuations of People, 
 State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, 2000. 

In-Home Support Services (IHSS) Handbook, Los Angeles County Department of Public 
 Social Services (DPSS). 

In-Home Support Services (IHSS) Caseload Disaster Preparedness Assessment Profile 
 Listing (PA 1908), Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), 
 2004. 

Just Be Ready: Prepare Together campaign, Los Angeles County Department of Public 
 Health (DPH), launched 2005. http://www.lapublichealth.org/eprp/media/aboutus.htm. 

Los Angeles County All-Hazards Hazard Mitigation Plan, Los Angeles County Office of 
 Emergency Management (OEM), 2005. http://lacoa.org/PDF/hazmitgplan.pdf. 

Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 2.68, Emergency Services, Title 2, Division 3 
 "Emergency Ordinance," Los Angeles County. 

Los Angeles County Emergency Public Information Plan, Los Angeles County Office of 
 Emergency Management (OEM), http:/llacoa.org/PDF/ApprovedEPIPian.pdf. 

Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Website, 
 http: //www.lacoa. org/ 

Los Angeles County Operational Area Disaster Information Reporting Procedures, Los 
 Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), 2000. 

Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Response Plan (OAERP), Los 
 Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), 2010. 


HDA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 73 of 106

Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Response Plan Standard Operating Procedure Manual (OAERP SOP), Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), draft 2010. Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Operations Center Standard Operating Procedure Manual (CEOC SOP), Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), draft version 2010.
Los Angeles Operational Area Mass Evacuation Process Guide, Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and los Angeles City Emergency Management Department (EMD), 2009.
Los Angeles County Operational Area Family Assistance Center (FAC) Plan, Los 
 Angeles County Department of Mental Health Emergency Outreach Bureau, 2010. 
 Los Angeles County Operational Area Mass Care and Shelter Guidance for Emergency 
 Management Planners, Los Angeles Operational Area, draft. 

Los Angeles Sheriff Alert and Warning Plan, Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, 

Care and Shelter Plan, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Department of Public 
 Social Services (DPSS}, 

Los Angeles County Recovery Annex to Los Angeles County Operations Area 
 Emergency Response Plan (OAERP), Los Angeles County Office of Emergency 
 Management (OEM}, draft 2009. 

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Manual of Policy and Procedures, Volume 5, 
 Chapter 6 - Emergency Preparedness, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. 

LA Health Adult Disability in LA County, Los Angeles County Department of Public 
 Health (LACDPH), September 2006 edition. 

Mass Care and Shelter Plan for Large-Scale Regional Evacuations of People, State of 
 California Department of Social Services Disaster and Safety Services Bureau, 2009. 

Mass Prophylaxis Plan (Annex to All-Hazard Emergency Management Plan), Los 
 Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH), 2007. 

Monthly Action Steps, Emergency Survival Program (ESP), monthly release, 
 http://lacoa. org/esp. htm. 

Saving Lives: Including People with Disabilities in Emergency Planning, National 
 Council on Disability, available at: http://lacoa.org/. 

Serving and Protecting All by Applying Lessons Learned Including People with 
 Disabilities and Seniors in Disaster Services, California Foundation for Independent 
 Living Centers, available at: http://lacoaorg/ 


HOA.so3ssG.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 74 of 106

Special Needs Populations Summary, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) Bioterrorism Preparedness Program, 2006.
Summary of Planning Activities and Projects for Special Needs Populations, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH), 2006.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 75 of 106

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY- DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS 


ACRONYMS 


For the purposes of this Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex, the following acronyms apply:

AAA ADA ADAAA ADMG ALS ARC AT CALEMA CBO CCC CDSS CEOC CERT DHS DIRP DMH DOJ DPH DPSS DPW DWI EAS ECC EGIS EMC ENLA EOP ESP FAST FBO FCC FEMA GIS ICS IHSS lSD JIC MOU MTA

Area Agency on Aging Americans with Disabilities Act Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines Advanced Life Support American Red Cross Assistive Technology California Emergency Management Agency Community Based Organization Citizen Corps Council California Department of Social Services County Emergency Operations Center Community Emergency Response Team Department of Health Services Disaster Information Reporting Procedures Department of Mental Health U.S. Department of Justice Department of Public Health Department of Social Services Department of Public Works Disaster Welfare Information Emergency Alert System Los Angeles County Fire Emergency Command and Control Center Enterprise Geographic Information Systems Emergency Management Council Emergency Network of Los Angeles Emergency Operations Plan Emergency Survival Program Functional Assessment Support Team Faith Based Organization Federal Communications Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Geographic Information Systems Incident Command System In-Home Social Services Internal Services Department Joint Information Center Memorandum of Understanding Metropolitan Transportation Authority

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 76 of 106

NECLC NEFRLS NGO NIMS OA OAERP OAFN OEM PIO PWD
sec
SEMS SEPAC SOP USDOJ

National Emergency Child Locator Center National Emergency Family Registry Locator System Nongovernmental Organization National Incident Management System Operational Area Operational Area Emergency Response Plan CaiEMA's Office of Access and Functional Needs Office of Emergency Management Public Information Officer Person(s) with a Disability Sheriff's Department Communications Center Standardized Emergency Management System Senior Emergency Preparedness Action Committee Standard Operating Procedures United States Department of Justice

DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs Annex, the following definitions apply:
211 LA County. 211 provides information and access to a comprehensive range of human services to County residents. The 211 system is available 24 hours a day/7 days a week. During emergencies, the County will utilize the 211 hotline system to provide information to callers. The 211 system is TTY/TOO compatible and interpreters are available in multiple languages.
711 Telecommunications Relay Services. California Relay Service (CRSTRS) ­ Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) is a telephone service that allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities to place and receive telephone calls. TRS is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories for local and/or long distance calls. This includes: Text-to-Voice TTY-based "traditional" TRS, Video Relay Service, Speech to Speech (STS) Relay, Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service, and Captioned Telephone Service.
Persons with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs. The County borrows FEMA's definition of "Special Needs Populations" to define access and functional needs populations. This includes populations whose members may have additional needs before, during, and after an incident in functional areas, including but not limited to: maintaining independence, communication, transportation, supervision, and medical care. Individuals in need of additional response assistance may include those who have disabilities; who live in institutionalized settings; who are elderly; who are children; who

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 77 of 106

are from diverse cultures; who have limited English proficiency or are non-English speaking; or who are transportation disadvantaged.
Accessible. Having the legally required features and/or qualities that ensure entrance, participation and usability of places, programs, services and activities by individuals with a wide variety of disabilities.
Activities of Daily living (ADl). Frequently used term used in healthcare to refer to daily self-care activities within an individual's place of residence, in outdoor environments, or both as a way to measure self-care abilities. ADLs include basic tasks such as eating, bathing, personal hygiene/grooming, dressing/undressing, toileting, getting in and out of a chair or bed, and getting around while at home. Another measure is Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs), which refer to skills beyond basic self care that evaluate how individuals function within their homes, workplaces, and social environments which include activities such as doing everyday household chores, preparing meals, conducting necessary business, using the telephone, taking medication, managing money, shopping, using technology, and getting around outside the home. Resource: Family Center on Technology and Disability: www.fctd.info
American Sign Language (ASl). ASL is the recognized sign-language of the deaf community in the United States. ASL is a visual-gesture language, having its own semantic and syntactic structure. ASL is distinct from English, a linear, sequential language based on auditory processes. http://www.sstrl.org/index.php?section=651 - Pagetop Americans with Disabilities Act I ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a Federal law designed to establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities that are like those provided to individuals on the basis of race, sex, national origin, and religion, mandated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in employment, public accommodations, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. The "ADA Amendments Act of 2008" revised the definition of "disability" to more broadly encompass impairments that substantially limit a major life activity. The amended language also states that mitigating measures, including assistive devices, auxiliary aids, accommodations, medical therapies and supplies (other than eyeglasses and contact lenses) have no bearing in determining whether a disability qualifies under the law. Changes also clarify coverage of impairments that are episodic or in remission that substantially limit a major life activity when active, such as epilepsy or posttraumatic stress disorder.
Assistive Technology Devices. In the Assistive Technology (AT) Act (P.L. 105­ 394), an AT device is defined as "any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities." AT includes and is not limited to certain durable medical equipment

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 78 of 106

(DME). Other terms that are closely synonymous with AT devices include rehabilitation technology and adaptive devices.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) assists people who may have disabilities or restrictions on the production or comprehension of spoken or written language or replaces speech communication, allowing individuals with communication needs to express feelings, wants, needs, and desires. Augmentative communication can consist of symbols, devices, or strategies. Assistance can range from low tech to high tech solutions.http:LL~~S:lind!il;s,.RJlJL1section=651 Pagetophttg://www.sstrl.orifindex.php?section=6 51 - Pagetoj:!
Auxiliary Aids and Services. Required to be provided to people with disabilities upon request, by the Americans with Disabilities Act, to allow for people with disabilities to participate in programs and/or services. This includes but is not limited to qualified interpreters, note takers, real-time computer-aided transcription, TTY's, videophones, accessible electronic equipment, assistive listening devices, or other effective methods of making aural information available to people who are deaf or hard of hearing; qualified readers, taped texts, audio recordings, Braille and large print materials, magnification devices and/or software or other effective means of making visual information and materials available to people who are blind or have low vision; acquisition or modification of equipment or devices and other similar services and actions with visual impairments; classroom equipment adapted for use by students with manual impairments; and other similar services. Resource: Family Center on Technology and Disability: www.fctd.infohttp://www.sstrl.org/index.php?section=65l Pagetop
Braille. "Braille," unless otherwise specified, means a tactile system of reading and writing for individuals with visual impairments commonly known as Standard English Braille.http://www.sstrl.org/index.php?section=651 - Pagetop
Centers for Independent living (Cils). Community-based, non-residential non-profit organizations, which are funded by Federal, State, local, and private dollars that help create opportunities for, provide services and advocacy to promote the leadership, independence, and productivity of people with disabilities. Centers work with both individuals as well as with the local communities to remove barriers to independence and enhance the quality of life of persons with disabilities.
Closed Captioning. Allows persons with hearing disabilities to have access to television programming by displaying the audio portion of a television program as text on the television screen. Source: FCC Consumer Facts.
Cognitive Disability. A cognitive disability affects a person's ability to reason, understand, and learn. Cognitive disabilities are primarily separated into two categories: learning disabilities and mental retardation. Cognitive Disability/Functional cognitive disabilities may involve difficulties or deficits involving problem-solving, attention,

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 79 of 106

memory, math comprehension, visual comprehension, reading, linguistic, and verbal comprehension including Learning Disabilities (Dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, etc.), Brain Injury- Acquired or Traumatic {stroke, TBI, brain tumors, meningitis, Alzheimer's, etc), Intellectual disability (down's syndrome, autism, dementia, mental retardation, etc.).
Communication access. Ensuring that any aural, oral, and written information/materials are available, accessible, comprehensive, and usable by people with reduced or no ability to speak, see or hear, and/or experience limitations in learning or understanding.
CART. Communications Access Real Time {CART) is the general name of the system that court reporters, closed captioners, and deaf people use to convert speech to text which is then displayed on a computer monitor, television or projected nto a screen. A trained operator uses keyboard or stenography methods to transcribe spoken speech into written text. Another emerging method is voicewriting. The voicewriter uses speech recognition software that instantly translates the spoken text into written text.
Community Based Organization (CBO). CBOs are a private nonprofit organization, Indian tribe or tribally sanctioned organization or other type of group that works within a community for the improvement of some aspect of that community.
Consumable Medical Supplies (CMS). These are disposable supplies used by the recipient or caregiver which are essential to adequately care for the recipient's needs. Such supplies enable recipients either to perform activities of daily living, or stabilize and monitor a health condition. Examples include catheters, ostomy supplies, gloves, bandages and padding. CMS often cannot withstand more than one use.
Disability (individual with). A person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. This includes a physical (mobility/motor), sensory (Deaf, blind, deaf-blind, speech disabilities), psychiatric (mental health), intellectual or other mental disability.
Durable Medical Equipment (DME)- Describes any medical equipment used to aid in a better quality of living. Examples include wheelchairs, scooters, canes, white canes, walkers, shower chairs, commode chairs, raised toilet seats, oxygen equipment, nebulizer tubing and machines, hospital beds, body braces, crutches, orthodontic appliances, prosthetic devices, and speech generating devices. DME can withstand repeated use by a recipient.
Effective Communication. The type of auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective communication will vary in accordance with the method of communication used by the individual; the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the communication is taking place. In determining what types of auxiliary aids and services are necessary, a public entity shall give primary

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 80 of 106

consideration to the requests of individuals with disabilities. In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability.
Emergency. Absent a Presidential declared emergency, any incident(s), human­ caused or natural, that requires responsive action to protect life or property. Under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, an emergency
means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.
Emergency notification system. A system that sends alerts and warnings regarding incidents that affect lives and property. The system can perform mass contacts through a myriad of personal communicating devices, land line telephones and the Internet. These alerts and warnings can be audible and visual.
Emergency Public Information. Information that is disseminated primarily in anticipation of, during, or after an emergency that relates to the emergency and provides public safety or other information for the general welfare of the public.
Emergency Support Functions (ESF). ESFs provide the structure for coordinating Federal interagency support for a Federal response to an incident. They are mechanisms for grouping functions most frequently used to provide Federal support to States and Federal-to-Federal support, both for declared disasters and emergencies urider the Stafford Act and for non-Stafford Act incidents. ESF's are a grouping of government and private-sector capabilities into an organizational structure to provide for specific services support, resources, and program implementation for state, regional, local and tribal government, and nongovernmental organizational needs.
Emotional support animal -Any animal that provides therapeutic benefit through companionship and affection to an individual with a mental health disability. Emotional support animals that do not qualify as service animals under the U.S. Department of Justice Title II regulation may nevertheless qualify as permitted reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act
Functional Assessment Service Team (FAST)- Trained NGO and government workers ready to respond to and deploy to disaster areas to work in shelters, temporary housing and other disaster recovery centers. Team members have in-depth knowledge of the populations they serve, cultures and support service systems including housing, resources, benefit programs and disaster aid programs.
limited English proficiency. Persons who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, and/or understand English.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 81 of 106

local Government. A county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under state law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and a rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity, for which an application for assistance is made by a state or political subdivision of a state.
long Term Care (lTC). A diverse group of licensed care facilities, congregate facilities, residential facilities, nursing homes, assisted living, group homes, intermediate care facilities, and senior citizen housing.
National Response Framework (NRF). FEMA establishes a comprehensive all­ hazards approach to enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents. The plan incorporates best practices and procedures from incident management disciplines- homeland security, emergency management, law enforcement, firefighting, public works, public health, responder and recovery worker health and safety, emergency medical services, and the private sector- and integrates them into a unified structure. It forms the basis of how the federal government coordinates with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector during incidents.
Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). Includes any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group that is organized on a local, national or international level.
Paratransit. Under the ADA, complementary paratransit service is required for passengers who are 1) Unable to navigate the public bus system, 2) Unable to get to a point from which they could access the public buds system , or 3) Have a temporary need for these services because of injury or some type of limited duration cause of disability (49 CFR 37.123). The family of transportation services which falls between the single occupant automobile and fixed route transit. Examples of paratransit include taxis, carpools, vanpools, minibuses, jitneys, demand responsive bus services, and specialized bus services for persons with physical disabilities.
Personal care attendant I personal care assistant - Any person who provides assistance to an individual with functional needs to complete activities of daily living, such as toileting, bathing/showering, dressing, eating, etc. This person can be a family member, volunteer, or hired assistant. For example, many people with disabilities and the elderly utilize In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) to providE) financial assistance to maintain personal care attendants.
Physical disability. A physical disability is a condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, carrying, bending, or standing/sitting for ext ended periods.

HoA.so3ss6.tJune 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 82 of 106

Pictogram -A picture representing a word or idea; also referred to as a pictograph.
Preparedness. Those activities, programs, and systems that exist before an emergency and that are used to support and enhance response to an emergency or disaster.
Private sector. Organizations and entities that are not part of any governmental structure. Includes for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, formal and informal structures, commerce and industry, private emergency response organizations, and private voluntary organizations.
Qualified Reader. A person who is able to read effectively, accurately, and impartially using any necessary specialized vocabulary. (Source: ADA, 36.104).
Reasonable Accommodation. The provision of auxiliary aids and services to enable an individual to participate in programs, services, or activities.
Reasonable Modification. A public entity shall make reasonable modification in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. Source: ADA 35.130.
Response. Activities to address the immediate and short-term effects of an emergency or disaster. Response includes immediate actions to save lives, protect property, and meet basic human needs. Based on the requirements of the situation, response assistance will be provided to an affected. state under the National Response Framework (NRF) using a partial activation of selected Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) or the full activation of all ESFs to meet the needs of the situation.
Sensory disability. A sensory disability may include blindness, deafness, a severe vision or hearing impairment, olfactory and gustatory impairment, and somatosensory impairment.
Service animal. Any dog (or miniature horse) that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. The crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition ( ADA
§ 6 35.104)
Sign language. A language that uses a system of manual, facial and other body movements as the means of communication, especially among Deaf people.

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 83 of 106

Sign Language Interpreter {Qualified). An interpreter who, via a video remote interpreting (VRI) service or an on-site appearance, is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary. Qualified interpreters include for example, sign language interprets, oral transliterators, and cued language transliterators (Source; ADA 36.104). Speech-to-Speech (STS). A service offered through the Telecommunications Relay Services which allows persons with hearing and speech disabilities to access the telephone system to place and receive telephone calls. STS enables persons with a speech disability to make telephone calls using their own voice (or an assistive voice device). STS uses specially trained operators to relay the conversation back and forth between the parties.
Telecommunications. The transmission, emission, or reception of voice and/or data through any medium by wire, radio, other electrical electromagnetic or optical means. Telecommunications includes all aspects of transmitting information.
Teletypewriter (TTY) /Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD). There are several types of communication devices that allow individuals who cannot speak or hear to use a telephone. These devices or computer programs allow individuals to communicate using a standard telephone line. The caller can either communicate with another individual who has the same or similar device directly or can place a call using the an operator {or "communication assistant, part of the Telephone Telecommunication Relay Service, known as the California Relay Service (CRS) in California (available through 711 across the US). The operator can relay the call, allowing the two people to "speak".
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). A telephone service that allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities to place and receive telephone calls. TRS is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories for local and/or long distance calls.
Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program. The National Security/Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) TSP program is the regulatory, administrative, and operational program authorizing and providing for priority treatment (i.e. provisioning and restoration) of NS/EP telecommunications services. As such, it establishes the framework for NS/EP telecommunications service vendors to provide, restore, or otherwise act on a priority basis to ensure effective NS/EP telecommunications services.
Tele Typewriter {TTY). An input device that allows alphanumeric characters to be typed in and sent over a standard telephone line to another TTY machine one character at a time as they are typed. TTYs provide a means of communication over the telephone line for the Deaf, people who are hard of hearing or who have speech disabilities.

HOA.so3586.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 84 of 106

Tribal Government An Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 USC 479a.
Undue Hardship. An excessive difficulty or expense required to provide a reasonable accommodation considering the resources of the facility asked to provide the accommodation and other relevant factors. Significant difficulty or expense in determining whether an action would result in an undue burden, factors to be considered include- ·(1) The nature and cost of the action needed under this part; ·(2) The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved in the action; the number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation, including crime prevention measures; or the impact otherwise of the action upon the operation of the site; ·(3) The geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the site or sites in question to any parent corporation or entity; ·(4) If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or entity; the overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and ·(5) If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any parent corporation or entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the parent corporation or entity. Source: ADA 36.104.
Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). An interpreting service that uses video conference technology over dedicated lines or wireless technology offering high-speed, wide­ bandwidth video connection that delivers high-quality video images. (ADA §36.1 04) The Deaf/HH individual and the hearing individual can be in the same room.
Video Relay Service (VRS). A form of Telecommunication Relay Service that allows persons who are deaf or hard-of-hearing to communicate through the telephone system with hearing persons. The VRS caller, using a television or a computer with a video camera device and a broadband (high speed) Internet connection, contacts a VRS CA, who is a qualified sign language interpreter. They communicate with each other in sign language through a video link. The VRS CA then places a telephone call to the party the VRS user wishes to call. The VRS CA relays the conversation back and forth between the parties -- in sign language with the VRS user, and by voice with the called party. VRS service is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is available in Spanish and English. Parties are not permitted to be in the same room or location.
Voluntary Agency. Any chartered or otherwise duly recognized tax-exempt local, state, or national organization or group that has provided or may provide needed services to the states, local governments, or individuals in coping with an emergency or a major disaster.

HOA.so3ss6.dune 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 85 of 106

APPENDIX C: LOS ANGELES COUNTY OPERATIONAL AREA ORGANIZATIONAl MATRIX
legend
P = Primary Agency
S • Support Agency
R =Potential Resource
C "' Coordination L= Liaison
County Departments/ Special Districts/ lqcal

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 86 of 106

APPENDIX D: Specific Needs Awareness Planning (SNAP) Mapping System
Los Angeles Operational Area Specific Needs Awareness Planning (SNAP) Mapping System (new)
Overview The Specific Needs Awareness Planning (SNAP) Mapping System is a comprehensive planning and response tool developed to address the needs of residents without the ability to self-evacuate, or who may require specialized care during a disaster. The System integrates Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping and database connectivity, which allows emergency operations managers and first responders to assess the impact of an emergency incident in a particular area on its most vulnerable residents.
Types of Data SNAP will be the Los Angeles Operational Area's (OA) first countywide comprehensive voluntary registry to take into account people with disabilities and access and functional needs. This system allows new capabilities and tools for use in the Los Angeles OA. The voluntary self-identification registry allows individuals to identify their personal short-term and long-term disaster needs, information that can be used by emergency planners to enhance planning for services and supplies. SNAP is an interactive set of databases tied to gee-spatial mapping which allows first responders to collect, query and use a wide variety of data sources to perform a number of critical disaster-related activities, both pre-disaster and post disaster. These functions include being able to locate, help evacuate, inoculate, and/or educate people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
SNAP organizes three different kinds of data:
• People: Identifies where people with disabilities and access and functional needs live and congregate and their specific disaster needs.
• Places: Identifies, maps and details the accessibility features of pre-planned reception and evacuation centers and Points of Dispensing (PODs).
• Resources: Identifies hundreds of community-based resources which can be integrated into the response to assist with meeting the disaster needs of people with a wide array of disabilities and frail, at-risk seniors.
SNAP data can be accessed and displayed on a map in an emergency vehicle, at a supervisor's/manager's desk, or at an emergency operations center. As shelters are opened and community resources become available or are exhausted, information is made readily accessible through SNAP to authorized emergency personnel only on an as needed basis.

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 87 of 106

Oversight and Governance
A SNAP Committee was formed to oversee the development of the registry. Committee members originally included:
• County Office of Emergency Management • County Department of Public and Social Services • County Department of Public Health • City of los Angeles Fire Department • City of los Angeles Police Department
•
• City of Beverly Hills • UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge.
As the project progressed, the following agencies were added to the Committee:
• County Office of Affirmative Action Compliance • County Department of Health Services • County Department of Mental Health • County Community and Senior Services Department • County Internal Services Department • County Fire Department • County Sheriff Department • County Office of Education • City of los Angeles Emergency Management Department • City of Santa Clarita • Emergency Network los Angeles • American Red Cross
To maintain the SNAP system, an Access and Functional Needs (AFN) Committee is in development. The AFN Committee will provide a forum for discussion on issues affecting disaster planning for people with disabilities and access and functional needs (including SNAP), and report to the OAAB. The first meeting of the AFN Committee was held in December 2010.
Public Outreach
Working with other County departments, OEM has drafted a public outreach plan to promote the SNAP Registry. The plan includes three strategies: leveraging existing programs, networking with community organizations, and media.
leveraging: Promoting the registry through emergency preparedness expos and community events. Using existing County programs and services; such as the Department of Public Social Services In-Home Support Services program; providing linkage from County websites; and promoting the program through the Disaster Management Area Coordinators (DMACs), and Operational Area Advisory Board (OMB).

HoA.803S86.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 88 of 106

Networking: Outreach to the disability community, including Regional Living Centers, Independent Living Centers, disability specific agencies (e.g. Braille Institute, Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, etc.), and various community organizations are included in the outreach plan.
Media: To the extent that grant funds are available, the outreach plan will include developing public service announcements (PSA), media buys and other marketing initiatives.
More details are available in the DRAFT SNAP Public Outreach Plan (5120110).

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 89 of 106

APPENDIX E: PLANNING CHECKLISTS 

1. Registry Checklist 2. Creating and maintaining an Access and Functional Needs Planning Group 3. Community Preparedness Education Checklist 4. Media Checklist 5. Public Information Office (PIO) Checklist 6. Outreach Team Checklist 1. Town Hall Meeting Checklist 8. Evacuation Information Checklist 9. Shelter Information Checklist 10. Recovery Information Checklist 11. Recovery Program Access Checklist 12. Recovery Assistance Center Checklist
1. Registry Checklist This checklist notes critical factors to consider when developing a registry of people with disabilities and access and functional needs .
./ A registry is only one tool among others that emergency managers can use to identify, communicate with, plan for/with and assist people with disabilities and access and functional needs; it is a tool and not a solution.
./ It is voluntary to place your name on a registry; registries will not capture all, or necessarily most, people with disabilities and access and functional needs .
./ Registries do not take the place of personal preparedness plans; this message must be given concurrently with any public information regarding registries .
./ All efforts must be made to manage expectations of a registrant (and their families/caregivers); information should clearly indicate what the County will do with personal information in the registry, when that information will be used and by whom, as well as what the registry will not ensure .
./ Registry data must be secure and the highest level of confidentiality needs to be assured .
./ A system and protocol schedule for updating and maintaining registries must be in place to ensure the registry is current as this helps to ensure greater safety for registrants and first responders .
./ Engagement of people with disabilities and access and functional needs as well as the organizations that serve them should be involved in all aspects of the registry to ensure that it is relevant and information is reaching the intended populations .
./ Back-up power sources may be needed to access the registry during a power outage and such plans should be in place.
./ Registries will not be immediately inclusive of individuals who develop disabilities or health or mental health conditions as a result of the emergency itself.

HDA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 90 of 106

../ Registries usually only include a home address, if the disaster strikes while the registrant is at school, work, or somewhere else during the day, this information will be of little use in the initial emergency stage.
../ Criteria regarding eligibility to be part of the registry must be communicated clearly to the public.
../ Registries can be expensive to maintain - the funding source should be an annual budget item and determined prior to putting a registry in place.
../ There must be various ways for people to register, even on web-based systems; these can include paper forms; assistance to complete forms; phone registration, etc.
2. Creating and maintaining an Disabilities and access and functional needs Planning Group
Generally, disabilities and access and functional needs planning groups include people from public or private agencies representing the spectrum of issues for the stakeholder group. The planning group is established and coordinated by OEM to work as advisors to OEM in the entire planning process to be sure disability and access and functional needs issues are integrated in emergency plans, procedures, and policies.
In the best-case scenario, at very least the local Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Health are active members of the group. This participation suggests strong local support and promotes good communication, coordination, and a greater ability to effectively ensure inclusive emergency plans. Equally important is to include a diverse group of stakeholders include agencies, non-profits, faith based organizations, individuals, and others from the community who serve as subject matter experts in regards to varying disabilities and access and functional needs and the interplay of these issues during emergencies.
The following checklist provides only a starting point for creating and maintaining an Access and Functional Needs Planning Group. The key is to ensure that the group is diverse and that it is an integral partner in all aspects of emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. This group must convene regularly, have meaningful assignments, and produce measured outcomes.
../ Create a small planning group with others who support an Access and Functional Needs Planning Group. Important issues to begin discussing with the planning group include: o Is there already an existing group in the community that is doing this type of planning? o What is the level of support from the local emergency management agency and health department and how can they be brought to the table to participate in the planning group?

HOA.803S86.1J une 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 91 of 106

o Who should be invited to participate in this planning group? Who are the stakeholders in the community (consider government, private organizations, faith-based, etc.)?
o What/where/when is the best time to hold a first meeting? What will be the agenda?
o Which agency will take responsibility for leadership and coordination? o How often will the group meet as a whole and will there be structure for
work to be completed between meetings? ./ Invite a diverse group of stakeholders to participate in the group. This may
include, but is not limited to the following types of groups: o State, Territorial, Tribal or Local emergency management agencies; o Citizen Corps Councils and Program Partners (Community Emergency o Response Teams (CERT), Medical Reserve Corps (MRC), Fire Corps, o Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS) and Neighborhood Watch). o Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs). o Local first responders (i.e., police, fire, EMT). o Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), o Local government and nongovernment disability agencies. o Developmental disabilities networks and service providers. o Protection and advocacy agencies. o Departments of aging and social services. o Hospitals and hospices. o Culturally or language-based community groups. o VOADs such as the American Red Cross and The Salvation Army. o Health departments (State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local as appropriate). o Departments of education. o Health and human services agencies (including child welfare). o 2-1-1 Human Services Information and Referral Services o HUD or other rent-subsidized multi-family complexes. o HUD or otherwise subsidized non-licensed supervised living facilities. o Nursing homes. o Media o Home healthcare organizations. o Medical service and equipment providers (including durable medical equipment providers). o Pharmaceutical providers. o Agencies on alcohol and drug addiction. o Job and family service agencies. o Vocational rehabilitation agencies. o Independent living centers. o Behavioral health and mental health agencies. o Commissions on the deaf and hard of hearing and the blind and visually impaired. o Governor's committees on individuals with special needs and/or disabilities (as applicable). o Translation and interpretation service agencies.

HOA.ao3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 92 of 106

o Transportation service providers (including those with accessible vehicles).
o Utility providers. o Colleges and universities. o Faith-based organizations. o Schools. o Childcare facilities (both center-based and home-based). o Veterinary resources. o Individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs
./ Establish priorities of the group and create a strategic plan that is consistent with and informed of other emergency planning activities taking place within the jurisdiction. There are likely many issues for the group to address, so it is important to set practical and realistic goals. Approach the planning as a "step­ by-step" process, identifying priority issues to begin working on and then building off of that as you go along as a group.
./ In the interest of maintaining support and involvement, might be best to try with smaller projects with determinate parameters that are likely to succeed. Once participants see that their time and effort brings productive results they are more likely to continue to participate. You can also use this as a "selling" point to pull in more agencies.
./ If you have enough participants in your SNAP, it may also be useful to split into committees to address different issues. This will depend on the number of people, their expertise, and their leadership skills and willingness. The group should decide the priority areas but sub-committees can be very effective at feeding back up and into the full group.
./ Ensure that there is a direct link from this group to emergency managers to ensure that the work is meaningfully incorporated in all emergency phases. An OEM representative should sit on each sub-committee to ensure consistency.
3. Community Preparedness Education Checklist
The following actions items provide guidance for the development of a community outreach program that includes people with disabilities and access and functional needs for emergencies:
./ Involve those with disabilities and access and functional needs and/or their advocates in the development process to ensure that information is accurate and usable .
./ Ensure to collaborate with disability, cultural, and linguistic media partners. ./ Make sure that training and outreach materials are available in accessible
formats and make sure these formats are vetted by people with disabilities and access and functional needs before use/distribution.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 93 of 106

./ When posting information on websites, ensure that it is accessible to people with disabilities and access and functional needs. (See Appendix F on website accessibility)
./ Partner with organizations to create programs that train people to conduct preparedness presentations to peers with similar conditions/disability/life experiences .
./ Offer training on emergency preparedness to people with functional and access and their advocates.
./ Ensure that preparedness materials stress the importance of putting personal preparedness plans in place as well as addressing where individuals can access tools and guidance on how to create a personal plan .
./ Develop workshops for people with disabilities and access and functional needs and their families, and caregivers that help walk them through the emergency planning process.
./ Establish a CERT program that integrates people with disabilities and access and functional needs through ensuring active recruitment of people with disabilities and access and functional needs, ensuring accessible meeting spaces, and making accommodations.
./ Create a section devoted to issues related to access and functional needs on the OEM website. The section can contain tips, video messages/demonstrations, podcasts, a list of resources, and a forum for those with questions, and so forth. Make sure the website is designed to be accessible to people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
In addition, any outreach programs must ensure that communication and architectural barriers do not prohibit participation, and that reasonable modifications of policies, practices, and procedures are implemented
4. Media Checklist
In the event of an emergency, the County, through OEM's Public Information Officer (PIO), will alert the media as outlined in the County's Emergency Public Information Plan. The media will make information available to the public. The Emergency Public Information (EPI) communications network includes a list of key contacts for radio, television, daily newspapers, multilingual and cultural media.
The FCC has specific rules and regulations in regards to the accessibility of emergency information (outlined in Appendix G).
The following checklist is intended for the PIO and distributed to the media, when necessary.
Format ./ Review and become familiar with the Federal Communications Commission's rules and regulations in regards to accessibility of emergency information which can be found at: http:llwww.fcc.gov/cgbldrolemergencv. info regs.html.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 94 of 106

~ Provide real-time, closed-captioning when possible (Note: this helps all people in a community)
~ Any visual information, such as telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, street closures, school closures, shelter locations, etc., that are shown on the screen must also be spoken verbally to viewers to ensure effective communication with people who are blind or low vision
~ live television broadcasts should include captioning, sign-language interpreters and signage. Ensure to keep the sign-language interpreters in the frame, even when doing close ups or cutting away to show video footage during press conferences
~ Provide information in Braille, large print, and in an audio format ~ Do not cover over a captioning line with scrolling alerts ~ Utilize visual/aural cues (as required) ~ Post information on 508-compliant websites ~ Test the emergency information system regularly and include participation and
feedback from individuals who are deaf/hard of hearing, deaf-blind, blind/low vision and/or who have cognitive disabilities, etc.
Content ~ Encourage people to share emergency information with their neighbors especially those who may have difficulty receiving and/or understanding an official notification. ~ Be sure to include TTY/TOO information when providing phone numbers to the public. ~ Provide information in a clear and simple manner, repeating it as often as possible for those with cognitive or learning disabilities. Easy-to-understand language ensures that the information is more accessible to many people.

5. Public Information Officer Checklist The P/0 Checklist includes suggested action steps that the PIO should consider during emergency events pertaining specifically to ensure inclusion of people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
~ Include in media releases a message encouraging people to share emergency information with their neighbors, especially those who may have difficulty receiving and/or understanding an official notification.
~ Ensure that all public information regarding phone numbers such as agency phone numbers, hotlines, etc. include TTYITDD information.
~ Engage diverse sources including mainstream television, radio, and print media; local television, radio, and print channels; non-English speaking television, radio,

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 95 of 106

and newspapers; disability organization newsletters and websites, on-line social networking sites, etc. ./ Engage organizations that serve people with access and functional needs to ensure that needs are appropriately addressed in public information. Also work with these organizations to identify direct and accessible ways to share information with functional and access needs populations . ./ When posting information to the OEM or other agency website, ensure that the website and the information is provided in a 50S-compliant format (see Appendix F regarding website accessibility) . ./ For the benefit of many individuals, including those with cognitive disabilities, the most pertinent information should be repeated frequently using simple, straightforward language. ./ Work with subject matter experts in areas such as disability, aging, non-English speaking populations, etc. to identify communications barriers and solutions. ./ Identify credible, trusted individuals to convey the messages as well as appropriate channels of delivery. Ensure backup systems are in place. ./ Monitor television screens as information is displayed keeping attention to preserving the integrity of visual images. ./ Share the Media Checklist with media partners.
6. Outreach Team Checklist To ensure that outreach teams can effectively reach individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs the following considerations should be made:
./ Before going into a neighborhood, meet with neighborhood leaders to identify cultural and language norms within that community.
./ Utilize a team approach; teams should be made up of emergency personnel and community members. Engage trusted members in the community to deliver messages and lend subject matter expertise to the outreach effort.
./ Develop a script for outreach teams to use. Ensure that the script includes identifying the access and functional needs of individuals. This will help to ensure that teams are providing clear and consistent information.
./ Be sure to include TTY/TDD and 711 Relay Service information when providing phone numbers to the public.
./ Be sensitive and recognize potential communication barriers; for example, persons who do not speak English or who have low English proficiency, persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, with cognitive disabilities, etc.
./ For the benefit of individuals with cognitive disabilities, the most pertinent information should be repeated frequently using a simple vocabulary
./ Ask if a person needs assistance and be prepared to direct them to assistance ./ Ensure that teams have pre-printed written materials and that they are in different
languages, and have clear and appropriate messages for the community. ./ Equip outreach teams with individual communication tools. Utilize non-written
tools for communicating such as pictogram boards. ./ Consider that this may be the only means for homeless populations to receive
information and extend outreach efforts to this population ./ Be ready to answer questions about pet care needs

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 96 of 106

7. Town Hall Meeting Checklist When Town Hall or community meetings are being planned to share emergency recovery information, the following should be taken into consideration:
../ Ensure that information announcing the meeting is disseminated through diverse modalities, accessible formats, as well as auxiliary aids and services, and that it encourages the community to attend
../ Reach out to community leaders, organizations serving individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs and invite them to participate as well as share information with constituents
../ Ensure that the facility is in a convenient location for individuals to get to and make transportation options available and known
../ Ensure that the facility where the meeting to be held is accessible for individuals with mobility disabilities and be sure to announce this
../ Ensure that interpreters- different languages and/or sign language interpreters are at the meeting and be sure to announce this
../ Provide hand out materials that reflect the information given at the meeting that is in alternate formats
8. Evacuation Information Checklist The OA Mass Evacuation Process Guide provides guidance on the information that should be included in messaging during evacuations (information should also be included in preparedness information regarding evacuation). This is included below with additional information that is particularly relevant to individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs and caregivers.
../ Encourage people to evacuate with family members and caregivers; ../ Encourage evacuees to first seek shelter with friends and family outside of the
impact area ./ Encourage people to check on neighbors especially those who may need
assistance; ../ Inform individuals how to request evacuation assistance if needed. ../ Remind people to bring essential items such as:
o medication and extra supply if available; o a list of medications they use including the name, dosage frequency,
pharmacy, and doctor; o identification for medications that require refrigeration or other specialized
care; o auxiliary aids such as walkers, canes, and other equipment they use
regularly; o batteries for hearing aids, wheelchairs, scooters, etc. o extra oxygen tanks o medical supplies that they require; o vital records and personal information; o assistive technology supplies;

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 97 of 106

o personal care supplies o baby supplies o clothing o supplies for service animals o money 
 ./ Transportation options if person requires assistance 
 o Also include accessible transportation options including information on
Paratransit services o Types of assistance provided o Who to contact if individuallfamily needs transportation assistance o When transportation services will begin and end o Transportation point locations- and accessibility at those locations o Frequency of pick-ups o Travel destinations (evacuation points)
9. Shelter Information Checklist ./ Identify which shelters are accessible andlocations; ./ Inform individuals that service animals are permitted in all shelters- and remind them to bring supplies (food, toys, bags) to support that animal. ./ Describe the level of care that can be provided at shelters ./ Inform individuals that they should communicate accommodation requests to shelter personnel
10. Recovery Information Checklist ./ Location(s) of Disaster Assistance Service Centers ./ Location(s) of Distribution Points ./ Access to neighborhoods ./ Community information - what is the status of schools, hospitals, grocery stores, clialysis centers, etc. 
 ./ Types of programs and services available 

./ 

11. Recovery Program Access Checklist ./ Ensure that a mechanism is in place to coordinate the delivery of recovery services ./ Ensure language interpreting contracts are in place at recovery centers. Utilize bi·lingual caseworkers when possible ./ Use trusted community organizations to communicate recovery information, including eligibility criteria ./ Staff working on recovery hotlines should be trained to work with people with disabilities and access and functional needs ./ Staff working in local recovery centers should be trained using advance training and just-in-time training to work with people with disabilities and access and functional needs ./ All recovery sites should meet both physical and programmatic accessibility standards

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 98 of 106

./ Ensure that recovery information is available in multiple formats and dispersed through multiple modalities
./ Incorporate the ability to conduct home visits into recovery programs for individuals who are not able to get to assistance sites
./ Ensure that there are multiple ways to fill out applications for recovery assistance (phone, online, with assistant)
./ Ensure extensive and repeated outreach to communities by trusted stakeholders ./ Engage stakeholder advisory groups to review programs, report findings in the
field, identify gaps in services, and make policy adjustments and recommendations ./ Recovery programs should take into account adults and children who are wounded, nonverbal, or have limited English proficiency, as well as potential legal issues regarding custody (in the case of children).
12.local Recovery Assistance Centers ./ All recovery sites should meet both physical and programmatic accessibility standards. This must at very least include the access to the site; route into the site and intake areas; and restrooms . ./ Include and consult with government and non-governmental agencies that can provide subject matter expertise to ensure access and functional needs are taken into account in recovery assistance centers. Note: This may mean taking factors and work-arounds into account during the planning phase and/or making real time determinations during an event to put modifications/accommodations in place at that moment. ./ Ensure language interpreting contracts are in place at recovery centers. Utilize bi-lingual caseworkers when possible. ./ Ensure that recovery information is available in multiple formats and languages and dispersed through multiple modalities. ./ Staff working in local recovery centers should be trained to work with people with disabilities and access and functional needs and this is best done in advance but a just in time training should be available for immediate use. ./ Ensure that security personnel are trained to work with people with disabilities and access and functional needs in advance and/or through just in time training. Ensure that security policies and practices take people with disabilities and access and functional needs into account. ./ Ensure that there are multiple ways to fill out applications for recovery assistance (phone, online, with assistant). ./ Create a method to identify accommodation requests for staff, clients, caregivers, and others who utilize the recovery center. ./ Offer adult and childcare supervision services at the center. ./ Include mental health professionals to assist in all aspects of the recovery center and offer support for mental and behavioral needs for those who utilize the Center . ./ Be sure to have space available to offer privacy to clients when necessary.

HOA.ao3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 99 of 106

./ Ensure that there is adequate signage throughout the Center. All announcements should be posted throughout the Center. Signs should be posted in multiple languages.
./ Be sure to offer seating or other alternatives while people wait in line. Assign staff to the lines to identify any issues or requests for accommodations.
./ Offer comfort items such as water and light snacks as people may be waiting a long time and may require sustenance for health or other reasons.

HOA.smss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 100 of 106

APPENDIX F: WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY 


Website accessibility, like emergency planning, is a process, and requires training and regular evaluation to maintain its accessibility. Jurisdictions should reference and incorporate the ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments, Chapter 5 Addendum, Title II Checklist (Website Accessibility). The following information is based on information available through the U.S. Access Board and the National Organization on Disability's Emergency Preparedness Initiative's Functional Needs of People with Disabilities: A Guide for Emergency Managers, Planners, and Responders.

Web accessibility is based on the principle that no potential Website visitors, including those with varied disabilities, should be precluded from accessing content or services the site provides. A website can be considered accessible if it meets certain widely accepted design standards, such as those outlined in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d), requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. Section 508 also requires that individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal agency, have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.

The US Access Board has provided a detailed report called, Electronic and Information

Technology Accessibility Standards (Section 508) which can be accessed at

http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/standards.htm.

The Website Accessibility

Initiative is another great resource to learn about website accessibility, evaluation, and

methods for increasing accessibility and can be accessed at

http://www. w3.org!WAI/intro/accessibilit)l.Qhp.

Other resources include:

www.webaim.org; www.ittatc.org; and http://bu)laccessible.gov.

This federal guidance can be applied at the county and local levels thereby making critical information available to more people during emergencies.

There are evaluation tools to help evaluate a website's level of accessibility and there are services available that test the accessibility of websites. The Website Accessibility Initiative offers different approaches to evaluating accessibility of a website, found at: http://www. w3. org!WAl/evai/Overview. html.

No evaluation tool alone can replace the evaluation conducted through knowledgeable computer users with disabilities. Agencies and organizations wanting to evaluate accessibility, can engage the disability community to "test" the accessibility and usability

HoA.so3ss6.dune 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 101 of 106

of their websites. Working with computer users with varied disabilities from a local Center for Independent Living, for example, is a good way to test accessibility of a website.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 102 of 106

APPENDIX G: FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) 
 REQUIREMENTS IN REGARD TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND 

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS 

The FCC rules and regulations in regards to accessibility of emergency information can be found at: httQ:IIwww.fcc.gov/cgbldro/emergency info regs.html.
The following summary is excerpted from FEMA's Comprehensive Planning Guide (CPG) 301: Interim Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs Populations.
In October 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expanded the Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules to require EAS participation by digital television broadcasters, digital cable television providers, digital broadcast radio, Digital Audio Radio Service, and Direct Broadcast Satellite systems. The FCC's EAS rules require that EAS provide access to people with disabilities by providing both visual and aural alerts. Under the rules, a visual EAS alert does not have to be an exact transcription of an audio alert, but must be "any method of visual presentation which results in a legible message conveying the essential emergency information." In the future, EAS will be based on a Common Alerting Protocol that will transmit EAS messages so they can be received by equipment in voice, text, data, or video formats.
Many communities also use the NOAA Tone-Alert or Specific Area Message Encoder to provide a warning for any community emergency. These inexpensive receivers issue alerts for emergency messages only, increasing the probability of a message being noticed.
Not all broadcasts of emergency information trigger the EAS. Accordingly, the FCC adopted separate requirements to meet the needs of persons with disabilities in cases where radio and television broadcasters and cable service providers provide non-EAS emergency announcements and alerts. In 47 Code 38 of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 79.2, the FCC requires that any information intended to further the protection of life, health, safety, or property, such as immediate weather situations, civil disorders, evacuation orders, school closings, relief assistance, etc., be accessible to persons with disabilities. These rules apply to all local broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite television services.
There are no exemptions to FCC rules regarding accessibility of emergency broadcast information. Television and broadcast stations must provide emergency public information in a visual format, such as open captions, scrolls, or even hand-lettered signs, accessible to persons with hearing disabilities. The critical details must also be provided in an aural format, meaning that spoken information must be accessible to persons with vision disabilities. If the emergency information is provided in the video portion of programming that is not a regularly scheduled newscast or a newscast that interrupts regular programming, this information must be accompanied by an aural tone. If crawls or scrolls are provided during regular programming, an aural tone is required to

HDA.B03586.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 103 of 106

indicate to persons who are blind or who have low vision that emergency information is being provided. Additionally, if television stations run a text message crawl across the bottom of the screen, they should ensure it does not interfere with the area reserved for closed captioning. Camera operators and editors need to include the sign language interpreter in the picture (frame) if one is interpreting next to the emergency spokesperson. (Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act also requires closed captioning of federally funded public service announcements.)

HOA.ao3sa6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 104 of 106

APPENDIX H: FUNCTIONAL NEEDS TRANSPORTATION INVENTORY 
 GUIDANCE WORKSHEET 

"Accessible" in terms of transportation can mean a number of different things. Transportation for the public during evacuations must accommodate people with a variety of functional needs including those who use oxygen and those who use wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, and other mobility aids. The planning tool guidance below identifies the types of data that should be considered in order to expedite the matching of transportation resources with the specific functional needs of an evacuating population as well as ensure that transportation resources can be mobilized quickly. Requirements for this data must also be specified in written agreements with transportation providers.
• Source of the Resource: o Administrative Contact o Activation Contacts and numbers o Designation as public or private
• Type of Resource This should include a general identifier, e.g., van bus, etc., the size of the vehicle and any brand name, e.g., Aerotech 240, Uplander, etc.
• Availability of the Resource: o Realistic knowledge of when or under what conditions source will or will not be available. (e.g., during school hours, or program hours)
• Entry o Mechanical lift: key and power source o Manual ramp o Kneeling entrance: Common on buses allows access without a high step.
• Interior configuration/capacities o Fixed or moveable (e.g., Bus may have 10 fixed seats and two spots with lock down for wheelchairs, or the fixed seats may be flip up to accommodate a total of 6 wheel chairs).
• Number of the Resource
• FueiType
• Drivers/Access • Licensure required • Skills required (e.g., operate manual lift) • Plan for redundant drivers and access to keys (ignition and lift keys) • Knowledge and sensitivity to populations with disabilities and access and functional needs

HDA.so3ss6.1J une 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 105 of 106

• Availability of air conditioning/heat (exposure to extreme heat or cold can be detrimental to many people with disabilities and access and functional needs.
Appendix 1: Department of Justice (DOJ's) Shelter Guidance
The U.S. Department of Justice offers the ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments and has a dedicated chapter to emergency management called, Chapter 7: Emergency Management Under Title II of the ADA. The chapter and Addendum 1: Title II Checklist offer information to emergency managers regarding emergency management requirements under Title II of the ADA. Addendums 2 and 3 (detailed below) specifically address the ADA and shelters used during emergencies. This information is posted on the DOJ website at: http://www. ada. gov/pcatool kitltoolkitmai n. htm,
• Chapter 7 Addendum 2: The ADA and Emergency Shelters: Access for All in Emergencies and Disasters. The US Department of Justice provides guidance regarding how the ADA applies to shelters during emergencies. Chapter 7, Addendum 2 discusses the ADA in terms of various sheltering components including: o advanced planning o accessibility o eligibility criteria o reasonable modifications o effective communication o shelter environment o supplies o transitions back to the community
• Chapter 7 Addendum 3: ADA Checklist for Emergency Shelters offers the Quick­ Check Survey and the ADA Checklist for Emergency Shelters, which are designed to assist State and local officials and operators of emergency shelters to determine whether a facility being considered for use as an emergency shelter is accessible and if not, whether modifications are needed to remove barriers or whether relocation to another accessible facility is necessary. Filling out the Quick-Check Survey will provide guidance on whether a facility has certain basic accessible features, and filling out the detailed ADA Checklist for Emergency Shelters will provide specific information on any barriers to accessibility.

HOA.so3ss6.1June 1, 2011

DRAFT

Page 106 of 106

$33(1',; B

Inclusive E~~~v~Pa~~n~fo~J;:~r~~bilities and others with Access and Functional Needs

><A 


ros-.

· ~
>

...0

c>o
E ,0._

E 
a0..

V1 ~
~
0
E
00 .-I
*

<(

:J

V)

..

cQ) ~ 0 t:::
-·Q-)~.c...o.. > E ·.;:;
 .. lrl
•~­ ---::~t:

--N
rl 0 N
0 N
co

Definition of ''Accessible'' 

• IfAccessible" for purposes of any shelters covered under this document means that, to the extent it is being used for a shelter, the site meets the applicable provisions of either the ADAAG or the ADA Standards as well as the applicable provisions of Title 24 of the California Building Code in effect at the time modifications and alterations are commenced and includes all temporary modifications and means that may be utilized to accommodate the specific use of the site as a shelter. Analysis of accessibility will be conducted utilizing, among other tools, the guidance of the DOJ ADA Toolkit for emergency shelters, and/or FE MAs Guidance on Planning for Integration of Functional Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters, unless clearly inapplicable.
3

Policy for 

Inctusive Pia nnlng 

Develop a poticy that directs County departments to include people with disabilities and others withAFN in emergency plans, protocols, and procedures.
•Policy will include direction to develop guidance on inclusive emergency management training practices. •Policy will include direction to departmentsto include accessibility criteria when seekingfundsto acquire, update, or improve emergency planning and response capabilities. •Policy wiltinstruct County Departments to·maintain Accessible websites.
Timeline

mentatton on Inclusive

1t=mor-nonrv Planning practices forland

nts.

Emeraencv

8/20/2012

converting County

X

c c cc

p

X

4

Mass Care & Shelterin 


Deliverables :
• Create and adopt 
 Mass Care and 
 Shelter Annex 

• Collaborate with key stakeholders*
• Conduct training
• Conduct exercises
• Maintain list of shelter sites in County unincorporated areas
*The term stakeholder is intended to include County and non-County participants with an interest in supporting and promoting emergency functions.
8/ 20/ 2012

Tasks :
Create work plan and timeiine for MCS Annex; develop and write MCS Annex.
Support development of tracined staff to conduct functional assessments as people arrive at shelters.
Continueto train County personnel in shelter operations.
• Identify needed resources and develop MOUs with select providers.
The County will enter into a MOA/MOU with the Greater Los Angeles ARC that delineates the responsibilities of each party with respect to accessing the accessibility of shelters.
• The County will establish a list of shelter sites operated by the County in unincorporated areas {Including any operatedwiththe American Red Cross), will evaluate those sites using the DOJ Toolkit and will make those sites Accessible within one year.
• For shelter sites that have not been designated by the County, but that may be operated by the County in unincorporated areas (including any operated with the American Red Cross) because of exigent circumstances, the County will develop criteria for selection to maximize Accessibility at those sites. Criteria for these non-designated sites will be a deliverable within one year, as part of the Work Plan.
• For sheltering at sites not subject to County jurisdiction, the County will do the following: 1) Facilitate functionalassessment service team training; 2) Share Federal and State Guidance relative to mass care and shelter operations and access and functional needs; 3) Invite participation in seminars, workshops, trainings and exercises; 4) Work with DMACs to encourage and promote accessibility for persons with disabilities and others with access and functional needs.

Timeline
a workplan and timeline for development of a MC/Shelter Annex to the ERP. The will address disability and others with AFN.
components of the MC/Shelter Annex.

c

c

P IX

nue to train County personnel to support shelter operations during an emergency to disability and others with AFN related issues.

c

c

c

c

existing shelter training for County staff. Add or revise the training to be more of shelter related issues pertaining to people with disabilities and others with AFN.
lo.:,~nauq·M·..t>j·S·hi!t.ter eJ!e~c.is.·esto t.est.C<'!fflPO.·IJ~n·t·s.··.oH:heAnnexancl i·nducle people :With ·
·disabilities others with AFN in the com~lete pmcess.

X

p

X

Network Building 


• Plan & conduct 
 workshops and 
 conferences 

• Establish & maintain contacts with key stakeholders*
*The term stakeholder is intended to include County and non-County participants with .an interest in supporting and promoting emergency functions.
8/20/2012

I

sks:

• Bring stakeholders together to strengthen safety networks:

Alert LA; work to identify ways to enhance capabilities, invite stakeholders to participate in planning around use of Alert LA during emergencies.

ENLA; participate in activities, encourage diverse membership

Media; assess existing media communication network. Identify additional AFN-specifk media sources, organizations that can be included.

SEPAC; meet regularly and strengthen relationships among participants. Identify additional partners to invite.

211; work with 211 LA County to identify ways to enhance emergency services.

Other networks; reach out to other existing networks and identify collaboration possibilities.

Maintain logs that include the name and purpose of

outreach to agencies representing people with

disabilities.

7

Timeline

stakeholders together to address and educate disability and AFN emergency planning.

I

p

I

p

IX I

c

- participate in ENLA activit ies; encourage
hip of disability/AFN organizations; work to I p I X I c I c
overall accessibility of ENLA activities.

Establish contacts keholders

wit h

key

.... ..... Networks - Reach out to other existing etworks and identify collaboration/communication possibilities.

Ic I c IcI

c

c Establish contacts with key ke holders

EPAC ­ Meet regularly and strengthen relationships mong participants. Identify additional partners to nvite.

I

I

c

Ic I

c

- Assess existing media communication . Identify additional AFN-specific media organizations that can be Included.

Ic I c Ic I c

lA ­ Work with Alert lA to identify ways to

nee Alert LA capabilties. Invite stakeholders to pate in planning around use of Alert LA during

I

p

I

p

IX I

c

*The term stakeholder is intended to include County and non-County participants with an 
 interest in supporting and promoting emergency functions. 

8/20/2012

I I I p

p

X

c

Ke·
lin Process anc
~
c ICOntlnulna/Onaolna everv vear.

=:J

8

~ ••,..,.......... •;)!>" '''""'"":•:-~<;/-~"''~' ...,_.,,,'>•~-«--e>-_''"'"CdGo-.;••"'' ' '-"'"'']'--

V·~'!.'.,,, . . .~

Community Education 


s:
• Develop strategic plan
• Develop I provide
materials • Complete SNAP
Strategic Plan • Increase SNAP
Registration • Increase SNAP
Operability • Support Evacuation
Planning using SNAP
8/ 20/2012

s ks:

• Complete strategic plan for dissemination of preparedness and educational materials.

• Coordinate with emergency information outreach programs, organizations and service providers to disseminate preparedness and educational program materia ls.

• Include materials and alternate formats of materials into community event supplies.

• DPH will continue to carry out ''Just Be Ready'' campaign and improve on accessibil ity.

• Provide planning and preparedness materials to community­ based organizations that serve people with disabilities and others with AFN.

• Reach out to media network and address accessibility issues during emergencies including FCC regulations.

• Conduct SNAP outreach, as identified by strategic plan.

• Resolve and improve accessibility for SNAP users.

• Tie SNAP into local and County evacuation planning activities; exercise components of SNAP.

•

l Ensure that SNAP materials are dear in setting expectations
about the purpose, function and limitations of the registry. 9

Timeline 


8/20/2012

10

Com·munications 


bles:
• Create system assessments &
recommendations
• Provide forum or
workshop
Timeline 


Rel ated

:

• Review function and op.erability of key communication systems .

211 LA County 


Alert LA 


• Social Media - Identify gaps/issues related to using social
network sites.

• Provide information, guidance and training on inclusive
practices for emergency communications.

8/20/2012

Kev•ew function, operability, and accessibility and make p !recommendations about cont ract requirements.

LA- Review function, operability, and accessibility and

p

recommendations about contract requirements.

edia - Identify gaps/issues related to using social

Jn,.twnrll' sites (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) in terrns of

p

p

X

p

X

X c

fo rum or workshop

rk with the media to identify strategies for improving rgency communications for people with disabilities and

:
c cc

with AFN.

forums/workshops with stakeholders to address the

e o.f emergency communications particularly pertaining to p

p

p

with disabilities and others with AFN.

c
c c
X
11

Drills & Exercises 


De live rabl es:

Rel ated Tasks:

·---------~~~~~~~----

• Developand provide guidance • Participate in OAAB exercise committee (EESC)

on inclusive drills and

exercises

f • Develop guidance on inclusive emergency

•

1· Participate in and make

ll

reasonable efforts to conduct

management drills/exercises practices Engage partner agencies and EOC staff

inclusive drills and exercises ~·•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Timeline 


X cIc c

p XIC c

rticipate In and advocate ntlfy u.pcomihg drills/exercises and work with the lead

I Exercises

inclusivity in drills and

ment to Identify ways to include of people with

c cc c

ities and other AFN populations.

8/20/ 2012

12

Evacuation & Transportation 


Del ivera bles: • Develop Annex • Conduct Training
Timellne

Related Tasks:
• Engage key stakeholders to develop a strategic approach
for developing the Annex.
• Write a Transportation & Evacuation Annex to the ERP.
• Identify and chart existing transportation resources
available to the County.
• Create MOUs with transportation providers} as necessary.
•

8/20/2012

together a planning group to develop an Evacuation/Transportation

to the ERP that includes disability and AFN related issues. Include

t'-uunty, local and non-government representatives to participate in this

p

p

X

c

Ianning process. This g·roup will have to develop a strategic approach

developing the Annex.

a transportation/evacuation annex to the ERP.

p

p

p

X

'11onl'ihi and chart existing transportation resources available to the

p

p

X

c

MOUs/contracts;agreements with transportation providers.

p

p

X

c

!Provide training to County stakeholders on the EvacjTrans annex rly pertaining to people with disabilities and AFN.

p

p

p

X

13

Recovery Planning

Delivera bl es: • Develop Annex • Conduct Training
Timeline 


Ta s ks : • Establish a recovery working group that involves key
stakeholders in regard to people with disabilities and others with AFN.
• Develop a work plan, timeline and strategic approach for writing the Recovery Annex. Disability and others with AFN
! related issues will be included in this process throughout.
l •i Write the Recovery Annex.
I • Provide training to County stakeholders.
Kev·to timeline In Process and wor-king toward tne P lci1!1iverable, C IContinuinO/OI"'going.evervvear. X !Deliverable is complete.

8/ 20/2012

!Develop training to County stakeholders on the Recovery nex that includes disability and AFN recovery issues.

p

X

c

c

p

p

X

c

p

p

p

X

p

p

p

X

14

Annex Update 


Deliverables: • Update current draft of Annex • Contribute to development of
all functional annexes
Timeline 


Related Tasks:
• Review and revise Disabilities and others with AFN Annex.
• The OAAB AFN Committee will review the AFN annex prior to initiating the formal review process.
• As other ERP annexes are updated the OAAB AFN Committee will be part of the working group.
Key to timeline In Process and working toward the p !deliverable.
c lcontinuinq/Onooino everv vear.
X Deliverable is complete.

8/20/ 2012

and revise AFN annex. The AFN Committee will review AFN annex prior to initiating the formal review process.

other ERP annexes are updated OEM will have the AFN

·nmmittee review those annexes prior to initiating the formal

c

process.

c c

X
c
15

·~,_ \ .,.,,,,.,,..,., ''I.'·~~- ~--~ ~~',.,""·"''~"''''~C~""""·~,._, ><~!'....... -~·••••.•r•.......-·'•'"'~»0'>'>\1'~""''~··«.'<<_~"<"''/,0VO••~-,ZOY_'o.,...,..,.o<.<_')"'...'.'"'"' .... R' ....

'"' ,. ''"'<'·""'"'A","'~'•,'I'- > •>'.~ '" ,_._,,..,~~..;..,, ".' o<> ··~·"''-""·';'">"<~~----~·~·-:-r~:'t"~/.. 0 ~W< ~ '"" ....__...,.,_,,._,.•..~,,_,, 'C•~•>•-~-~.-,.-·,·,o

'"~'"-~"'-"'~> •._•o·o~>n<..t'""~"··~"~"!,"·""'"...''":'"'~··~''""'~' "~'~' ......":"':~-- ,_...'"'! •< -"''''''' '''"''"" ' « "~ ,,_N,..,.,_,.

...... , ···•· 
 .........,.--,"···-· .,.,... ... ~

... . ... - .'--" "'

...,...~-~·~·

~.- -·.,-~·

$33(1',; &

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
ATTENTION: All people with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, who are within the City of Los Angeles and the jurisdiction served by the City of Los Angeles' and County ofLos Angeles' emergency preparedness programs and services.
Notice of Class Action The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the proposed settlement in a pending class action lawsuit brought on behalf of people with disabilities who are within the City of Los Angeles and the jurisdiction served by the City of Los Angeles' and County of Los Angeles' emergency preparedness programs and services. The class action settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"), which must be approved by the Court, was reached with the County of Los Angeles in connection with the lawsuit, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Cal. Case No. CV 090287 CBM (RZx). The lawsuit, filed in 2009, alleges that the City and County of Los Angeles have discriminated against people with disabilities by not addressing the needs of people with disabilities in the context of their emergency plans. The County of Los Angeles denies any liability or wrongdoing. This settlement involves the County of Los Angeles only. The City of Los Angeles is not a party to the Settlement Agreement, and is the subject of a separate order by the Court.
Definition of Settlement Class If you are a person with a disability and are within the City of Los Angeles and the jurisdiction served by the City of Los Angeles' and County of Los Angeles' emergency preparedness programs and services, you are a member of the proposed settlement class affected by this lawsuit. Please read this notice carefully because your rights may be affected.
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
As part of the settlement, the County has taken or will be taking a number of steps to address the needs of people with disabilities in its emergency plans:
Disability and AFN Annex The County has drafted what is called the Disability and Access and Functional Needs Annex ("Disability and AFN Annex"). This is an Annex to the Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Response Plan. The Disability and AFN Annex will be utilized as part of the County's emergency preparedness planning. The Disability and AFN Annex addresses critical issues with respect to the disaster-related needs of people with disabilities and includes the full spectrum of disability including, but not limited to, mobility disabilities, sensory disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and mental health conditions, and describes the County's emergency planning with respect to the needs of people with disabilities in emergency planning.
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, eta!. v. City and County ofLos Angeles Notice of Proposed Settlement
1

For example, in the Disability and AFN Annex, it explains that for purposes of emergency public notification, the County will ensure that people with disabilities are aware of the mass notification systems available and that the County will utilize a variety of different accessible communication methods. Under the Annex, the County will also engage in various activities to ensure an adequate number of accessible transportation resources will be available during evacuations and other emergency activities. The County will also continue to coordinate with vendors, other departments, and organizations to ensure that necessary shelter resources are secured. Lastly, the Annex ensures the planning for continuity of services for people with disabilities and access and functional needs. The items discussed above are just a sampling of the many critical issues addressed in the Annex. The current Disability and AFN Annex attached to the Settlement Agreement is in draft form, and as part of the settlement, will continue to be worked on pursuant to the Work Plan described below.
Although the Disability and AFN Annex has been developed as a separate document from the Emergency Response Plan, the County has agreed as part ofthe settlement that disability and access and functional needs issues will be integrated into emergency planning County wide.
Development of the Work Plan In the development of the Disability and AFN Annex, the parties identified a number of issues that require development of additional annexes or policies, as well as additional work that is required to finalize the current version of the Disability and AFN Annex. As part of the settlement, the County has developed a Work Plan with specific deliverables and time frames to develop and complete these additional items. These items include, among others, converting County websites to accessible formats, identifying and ensuring that pre-identified shelters sites are accessible to people with disabilities, developing criteria for selection of other shelter sites operated by the County to maximize accessibility, establishing and maintaining contacts with key stakeholders, disseminating preparedness and educational materials, working to identify strategies for improving emergency communications for people with disabilities and access and functional needs, and establishing a recovery working group that involves key stakeholders in regard to people with disabilities and access and functional needs. The deliverables in the Work Plan will be implemented over the course of the Oversight Period.
AFN Coordinator As part of the settlement, the County has also hired an Access and Functional Needs ("AFN") Coordinator who will be the lead County employee who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the emergency planning of the County of Los Angeles meets the needs of persons with disabilities. The AFN Coordinator will work directly and coordinate with other agencies and personnel in the County responsible for emergency planning.
Community Input In developing the Disability and AFN Annex, the County solicited and considered feedback and comments on the scope and content of the current version of the Disability
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City and County ofLos Angeles Notice ofProposed Settlement
2

and AFN Atmex, which incorporates comments from the public, the U.S. Department of Justice, and from Plaintiffs' consultant. The County also published the Disability and AFN Annex for public comment and held a public hearing for feedback.
As part of the current emergency management structure, there is an Operational Area Advisory Board (OAAB), members ofwhich include governmental partners (including County, cities, local jurisdictions within the County), special districts like public school, sanitation, and water districts, and non-governmental emergency services partners including community-based and faith-based organizations. As part of community input, the OAAB has also included three positions designated for organizations representing physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities. There is also an AFN Committee of the OAAB that includes representation of government and non-government agencies that have an interest in, advocate for, and/or provide services to people with disabilities. The OAAB and AFN Committee will continue to have input into the Disability and AFN Annex and implementation of the Work Plan.
Lastly, there are areas requiring outreach by the County and/or the Monitors (described below) to the disability community, which will include a minimum of 17 specified organizations, including but not limited to, Regional Living Centers, Independent Living Centers, disabilities specific agencies (such as the California Council of the Blind and Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness), and other disability organizations.
Monitoring and Oversight Period Under the settlement, the County will be monitored for a period of at least six (6) years, during which time the Court will retain jurisdiction of the case for purposes of enforcement. This is called the Oversight Period.
The County will hire a third-party monitoring firm, Global Vision Consortium (GVC), as agreed to by both parties. GVC will carry out the responsibilities of the monitoring functions, which include evaluating the County's progress on implementing the Work Plan and an analysis of the extent to which the County's work is successfully addressing the needs of people with disabilities in the context of its emergency planning.
Resolution of Claims The settlement waives and releases all class-wide claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the County and its agents, successors, assigns, and officers, that were alleged in the Complaint filed on January 14, 2009, for the duration of the Court's jurisdiction over the matter.
The Settlement Agreement does not provide for any monetary relief to be paid to any plaintiffs or members of the class and does not release any damage claims that any class members may have.
Attorneys' Fees The class was represented by Disability Rights Advocates and Disability Rights Legal Center ("Class Counsel"). The County has agreed to pay Class Counsel $1.225 million
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City and County ofLos Angeles Notice of Proposed Settlement
3

for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for time expended and costs incurred during the course of the lawsuit. The County has also agreed to pay Class Counsel up to $75,000 in attorneys' fees and costs for purposes reviewing progress on implementation of the Annex and work plan during the Oversight Period. The Court will have to approve the amount of fees awarded to Class Counsel.

Fairness of Agreement Class Counsel have concluded that the terms and conditions ofthe proposed Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. In reaching this conclusion, Class Counsel have considered the benefits of the settlement, the possible outcomes of continued litigation of these issues, and the expense and length of continued litigation and possible appeals.

OBJECTIONS TO THE SETTLEMENT

The Court has given preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, and has

scheduled a hearing for

in the Courtroom ofthe Honorable

Consuelo B. Marshall, United States District Court for the Central District of California,

312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 to determine whether the proposed

settlement is fair and reasonable and should be finally approved. Although you are not

required to attend, as a Class Member, you have the right to attend and be heard at this

hearing. This hearing date may be changed by the Court without further notice to the

entire class. If you wish to be on the service list to be informed of any changes to the

schedule, please file a notice of appearance or objection with the Court.

In addition, if you disagree with the settlement, any Class Member may object to the

terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement described above by submitting their

objection to Class Counsel in writing, via regular or electronic mail, or by leaving a

message with their objection via telephone, TTY and/or Video Relay Service, or on a toll

free number to be established by Class Counsel. If you wish to object, you must submit

your objection no later than

[date set at preliminary approval]. All

objections will be provided by Class Counsel to County Counsel within five calendar

days and filed with the Court. Only such objecting Class Members will have the right, if

they seek it in their Objections, to present objections at the fairness hearing. Any class

member who fails to submit a timely objection may not be granted the right to appear

before the Court at the hearing to make objections to the adequacy and/or fairness of the

proposed settlement.

Please submit any objections to:

Class Counsel for Named Plaintiffs and Settlement Class:

Attn: CALIF v. County of Los Angeles Settlement Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center St., Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704

Communities Actively Living independent and Free, et al. v. City and County ofLos Angeles Notice of Proposed Settlement
4

mailto: [email] 510-665-8716 (TTY) Toll Free Number: [
IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THIS SETTLEMENT, YOU DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR OR FILE ANYTHING IN WRITING.
BINDING EFFECT
The proposed Settlement Agreement, if given final approval by the Court, will bind all members of the Settlement Class for the duration of the Oversight Period. This will bar any person who is a member of the Settlement Class from seeking equitable relief regarding all issues resolved in the Settlement Agreement for the term of the settlement, other than any claims for enforcement of the settlement.
FURTHER INFORMATION
The lawsuit and the terms of the settlement are only summarized in this Notice. More detailed information concerning the settlement or a copy of the Settlement Agreement may be obtained from Class Counsel at the following address:
Disability Rights Advocates Attn: Shawna L. Parks 2001 Center St., Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510-665-8644 (Voice) 510-665-8716 (TTY) email: sparks@dralegal.org
or by visiting Class Counsel's websites at: www.dralegal.org or www.disabilityrightslegalcenter.org
or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the Clerk at the following address:
Clerk of the United States District Court Central District of California 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Reference: Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City and County ofLos Angeles, Case No. CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx)
To obtain copies of this Notice in alternative accessible formats, please contact Class Counsel listed above.
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, et al. v. City and County ofLos Angeles Notice of Proposed Settlement
5

$33(1',;'

CALIF Plaintiff Disability Advocate List
1. Communities Actively Living Independent and Free 2. Independent Living Services of Southern California 3. Westside Center for Independent Living 4. Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness 5. California Council of the Blind 6. Californians for DisabilityRight.s 7. Area Board 10 8. Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center 9. North Los Angeles County Regional Center 10. Frank D. Lanterman Regional Center 11. Harbor Regional Center 12. San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center 13. South Central Los Angeles Regional Center 14. .Westside Regional Center 15. National Alliance on Mental Illness (''NAMI") Los Angeles 16. Disability Rights California 17. Mental Health Advocacy Services

$33(1',;E

Progress Report 
 Planning Area: Community Education 


has approached members of the AFN ~rtre ·~twas first made to Committee m
·sl May and July 2012. The following
_.,~'¥!!~ ~nd clients:

0 NOT STARTED 0 IN PROCESS 0 COMPLETED X ONGOING

to support over 90 emergency expos since January 2012. Alternate specifically targeted to people with disabilities were available at each of
0 NOT STARTED 0 INPROCESS 0 COMPLETED
X ONGOING

July 24, 2012

Page 1

Progress Report 

Planning Area: Community Education 


July 24, 2012

0 NOT STAIHED D IN PROCESS D COMPLETED X ONGOING
0 IN PROCESS fl COMPLETED X ONGOING
Page2

Progress Report

Planning

Community Education

July 24, 2012

0 NOT STARTED 0 INPROCESS D COMPLETED X ONGOING
0 NOT STARTI'2D fJ IN PROCESS U COMPLETED X ONGOING
Page 3

Progress Report 

Planning Area: Community Education 


.July 24, 2012

Page4

$33(1',; F

I 


AngelesCounty Operational Area Advisory Board (Established: 11/03/09)

Type ities Cities
3 Cities
4 Cities 5 Cities 6 Cities-
7 Cities
8 Cities 9 County
10 County 11 County
County
13 County 14 County 15 County 16 County 17 County
~County
County
20 County 21 Education 22 Education 23 Education

Agency Area A DMAC Area B DMAC Area C DMAC Area D DMAC Area E DMAC Area F DMAC Area DMAC Area H DMAC . ... ~ Animal Care & Control CEO/OEM (Chair) Community & Senior Services Coroner Fire Health Services Internal Services Mental Health · Public Health Public Social Services Public Works Sheriff Board of Education Higher Ed Rep LAUSD

Representative
-·
·­

Type

Agency

24 Education

LB Unified

25 Federal

Federal Executive Board

26 Private

BICEPP

27 Private

HSAC

28 I Private Non Profit 211

29 Private Non Profit ARC GLA

I 30 Private Non Profit ARCGLB 31 Private Non Profit ARCSGPV

32 Private Non Profit FBO

33 Private Non Profit VOAD

34 State

Cal EMA

35 Transportation

MTA

36 Utility

DWP

37 Utility

Edison

' 38 ' Volunteer

CERT (OP Area Coordinator)

39 Volunteer

MRC (OP Area Coordinator)

40· Volunteer

VIPS (OP Area Coordinator)

41 Rep. of People With Disabilities

LACO ADA Coordinator Designee

42 Rep. of People With Disabilities

CEO Disability Civil Rights Section Representative

43 Rep. of People With Disabilities

Regional Center Representative

Revised: 08-21-2012 0738 hrs jlreeb-OEM

Representative
··­

APPENDIX G

Los Angele County Office of Emergency Management
Operational Area Advisory BoardAccess and Functional Needs Committee (OAAB AFN)
OAAB AFN Committee Membership list
1. Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office, 
 Office of Emergency Management 

2. Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office, 
 Disability Civil Rights Section 

3. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
4. Los Angeles County Department of Community and 
 Senior Services 

5. Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health 6. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health 7. Los Angeles County Department of Health Services 8. Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services 9. Los Angeles County Internal Services Department · 10. Los Angeles .County Sheriff Department 11. Los Angeles County Fire Department 12. Los Angeles County Commission on Disabilities·· 13. Alliance Regional Catastrophic Planning Group 14. American Red Cross Los Angeles Region 15. Braille Institute 16. California Community Foundation 17. City of Los Angeles Emergency Management Department 18. City of Santa Clarita Emergency Management 19. Communities Actively Living independent and Free 20. Eastern Los Angeles County Regional Center 21. Emergency NetworkLos Angeles· 22. Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness 23. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority 
 24. North Los Angeles County Regional Center
Revised: 08/21/2012:0732hrs jlreeb-OEM

 
 (RZx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09−cv−00287−CBM−RZ

Communities Actively Living Independent and Free et al v. City of Los Angeles et al Assigned to: Judge Consuelo B. Marshall Referred to: Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky Related Cases: 2:10−cv−05782−CBM−MRW
2:13−cv−06442−CBM−RZ 2:14−cv−04517−CBM−MRW 2:10−cv−07619−CBM−RZ 2:14−cv−08327−CBM−MRW 2:15−cv−01682−CBM−MRW 2:15−cv−00064−CBM−MRW 2:15−cv−00413−CBM−MRW 2:15−cv−02118−CBM−MRW 2:15−cv−02381−CBM−MRW Case in other court: 9th CCA, 11−57149
9th CCA, 13−56668 Cause: 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/14/2009 Date Terminated: 12/05/2014 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 445 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Employment Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Communities Actively Living Independent and Free a nonprofit corporation

represented by Sidney M Wolinsky Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 Fax: 510−6658511 Email: swolinsky@dralegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna Mercedes Rivera Barajas & Rivera, APC 1440 N. Harbor Blvd., Suite 900 Fullerton, CA 92835 United Sta 7144430096 Fax: 7154430096 Email: ar@barajasriveralaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Chuang Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 Email: cchuang@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Debra J Patkin Disability Rights Legal Center 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 213−736−8306 Email: debra.patkin@lls.edu TERMINATED: 03/15/2012

Plaintiff
Audrey Harthorn an individual, on behalf of themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

Kara Janssen Disability Rights Legal Center 256 S. Occidental Blvd, Suite B Los Angeles, CA 90057 213−736−1496 Fax: 213−163−1428 Email: KJanssen@rbgg.com TERMINATED: 10/13/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary−Lee Kimber Smith Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 Fax: 510−655−8511 Email: msmith@dralegal.org TERMINATED: 01/08/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Uzeta Law Office of Michelle Uzeta 710 South Myrtle Avenue No 306 Monrovia, CA 91016 Email: uzetalaw@gmail.com TERMINATED: 11/26/2013
Paula D Pearlman Department of Fair Employment and Housing Legal Division 2218 Kausen Drive Suite 100 Elk Grove, CA 95758 213−439−6799 Fax: 888−382−5293 Email: Paula.Pearlman@dfeh.ca.gov TERMINATED: 09/04/2014
Rebecca Susanne Williford Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: rwilliford@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks Law Office of Shawna L. Parks 4470 W. Sunset Blvd. Ste. 107 #347 Los Angeles, CA 90027 323.389.9239 Fax: 323.389.9239 Email: sparks@parks−law−office.com TERMINATED: 10/30/2013
represented by Sidney M Wolinsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anna Mercedes Rivera (See above for address)

V. Defendant City of Los Angeles a public entity
Defendant County of Los Angeles a public entity

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Chuang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Debra J Patkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/15/2012
Kara Janssen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/13/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2014
Rebecca Susanne Williford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/2013
represented by Laurie Rittenberg Los Angeles City Attorney's Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street Room 916 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−473−6848 Fax: 213−473−6818 Email: laurie.rittenberg@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Seth Dermer Office of the City Attorney 200 North Main Street 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−473−6850 Fax: 213−473−6818 Email: gabriel.dermer@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rosa Linda Cruz Office of the County Counsel for the

TERMINATED: 07/18/2013
Defendant County of Los Angeles, a public entity
Claimant The United States
Objector Steven J Stanwyck TERMINATED: 02/21/2014 Date Filed # Docket Text

County of Los Angeles Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 W. Temple Street, Room 651 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−974−7680 Fax: 213−687−7337 Email: rocruz@counsel.lacounty.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adrienne M Byers Los Angeles County Counsel 500 W Temple St Los Angeles, CA 90012−2713 213−974−1811 Fax: 213−617−7182 Email: abyers@counsel.lacounty.gov TERMINATED: 10/19/2016
represented by Lillian D Salinger Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel 500 West Temple Street Room 648 Los Angeles, CA 90012−2713 213−974−1811 Fax: 213−687−7337 Email: lsalinger@counsel.lacounty.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andre Birotte , Jr United States Attorney Criminal Div − US Courthouse 312 North Spring Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012−4700 213−894−2434 Fax: 213−894−0115 Email: usacac.civil@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Lynch US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division − Disability Rights Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW − NYA Washington, DC 20530 202−305−2008 Fax: 202−514−7821 Email: William.Lynch@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Steven J Stanwyck 225 Montana Avenue Unit 103 Santa Monica, CA 90403 310−451−6004 PRO SE

01/14/2009 01/14/2009 01/14/2009 01/14/2009 02/03/2009 02/05/2009
02/05/2009
02/09/2009 02/09/2009 03/06/2009 03/06/2009 03/26/2009
03/26/2009 03/26/2009 03/26/2009

1 COMPLAINT against Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles.(Filing fee $ 350: FEE PAID.), filed by plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn.(ghap) (ds). (Entered: 01/21/2009)
20 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles. (ghap) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (ghap) (ds). (Entered: 01/21/2009)
3 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Related Case(s): no related actions. (ghap) (ds). (Entered: 01/21/2009)
4 FIRST STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Los Angeles answer now due 3/12/2009, filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.(Rittenberg, Laurie) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
5 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, upon City of Los Angeles served on 1/21/2009, answer due 3/12/2009. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal Service service, by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure statute, upon Julie Amanti, City Clerk. Due Dilligence declaration No. Original Summons not returned. (Pearlman, Paula) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn, upon County of Los Angeles served on 1/21/2009, answer due 2/10/2009. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure statute, upon Katherine Medina, Ex Secretary. Due Dilligence declaration No. Original Summons Not Returned. (Pearlman, Paula) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
7 First STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File County's Response to COmplaint filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Byers, Adrienne) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
8 ORDER for Stipulation to Extend Defendant County of Los Angeles' Time to Respond to Complaint re 7 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Defendant County of Los Angeles have up to and including 3/12/09 in which to file its responsive pleading to the Complaint. (lom) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
9 Second STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to March 26, 2009 filed by defendant County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Byers, Adrienne) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
10 ORDER purusant to Stipulation 9 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Defendants City of Los Anglees and County of Los Angeles have up to and including 3/26/09 in which to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. (lom) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case, MOTION for More Definite Statement, MOTION to Strike Portions of Complaint filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 5/11/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Declaration of James G. Featherstone, # 4 Proposed Order)(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
12 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles, (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
13 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles, re MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION for More Definite Statement MOTION to Strike Portions of Complaint 11 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties 12 served on March 26, 2009. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
25 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles.(lom) (Entered: 04/01/2009)

03/26/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009
03/27/2009
03/27/2009 03/30/2009 03/31/2009 03/31/2009 04/01/2009

26 DECLARATION of Attorney Adrienne M. Byers re CM/ECF technical failure re Answer to Complaint (Discovery) 25 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (lom) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
14 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles of Answer of Defendant the County of Los Angeles and Declaration of Attorney Adrienne M. Byers re CM/ECF Technical Failure and related proofs of service. (Cruz, Rosa) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
15 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles.(Cruz, Rosa) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
16 DECLARATION of Adrienne M. Byers re Answer to Complaint (Discovery) 15 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Cruz, Rosa) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
17 OF SERVICE filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles, re Answer to Complaint (Discovery) 15 served on 3/26/09. (Cruz, Rosa) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
18 OF SERVICE filed by defendant County of Los Angeles, re Declaration (non−motion) 16 served on 3/26/09. (Cruz, Rosa) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
19 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: When filing Proof of Service document separate from the main document, please do a face page and include case no., caption, attorney's information, etc. Also, your docket entry should be the same as your document caption RE: Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 17 , 18 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (lom) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
20 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER re Scheduling Conference by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Court's own motion, this case is set for a Scheduling Conference on June 15, 2009 at 11:00 A. M. pursuant to FRCP 16(b). Counsel are reminded of their obligations to disclose information and confer on a discovery plan not later than 21 days prior to the Scheduling Conference. Counsel shall file a Rule 26(f) discovery plan within 14 days after the conference of counsel. The Rule 26(f) discovery plan shall contain the following information: 1. A brief description of the nature of the case and type of action filed and the date filed in the District Court;2. The number of depositions to be taken by each side and the date the date the depositions are set; 3. The written discovery sought and date responses to interrogatories requests for production and requests for admissions are due;4. The number of experts expected to be called by each side and the experts area of expertise; 5. Proposed Pre Trial Conference date; 6. Date Demand for Jury Trial was filed; 7. Prospects of Settlement; 8. Positions of counsel re: consent to proceed before a Magistrate−Judge; 9. A list of contemplated motions, including what type of motion, a tentative hearing date, andwhether discovery must be conducted prior to the filing of the motions. (lom) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
21 First STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting extension)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
22 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles of Answer of Defendant County and Declaration of Adrienne M. Byers re CMECF Technical Failure. (Cruz, Rosa) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
23 First STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting extension of time to file class cert motion)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
24 ORDER re Stipulation 23 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: It is hereby ordered that the deadline for filing any Motion for Class Certification shall be 7/13/09. (lom) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
27 First STIPULATION to Continue Hearing Date from May 11, 2009 to May 18, 2009 Re: MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION for More Definite Statement MOTION to

04/02/2009
05/04/2009 05/04/2009 05/11/2009 05/18/2009
05/22/2009 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 06/02/2009 06/03/2009
06/04/2009 06/09/2009 07/28/2009

Strike Portions of Complaint 11 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
28 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall Continuing Hearing Date. After having read and considered the parties' Stipulation to Continue Hearing Date 27 , it is hereby ordered that the hearing on the City of Los Angeles' MOTION to Dismiss, Motion for More Definite Statement and Moion to Strike Portions of Complaint 11 shall be on 5/18/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (mg) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
29 Opposition Opposition re: MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION for More Definite Statement MOTION to Strike Portions of Complaint 11 or in the Alternative For a More Definite Statement and to Strike Portions of the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
30 Opposition Opposition re: MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION for More Definite Statement MOTION to Strike Portions of Complaint 11 Defendant's Request For Judicial Notice filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
31 REPLY to Plaintiffs' Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION for More Definite Statement MOTION to Strike Portions of Complaint 11 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Reply to Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice)(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
32 MINUTES OF Motion of the City of Los Angeles to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint or, in the alternative, for More Definite Statement and to Strike Portions of the Complaint 11 held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Motion of the City of Los Angeles to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for More Definite Statement and to Strike Portions of the Complaint are denied. Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams. (lom) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
33 IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS ORDERED that the City of Los Angeles, shall file an Answer to the Complaint or shall otherwise respond to the Complaint, said Answer or response shall be filed on or before June 2, 2009. (lom) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
34 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT of Joint Rule 26(f) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
36 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, DENIES City of Los Angeles' Motions Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 12(b)(7), 12(e) and 12(f), and Request for Judicial Notice 11 . As previously ordered, the City shall file an answer to the Complaint on or before June 2, 2009. (lom) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
35 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery) 1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
37 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan RE: Report 34 . For correct event, see category: Pretrial and Trial Documents. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (lom) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
38 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112) re 37 . Correct doc. no on Form G−112A should be doc. no 34 and NOT doc no. 36. (lom) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
39 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER re Scheduling Conference by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, the Scheduling Conference set on June 15, 2009 is hereby continued to Monday, June 22, 2009 at 11:00 A.M. (lom) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
40 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Meditaton Date and Scheduling Conference filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn.

07/29/2009 10/29/2009 11/10/2009 12/23/2009 12/28/2009 12/29/2009 01/04/2010
01/07/2010
01/07/2010 01/26/2010
02/25/2010 03/01/2010 03/15/2010

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Patkin, Debra) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
41 ORDER extending time for parties to meet for mediation re stipulaton 40 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. It is hereby ordered that the deadline for the mediation is October 20, 2009, and that the date for the next scheduling conference is November 2, 2009 at 11:00 A.M. (lom) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
42 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Conference from November 2, 2009 to December 21, 2009 Re: Stipulation and Order, Set Hearings,, 41 filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Patkin, Debra) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
43 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall continuing Scheduling Conference to January 4,2010 at 11:00 A.M. 42 (jl) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
44 REQUEST for Leave of Sidney Wolinsky to Appear Telephonically at January 4, 2010 Scheduling Conference filed by plaintiffs' counsel Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
45 STATEMENT FOR STATUS CONFERENCE filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
46 STATEMENT of Case Management filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
49 MINUTES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Scheduling Conference held in chambers and off the record. As a result of the conference, the Court ordered as follows: (1) all fact discovery shall be completed on or before May 30, 2010; (2) all expert discovery shall be completed on or before July 30, 2010; (3) motions shall be set for oral argument on or before Oct. 4, 2010 at 10:00 A.M.; (4) Pre Trial Conference is set on Nov. 15, 2010 at 2:30 P.M.; (5) Jury Trial (est. 10−14 days) is set on January 4, 2011 at 10:00 A.M.; and (6) settlement conference shall be held on or before Aug. 30, 2010. Court Reporter: N/A. (lom) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
47 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment, RE: REQUEST for Leave of Sidney Wolinsky to Appear 44 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (lom) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
48 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: 44 Request for Sidney Wolinsky to Appear Telephonically is hereby denied as moot. (lom) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
50 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The parties are directed to appear for a settlement conference on April 22, 2010, 3:30 p.m. Each party shall deliver a confidential settlement conference statement to the chambers of the Magistrate Judge on or before April 15, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
51 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
52 ORDER Granting Stipulation for Extension of Time to File 51 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. it is hereby ordered that the deadline for filing any Motion for Class Certification shall be March 15, 2010. (lom) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
53 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by plaintiffs' counsel Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Motion set for hearing on 4/12/2010 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)

03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010

54 DECLARATION of Lilibeth Navarro MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
55 DECLARATION of Audrey Harthorn MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
56 DECLARATION of Teresa Favuzzi MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
57 DECLARATION of Sidney Wolinsky in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
58 DECLARATION of Shawna Parks in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
59 DECLARATION of Karla Gilbride in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
60 DECLARATION of Robert Clark in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
61 DECLARATION of Sergio Garibay in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
62 DECLARATION of Patricia Hughes/GLAD in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
63 DECLARATION of Ray Henderson in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
64 DECLARATION of Richard Hernandez in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
65 DECLARATION of George Layton in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
66 DECLARATION of John Lonberg in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
67 DECLARATION of Christopher Luna in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
68 DECLARATION of Allen McCorkendale in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
69 DECLARATION of Shannon Murray in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
70 DECLARATION of Beverly Overton in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)

03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/25/2010
04/07/2010 04/13/2010
04/13/2010

71 DECLARATION of Patricia Parker in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
72 DECLARATION of Alicia Pedroza in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
73 DECLARATION of Ben Rockwell in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
74 DECLARATION of Federico Williams in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
75 DECLARATION of Leonard Woods in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
76 DECLARATION of Caesar Zamora in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
77 STIPULATION APPROVING CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS re MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
78 PROPOSED ORDER APPROVING CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS re MOTION to Certify Class 53 filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
79 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Motion Related Document 78 . When efiling the [Prop] Order by itself, a Notice of Lodging Document is efiled as the main document and the [Prop] Order is attached as the second attachment. Also, there is a specific event for Notice of Lodging. If you are unsure of the events, use the SEARCH feature on the CM/ECF menu bar. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Notice of Lodging. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
80 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, Motion for Class Certification 53 is taken under submission without oral argument. (lom) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
81 ORDER Granting Stipulation Approving Certification of a Class 77 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is certified as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class shall be defined as: All people with disabilities, as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act, who are within the City of Los Angeles and the jurisdiction served by the City of Los Angeles' and County of Los Angeles' emergency preparedness programs and services. It is further ordered that named Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free ("CALIF") and Audrey Harthom be designated as class representatives and that Plaintiffs' counsel, Disability Rights Advocates and Disability Rights Legal Center, be designated as counsel for the class. (lom) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
87 ADMINISTRATIVE DUPLICATE DOCUMENT − ORDER Granting Stipulation Approving Certification of a Class 53 , 77 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is certified as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class shall be defined as: All people with disabilities, as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act, who are within the City of Los Angeles and the jurisdiction served by the City of Los Angeles' and County of Los Angeles' emergency preparedness programs and services. It is further ordered that

04/26/2010 04/30/2010 05/05/2010 06/02/2010 06/07/2010
06/08/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010
07/23/2010

named Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free ("CALIF") and Audrey Harthom be designated as class representatives and that Plaintiffs' counsel, Disability Rights Advocates and Disability Rights Legal Center, be designated as counsel for the class. (lom) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
82 MINUTE ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The Court conducted a settlement conference in this case on April 22, 2010. Appropriate representatives of all parties were present. No settlement was achieved. Plaintiff and the County are directed to contact the Clerk to schedule a further settlement conference during the next 2−3 weeks. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) Modified on 4/26/2010 (mz). (Entered: 04/26/2010)
83 Joint REQUEST to Extend Time to Complete Fact Discovery filed by Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, County of Los Angeles, Audrey Harthorn. Request set for hearing on 5/6/2010 at 01:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
84 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 83 Stipulation and Request for Extension of Fact Discovery Deadline. The Court extends the deadline for concluding all fact discovery as to all parties in this case to June 30, 2010. No other dates established in this Court's January 4, 2010 scheduling order are changed at this time. (lom) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
85 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case pending Implementation of Interim Agreement re County of L.A. Access and Functional Needs Annex filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
88 ORDER Granting Stipulation re Stay of Litigation and Interim Agreement re County of Los Angeles Access and Functional Needs Annex 85 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court hereby approves of the procedure adopted by the parties in the Interim Agreement, which is attached to this Order as Exhibit A, and Orders the litigation as to Plaintiffs and the County be stayed through August 31, 2010. The Court sets a status conference for Sept. 13, 2010 at 11:00 A.M., in order for Plaintiffs and the County to provide an update to the Court regarding whether the process identified in the Interim Agreement has been completed, the status of settlement negotiations on the remaining issues, the parties' positions regarding whether further dates are necessary in this case, and proposals for such dates, if necessary. (lom) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
86 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER SETTING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON CALENDAR held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. A further settlement conference is calendared for Monday, August 2, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 690. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
89 JOINT STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE FOR THREE FURTHER DEPOSITIONS re Joint REQUEST to Extend Time to Complete Fact Discovery 83 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
90 ORDER Granting Stipulation re Extension of Fact Discovery Deadline for three further Depositions 89 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court has read and considered the Parties' Joint Stipulation Re Extension of Fact Discovery Deadline for Three Further Depositions. Good cause appearing, the Court extends the deadline for fact discovery for the sole purpose of allowing three further depositions: a designee from the City of Los Angeles Fire Department, a designee from the City of Los Angeles Police Department and Mr. Michael Kleiner of the Red Cross. No other dates established in this Court's January 4, 2010 scheduling order are changed at this time.. (lom) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
91 First NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Mary−Lee Kimber Smith on behalf of Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 07/23/2010)

07/30/2010 08/02/2010
08/05/2010 08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/18/2010 08/27/2010

92 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER SETTING CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 86 ON CALENDAR held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The further settlement conference calendared for Thursday, August 2, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. is being continued at the request of the parties to Thursday, September 16, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 690. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
93 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Motion set for hearing on 8/30/2010 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Collins Dec, # 2 Exhibit Exh A To Collins Dec, # 3 Declaration Harthorn Dec, # 4 Declaration ILCSC Dec, # 5 Declaration Kailes Dec, # 6 Declaration LAMP Dec, # 7 Declaration Navarro Dec, # 8 Declaration Smith Dec, # 9 Exhibit Exh A to Smith Dec, # 10 Exhibit Exh B to Smith Dec, # 11 Exhibit Exh C to Smith Dec, # 12 Exhibit Exh D to Smith Dec, # 13 Exhibit Exh E to Smith Dec, # 14 Exhibit Exh F to Smith Dec, # 15 Exhibit Exh G to Smith Dec, # 16 Exhibit Exh H to Smith Dec, # 17 Exhibit Exh I to Smith Dec, # 18 Exhibit Exh J to Smith Dec, # 19 Exhibit Exh K to Smith Dec, # 20 Exhibit Exh L to R to Smith Dec, # 21 Exhibit Exh S to Smith Dec, # 22 Supplement Statement, # 23 Supplement Request, # 24 Exhibit Exh to Request, # 25 Proposed Order Proposed Order for MSJ, # 26 Proposed Order Proposed Order for Remedy)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
94 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File OPPOSITION AND REPLY as to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 93 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order RE REQUEST TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE)(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
95 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Stipulation 94 , the Court extends the briefing schedule as follows: The City must file its opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 8/18/2010. Plaintiffs must file their reply in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 8/27/2010. The Court sets for hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 93 on 9/27/2010 before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (gk) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
96 MINUTES − IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Joint Stipulation and Request to Extending Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 94 , the Court hereby expends the briefing schedule as follows: Defendant City of Los Angeles must file its opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 8/18/2010. Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn and the class of individuals that they represent must file their reply in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 8/27/2010. The Court sets for hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 93 on 9/27/2010. Court Reporter: n/a. (gk) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
97 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 93 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ralph Acuna, # 2 Declaration of Eric Baumgardner, # 3 Declaration of Anna Burton, # 4 Declaration of Steve Dargan, # 5 Declaration of Gabriel Dermer, # 6 Declaration of James Featherstone, # 7 Declaration of Robert Freeman, # 8 Declaration of Angela Kaufman, # 9 Declaration of Thomas Ottman, # 10 Declaration of Luann Pannell, # 11 Statement of Genuine Issues, # 12 Objections to Evidence)(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
98 REPLY Support MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 93 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Defendant's Statement of Genuine Issues, # 2 Declaration of Mary Lee Smith, # 3 Exhibits to Smith Declaration, # 4 Declaration of June Kailes, # 5 Response to Def Evidentiary Objections, # 6 Notice and Motion to Strike Declarations, # 7 Declaration of Karla Gilbride re Motion to Strike Decs, # 8 Exh A to Gilbride Dec, # 9 Exh B to Gilbride Dec, # 10 Exh C to Gilbride Dec, # 11 Exh D to Gilbride Dec, # 12 Exh E to

09/03/2010 09/07/2010 09/09/2010 09/10/2010 09/13/2010 09/16/2010
09/21/2010 09/23/2010 09/27/2010 09/28/2010 09/28/2010 10/05/2010 10/07/2010

Gilbride Dec, # 13 Exh F to Gilbride Dec, # 14 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Strike)(Smith, Mary−Lee) Modified on 2/11/2011 (lom). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
99 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 93 AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE (Dkt. 98−6) filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gabriel S. Dermer in Support of City's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike)(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
100 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, the Motion of the Plaintiffs for Summary Judgment 93 is hereby continued to Oct. 12, 2010 at 12:00 Noon. (lom) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
101 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Conference Statement filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
102 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Scheduling Conference and Motion to Strike Declarations, or, in the Alternative, for an Order Excluding Declarations are continued to Oct. 12, 2010 at 12:00 Noon. (jl) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
103 REPLY Support Motion to Strike Declarations filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Karla Gilbride, # 2 Exhibit A to Gilbride Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Gilbride Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to Gilbride Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D to Gilbride Declaration)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
104 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The Court conducted a further settlement conference in this case onSeptember 16, 2010. Appropriate representatives of plaintiffs and the County were present. Although a settlement was not achieved, some issues were resolved. Counsel are directed to contact the clerk for the purposes of scheduling a further settlement conference sometime this autumn. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
105 DECLARATION of Angela M. Kaufman In Reply to Declaration of June Isaacson Kailes in Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 93 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
106 OBJECTION TO REPLY DECLARATION OF ANGELA KAUFMAN (DKT. 105) Support re: MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 93 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
107 DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO REPLY DECLARATION OF ANGELA KAUFMAN re MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 93 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
108 Joint STIPULATION to Continue PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES from 01/04/2011 filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
109 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of Proposed Order re Settlement Dates re Settlement Conference, 104 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Settlement Dates)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
110 ORDER Granting Joint Stipulation and Request to Continue Pre−Trial and Trial Dates 108 . by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court continues trial and resets the pretrial deadlines as follows: 1. The Court sets trial for 3/1/11 at 10:00 a.m.; 2. The Court sets the Pretrial Conference for 1/10/11 at 2:30 p.m. with all other pretrial deadlines set pursuant to Local Rule 16. (lom) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
111 STATEMENT OF INTEREST filed by Claimant The United States. (lom) (Entered: 10/12/2010)

10/12/2010 10/20/2010 11/30/2010 12/06/2010 12/13/2010 12/16/2010 01/10/2011
01/10/2011 01/10/2011
01/13/2011

112 MINUTES of Motion of Plaintiffs for Summary Judgment 93 and Motion to Strike Declarations of Eric Baumgardner, Angela Kaufman, Ralph Acuna, Thomas Ottman and Luanna Panell, or in the alternative, for an Order Excluding Declarations Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Declarations are submitted without further oral argument. Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg. (lom) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
113 MINUTE ORDER CALENDARING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The parties are advised that a further settlement conference is calendared for January 10, 2011, at 3:30p.m. and a telephonic status conference is calendared for December 13, 2010 at 2 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
114 Joint STIPULATION to Continue PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE from January 10, 2011 filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order RE JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
115 ORDER Granting Joint Stipulation to Continue 114 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court continues and resets the Pretrial Conference for February 7, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. with all other pretrial deadlines set pursuant to Local Rule 16. (lom) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
116 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, Reset Hearing, 113 .(Telephone Conference re−set for 12/14/2010, 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.) (yb) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
117 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The further settlement conference scheduled for January 10, 2011 isvacated; instead, counsel are directed to contact the clerk on that date for the purpose of scheduling a further settlement conference to occur 2−3 weeks thereafter. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
118 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Testimony From Late Disclosed Witnesses Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Motion set for hearing on 2/7/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mary−Lee Smith in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony, # 2 Exhibits to Smith Dec re Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony, # 3 Proposed Order to Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
119 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Previously Undisclosed Evidence , Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Motion set for hearing on 2/7/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Motion in Limine to Exclude Previously Undisclosed Evidence)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
120 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Evidence re Personal Emergency Preparedness and Individual Accommodations ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Motion set for hearing on 2/7/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence re Personal Emergency Preparedness and Individual Accommodations)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
121 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File JOINT EXHIBIT LIST PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16−6 filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order RE JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR JOINT EXHIBIT LIST PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16−6)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/21/2011 01/24/2011 01/24/2011
01/24/2011 01/24/2011 01/27/2011
01/27/2011
01/28/2011

122 ORDER Granting Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Joint Exhibit List 121 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court extends the deadline by which the parties must file their joint exhibit list to January 31, 2011. (lom) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
123 Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Testimony From Late Disclosed Witnesses Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 118 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
124 Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Previously Undisclosed Evidence , Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 119 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
125 Opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Evidence re Personal Emergency Preparedness and Individual Accommodations ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 120 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
126 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
127 Witness List filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
128 Witness List filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn.. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
129 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
130 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Date to Lodge Final Pretrial Conference Order from January 27, 2011 to a Date After January 31, 2011 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
131 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, the Pre Trial Conference which is set on Feb.7, 2011 is hereby continued to Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2011 at 2:00 P.M. (lom) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
132 REPLY in Support of MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Evidence re Personal Emergency Preparedness and Individual Accommodations ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 120 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
133 REPLY in Support of Plaintiffs' MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Previously Undisclosed Evidence , Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 119 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
134 REPLY in Support of Plaintiffs' MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Testimony From Late Disclosed Witnesses Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 118 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
135 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, the following motion are hereby submitted without oral argument as of Feb. 7, 2011: In Limine Motion to Exclude Testimony from Late Disclosed Witnesses 118 , In Limine Motion to Exclude Previously Undisclosed Evidence 119 and In Limine Motion to Exclude Evidence Re: Personal Emergency Preparedness an Individual Accommodations 120 . (lom) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
136 Joint STIPULATION to Continue PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE from FEBRUARY 8, 2011 to FEBRUARY 15, 2011 filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order RE JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
137 NOTICE OF LODGING Proposed Pretrial Conference Order Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed

01/28/2011 02/03/2011 02/10/2011
03/08/2011 03/09/2011 03/28/2011 04/04/2011 04/05/2011 04/11/2011 05/12/2011

Order)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
138 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court has read and considered the Parties Stipulation to Continue and Request to Continue Pretrial and Trial Dates 136 . Good cause appearing, the Court continues trial and resets the pretrial deadlines as follows: (1) The Court sets trial for 4/12/2011 at 10:00 AM; (2) The Court sets the Pretrial Conference for 3/28/2011 at 2:30 PM., with all other pretrial deadlines set pursuant to Local Rule 16. (jp) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
139 MINUTE ORDER SETTING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON CALENDAR by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The parties are directed to appear for a further settlement conference on Tuesday, March 8 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 690. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
140 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall as follows: (l)Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication on Liability; 2. Granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike; 3. Granting Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice; and 4. Sustaining Plaintiffs' Objection; and 5. Overruling Defendant City of Los Angeles' Objections, re 93 , 97 , 98 , 106 . The pretrial conference date and trial date, presently scheduled for March 28, 2011 and April 12, 2011, respectively, are hereby vacated. Plaintiffs and the City shall participate in a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich, to take place within twenty−one (21) days of the date of this Order. The parties shall meet and confer at least once prior to the settlement conference with Judge Wistrich to attempt to fashion a proposal to the Court for injunctive relief. Such relief shall apply to all components of the City's emergency preparedness program and shall include a proposal for monitoring and a schedule for implementation. Within ten (l0) days of the completion of the settlement conference with Judge Wistrich, the parties shall file a joint status report with the Court and, if necessary, the Court shall thereafter schedule a status conference and set new pretrial and trial dates; and All parties who have authority to settle and lead trial counsel for Plaintiffs and the City shall attend both the meet−and−confer session and the settlement conference with Judge Wistrich in person. (Refer to attached document for details.) (lom) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
141 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The Court conducted a further settlement conference in this case onMarch 8, 2011. Appropriate representatives of all parties were present. No settlement was achieved but significant progress was made. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
142 MINUTE ORDER SETTING CONFERENCE ON CALENDAR BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND CITY OF LOS ANGELES by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The parties are directed to appear for a further settlement conference on Friday, March 25, 2011, at 2:00p.m. in Courtroom 690. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
143 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: No settlement was achieved but significant progress was made. (yb) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
144 MINUTE ORDER CALENDARING FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. Upon the request of the parties, a further settlement conference is calendared for Monday, May 2, 2011, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 690. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
145 STATUS REPORT re Proposal For Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Joint Status Report)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
146 ORDER RE JOINT STATUS REPORT 145 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court orders as follows: 1. Within ten (10) days of the conference with Magistrate Judge Wistrich, the Parties shall file a Joint Status Report with the Court, no later than 5/12/11. (lom) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
147 STATUS REPORT Second Joint Status Report re Proposal For Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 05/12/2011)

05/13/2011 06/03/2011 06/07/2011 06/13/2011
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 07/06/2011 07/07/2011 07/08/2011 07/08/2011
07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011

148 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, this case is set for a Status Conference on June 21, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. (lom) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
149 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, the Status Conference in this action is hereby continued to July 5, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. (lom) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
150 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE OF TIME CHANGE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, the Status Conference 149 in this action is hereby continued to July 5, 2011 at 1:30 P.M. (lom) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
151 REQUEST for Leave of Sid Wolinsky to Appear for Status Conference Telephonically filed by plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Request set for hearing on 7/5/2011 at 01:30 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
152 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court' own motion, Status Conference is hereby continued to July 6, 2011 at 1:30 P.M. (lom) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
153 STATUS REPORT Third Joint Status Report re Proposal for Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
154 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of Plaintiffs and County of Los Angeles filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
156 MINUTES of Status Conference held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Status Conference held, counsel shall lodge a proposed order on or before July 7, 2011 at 4:00 P.M., reflecting the agreements of counsel which were placed on the record. Court Reporter: Katherine Stride. (lom) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
155 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of Proposed Order Following Status Conference re Status Report 153 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Following Status Conference)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
157 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: 151 Request for Leave to Appear of Sid Wolinsky to Appear for Status Conference Telephonic is denied as moot. (lom) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
158 ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court orders as follows: 1. No later than July 29, 2011, the parties shall each submit a brief not to exceed ten pages, exclusive of exhibits and attachments, that shall address (1) the reasons why their proposed independent expert(s) should be selected to review and revise all components of the City's emergency management program, and (2) the inclusion of the roles of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Court's order regarding relief in this matter; 2. The parties shall meet and confer as to these issues no later than July 22, 2011; and 3. The parties shall lodge a Proposed Order for Injunctive Relief within two weeks after receiving the Court's decision regarding the issues identified in paragraph one above. (lom) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
159 STATUS REPORT FINAL JOINT STATUS REPORT RE PROPOSAL FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
160 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Shawna L Parks counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Changing Address to 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Filed by Plaintiff CALIF (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
161 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Paula D Pearlman counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Changing Address to 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Filed by Plaintiff CALIF et al. (Pearlman, Paula) (Entered: 07/29/2011)

07/29/2011
07/29/2011 08/01/2011 08/02/2011 08/15/2011 09/21/2011 09/26/2011 09/29/2011
10/11/2011 11/01/2011 11/09/2011 12/06/2011
12/09/2011 12/09/2011 12/12/2011 12/12/2011

162 BRIEF filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. PLAINTIFFS BRIEF RE EXPERT SELECTION (Attachments: # 1 Declaration IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS BRIEF RE EXPERT SELECTION, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Proposed Order RE EXPERT SELECTION)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
163 BRIEF filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. regarding Order,,, 158 . (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
164 OBJECTIONS To Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith (Dkt. 162−1) filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
165 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn To Objections To Declaration of Mary−Lee K. Smith (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
166 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
167 REQUEST to Substitute attorney Kara Werner in place of attorney Karla Gilbride filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY)(Werner, Kara) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
168 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 167 Plaintiff's Request to Substitute Attorney Kara Werner as attorney of record in place and stead of Attorney Karla Gilbride. (lom) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
169 ORDER RE EXPERT SELECTION re 153 , 158 , 162 , 163 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court therefore ORDERS THAT: 1. BCFS shall serve as the expert during the remedial phase of this litigation between Plaintiffs and the City of Los Angeles; 2. BCFS subcontract with June Kailes in order to take advantage of her subject matter expertise in disability issues; 3. The parties lodge a proposed injunction for this Court's review, consistent with this Order as well as the agreements contained in the Parties' Joint Status Reports filed on June 30, 2011 and July 29, 2011. Such proposed injunction shall be lodged no later than October 11, 2011. (lom) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
170 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Order,,, 158 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Injunctive Relief)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
171 STATUS REPORT Jointly By Plaintiffs and County of Los Angeles filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 11/01/2011)
172 FILED ORDER RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (jl) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
173 Joint STIPULATION to Continue FILING DATE FOR PLAINTIFFS FEES AND COSTS MOTION from December 7, 2011 to March 19, 2012 filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re: REQUEST TO CONTINUE FILING DATE FOR PLAINTIFFS FEES AND COSTS MOTION)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
174 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Appeal of Order 172 (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.) (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
175 FILING FEE LETTER issued as to Defendant City of Los Angeles, re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 174 (car) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
176 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 11−57149 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 174 as to Defendant City of Los Angeles. (dmap) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
177 APPEAL FEE PAID: re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 174 as to Defendant City of Los Angeles; Receipt Number: LA032275 in the amount of $455.

12/16/2011 12/27/2011
12/27/2011 01/05/2012 01/11/2012
01/11/2012
01/11/2012 01/20/2012
01/20/2012 02/03/2012 02/14/2012 03/02/2012

(dmap) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
178 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, GRANTING Stipulation to Continue, 173 . If the Parties are successful in resolving Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fee and Costs Motion, a Joint Status Report shall be filed no later than March 12, 2012. If the Parties are not successful in mediating, Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs with the court no later than March 19, 2012. (jl) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
179 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 10/12/10 2:40 PM. Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg, www.cindynirenberg.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the COURT REPORTER www.cindynirenberg.com or PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 1/17/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/27/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/26/2012. (Nirenberg, Cindy) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
180 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 10/12/10 2:40 PM. (mw) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
181 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: ORDER REGARDING TELECONFERENCE CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' INTENDED MOTION TO ENFORCE NOVEMBER 9, 2011 ORDER RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Defendant is directed to file a status report no later than February 3, 2012. See document for details. (yb) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
182 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings May 18, 2009 to May 18, 2009 re: Court of Appeal case number 11−57149, as to Defendant City of Los Angeles Court Reporter Rosalyn Adams. Civil Appeal, Court will contact Terry Lee at terry.lee@lacity.org with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss − May 18, 2009. Civil case appeal. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
183 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings July 6, 2011 to July 6, 2011 re: Court of Appeal case number 11−57149, as to Defendant City of Los Angeles Court Reporter Kathryn Stride. Civil Appeal, Court will contact Terry Lee at terry.lee@lacity.org with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: Status Conference − July 6, 2011. Civil case appeal. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
184 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM For Dates: May 18, 2009, October 12, 2010, July 6, 2011; Court Reporter: Rosalyn Adams, Cindy Nirenberg, Katherine Stride; Court of Appeals Case Number: 11−57149; Re: 174 (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
185 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 07/06/2011; 1:30 PM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Katherine M. Stride, phone number 213−894−2187. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter or PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 2/10/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/20/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/19/2012. (Stride, Katherine) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
186 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 07/06/2011; 1:30 PM (Stride, Katherine) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
187 STATUS REPORT RE APPEAL AND COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
188 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 174 filed by City of Los Angeles, CCA # 11−57149. This appeal is voluntarily dismissed. A copy of this order sent to the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court. Order received in this district on 2/14/12. (car) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
189 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 5/18/09, 10:00 AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: ROSALYN ADAMS, phone number rosalyn.adams494@gmail.com.

03/02/2012 03/07/2012 03/08/2012 03/09/2012
03/12/2012 03/15/2012
03/15/2012
05/09/2012 05/10/2012 06/08/2012 06/19/2012 06/21/2012

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/23/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/2/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/31/2012. (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
190 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 5/18/09, 10:00 AM (Adams, Rosalyn) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
191 Joint STIPULATION to Continue FILING DATE FOR PLAINTIFFS FEES AND COSTS MOTION from March 16, 2012 to May 16, 2012. filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
193 ORDER Granting Stipulaton 191 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court orders that in the event a motion for fees and costs is required, Plaintiffs shall file their motion for attorneys fees and costs with the Court no later than May 16, 2012. (lom) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
192 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Shawna L Parks counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Changing firm name to Disability Rights Advocates, 2001 Center St, 4th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704. Changing email to sparks@dralegal.org. Filed by plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
194 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
195 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Adding Maria Michelle Uzeta as attorney as counsel of record for Communities Actively Living Independent and Free et al. for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Communities Living Independent and Free et al. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
196 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn.Debra J. Patkin is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free et al. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
197 FIRST BI−ANNUAL REPORT of ORDER RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
198 JOINT STATUS REPORT of PLAINTIFFS AND CITY OF LOS ANGELES RE RESOLUTION OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
199 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO CITY OF LOS ANGELES FIRST BI−ANNUAL REPORT of ORDER RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
200 PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE RE FIRST BI−ANNUAL REPORT of ORDER RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
201 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Report 200 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: hearing &/or Order. To find the correct event, see category for Motions and Related Filings: Requests; for event: hearing &/or Order. This will set it before the Judge. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct

08/03/2012 08/03/2012 08/03/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012
08/27/2012
08/27/2012 08/27/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012
09/05/2012 11/07/2012
11/07/2012

document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
202 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Status Conference is set on Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Status Reports shall be filed on or before August 27, 2012. 200 .(jl) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
203 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Status Conference is set on Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Status Reports shall be filed on or before August 27, 2012 200 . (jl) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
204 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Minutes of In Chambers Order 202 : Document did not attach to docket entry no. 202 . See corrected docket entry no. 203 . (lom) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
205 STATUS REPORT PLAINTIFFS STATUS REPORT RE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER RE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
206 DECLARATION of Christine Chuang re Status Report, 205 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE CHUANG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS STATUS REPORT RE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER RE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
207 DECLARATION of Shawna L. Parks re Status Report, 205 DECLARATION OF SHAWNA L. PARKS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS STATUS REPORT RE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER RE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
208 STATUS REPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
209 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
210 STATUS REPORT PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS REPORT RE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER RE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
211 DECLARATION of June Kailes re Status Report 210 DECLARATION OF JUNE KAILES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS REPORT RE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER RE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
212 SUPPLEMENT to Status Report 209 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
213 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement with County of Los Angeles Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Motion set for hearing on 11/10/2012 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
214 DECLARATION of Shawna Parks in support of MOTION for Order for Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement with County of Los Angeles 213 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 11/07/2012)

11/07/2012 11/07/2012 11/07/2012 11/20/2012
12/07/2012 12/10/2012 12/10/2012 12/12/2012 12/18/2012 01/17/2013

215 DECLARATION of CALIF in support of MOTION for Order for Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement with County of Los Angeles 213 DECLARATION OF COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT AND FREE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
216 DECLARATION of Audrey Harthorn in support of MOTION for Order for Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement with County of Los Angeles 213 DECLARATION OF AUDREY HARTHORN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
217 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES re MOTION for Order for Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement with County of Los Angeles 213 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
218 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Motion Related Document, 217 . The following error(s) was found: If you are e−filing the [Prop] Order as a separate document, please do a Notice of Lodging document and attach the [Prop] Order as the second attachment. To find the correct event, see category for Other Filings: Notices; for event: Notice of Lodging. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
219 IN CHAMBER MINUTE ORDER CONTINUING MOTION HEARING. The Court on its own motion continues the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement (fld 11/7/12) [doc #213] from 12/10/12 at 11:00 a.m. The Motion will now be set for hearing on Tuesday, January 22, 2013, at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(cs) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/07/2012)
220 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO CITY OF LOS ANGELES' SECOND BI−ANNUAL EXPERT REPORT RE ORDER RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Christine Chuang in Support of Plaintiff's Response to City of Los Angeles Second Bi−Annual Expert Report Re Order Re Injunctive Relief)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
221 EXPERT REPORT of June Kailes re: Implementation filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
222 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Report 221 . The following error(s) was found: Title page is missing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
223 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
224 IN CHAMBER MINUTE ORDER/OFF THE RECORD. The motion or Preliminary approval set for 1/22/2013 at 11:00 am has been continued on the Courts own motion. The motion set for hearing on 1/24/2013 at 1:30 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cs) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/17/2013)

01/24/2013
02/21/2013 02/25/2013 03/28/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013

225 MINUTES of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement with County of Los Angeles 213 held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Following oral argument, the Court advises counsel that the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement with County of Los Angeles is approved. The parties shall meet, confer, and research the issue of what languages to be included on the notice and which newspapers will be used to publish notice. The parties shall then file with the Court a new proposed order granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement that contains the resolution to the language issue. The Court hereby ORDERS that the formal stay in place as ordered by the Court on June 7, 2010 is hereby lifted 88 . Court Reporter: Leandra Amber. (lom) Modified on 1/25/2013 (lom). (Entered: 01/25/2013)
226 NOTICE OF LODGING filed NOTICE OF LODGING OF [Proposed] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT re Order on Motion for Order, Motion Hearing, Link Motions to Minutes, Set/Clear Flags,,,,,,,,,,,, 225 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
227 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 213 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court hereby preliminary approves the Agreement. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable to all potential class members. The Court adopts the following schedule: April 15, 2013 − Plaintiffs shall file a motion for final approval and motion for approval of attorneys' fees. Both parties shall file statements of compliance with notice requirements. May 14, 2013, 9:00 a.m. − The Fairness Hearing shall be held. (See attached documents for other deadline requirements.) (lom) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
228 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: ORDER CALENDARING HEARING ON DISPUTE REGARDING COURT APPOINTED EXPERT AND PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION, ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich Set hearings( Hearing on dispute regarding court appointed expert and progress of implementation set for 4/23/2013 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.) The parties are directed to file a joint report stating their respective positions no later than April 16, 2013. (yb) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
229 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
230 DECLARATION of SHAWNA L. PARKS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 229 DECLARATION OF SHAWNA L. PARKS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
231 DECLARATION of CHRISTINE CHUANG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 229 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE CHUANG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
232 DECLARATION of JEFFERY L. REEB MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 229 DECLARATION OF JEFFERY L. REEB

04/15/2013
04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013

RE DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COMPLIANCE WITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOTICE REQUIREMENTS filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − T)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
233 APPENDIX OF OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT re MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 229 APPENDIX OF OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Appendix C−1, # 4 Appendix C−2, # 5 Appendix C−3, # 6 Appendix C−4, # 7 Appendix C−5, # 8 Appendix C−6, # 9 Appendix C−7, # 10 Appendix C−8, # 11 Appendix C−9, # 12 Appendix D−1, # 13 Appendix D−2, # 14 Appendix D−3, # 15 Appendix D−4, # 16 Appendix D−5, # 17 Appendix D−6, # 18 Appendix D−7, # 19 Appendix D−8, # 20 Appendix D−9, # 21 Appendix D−10, # 22 Appendix D−11, # 23 Appendix D−12, # 24 Appendix D−13, # 25 Appendix D−14, # 26 Appendix E, # 27 Appendix F−1, # 28 Appendix F−2, # 29 Appendix F−3, # 30 Appendix F−4, # 31 Appendix F−5)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
234 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
235 DECLARATION of SID WOLINSKY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 234 DECLARATION OF SID WOLINKSY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C−1, # 4 Exhibit C−2, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit G)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
236 DECLARATION of SHAWNA L. PARKS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 234 DECLARATION OF SHAWNA L. PARKS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
237 DECLARATION of MICHELLE UZETA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 234 DECLARATION OF MICHELLE UZETA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B−1a, # 3 Exhibit B−1b, # 4 Exhibit B−2)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
238 DECLARATION of BARRETT S. LITT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 234 DECLARATION OF BARRETT S. LITT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
239 DECLARATION of CAROL A. SOBEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 234 DECLARATION OF CAROL A. SOBEL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed

04/16/2013 04/23/2013 04/23/2013
04/29/2013
05/14/2013 05/21/2013 05/21/2013 05/29/2013
05/29/2013 05/30/2013 06/06/2013 06/07/2013

by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
240 STATUS REPORT For April 23, 2013 Conference Before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles, Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1, # 2 Exhibit A2, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Declaration of Kari Tatro)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
241 NOTICE of Appearance of Class Member filed by Objector Steven J. Stanwyck. (lom) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
243 MINUTES OF In Chambers Conference held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS: ORDER REGARDING CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich re: Hearing 228 . The court conducted a conference with counsel for plaintiffs, the City, and BCFS on this date in an effort to address plaintiffs concerns regarding the implementation of the Order Regarding Injunctive Relief. See document for details. (yb) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
242 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Motion Related Document 233 . The following error(s) was found: No attorney's signature. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
244 MINUTES OF Plaintiff's Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs 234 and for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement 229 Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Case called, counsel made their appearances made, arguments held. Continued to May 21, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. for further arguments. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (lom) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
245 MINUTES OF Plaintiffs' Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs 234 and for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 239 hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs and for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement are submitted without further oral arguments. Court Reporter: Mary R Rickey. (lom) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
246 NOTICE OF FILING OF REQUEST for Reassignment of Related ADA cases of Deborah Miles, et al v County of Los Angeles, a public entity, et al, CV 02−03932, DT(JTLx) filed by Objector Steven J Stanwyck. (lom) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
247 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike Docket No. 246 and Related Brief filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michelle Uzeta in Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Applicaiton for an Order to Strike Docket No. 246 and Related Brief, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte Applicaiton for an Order to Strike Docket No. 246 and Related Brief)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
248 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
249 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. correcting EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike Docket No. 246 and Related Brief 247 (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
250 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Request for Reassignment is DENIED. EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike Docket No. 246 is DENIED as moot. Request to require Mr. Stanwyck to seek leave of court to file any future documents related to this case is DENIED. 247 246 . (jl) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
251 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BIANNUAL REPORT OF EXPERT BCFS HHS DATED MAY 9, 2013 (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/07/2013)

06/07/2013
06/07/2013
06/10/2013 06/10/2013 06/11/2013 07/05/2013 07/10/2013 07/11/2013 07/15/2013
07/17/2013
07/17/2013
07/17/2013

252 DECLARATION of SHAWNA L. PARKS re Response (non−motion) 251 DECLARATION OF SHAWNA L. PARKS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BIANNUAL REPORT OF EXPERT BCFS HHS DATED MAY 9, 2013 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A−1, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
253 REQUEST for Order for STATUS CONFERENCE RE BIANNUAL REPORT OF EXPERT BCFS HHS DATED MAY 9, 2013 PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE RE BIANNUAL REPORT OF EXPERT BCFS HHS DATED MAY 9, 2013 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE RE BIANNUAL REPORT OF EXPERT BCFS HHS DATED MAY 9, 2013)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
254 IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: GRANTING 229 Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement with County of Los Angeles. (jl) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
255 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: GRANTING Plaintiffs' Application for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs 234 (jl) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
256 RESPONSE filed by Defendant City of Los Angelesto REQUEST for Order for STATUS CONFERENCE RE BIANNUAL REPORT OF EXPERT BCFS HHS DATED MAY 9, 2013 PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE RE BIANNUAL REPORT OF EXPERT BCFS HHS DATED MAY 9, 2013 253 , Response (non−motion) 251 (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
257 RESPONSE to Disability Rights Legal Center & Disability Rights Advocates Motion, Dockets 247 , 248 , 249 filed by Class Member Steven J. Stanwyck. (gk) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
258 NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
259 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Proposed Order Dismissing Case re Defendant County of Los Angeles re Order, Terminate Hearings 255 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Dismissing Case re Defendant County of Los Angeles, # 2 Exhibit A Settlement Agreement)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
260 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reversal of Judgments of 6/10/13. Disqualification of Plaintiffs Class Counsel. Disqualification of Plaintiffs' Class representatives. Factual Orders. Referral to Central District Disciplinary Committee. Prefiling Orders 255 , 254 ( Motion set for hearing on 9/23/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.), filed by Class Member & Objector Steven J Stanwyck. (bp) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
261 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Request for a Status Conference Re Bi−Annual Report of Expert BCFS HHS Dated May 9, 2013. [Docket No. 253.] Plaintiffs' have shown good cause for the request, and the request is GRANTED. The Court Orders Plaintiffs, Defendants City of Los Angeles, and court−appointed experts BCFS HHS and June Kailes to appear on September 10, 2013 at 10:00 A.M. Parties should meet and confer no later than August 30, 2013 regarding this matter and file a status report on this matter no later than September 3, 2013. (bp) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
262 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike Docket Number 260 re MOTION for Reconsideration re Order, Terminate Hearings 255 , Order on Motion for Settlement 254 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel 260 filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Strike Docket Number 260)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
263 Corrected EX PARTE APPLICATION to Correct re EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike Docket Number 260 re MOTION for Reconsideration re Order, Terminate Hearings 255 , Order on Motion for Settlement 254 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel 260 262 filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Strike

07/18/2013 08/08/2013 08/09/2013 08/22/2013
09/03/2013 09/05/2013 09/23/2013 09/23/2013 09/24/2013 09/26/2013
10/30/2013

Docket Number 260, # 2 Declaration of Christine Chuang, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
264 ORDER DISMISSING CASE RE DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. All claims by Plaintiffs against Defendant County of Los Angeles are hereby dismissed, with prejudice. It is the obligation of the parties requesting dismissal to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.,, County of Los Angeles (a public entity) terminated. (bp) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
265 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Status Conference from September 10, 2013 at 10:00 am to same date or later date at 2:00 pm filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE)(Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
266 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Stipulation 265 , the Court continues and resets the Status Conference for 9/10/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (gk) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
267 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD − ORDER DENYING EX PARTE & MOTION by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is Class Member & Objector Steven J. Stanwyck's Motion for Reversal of Judgments of 6/10/2013 260 . Also Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Strike Docket No. 260 262 , 263 . The Court has considered the Motion on the merits. Mr. Stanwyck's Motion is DENIED and no appearance is needed on 9/23/2013. Plaintiffs' Counsel requests the Court to strike Mr. Stanwyck's Motion and consider sanctions on the basis that he has filed multiple documents for the alleged purpose of harassment and delay and that he is a vexatious litigant. The Court declines to declare that Mr. Stanwyck is a vexatious litigant at this time. The Ex Parte Application is DENIED. Court Reporter: N/A. (gk) (Entered: 08/22/2013)
268 STATUS REPORT JOINT REPORT SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND REQUEST TO TAKE SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 STATUS CONFERENCE OFF−CALENDAR filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
269 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Status Conference, set for September 10, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., is hereby taken OFF−CALENDAR. No appearances necessary on September 10, 2013. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jre) (Main Document 269 replaced on 9/5/2013) (jre). (Entered: 09/05/2013)
270 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Objector Steven J Stanwyck. Appeal of Minutes (In Chambers) 267 . Filed On: 08/22/2013; Entered On: 08/22/2013; Filing fee $ 455 billed. (dmap) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
271 FILING FEE LETTER issued as to Objector Steven J Stanwyck re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 270 . (dmap) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
272 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 13−56668 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 270 as to Objector Steven J Stanwyck. (dmap) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
273 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 270 filed by Steven J Stanwyck CCA # 13−56668. A review of the docket reflects that appellant has not paid the docketing andfiling fees for this appeal. Within 21 days from the date of this order, appellantshall: (1) file a motion with this court to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) pay$455.00 to the district court as the docketing and filing fees for this appeal andprovide proof of payment to this court; or (3) otherwise show cause why the appealshould not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See the order for all of the rest of the details. Order received in this district on 9/26/2013. (dmap) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
274 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Sidney M Wolinsky counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey

11/25/2013 11/25/2013 11/26/2013 12/03/2013 01/09/2014 01/15/2014
02/21/2014 07/10/2014 09/04/2014

Harthorn. Shawna L Parks is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT AND FREE, a nonprofit corporation, and AUDREY HARTHORN, an individual, on behalf of themselves and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,. (Wolinsky, Sidney) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
275 Joint STIPULATION for Order, Joint STIPULATION to Alter Judgment re Order on Motion for Settlement 254 . filed by PLAINTIFF Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn.(Attorney Christine Chuang added to party Communities Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla), Attorney Christine Chuang added to party Audrey Harthorn(pty:pla))(Chuang, Christine) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
276 Corrected STIPULATION to AMEND Order on Motion for Settlement 254 filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO MODIFY ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WITH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)(Chuang, Christine) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
277 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. Michelle Uzeta is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
278 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO MODIFY ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WITH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Stipulation 276 , the Court modifies paragraph 4 of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with County of Los Angeles 254 . See document for details. (gk) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
279 STATUS REPORT Comments Of Plaintiffs And County Of Los Angeles Re Monitors First Progress Report filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ATTACHMENT A)(Chuang, Christine) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
280 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 270 filed by Steven J Stanwyck CCA # 13−56668. The motions of Michelle Uzeta, Esq., and Shawna Parks, Esq. to withdrawas counsel for appellees are granted. The Clerk shall amend the docketaccordingly.Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because we findthat the appeal is frivolous. If appellant wishes to pursue this appeal despite thecourt's finding that it is frivolous then, within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall pay $455.00 to the district court as the docketing and filing fees forthis appeal and file proof of payment with this court. Otherwise, the appeal will bedismissed by the Clerk for failure to prosecute, regardless of further filings. See9th Cir. R. 42−1. Order received in this district on 1/15/2014. (dmap) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
281 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 270 filed by Steven J Stanwyck, CCA # 13−56668. This appeal is dismissed for failure to pay the docketing/filing fees in this case. This order served on the district court shall constitute the mandate of this court. Order received in this district on 2/21/14. (mat) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
282 STATUS REPORT COMMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RE THIRD PARTY MONITORS SECOND PROGRESS REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Chuang, Christine) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
283 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Adding Anna Rivera as attorney as counsel of record for Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera added to party Communities

09/04/2014
11/12/2014 12/03/2014 12/05/2014
01/09/2015 07/10/2015 07/29/2015 07/29/2015 01/11/2016 09/22/2016 09/30/2016

Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla), Attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera added to party Audrey Harthorn(pty:pla))(Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
284 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Paula Dee Pearlman will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice.Paula Dee Pearlman is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
285 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court is in receipt of 2 boxes containing the Bi−Annual Reports of court−appointed experts BCFS HHS provided by June Kailes. The Court has been informed that all parties have received a copy of these reports. (im) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
286 NOTICE of Joint Statement of Plaintiffs and Defendant City of Los Angeles re Termination of Case and Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order of Dismissal)(Chuang, Christine) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
287 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE RE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES DISMISSING CASE 286 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Pursuant to Courts November 9, 2011 Order re Injunctive Relief (Dkt. No. 172), the experts final report dated November 10, 2014, and the parties Joint Statement re Termination of Case and Stipulation of Dismissal indicating that the work required to remedy the violations found by the Court is complete, the Court hereby dismisses the case with prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS−6. (vv) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
288 PROGRESS REPORT of COMMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RE THIRD PARTY MONITORS THIRD PROGRESS REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Chuang, Christine) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
289 PROGRESS REPORT of COMMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RE MONITORS FOURTH PROGRESS REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Chuang, Christine) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
290 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Changing address to 256 S. Occidental Blvd., Suite B, Los Angeles, CA 90057. Changing email to anna.rivera@drlcenter.org. Filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independently and Free, et al.. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
291 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Michelle Uzeta is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Audrey Harthorn. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
292 PROGRESS REPORT of COMMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RE: MONITORS FIFTH PROGRESS REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
293 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS−ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall:Counsel are hereby notified that status report must be filed by the parties to this action no later than OCTOBER 31, 2016. (shb) (Entered: 09/23/2016)
294 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Rebecca Susanne Williford counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Adding Rebecca Williford as counsel of record for Communities Actively Living Independent and Free; Audrey Harthorn for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free;

10/12/2016 10/13/2016 10/19/2016 10/19/2016 10/21/2016
12/22/2016 01/10/2017 01/08/2018 01/09/2018 01/16/2018
01/22/2018
01/23/2018

Audrey Harthorn. (Attorney Rebecca Susanne Williford added to party Communities Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla), Attorney Rebecca Susanne Williford added to party Audrey Harthorn(pty:pla))(Williford, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
295 STATUS REPORT AND CLARIFICATION OF REPORTING SCHEDULE filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Smith, Mary−Lee) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
296 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. Kara Janssen is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Anna Rivera. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
297 Withdrawal of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles, a public entity (Salinger, Lillian) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
298 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles, a public entity (Salinger, Lillian) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
299 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document 297 , Miscellaneous Document 298 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below The correct event is: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123). Most of our forms have a specific event. Please search by form name or number. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
300 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. Changing Telephone to 626−389−8277. Filed by Plaintiff Anna Rivera. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
301 PROGRESS REPORT of COMMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RE MONITORS SIXTH PROGRESS REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williford, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
302 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Rebecca Susanne Williford counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. Mary−Lee Smith is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Williford. (Williford, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
303 PROGRESS REPORT of COMMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RE MONITORS SEVENTH PROGRESS REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williford, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
304 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS ORDER RE SEVENTH PROGRESS REPORT by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On January 9, 2018, the parties filed Comments of Plaintiffs and County of Los Angeles Re Monitor's Seventh Progress Report 303 . To the extent the parties seek an order from the Court authorizing the Monitor to include only the 15 remaining items in the next report, the parties are advised that a stipulation to that effect, along with a proposed order, should be filed with the Court no later than January 23, 2018. (iv) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
306 ORDER FOR MONITOR'S 8TH REPORT TO INCLUDE ONLY 15 REMAINING TASKS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Based upon the stipulation of the Parties 305 and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 8th Progress Report to be submitted by the third−party monitor, Global Vision Consortium, include only 15 tasks specified in the Monitor's 7th Progress Report dated December 10, 2017, and submitted to the Court on January 9, 2018. (iv) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
305 Joint STIPULATION for Order For Monitor's 8th Report to Include Only 15 Remaining Tasks filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and

08/09/2018 10/26/2018 11/16/2018

Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williford, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
307 PROGRESS REPORT of COMMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RE MONITOR'S EIGHTH PROGRESS REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williford, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
308 Joint STIPULATION for Order To End the Court's Jurisdiction to Enforce the Parties' Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Audrey Harthorn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D(1 of 2), # 6 Exhibit D(2 of 2), # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F(1 of 3), # 9 Exhibit F(2 of 3), # 10 Exhibit F(3 of 3))(Williford, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
309 ORDER TO TERMINATE THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, re Stipulation 308 : Based upon the stipulation of the Parties and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court's jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement in the above−entitled matter, terminates on the date in which the Court signs this order. (bm) (Entered: 11/19/2018)