Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 59 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1309

1

, r

FII.,ED

.

2

~·. iCLERI<, U.S. DISTRICT COUA:f .

Cl "

-

:-~ J

3

,:;, UAN 3 2011

4

~~~-

CENTRAL DISTR
If(
5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARK WILLITS, et al.
12 Plaintiffs
13
V.
14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.
15

No. CV 10-05782 CBM (RZx)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

16

Defendants

17

18

19

The matter before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification

20 ("Motion"). [Doc. No. 31.]

21

FACTUALANDPROCEDURALBACKGROUND

22

Plaintiffs Mark Willits ("Willits"), Judy Griffin ("Griffin"), Brent Pilgreen

23 ("Pilgreen") and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free ("CALIF") 24 (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that Defendants City of Los Angeles ("the City"), 25 Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and various City Council members (collectively, 26 "Defendants"), unlawfully failed, and are failing, to properly install and maintain 27 accessible pedestrian rights of way, including curb ramps, sidewalks, crosswalks,

28

1

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 59 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:1310

1 pedestrian crossings and other walkways ("pedestrian rights of way").1

2 (Complaint at ,-r 3.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the pedestrian rights of way,

3 when viewed in their entirety, suffer from numerous deficiencies, including: (1)

4 unsafe, non-compliant, or missing ramps; (2) broken pedestrian rights of way that

5 are cracked, crumbled, steep, sunken, or uneven or that have improper slopes or

6 broken and inaccessible surfaces; (3) physical obstacles on the sidewalk between

7 intersections, such as improperly placed signs, light poles, newspapers or bus stop 8 benches; and (4) "apron parking."2 (!d. at ,-r,-r 5, 24.) According to Plaintiffs, such

9 deficiencies are directly attributable to Defendants' policies and practices, or lack

10 thereof, with respect to the City's pedestrian rights of way and disability access.

11 (!d. at ,-r,-r 5-6.)

12

Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result, Plaintiffs and other persons with

13 mobility disabilities either remain segregated from significant amounts of daily

14 activities or risk injury or death by traveling on or around inaccessible pedestrian

15 rights of ways. (!d. at ,-r 4.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' failure to install and

16 maintain such pedestrian rights of way constitutes a systematic denial of

17 meaningful access and discrimination that, in tum, violates federal and state

18 nondiscrimination statutes. (!d.)

19

On August 4, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging

20 violations of (1) the ADA; (2) Section 504; (3) California Government Code

21 Section 11135; (4) the Unruh Act; (5) California Government Code Section 4450;

22 and (6) the California Disabled Persons Act (the "CDPA"). [Doc. No. 1.]

23
1 The City Council members named are Eric Garcetti, Ed Reyes, Paul Krekorian, Dennis P.
24 Zine, Tom Labonge, Paul Koretz, Tony Cardenas, Richard Alarcon, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry,
Herb J. Wesson, Jr., Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Jose Huizar, and Janice Hahn. (Compl. at,-[,-[
25 3, 19.) The individual defendants, including Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, are sued solely in their
26 official capacities. (!d. at ,-[ 19.)
2 According to Plaintiffs, "apron parking" refers to vehicles parked in driveways such that they
27 protrude onto pedestrian rights of way and thereby leave insufficient space for persons with
mobility aids to pass through the otherwise accessible pedestrian rights of way. (Compl. at~
28 23(d).)

2

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 59 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:1311

1 Defendants filed a Motion to Stay on September 7, 2010 [Doc. No. 33], and a

2 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [Doc. No.

3 41.] Prior to the filing of the Motion to Stay, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Class

4 Certification on September 1, 2010. [Doc. No. 31.] Plaintiffs seek certification,

5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), of a class of individuals with

6 mobility disabilities in the City of Los Angeles who have been denied access to

7 pedestrian rights of way. Defendants filed their opposition on October 4, 2010.

8 [Doc. No. 43.] Plaintiffs filed their reply on October 18, 2010. [Doc. No. 49.] All 9 three matters were heard on November 15, 2010.3

10

LEGAL STANDARD

11

A plaintiff seeking to represent a class must satisfy the threshold

12 requirements of Rule 23(a) as well as the requirements of certification under one

13 of the subsections of Rule 23(b). Amchem Prods., inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S.591,

14 614 (1997). Rule 23(a) provides that certification of a class is appropriate in a

15 case if the following conditions are met:

16

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

17

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

18

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the

19 claims or defenses of the class; and

20

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests

21 of the class.

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Rule 23(b) provides for certification if, inter alia,

23 "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally

24 applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or

25 corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." Fed. R. Civ.

26 P. 23(b)(2).

27

The party moving for class certification bears the burden of showing that

28 3 Defendants' motions are addressed in a separate order.

3

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 59 Filed 01/03/11 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:1312

1 each required element of Rule 23 is satisfied. Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S.

2 147, 158-61 (1982). For purposes of class certification, the court accepts the

3 substantive allegations of the complaint as true, but is also "required to consider

4 the nature and range of proof necessary to establish those allegations." In re

5 Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 691 F.2d

6 1335, 1342 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901). Thus,

7 the court may look beyond the pleadings to determine whether the requirements of

8 Rule 23 have been met. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 509 (9th

9 Cir.1992) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). The district court must engage in a

10 "rigorous analysis" over the elements of Rule 23, which may involve "looking ...

11 to issues overlapping with the merits of the underlying claims." Dukes v. Wal-

12 Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 594 (9th Cir. 2010). However, consideration of

13 the merits of the underlying claims must be limited to the issues overlapping with

14 the Rule 23 requirements. !d.

15

DISCUSSION

16 I. Rule 23(a) Requirements

17

A. Numerosity

18

Rule 23(a) requires a proposed class to be "so numerous that joinder of all

19 members is impracticable." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(l). Defendants do not dispute

20 that Plaintiffs proposed class is large enough to make joinder impracticable.

21 Rather, Defendants argue that Rule 23(a)(l) requires Plaintiffs to put forth

22 concrete evidence of the specific size of the class and that Plaintiffs' estimate of

23 the class is speculative, therefore failing to comply with Rule 23(a)(l ).

24 (Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs'

25 Motion for Class Certification ("Defs Opp") at 21:17-28, 22: 1-6).

26

Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that Plaintiffs are required

27 to put forth concrete evidence of the specific size of the class, and the Court has

28

4

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 59 Filed 01/03/11 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:1313

1 found none.4 The Court thus finds that Plaintiffs satisfy the numerosity

2 requirement.

3

B. Commonality

4

Rule 23(a) also requires that there be "questions of law or fact common to

5 the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). "All questions of fact and law need not be

6 common to satisfy the rule." Dukes, 603 F.3d at 615 (citing Hanlon v. Chrysler

7 Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998)). "[O]ne significant issue common to

8 the class may be sufficient to warrant certification." Id., 603 F.3d at 599. In

9 regard to civil rights suits, "commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit challenges

10 a system-wide practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members."

11 Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001).

12

Plaintiffs contend that there are a number of common questions of law and

13 fact that, including whether the City is required by the ADA and Section 504 to

14 make its system of pedestrian rights of way, when viewed in its entirety, readily

15 accessible to and usable by persons with mobility disabilities, and whether the

16 City was required to make its system of pedestrian rights of way accessible to

17 persons with mobility disabilities by no later than January 26, 1995 under the

18 ADA and by no later than June 3, 1977 under Section 504. (Compl. at ,-r64;

19 Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class

20 Certification ("Pit's Memo") at 17:12-28, 18:1-12). The Plaintiffs further argue

21 that since this case revolves around the City's allegedly "illegal system-wide

22 policies and practices, and their systematic failures to take necessary action, which

23 have affected all class members in the same manner," commonality is satisfied.

24 (Jd. at 15:21-25). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to establish

25 common questions of law and fact because there is no significant proof of a

26 violation of any ofPlaintiffs' alleged causes of action. (Defs Opp at 8:10 through

27
4 The cases cited by Defendants in their brief hold that a plaintiff must put forth a showing that the proposed class is
28 large enough to satisfy the numerosity requirement, which is not at issue here.

5

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 59 Filed 01/03/11 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:1314

1 20:28).5

2

Defendants' argument is foreclosed by Dukes v. Wal-Mart, in which the

3 Ninth Circuit explicitly rejected the argument that a plaintiff seeking class

4 certification must present significant proof of a violation of the claim alleged.

5 Dukes, 603 F.3d at 594-98 ("Falcon does not say that Plaintiffs must show a

6 common policy of proven discrimination at the class action stage, rather than just

7 a common policy alleged to be discriminatory.") (citing Falcon, 457 U.S. at 158-

8 59). Plaintiffs' allegations in the Complaint are sufficient, if true, to establish a

9 common policy that is discriminatory - thus satisfying the commonality

10 requirement ofRule 23.

11

C. Typicality

12

Rule 23(a) provides that class certification is appropriate when "the claims

13 or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the

14 class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)93). A finding of commonality frequently supports a

15 finding of typicality. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157 n.13. In reviewing whether the

16 representative parties' claims are typical of the class, a court determines "whether

17 the named plaintiffs' individual circumstances markedly diverge or whether the

18 legal theories and claims differ as to defeat the purposes of maintaining a class."

19 Von Colin v. County of Ventura, 189 F.R.D. 583, 591 (C.D. Cal. 1999). It is

20 sufficient for plaintiffs' claims to involve "the same remedial and legal theories"

21 as the class claims. Arnold v. UA Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439, 449 (N.D.

22 Cal. 1994).

23

Plaintiffs have alleged that they suffer the same harm as members of the

24 class - to wit, lack of meaningful access to the City's public pedestrian rights of

25 way. (Complt. at ,-r,-rs3, 61; Pit's Mem at 20:19-21.) For example, barriers in the

26 5 Defendants also argue that no common question exists as to the ADA claim because sidewalks and curbs are not

27

part of the "services, programs, or activities" that Title II of the ADA regulates. (Defs Opp at 9:7 through 13:8) (citing Frame v. City ofArlington, 616 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2010)). That argument is foreclosed by Barden v. City of

Sacramento. 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that curbs and sidewalks are included in "services, programs,
28 or activities" under Title II).

6

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 59 Filed 01/03/11 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:1315

1 City's sidewalks that prevent Plaintiffs from accessing the sidewalk are

2 representative of the barriers that class members may encounter. (Complt. at

3 ~~23-24, 31-32, Pit's Mem at 21:1-6). Furthermore, the Plaintiffs argue that their

4 claims and the class claims are based on the same legal theories. (!d. at 20:22-23.)

5 Defendants argue that the class is so broadly defined that the Plaintiffs' claims

6 cannot be typical of the class claims, but they do offer any explanation as to why

7 this so. (Def's Opp at 21:1-16).6

8

Plaintiffs have satisfied the typicality requirement of Rule 23 in this case.

9 Plaintiffs' injury stems from the same legal theory- that Defendants' policies and

10 practices regarding access to pedestrian rights of way violate federal and state

11 nondiscrimination laws. Plaintiffs also allege that they suffer the same type of

12 harm as class members.

13

D. Adequate Representation

14

Rule 23(a) requires that "the representative parties will fairly and

15 adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). To meet

16 this requirement, Plaintiffs must show that they "do not have conflicts of interest

17 with the proposed class, and... are represented by qualified and competent

18 counsel." Dukes, 603 F.3d at 614. Adequate representation is usually presumed

19 in the absence of contrary evidence. See 3 Newberg§ 7:24 at 78.

20

Plaintiffs allege that they are willing and able to be advocates for the class.

21 (Complt. at ~62.) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not shown adequacy as

22 class representatives because they have not disclosed evidence of their financial

23 ability to carry out this litigation. (Def's Opp at 22: 10-13). Defendants also

24 challenge the ability of Plaintiffs' counsel to be qualified counsel because,

25 according to Defendants, Plaintiffs' attorneys have engaged in forum shopping.

26 6 According to Defendants', the class is defined so broadly that it "include[s] every possible person live or who will

27

be born on the plane." However, Plaintiffs' class requires that a person (1) have mobility disabilities (2) be denied access to pedestrian rights of way (3) as a result of Defendants' policies with regard to the City's pedestrian

walkways and disability access. Plaintiffs' proposed class definition is therefore unlikely to include every person
28 who is living or may be born.

7

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 59 Filed 01/03/11 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:1316

1 (/d. at 22:20-28, 23: 1-7). In their reply, Plaintiffs argue that class counsel is

2 advancing costs for the class action, and that they chose to file suit in federal court

3 rather than face an indefinite stay of discovery and motion practice in state court.

4 (Plaintiffs' Reply to Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification ("Pit's

5 Reply") at 10:1-20).

6

Defendants do not argue that there is any conflict of interests between the

7 Plaintiffs and the proposed class. They challenge the adequacy of counsel, but

8 even note that the Disability Rights Legal Center has a well-earned reputation as

9 an advocate for individuals with disabilities. (Def's Opp at 22:14-15.) The Court

10 finds that Plaintiffs would adequately protect the interests of the class and that

11 Plaintiffs' counsel is adequate under Rule 23.

12 II. Rule 23(b) Requirements

13

Rule 23(b) provides that "[a] class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is

14 satisfied and if ... the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on

15 grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or

16 corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole."

17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is proper "if class

18 members complain of a pattern or practice that is generally applicable to the

19 class." Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998).

20

Plaintiffs' argue that certification is proper because the class claims arise

21 from deficiencies within the City's policies and practices related to pedestrian

22 rights of way that apply to the entire class. (Pit's Mem at 23: 19-22). Furthermore,

23 the Plaintiff class only seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. (!d. at 23:22-23).

24 Defendants reiterate their arguments against a finding of commonality and

25 typicality. (Def's Opp at 23:10-19).

26

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed and continue to fail to

27 comply with anti-discriminatory federal and state statutes in the City's

28 implementation of its policies and practices with regard to pedestrian rights of

8

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 59 Filed 01/03/11 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:1317

1 way. (Complt. at ,-r57). This allegation fits squarely into the type of claim that is

2 certified under Rule 23(b)(2), and Defendants' arguments regarding the lack of

3 commonality and typicality are unpersuasive. See supra, Section I.B; I.C. The

4 Court thus finds that the proposed class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(2).

5 III. Defendant's Evidentiary Objections

6

Defendants raise numerous objections to declarations submitted by

7 Plaintiffs in support of the Motion. Because the Court accepts as true the

8 allegations in the Complaint, see In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in

9 Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 691 F.2d at 1342, the Court has not considered

10 the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs and finds the allegations sufficient for

11 certification. Defendants' objections are therefore overruled as moot. See, e.g.,

12 DeFazio v. Hollister, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1050 n.4 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ("To

13 the extent the objections concern evidence not relied upon, they are moot.")

14

CONCLUSION

15

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs'

16 Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED. The plaintiff class is defined as

17 follows: All persons with mobility disabilities who have been denied access to

18 pedestrian rights of way in the city of Los Angeles as a result of Defendants'

19 policies and practices with regard to its pedestrian rights of way and disability

20 access. The class is certified for injunctive and declaratory relief only. The class

21 claims are Count I (alleging violations of the ADA) and Count II (alleging 22 violations of the Rehabilitation Act) of Plaintiffs' Complaint.7 Plaintiffs Mark

23 Willits, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, and CALIF are the class representatives.

24 Disability Rights Legal Center and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky,

25 LLP are appointed class counsel. Pursuant to the discretion afforded the Court

26 II

27 II

28 7 The Court, in a separate order, has dismissed the other claims from this suit.

9

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 59 Filed 01/03/11 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:1318

1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(A) and 23(d), the Court waives

2 notice to the class members for the purpose of class certification only.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

5
6 DATED: January 3,_, 2011
7 8

By ~ 1!),-:z._.,.---..:.-,=-------
CONSUELO B. MARSHALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:14611

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

1 1 MARK WILLITS,JUDY GRIFFIN, Case No.: CV 10-05782 CBM(RZx)

BRENT PILGREEN and

12 COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING

INDEPENDENT &FREE("CALIF"), ORDER GRANTING FINAL

13 on behalfofthemselves and all others APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION

similarly situated,

SETTLEMENT

14

Plaintiffs, 15 vs.

16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES,a public entity,
17
Defendant. 18

19

The parties' Joint Motion For Final Approval ofthe Class Action

20 Settlement(Dkt.No.387,the"Motion")came on for hearing on August 2,2016.

21

The Court,having considered whether to order final approval ofthe

22 Settlement Agreement,having read and considered all ofthe papers and argument

23 ofthe parties and their counsel,having granted preliminary approval on February

24 29,2016,having directed that notice be given ofpreliminary approval ofthe

25 Settlement Agreement and the final approval hearing,having received and

26 considered the objections to the Settlement Agreement,having heard statements

27 from one objector/class member on August 2,2016,and good cause appearing,

28 grants final approval ofthe Settlement Agreement and finds as follows:

1

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 61 Page ID #:14612

1

1. All defined terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as

2 set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

3

2. The Court hasjurisdiction over the subject matter ofthis action,

4 Plaintiffs,the Settlement Class,the Settlement Agreement,and the City.

5

3. The Court finds that the notice to the Settlement Class ofthe

6 pendency ofthis action and ofthe proposed settlement was disseminated by each

7 ofthe means required under the Settlement Agreement and the orders ofthis

8 Court(see Dkt. No.357,364,370),and was otherwise fully implemented.

9

4. The Court finds that such notice to the Settlement Class, as ordered

10 and implemented, was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise

1 1 the Settlement Class Members ofthe pendency ofthis action, all material

12 elements ofthe proposed Settlement, and their opportunity(a)to submit written

13 objections to or comments on the settlement, and(b)to appear at the Fairness

14 Hearing to object to or comment on the settlement. The Notice ofSettlement was

15 reasonable and the best notice practicable to all Settlement Class Members and

16 complied with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure,due process,and all other

17 applicable laws and rules. A full and fair opportunity has been afforded to the

18 members ofthe Settlement Class to participate during the Fairness Hearing,and

19 all other persons wishing to be heard have been heard. Accordingly,the Court

20 determines that all members ofthe Settlement Class, as set forth below,are bound

21 by this Order.

22

5. On February 29,2016,this Court conditionally certified the

23 following Settlement Class,as defined in the Settlement Agreement:

24

All persons(including, without limitation,residents ofand visitors to

25

the City)with any Mobility Disability, who,at any time from the

beginning oftime through the term ofthis Settlement Agreement: 26

27

(i) accessed or attempted to access a Pedestrian Facility

located in the City but were impaired or unable to do so

28

due to any barrier or condition rendering such

2

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 61 Page ID #:14613

1

Pedestrian Facility not suitable or sufficient for use; or

2

(ii) allege that they would have accessed or attempted to

access a Pedestrian Facility located in the City but for

3

allegedly being denied such access due to any barrier or

4

condition rendering such Pedestrian Facility not suitable

or sufficient for use. 5

6 (Dkt. No.357.)

7

6. On February 29,2016,this Court appointed Plaintiffs Mark Willits,

8 Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, and CALIF as class representatives ofthe Settlement

9 Class,and appointed the following counsel as Class Counsel to represent the

10 Settlement Class: (i)Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns,LLP;(ii)

1 1 Goldstein, Borgen,Dardarian & Ho;(iii)The Legal Aid Society -Employment

12 Law Center; and(iv)the Disability Rights Legal Center. (Dkt. No.357.)

13

7. The Court finds that the Settlement Class continues to meet the

14 requirements for class certification under Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil

15 Procedure and all other applicable laws and rules. In particular,the Court finds

16 that: (a)joinder ofall Settlement Class Members in a single proceeding would be

17 impracticable,ifnot impossible,because oftheir numbers and dispersion;(b)

18 there are questions oflaw and fact common to the Settlement Class;(c)Plaintiffs'

19 claims are typical ofthe claims ofthe Settlement Class that they seek to represent

20 for purposes ofsettlement;(d)Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are represented

21 by qualified,reputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting

22 class actions,including those involving the sort ofpractices alleged in the

23 Complaint;(e)Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately

24 represented the interests ofthe Settlement Class and will continue to do so; and(~

25 injunctive reliefis appropriate to the Settlement Class.

26

8. Class certification is therefore an appropriate method for protecting

27 the interests ofthe Settlement Class and resolving the common issues offact and

28

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 61 Page ID #:14614

1 law arising out ofthe Plaintiffs' claims while also eliminating the risk of

2 duplicative litigation. Accordingly,the Court hereby makes final its earlier

3 conditional certification ofthe Settlement Class and further confirms the

4 appointment ofthe Class Representatives and Class Counsel to represent the

5 Settlement Class, as set forth above.

6

9. The Court grants final approval ofthe Settlement set forth in the

7 Settlement Agreement and finds that it is fair, reasonable, adequate,and in the

8 best interests ofthe Settlement Class as a whole. The Court further finds that the

9 City's expenditure ofthe amounts set forth in Section 12.2 ofthe Settlement

10 Agreement for the purposes set forth in the Settlement Agreement is proper and

1 1 reasonably calculated based on the available information to maintain and ensure

12 accessibility ofthe existing Pedestrian Facilities located in the City ofLos

13 Angeles to persons with Mobility Disabilities. Accordingly,the Settlement shall

14 be consummated in accordance with the terms and conditions ofthe Settlement

15 Agreement.

16

10. Based on the parties' stipulation and the evidence provided by the

17 parties(Dkt. No.409),the Court finds:

18

(a) the City's implementation ofthe Settlement Agreement

19

assures that the City's Pedestrian Facilities, when viewed in

their entirety, are readily accessible to and usable by

20

individuals with Mobility Disabilities;

21 (b) the Settlement Agreement sets forth a reasonable time period

22

and reasonable expenditures offunding for making necessary

23

improvements to assure that the City's Pedestrian Facilities,

when viewed in their entirety, are readily accessible to and

24

usable by individuals with Mobility Disabilities; and

25

(c) there is no evidence before the Court that the City has

26

intentionally discriminated or acted with deliberate

indifference against individuals with Mobility Disabilities. 27

28

1 1. The objections to the Settlement are overruled.

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 5 of 61 Page ID #:14615

12. The Class Representatives and all Settlement Class members(and

2 their respective heirs, assigns,successors,executors, administrators,agents and

3 representatives)are conclusively deemed to have released and forever discharged

4 the City and its Related Entities from all Released Claims.

5

13. All Settlement Class members are conclusively deemed to have

6 acknowledged that the Released Claims may include claims,rights, demands,

7 causes ofaction,liabilities, or suits that are not known or suspected to exist as of

8 the date ofthe Settlement Agreement and shall have released all Released Claims

9 against the City and its Related Entities. Further,in accordance with the

10 Settlement Agreement,all Settlement Class members are deemed to have waived

1 1 any and all protections,rights and benefits ofCalifornia Civil Code§ 1542 and any

12 comparable statutory or common law provision ofany otherjurisdiction.

13

14. The benefits described in the Settlement Agreement are the only

14 consideration,fees, costs and expenses that the City shall be obligated to give to

15 any party or entity,including without limitation the Class Representatives,

16 Settlement Class members,and Class Counsel in connection with the claims

17 asserted in the Class Action Complaint,the Settlement Agreement,and/or the

18 payment ofattorneys' fees, costs,and expenses.

19

15. The Settlement Agreement is not an admission ofliability or fault by

20 the City or its Related Entities. The Settlement Agreement and this Order is not a

21 finding ofthe validity ofany claims in this.action or ofany wrongdoing or

22 violation oflaw by the City or its Related Entities. The Settlement Agreement is

23 not a concession by the Parties and,to the fullest extent permitted by law,neither

24 this Order,nor any ofits terms or provisions,nor any ofthe negotiations or

25 proceedings connected with it, shall be offered as evidence or received in evidence

26 in any pending or future civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding to

27 establish any liability of, or admission by the City,its Related Entities, or any of

28 them. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to

5

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 6 of 61 Page ID #:14616

1 prohibit the use ofthis Order in a proceeding to consummate or enforce the

2 Settlement Agreement or Order,or to defend against the assertion ofReleased

3 Claims in any other proceeding,or as otherwise required by law.

4

16. In accordance with the terms ofthe Settlement Agreement, which is

5 attached hereto as Exhibit A,the Court reserves exclusive and continuing

6 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs,the Settlement Class members,the City,and the

7 Settlement Agreement throughout the term ofthe Settlement Agreement,for the

8 sole purpose ofsupervising the implementation,enforcement,construction, and

9 interpretation ofthe Settlement Agreement and this Order. In that regard,any

10 challenges to the Settlement Agreement's terms or implementation shall be subject

1 1 to the exclusive and continuingjurisdiction ofthis Court.

12

13 'i

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

15 DATED: August 25,2016. 16 17

Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall United States District Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 7 of 61 Page ID #:14617

1

EXHIBIT A

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

~~~

7

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 8 of 61 Page ID #:14618

~T':~T~°~'ED S'1'T 1)I~'~'Fti~T C`(~i.l~tT ~.'I~;N`TitA~ I>ITII~1C"'T ~~'GALIFCIRN~I

Ivl.A~ Vw'I~.~LITS,J~L1T~'~'~Ri1~IN,~R~I~J"T` PILGR~:~~E.and CC1MA~tJ I`I~ES ACfi~V~I,Y LIVING II~D~P ANT &

base ~1c~. ~V Its-O5?82 C~3 i(1tZx~

Pla~z~ti `s, v.
4.~~ i 1J~ ~~ t11.V #J~+l....~y
~t~i1C~1[lt.
17 1 l~ 0 a~

3 ~~ ~S ~b ~7. ~g ,
N~. +~i~ I~-US782 GSM(~t~x)
5E'd!"7~.~1v~'i"A{rTdf;F=.h7T-;N'1 A:vi)12.~LM~:~S~C)~C"1,AIt~9S

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 9 of 61 Page ID #:14619

l
ETTL~~~T A~R~+ E.119~N'I' A~i`D R~I.~~A,:~ C}F C'IpAI. S

This Set~~tn~~i greetnr~nt and Reims ofChinas(thy ~`~~~nt~ ~mer~t")i made 3
aid ant rid in~a by aid b~t~r r~: Vii)the ~.; ty cifL~ An l~s(thy ~`~ ty"~~o the ar~~ hand;and {ii}

C~ rnunities ~~tiv~l~ Living Ind p~nd~ntand Fri{"4"~LIF")~ a n+~~-prt~fii c+ar or~ti t~,and

~a~rrlc 1~V hits,Judy Criitt~ i ar t ~il~ n r~il~tiv~ly,the"W Nits Pl~.int `sue),in~liv~d lly

~a snd a~ ~eh~1~`caft icy selves d ~ elms carp

sir~nil l}~ ~itt~~tc~d(th+~ ~ ttl~ eni Cass,"as

7
def~e~! ln~v),tin t~ ath~r d.

C,~LI~° end t:~~ Willits ~'laintiff sh~1 r~ferr d w in this ~~~le~nn t ~1, re~e st
9
e~ll~~tivel~ ~s "Plaintiffs." p'laintiff's ~n~ t +~it~ h l b~ f+errrr~d 1~ in ~i~s ~tt3 ent ~4 +ant 1 t~
i~da'v pit ly as ~"party},Ord il~ctiv~ly ~s the °'~'~ties.~' 1 1.

l REC~T~L

l °~'T~is S~ttl~e ant Ag~rn~~ai is rnsd~ Azad i~r~rt ~ ~a ~v t ref+ rr ace tea t ae ~ollauaing fads:

1A A. C~ai D ~mtaer i~,2l ~;, S~~r~dr,~ ~rt~r and nine other i i~idua~s co mp a

15 ~l~ss ref ~n ~

t. Gib i~ the rice°Curtcafthe to icif i~`orni€~firthe ~~rza~~y t~~Lca

1.6 A~a~,el~s the" up~eric~x +Court"),~ 1'+t+~. BBC 3+~3~t~{. ~n D ~~nn ~r ~, +~}?,~l' ~c~l F ~ ae

17 ct~znr~c~nnced acuss ~~tic~r~ a~;„ ~n~ti pity in t1 ~uperi~~r Caurt, Aio. BC'381'7'x . {>n

~ 8'' J~nu~ry ~7,"~~11,the Superiardo t ~vn~+~l~~~te~the a~ciit~n~ Winder~TtiT~~ S 363 ~}S ~~~

19' "~.' t~r/~'~hmi~ 1~iit~n"~.
~~ i. ~. C}nI)~E r II,~Od,~,~'ictvr ~'i~ da ;~l~i A ,tali ~ly~,sta~~ ~i~~ "Pin yFl ~if'fs")

~~ anti ~ALiF ~c~~ntnn~nnced a ~l~ss ~~tic~n ~~,a r~i the City and v~ricaus ir~di~~idual ci~;i`endau~ts in t

2 Sup~~ic~r t'~u~,~~t~cr. ~ X13327 ~~he"I'inedu ~~ti~n"). I the cc~mp~int,theP neti

~3 Print ~f`~ d '.~LTF all~~~d Blair underthe.A~cri~ with I3is~b l tip Act t~f 19313(fie

2~ `<ADA")~ tiota 5 4 cifthe It~ha~il tia~ti~n Apt of]973 ~t~ii "R~habil tatit~~a ►ct")g G~lifc~mia

~5 G~vet~at~~ent G §~ ~1135, ~t s~r~., ~Ca1i1'arni~ Civil +~o~ §§ 51, ~t ~~., ~nnd ~ali~mia

2G +Gs~~ rent Cie X50, ~t ~~ , Gn July ~i~ 2~1C~, the Pig 'l imo's Filed a ~t nend i

~7 f ~~m lair~t, vYl~ic , n~an ~aih~r ilhi~ } elirr~inat~~ tie c~~ ~ll~g~~t ons tF # ~~d n sit firth in t~

8 ~ ari~in~l canngl~int.

l

base 1~Ic~. C1~ l~?-b57$~ C$7~ ItZx

~E't'f7.~Mf~VT 1~~rRE'k.1v1~°~tv'~` eSJ+I Rl.t,t;t5F C.i'r1.ATA,1S

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 10 of 61 Page ID #:14620

l ~. t~tt ~u~u~~t ~# ~~lt~, ~laintif'f~ ~am~n~nn~ a clams ~c~ ~n against the ~iiy ~.n~l ir~x~s

n~ivi~ual d~fe~ad is in the I3~i~~1 Sts~ies I~ s~ri~i G~aurt fir the ~~zztr~l 13istrict Qf~ forma (the

3 ~`IAastrict ~crurt"~. Gam1~ca. ~V 1~-~57~~ ~BNi (R.Z~) (the "~i111rs ~~tiar~"~. In~

Wit,

4 Ply ntifts ali~~ claims un~~r t ADA, Sec~ic~n ~(~~ c~~'th~ Rehabilitatian Apt, C~1 ft~ is

5 Crav~rrxr~ent ~Craci~ ~§l7135, ~~.r~q., ~~ farni~ ~' vl~c~d~ ~1, ~t .sag.} ~~I:ifc~mi C.3crv~a~ nt

Ccx1~ ~ ~~5t?, t .~~y. and ~ l~f~rn ~ civil ~'od~ §§ ~4* ~1s~r~. ~n fi ber l(1, ~ltl, the Dish ct 7
~~ur~. arcl~r ~l~int~i~s' claims urger C;~lifurnia lave diem s~ ~vi~t~c~ut p~r~j ciic.~, t~ pux~u d in 8
ate court. 9
~. t7n IVI~rch 15, ~+~11, the V~'illi~s Pl~.i t ffs me d ~ pct o~ ainst t~~ City .n a C~
the u Briar Curt,~N~. ~C 45I4(?3 ~th~ "er n Ac ~n"). In ~ complaint, #h~' i1 ~ ll
Fiain~if~s ~Il g+e~ cl~i~s under Cat ~rrii~ Ciflv~ ant Cade ~ 1l135, et sey., Califcami~ Civil
l Cede ~1, et seq. end ~la~c~m ~ ~avernm~nt Cca~ § ~45fl, et s~9-
13 ~. Chh~ Ja~u~ry 3, 2 11, the I3istrict Csurt in t ~'~llits ~'lctic~~t ~ra~ni~ ~e il~its
14 I'l n~iifs' u~ati~n far clays rtifcaiic~n p~ursu~nt ~c~ RuJc~ 23{b~?) ~f tie F~ci+~ra1 Rules caf +~ir~°il
l~ Pr ure. "~'h~ Uis~ric~ court c~rtifi~d t f~lla~wim~ ~l~ s n~'p~rsc~ns ford l~a~c~~ i
~f~ ianju~ciive relic ~rr~1y; `~AII persons c~i~h ~ ~b ~ ty di~abili~i whc~ h~.~+~ been denied amass to
17 p~e~ttr:~ian r~ his ~vf wad z~ tl~e ~i y o Los Angel as a r~u~t ~f ~7efe tent's ~crt~ and racfi~c s
18 vwiih °d to i~.s pie are rights t~~ ~v~~r and ~ s~ iii mss,°'
l 5► ~'. Duri~ the pe~de~xc.y t~f tl~e Pir~~d'a A.ctian, ih~ YT' flits .~cticrn end the Carr ira ~lcfi~on
~► ll~ctiv~~~r, `~A titan "),i ~ pity, ~'lain~ifi`s ~a ~i C',l~~s ~ai el ~a~ d~fine~ tael~w and
~1 ~xie~~ v~ di~cav~ry a~ e~~a~e.~ in extensive t~iscu~sirsns ce~ardi~~; a pc~ euta~l rest~lutipn d
~~ s~#lem~r~t after alle~~i caa~ms, including i~ nraet~~atior~ l~~orr~ }~r~vaie m l~~:t rs. 1~s a r~~ul~ t~f
~~ ~u~ discus~ic~n ,the P~rti~s nom wish to effect ~. oamgl~t~ resalutic~n ~:nd se~tl~~a t taf the ~laarns~
A ~ispu~~s. and contrr~versi r~latin~ icy the ~11~~atic~ns ~ ~"laini~f~s ~d tie ~tt~ezn~nt less, and tc~
5 r~sol~°e their diff'er~nces anc~ ~iisp~utes by settling such claims dis~~rtes cr~ntr~~versie~ a der t o
26 terms set f,~rth in t3~i~ Settlement .r~gr gent.
27 G. In +enter~n~ ira~a tehi~ #~lement~ tie Parii intend tea z~s~ly~ any axed all. c1~i~r~ns that

e~f~r v~ere or ctaulc~ have been asserted in tie ~c~~caras Sara ~a~f trf ind~v d~al~ wiila l~~obility
~~se Na. ~V 1~-t~7R2 ~B~"f ~
S~s"I'9°L~~i rTl' ACa~'rAN~ ftt`.LL.A~t ~:a~ C~~

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 11 of 61 Page ID #:14621

I l~ sabilii~es fir c cl tc~ry d i~~unct v~ relief at r ~ to tt~e s~c~ sib~ility a~'t: pity,

2 P ~stria~n ~ ilit~es.

~i~ set~le;nen~t ~s ~~c~re:sly int~nd~d tc~ a~.sur~ ~.h~1 na fiutttier l~~rsits fc~r

3 th~sse ct~i

ford i

ary and inj ctiv~ r~~iefr~am~y ~ ~ra~i~~ta ~i~i ~k any time during tie Term f

1hi~ ~~ttlem~nt Agr~ae~.
T ~ F'~rta intend this ettl~m~nt~.~rc~:~ncnt t+~ bind and ~apiy °t pity,its 6 R.ela2~ ~ntiti~.s(~s ~efine~ belot~},~AI~T~,the I~illi~ P'`l~i~t~ff~ ~in~i vidu~ ly a~c~ in th~.~r La ity 7 r~p~ser~t~ ~~ ~f'2~i~ e ~ ~n~ ~l~s~)~ill ~:nib~rs ofth~ ~ettl exit ~"l~ss, T' is S ttl~ et~t.fig mint shill + tin u sh X11 R lid C'lairn~ has defined it~~v) to c~anskitx~i st~a~

f ,al a~td c~+niplet~ res~lutit7t~ s~~' l i~;sues acid~d l~r~i~n, Ifs
II. 11

~~

~c~~ pu s c,f i 1~mer~t.~.~r ent,the fall~~ri~ arms h~v~ cY ~'+a1l~ in

l3 ~;fzaiiions:

l~

1~.. `°Acc~~s biliCy L.~~vs'" gat all local, si~et~ and f~ti~rr~11 tav~ss d r ulatiuti

l5 uir ~a rc~motir~ ,a d~~r ~n~a~~ara~ ~~ ~~u~1 ~r ~ rxnv~ ace~~s tc~ persons wit}a ~i~a~~~t ~s

1 ~i (~ncl~~ n ,withoutlimit c~ ,t~~ folly i~g: ~h~ Am~rri s with D sabili~ ~~tt cif199~U,

~'~ Ll_5.~. ~ 121 11,e~.~~g. d all c~~`its im~lemet~t n~ r~gul~t arts at~d design.

t d~;tie

1$ R hhabi~itatic~n pctc+f 1~73~ ~~ 1:~. .C, ~ 7~fl,~t~~>y. a~t~ ill t~fais im l~rn~nt a~ re~;ul~tic~ and

l9 design siandarc~s;lJa~ Uru~uh .Act, dal,~"iv. ~c~ie ~ 51,~t seq~;the I~is~bled P~r~ ,Acct, C .Ciw.

2~ ~~ie 5~,etsag.; ~~l fern a Gc~verr~m t ~r~ci~ § 4~35a,e~.s~ .~ dal fc~rn~i~ ~c~~c~nam~~t Cc~+d~ §§

~1 l 1135a ~t s~,~. ~~l~fc~rni~ H Ith

~ife~ty

~ ~ ~~'95~,~tseq.;and.ih~ r~gulatic~ns co~i~~c~ in

22 Title ~4 taf ~ ilifoini~ Cade ~fl~egttlatia~s).

2~ B. "AAA G~crrciir tc~r fc~r the Pet~estri~n ~i ht c+~'V ey>" ~stla~ rte ~~iciva! rar

~4 ind v~d s aineci c~a~ ~~i

by the City p~.u~s~a i to end in a~e+~rd~nc~ vv h the t~r~r~~ oaf

5 I ectian 1~ b~l~v~.

~~i

C,

Su l ~c~m it ip' me~uns the fit~ds cor~mit#~d by the G ty pursuant t~ t~s

7 ~tl nen

ant ~ nua~ly fir the dur icon ~fth Ct~ pii~n P far the Prv~ A~eess

~~ Tmpr+~v ants d ~t~~r uses ~x~ressly~ id~nti° ~d ~n 1~i~ S~tilem t

rn~ nt,

3

~i~ia. +~''1U-057~2~BAA~t It a~

Sk"'1"f1.EA~i~fiT F'tL'sR:C'"~f~h~"j`J1,~+'T?R~I.~hSE C3F

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 12 of 61 Page ID #:14622

1 I~. "~~rter ~' mie S t:~l~e~~nt Afire ~~nt'" rxyca«s the ettlern t gs~n~nt and

~tel~ cifC~~ rn~ b~~w n ~e Ctty ~n~i ~Iainti#~s ix~ tl C'~rt~r,~,~"a~ ie~ Apt an sub~ta~~t ~.11y iz~ the 3
fc~rtn mtt~ch~d to this ~cttlen~ent A~;recnlcnt ~.~ .~hibit •`~A.'».

~, ~°pity ~auncit" rn~:a~~s tie Lc~~ 1~a ~i s pity +C;~unc 1.

F, "C"l~.~s C~~un~~l" m~tas ct~ll~ti~ely t~;~ l~~v firm of`~chn i ~r ~~allac~ ~nttrell i
I~cn~eck~ Wc~t yns,LLF~,the lair arm c~~ ~rldstein ~ar~ n ~~rd~n~n ~I~€~, the Dis~t~ility t~.ight 7
T g~1 C. trend the L~ ~1 raid ~`~c ~t}~ -~ ~rrr~lc~~er~t La~au C~ tear.

C. "Com~X ante ~ric~'° eazts the period caftime ire whichthe City v~ill have

vbl~g t~n~ under ectic~n ]~ c~ftk~is ~Ime~~t l~~r~n~~nt.

1 ~1 H. " ~umess k~~ar n~"nay sthe hh~ n~ to held by tl Dist~iict +Cowwrt, pur~~nt~c~

11 Rule 3(e~ ~~'th~ ~r~l Ru1~~ ofG ~rsl P`r+~cedur~~ to ~et~sm~n ethert~ s~#tl~ ~~at ss~t fos11~ in

l t~ ~ ~~ttle ant A~recmcnt should t~ pr~v~d.

~3 I. "~in~*~' as a li l to th+e term "Jug .~ni"(as d ~c b la ,meansthz~t(i)ih

14 timre far ~rpp~al +~r w°rit h~~ expired and n~ appeal ~~r titit~r~ fc~r ~~w bin tale,,trr(i~}if~n

~~ a p ox ~titio for r+ ti~~ is t~~ n mad th+~ ~~ttl~rn~nt s~~ firth in ibis ttl aen gr~emen~ has

1S b to af~~~ci in full,the t~rne p~ric~ci d~n~ r~rhic any ~itr ~r as peal ~r r~~i r~r c~bt;sought

17' {~cludir►~ t~rau~h au~~ ~p ~~,p~iit ~n ~'or r~vaew~ writ cif ~rti~rat~i ~r ~ih~r~vis ) h e~p r i~n

l8! no such fi~rth~r a~ ~ car rer~i~ has been u ,ht. Tn the ~v~nt that r~ c~~j t o s tca tlx: s S+ee~l~rn t

19 .'~ Agneernn~nt ~r~ raisedprig to car ~~ t Fairness e~rin~, that y ~►bjectivns that 2~v~~rased
~~ have h~e►~ i'ull~ and formally ~ui~hc wn, ar mat r►a ~ a l~ c~bj ~iu~as r~ ens ~e exist t the time of

2l the ai~n~as H~~ing the Jud ens sh~11 b rc~~ ~'~in~l`° t~f the I?~strict Court's isc of t

22 Jud nent, If fhe Judgrn~ent is s~;t aside, mat~rial~y c~di ~ci, ~i>~ap v car €~~ert

by any

~3 ct~urt, end i~ nc~# fully r~in:~~#~ted nn #der appeal ar r~vi~r~r, the Ju~i~nent s1~a11 t one crr b~

2

2~ J. ~` nil ,A p~a~ " m~~n t, c~r~~r bye t +~ Di~irict C~w°~, a~i~:~r Mice ar~d ~h~ hc~~~i
2~i c~ftl~+~ air~a~~ ~~arins~, wanting p~'c~va~ cif` this Se~e~ nt Ahern t under Rule ~~a t~f ih~
~~ ~€xier~.t RuI~~ cif ~ v 1 Fr~ce~ur~.
2~

~.~mm

~

~Va. ~V ti-0S782 CBArI ~RZae~

SF3"TT.F'~1T'~'I' A~RFI-!~~tE~.T ~iIJA R.~1.~,ASE ~~ +GL~IMS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 13 of 61 Page ID #:14623

K. "Gri~v~nc ~le~aa" ~nean~ t.~ pat ty aa~ ~rac~ ute fcsr t~~ s~zb~nissic~n a~ `

~ri~vanr sate mpl nts b ~~t~1 ant Class r mfr ,~ssit firth in S~~ti~n]7 lo~v.

3 i

L, ``Ju tn~nt"mss~j~ gm t ~nt~ d key the I~►isir ct Cr~urt i~ the ~'illzts pct can,

~' substa~t~~lly i~ the f~~

atia~d t~ this S~ttl~~nn

t Arm~n1~s ~~ch~it "T~°', tbat, amt~~~ vth~r

~ 'i t in~;~, fully ~ppmves the t rnrn~ss ca `this Settl~zr~~nt ~~, r~eme t mad retains thei) strict Court's

~i juri~dic~on t~ er~fat~c,~ t.~~ S~ttlemc:nt A~ m~z~t thraur~ v t its term.

71 M. " ~~ayar'~ mans the h~~yar cif i~~ ~'ity ~f I..c~s ~n ~~~s.

8

P+~. "Mobility I)is~bility" ~r "~rlability T)it;abiliiies" r~e~ns guy i anent ~►r xne.~ ca

9 c~ndit~c~n that limits a per nos ~l~ility t~

]l~,

abul~, ~n~neuver ~ro~nc~ t~bj ts, ter to ascend yr

lfl d~sc~n~ epps ~r ~1~

A pion v~ritl~ ~:~S+ability I~is~k~ility may car may nit ~ ~ u~het;l~h~i~,

l ~t~r, et t~ac renal ass step m~~il t device, matches,

r, , brar.~, ~thop~dic d~vvic~,

12 or similar ~q~i merit ~r devisee ~U as.~ist her ~r his nav ~ric~~ ~lan~ ~ d wal a ~r may be ~n -

l~

1 ~# C}. "N~iic~ o~ the enter m the nc~t c+~ ~u st ~ial~y intie ~~rna attachett tc~ this
1S ettlernent Air meet E~~hibit "E~'~, try pr~vidcd to e S~tti~mm~nt +lass sit f~rr~ in t~ r~
lb l b.5 b~~~v~,
1"l ~'. g4Pede~tri F' cil t~" car "Pe~i~st~i~n acil tie "etas y s~rl~v~1 ,i~1: rs ion,
l8 c.ra~alk:, strre~t, euurr ,curb ramp, r~~~l~r~v~.~ pe~estriat~ right of way, ped~~iria:~ undec+c~rcas`siing,
]9 ~etle~tri ta~ver~rassi~ , or c~t`h~r p~~~stria~ p~thwyay ~r walk of ~a l~in~i th~i ~, in wwhol~ ~r ix~
2~l part, ca n n roll ar ~ni~intain~ by +~r a rwis~ within tl~e r~.~pc>ns ~ility t~f tY~e City c~ Lc►s
3 An gle .
22 t~. "P Iiminaty Approve]" me ih~ prelim n ' 'pr~rv~il,~f~:hi~ ~i1er~~nt
23 ~~ et by `t1~ I~istrirt ~,s t a~ r~esr`► in Se~ti~ ~.~ beimw~,
24 R.~ "~'r~gram ~.c~ess" m applicat~l~ ~c ibilit~+ Laws cl ding a bl c ~niity try
~~ ~p~~at~ h scrvic~, preagz~n, +~x activity so tit ~~ s iG , rrc~~gr~n~, ter activity, va~ki~n r*i~ ~ti
2~ its entir~t~s i~ r 1y~ ssibl~ t~ a~ai usable ~iy indi~-i~i~~ais withI~a~bi i~ IJ►isabi~it ~s.
27

5

~No. ~V 14-0578 C"I3M Ft~x

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 14 of 61 Page ID #:14624

1

S. "l~ra~gr~ Ac~c s Imp vern~nts" mews ali gram.~~ess xis ~rf~rmeci b~ ~r

ran halfc~~'tt~~ City tt~ 6rin ~ ~'e s~rian ~'acili~ ees i~ the ~ity~ ~nl~ cc~m li r,~ with ~pli+cakrte

I~►~e .~ ail tyI ns.

T. "Ftelat~si ~ntiti~s" ~n~aza~ any and ail ciepartm~nts, di~wis ans, a enci ,~ r u~,

C~C11I1IIiI.SSiillt~~ U~9C~y GClT~]r~` IC?I25, CC>1T13I21SSlt}Ittt`~ ~~i..t~2waa, CTTY~3ICi~~~S~ 5~~111:~a ~"~7~'t..S~T1~~]''5~ ,

rard ine~nl~r~~ oc~ai~s, assi~;n~ a~~~~rr~a ait~or~~s, ilat~~, pr~ces~, st~~scars;

~ pl~ye~ welfa~r~ t ne t plans, ~asic~~as~ ~r d~fer~° ca ~ensati~r~ plans (and ae~r dust s~

8 ~dmin s~r~t~rs, ~aad other fir~uci~ es) oaf the City anc ~n~r rather p~rs~r~ ~r entity t n;~ ~r ~~'~ir

9 t~ act.bye through,under, in ~n~ert vwitl~ or c~t~ bel lf of the Cii~, ter any cif chem, r~ith rese t to

1{~ ther~atter~ dcas~r bblinhis

ttl~m t A~r~+ement.

~1

U. "~ettleme~t +~l~ss" me~n~ tla~ class ~f all rsc~ns (inctudir~~ ~iflaaut l~nitatic~n~

1 residents oaf and visitors to t~ City with any Mohiiity Disability, ~nc~~~ at any tine fr~rn the

1~ be , nn n~ oafii e ~hr~ug ~ il~e arm of this tittle +ant Ag tint ~~s sct c~rth in fiction 8 b~lc~w):

14

~ } used air atidempt+~d t~ access ~.P~xles~tri~a itity l

a`~n the Ci~r but

15 werre i~tparid car un bl~ t~ c~t~ sr~ clue c~ any baz~ri~r or + ~ditic~~z re~tic~in~ such T'e~iestr~an facility

16 ~t suitably ~r ~ufficie~t ~'ar ,or

17

(ii) lteg~ thai they would av~ ~ :s~~l err attempted to ac~~ss ~ P~dcst~ an

!: i ~acitity lc~a

in tfi~ pity iit ~c~r agile ~d1~ being denied

h ~

~iu~ t~ any l~~cr~►ear ~r

9 conditi~rn r~ rind h P~ssie~tr~an ~~cility nat suitable ter sufficient for use.

V, "Sixp~rt Costs"' rnceans candy thn incre~n~utal ~~t and earp~ ir~curr~d by tta~ ~1
pity as ~ result c~~ mpl~men ~ ~x perfarmin the t~ ~f this Settlement ~greeme~t which

1 wrauld nc~t sathervvise eve b~ incurred. fthe tez~ns ~F is ettlemcnt A ement tiidncrt racist.

2~i Far exannpl~, the term "Support ads#>' a~ ~dinbus

em~n t~,gr rn ~, s~a1 nit ~c rage t

24 i pry-~~i~ti ~ cta~ts ter e~.

s fctr cervices e~'vaxned by the pity ,t~ttt~rne~ caf L<as Angeles, or the

~i~ty~~ h~~yc~r, fit}$ c~un~il, ~l~i~ ~r~ministrative Q t r, or weir r~ ~~ave t~f~i~es ar s~t 'f, trr the

26 +~~nta~ra~ler* Per~ann~l ~~~

ent or Finance +e~artme~rt,

~7

28

6

Case Na. Cv l~-t~S7s? C t3M (~Z x)

5~1~'~.k~t~N'1' At~KIE,~1~N[' ~tiNll €t~7.F.A5~ (3~ ~L,~tI]~f~

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 15 of 61 Page ID #:14625

1

V~. "V~+'~'A,C"~~~ersic~r~ 2.t~ ~.~e~e1 A a~ad ofthe "i~+~eb Cc~nt~nt Ac+ sits lity

2 ~iuici~elines" publish~ci by the ~Je~s ~c~;~ssibility Tniti~t~v( e AID ~ft~ W'c~rld VViti~'~r' b

3 ~,~nsc~rtiu ( ~~~~ or any subsequent ~~rsiaz~~s) t'~tiet ears p~u lied d~rin~ ~e ~+vrrapl~anc P~~i .

~'

~ '.

C

7

~ '.

'

1 t~

11

1

~3

l~

lS

tb

17

1~

19

~~

22

23

2~

~5

6

7

2f3 ,

7

No. ~V l~.t~782C1~ RZx i

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 16 of 61 Page ID #:14626

I~.

2 AGRFT`!VTNfi

3

Nf)i~ Tl-~£:1:~?:1~~{~ for ~,c~~d an~i ~-a~uabl~ cc}ns +~erat +an,tl~ suf~icienc~ d receipt ~~°

v~rhi~~a is ~Zerre~ay ackn~vvl ged,tla~ ~'~:rti age asfc~~lt~w~s. S
1. Recitals
The roc tali sit c~rtl~i t~pv~ are in rrgc~r~ied b reference ia~ this Se~tioxt

made a pert of

this Settlement greezm+ent.

t~ :'~d s~i~~

The City k~~s Aden ~iand disputed, d caz~ti u stc~ deny ~aad ~iispuie t ~clams end

~U ~cc►nt niic►ns by ~"l z~tif~'s, end cis ~aat admit any lfa rility to "la ntif~`~ car ath z~vvis~. ~.3y

ing to

I1 and. v~lunt~rily ~nterin into hip et~lem~nn# A~ merit, them ~ na a~.~m3ssian or cc s icon y the

1? +~ tv, ci`trect gar n€lir~ct, exprc~s ~r implied, that any Periestrian facility 4tacatec~ in ih~e City i~ ia~t any

13 vvay in~r.~ess ble ~a ia~ciivi~u~ls with ~. Nl~~aa~ ty Dis ~ility, that tla~ pity ~av~~n~s or ~a~res~an.4ibility 1~ t:~ builci~ fia~~ ar r~mov+e barri~r~ xa a ens ~~ any B ch T.' d sttri~n F~~i~aty, car th~.t t pity ha.,~

~~ ~-~c~l~t~d and ccessihil~ty L,av~ , car~an~it~~d any r~ngdt~i fi c~~ has a~ay li~bil t~ fir aa~y ~l~~e~1

I fi r at es. 'I've ~Yty ~r~~s at admit army cntitltn~~nt h~l ;P1ain~i~f`s t~► any relic ,tar that ~'~ai~ti ham

17 attet or can eat tlae deg stasac rds far a ~ar~linninary car p~rm~n~nt injun crr~, +vr a declar~t~ary

18 jasd er~l to issue. I~or~a~aer~ 1t1GIll3It)Td Q Ob~i~RyTel~it?TIS ~}T CL'£~1Il TS1 23GLa I~? 1S ~~~~I~IIt

~~
A

~~t shill not ~siru ~i ass a ~a i+an ar ~~.rr~~ssion ,~bs ithis ~' tl~ ent

,~,grr ~~rat, the Katy ~~uld ~t e>rwi ~t~v~ such t~~i ~#~~t~.s car r~qui mints car that ~h~ C ity his

2~ fail~i tca ~,bi by sn ~pp~lir, bl~ pt~l cis car prcac~ gyres in tie pest, ~'o t~~ cvn~rar~, the ~it}~

2 rn~► a~t~. z~s that writhreact to all a~tt ~11e ~d ~y Ply n~ ,ith~ fully complied w tax ~l

2 A s:ibil:ity La~~ ar~d all taLh~r applic~b~~ la~~s ~i all rel~varnt t~me~,

~4 ~~ h~~ FiA~ii~~s ~wf Li~abli~v ~r "V~'r~n~don~

~5 The Parties un~~rst~.iui and a re that the l~ strict C~aurt m d~ nc, fn ~~s o~'an~ ~b lity ~r

2 w~ngdt~ n by tie City ~n the ~f'ill is Ac~iaz~. n aciditi~n, theDuct ~o ra~cie ~~, din+ ing~ that

7 t ;pity, with r ct to azay k'ede t ~.n F'ac li~i l tedi tl~ ~ i~: (~ acct n~tentic~nally tc~

8 discriminate ~gga nst p c+ s with ~ss~ ltai. ;iii) ~cied wi~:h r~cl~le~s d sr~g~rd of~rifis t~f

8

C ~c~. 1~U-0782 C~3~1

5~'1'i"L~r>MM~' A~a ~N"[' Ak~TT) It.I.AS CiF CI. M

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 17 of 61 Page ID #:14627

~, rs~a s vvit disabilities;or ~i~)~c~ ire any inn r that w ult~ suppart~finding that the Ci~iy is liat~l~ fc~r da a~,~~ under"I°isle IT a#'the .r A, ti n ~~14~f Re abil t ion pct,car ~t~n~vis .
~l Parties further underst d and e 1h~i the District Ct~urtin the illirs Actin

d rrnine that its F~bn~~rg~ 25,2013 ~~cisic~n r~ntin~ partial s~a~nrn~ryjudgmentt~ P1~i ~tif~'s ar~d a~u~ing;that t~ierr~ is ray untrue b~:rrden ~~fens nci~r pct can 5 4~f~la~:It~ha~ litat~an pct, Vii}

add~es~eti~ nt~r~el iss uue oflaw,(i~)pr ~t~an issue c~ irr~partanc~ fc~r r~:cipienlc cif~~ci~ral '7 nsn~i~1 ass staxa~e anti ~erst~~ns v~it~ ma l t dis~bilii s tc► a ~~st~n~ their r sp~ct v ri,g~ts end

a~blig~ti~ under Se~ti~~ ~ c~ft e Reh i~i~tian t~ct~ (iii was ru~ec~ b~ the District Court ic>

prayer 'or interlocutory r~vi~w; Div) w ~erti iii ~€~r i~~er~cr~utc~r~ appeal b~ tie tJ~ited ads

~t~ Court of~ppeals .ft~r the N'ir~t~ circuit (the "ninth Circuit4 ~ {v~ tin peal b~fare the l~ii~th

I1 Circuit} with.al.briefing cc~ ple~~d, at the time this settlennertt was re~c~edb~ the Parties; {~ri) ~r~s

l2 not adc3res~sed onih~ mrerits n~ appeal by i~~ Vi' rath ~ircn t; (trii) vas ncat entered a~ a ~inaa

i~ judgrr~ent ~n the T~''Yltits Act~crn, and ~~ iijis nat l~in~iiva~ can any other ra~urt in az~~ trther act%o~.

14

~~e Parties sha11jeintl~r m~v~ the District ~~~t, ~s pert. t~f tb~ jointly rer cestt i ttlem nt

~S ~r+r~va3 prc~e~s, ~c~ c~ni a and ~n~ter the follo~vving ~iin ;

l6

(i~ The City's implem~~tata~.ic~n of °~e tleme~t went a:~sur that ~ City's

7 F'edestraa~ ~a~il ~ es, men Bie

l i~ t~a~u ~~at~rety, are readily aec~ss bye t+~ a~i gable by

I ~zdi~~ivals wii a~ril~~+ T.~isablii~~~.

]9

{iii The Settleineni Agreecneni sets ~t~r~a ~ r cc~zxable t ie triad and reasc~~a~le

expenditures cif funding, far m~sng n scary mprc~veraaents to assure thai the City's Pede~lxia

21

alitie~, when v~ew~d in tl ~r t~rety, readily ~c~cess ble ~:c~ and txsabl~ by inci vidt~als wild

I~labil °ty Disabilities.

23

~ iii 7'l~~re is z~+a evidence be~az~ the District Cautt that the +City has intentia~natly.

2~ dis~cr rniz~ted ar ~~t~l with delit~r~'ke indif~eren~e

ni si int~ividuals withMt~bility ~isabiZ ties.

25

(ivy The City's cor~~lian~e vwith end ~npl~r~entatic~n oft ettl~x~a~ant dement are

2b su~c~~nt tc~ saaiisfy the Ci~'~ ~~ al c~tali ~t~ons i~ ~rovid~ Pz~~ra~ra ~c~ess t~ its P~lesixiaa~

27 facilities, w +en vi~w~ in their eni:ireiyx fir inr~~vidu~s wigh~abil ty Disabiliti~~.

8

5~

~e ldp. CV 1tl~~S']8~ CBhi ~Zx

s~~ ~ t E ~r ~~r,~u ~ ~*~i> ~ i_E~,~si; + it s

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 18 of 61 Page ID #:14628

1 4. ~"'ur~rse c~f'+ettlem~at

Tc~ avoid~Est,~~:per~s~,and u~t~~c~rt~int +af prot c~e~d lit g~:ic~n end pr~clud ~n~ silnil

~ I l~r~rs t~ orc l~n~~s during the C~mpli ~e I'tric~d,tt City and Pl~intiit's xe~ t~ eaztc~r rota this

Settle ~nz~ r~ement and that i~ sh~11 b~ bin~iin ~p~n tk~ City,Plaintiffs,and X11 m~rr~bcrs oftie

Sc~t1+~m~a~t ~f~ss, shill i~nguis all Relc Claims end shah c~nnstE~ut~e i ~n~ll ar~d ~~~np3ct

Ei i resolttttan ofall issues ~dt~~tlherein. ~`hc Fart a r c t~a~t his Se~ti~n c~ ht~r terms oft

7 5~ et~ll~rnent Agr~+ernent~r~ intcnde~i try and sha~1 p~~v~t~treliti ati~n t~ anyi sins s iS~d he ro end

8~ #fat n€ane c~f`t3~e P~rt~s shall take ire

sit arsthat tic dicta ~nc~ ~~`rt ju i toand

l

ral

estoppel do nc~t apply t~ the Fart es car t1~~ Seitl ~t~~t ~~~ss. 10
5. Cc~~~ti~n~ P`~ece~ent l ~.
T~ F'ar~e~ ~gre~ that phis ~ettlern~ni ~e~m~nt sh~~i

co iifii~~+~i upon,ark sl 11 t~

effcc ~c a~ly upon,the n~c~rrence cifeach and every anc cifthe i'~all~avvi cv ts:

13~i
i

~a) The ~~tticm~~i Agreement ~~.s men apprc~veti key pity Comic l and fihc

~~

~b~ The etticn~ent A rce~ent has b~~ fully e~~c atc l by t +c Parties.

6 !I {c) In acc~z~iance with ecti~~n 6. l~l~a~v,Flait~tif~s end tt~e pity ha~~jointly

1'7
i rnnved for c~r~icr gran~iz~ ~'~elirriinary t~p ca~a] a~~'thc ettl~~;nt ~~
a~ teen fial~ gr tad ~y the ~ s ~rict ~awrt.

rcc~rrcnt* and

~ m~tit~n

l9 ~d) Tn a~~rdanae v~ tY~ S~+~i can ~i.'7 b~ic~w,Plainti#~`s a~cithe City lavejcaintly

'. snav~~i for Final Ap~~~aval ofthe et~l~mt~ree~n~an~i cntry~ a~'t~~ ~ ~ment.

1 l Vie) in accord r~ ~i~ka ectivn ~.I0t~elt~~rr,~ Fina1 ~pprc~val I~aa~in k~.s~n

~~ c~ndu~ted by t~~ District +Cc+u~t, and t .~uc merit

entered by ttk~e T act Curt anci k

~3 ~cc~me Fi~aail.

~4 {~j Tt~ Partae~ r~qucst t}~at the ~istct ~saurt rrralce t~t~ ~n~a~ nutlz~ in

ectirr~ 3 ab~ave.

27 pity ~ntt i
2~

{) Tl~~ ~'~rlF~h ie S~~tl~~nea~t,r~~~a~ntleas been fiul!}~ exGcutcd by the C r6~a~ue Pl~iz~lif ,the p~riar ~~urt i~ the C~rrt~r~`Fcz iii^ A~~ion leas ranted

S~~"1`t.r;t~'f}~J't',1t,~E:E~vf#:NI'A ltt:.t.~r-rASE tit' ~:[„10.1M~a

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 19 of 61 Page ID #:14629

~r~ p~~u~l c~fthe C~rl~a~ ~ et~~rnent,~fn~]jt~d z ant s tee n ~nt~r~l by ~3ae D for

curt anc~ see gnatjud n t h lac tarn in lA 3
(h) '~'he 1'in~~~r A~tian h~ bit dismissed wi~r prejt~di~e, th+~ Pines 4
P'la%ntiff h~.ve o~ide~lt +City with ~ gen~r~9 rele. ~fclaims err its ~'mm ar r~lat~d tc~ the S
rn~tter~ ~~~e in the ,~~ ~,~~ Action.

(i) Tl~~ err n Actin h beep dig issed with rcjuc~i~, d t1a~e V~~llits

~'laint fps have pr~vld~d the City with.a ~~n r~i.c~le~.s~ of~l~ims ~ri~ r~ern ~~ I~t~d tai the

~a~it+ers a~le¢~ in the ~r~; rn 1~ct~t~~.

9 Prier to the c urr~ac~ ofBch ofthe fors coin ~vt~~t~ ~ sc ~ +e i~r ibis t aaa 5,the

1 ~} Fart ~~'r~nly c~bl ,~ati~ns underthis S~t~i ~ t ~ r rnez~i sh~il e aye ss~t ~scth in ~cti~x~ ~

Il t ~ ,~

1~

i5_

t°tlement A~t~rarrarl_Pro~+e~s

l3 f.l. Ca~urt Aat~r~~a

l~' This et ~m~t,r~gr~ ~n~ t sl l b~ subj~t ~t~ a~ rov~l by the I~i~trict ~aurt.
l~ '. -1~v~rev~, nc~thin~ is~the ~ettl~ament A ~em~nts Il t~ d rn~rl to at~~orize the District +C~+urt to

16''. e i ~e ~r reify any ofitst~s. T~a~ Par~~~s ~gr~e thatany ~ha~ e, t ~~tiQn ter a~ejt~~ion ca#'

17' refthe ~v~ its s~fthis S~ttl~rn t Ag e s bra tie T)i~trict ~e~ur~ ar any~i curtsmell

i8 '~ cc~n ~itui~ a cn~t~x al madific:~~ ran cift~~s S~ttle~ra~n~ A~;t~~m t,s~11e ventthe Judgrrt~nt ~

19' bcc+~min Fin 1,end shill dive any Ply the right tt~ t~zmi~ate ~hhis ~ttic nt ~.g ~n~ xn its

2i} ~rrt~rty.

1' ~.2. Pr~liminai-~ ~~rproval b~ tine District ~'ot~r#

2 L~'ithinfe~ ~S rays cifcirr tt~aiin~the fi~i11~ ~xe~~uted ~~ttlernent A~ m ~,the

Z~ 1~'illit~ Plaintiffs and the Gi~~ s 11 jc~antly submit ~ request tc~ the T3i~taricr~ Ccsuri fir ~'re~imin y

2~ a~srp~~l a~`this Scttlen~ent A p tin tt~~ i~~i,llts° ~`t~t c~ ~ alc~n vwrith a rc~.c~u st ~c~r an Ord rft~~n

25 ' the District ~~uu~"tc sub t tia~ly ~n the fc~r ~tta~h~d tak this Se~tl~z~at fi Air m t ~ ibit"~~)

~~a {t ~ "Pr~l~zninary A.pprv~~ C)rder"~: (~ ~areli i~a l~ ~ppravin~ t~h ~ ettlem+~nt Agree t; iii)

2~ conclit ~n~lly certi~yir~~ the Sc:tttc~n t +Mass; ~iii~ `p~'inting the `t~illi#s ~'lair►tii~'s ~s clays

2$ r+~pr~s t~.iive~ fir the ~+~tilem++~nnt Cl~.ss; Div) ~a n~n~; ~'l~ss Gcyunsel t+~ r~epr~ent the ~et~l~ et~t

~

GamNa. CVIQ-05782 ABM(RZx~

~~:~-~ r ~.ht~'T.4 re~.d~;~T r~Nr~ ~[:t ,~ns~~ ~F cB

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 20 of 61 Page ID #:14630

Cla~ssz{~)di~ec~ng nrat ce tc~ the S 1em t Clams as prc~videriin this S~ttle~nent Ag€ ~n nt;(~i~ 2
sating forth p~xocedu s and d adSian ~ far camsnen~.s and a~jt~tavns as ~rovidad in t3~ s ~ettic cnr~ 3
,~~,r~emenl~(vii} ~chcduli~g a Fairnc s H~ari~ ;end fix)e~jainis~g S+~ti~d~z e t Class e Viersf~» 4
a~~rti~g or aint~in,~n any ~l~ims its be ~e]c ed by this ettl a~~at A my ~ ~ tie 5
~sir~aess ~l rn.
b 6. . I~c~ndir#~~~~1 Certji~icat ~n cry't~~ ~ftlemeu~ ~las~

The Partie.~ ~grcc 1}~at t S~tXlerne~r ~ s shall e cot~dti~nally ~cr~~e~,aa~

8 a~c~rdance withthe terms ofthis S~~tl~ eni A e en ~ sralcly fox ptup~s~s ofeffectuatirn

9 sctt~~a~~a~t ~mbadi~cl in~s ettl~~n~nt A. rr+~eenra nt. Thy ty~ ci+~s gatrc~ s~i~,a~ad ~l~ss Cr~u~asel

1[7~ end the "4~ ~l is Pl~irrti~s

that the ~i~y shill nit ~e wed t~ }gave c~~►~n ~ ~c► t

~1 cert~~~at nn of the S~.tl~ar~ent Glass fir y purpc' ai~hcr tea ~ cff<:civate the s~tttlem~ni

1~ e b~di~l ian this S~ttler~~z~t A ar~a~z~t. in~~ event the Sei~le~nent ~ re mez~iis t~rtn ~tc~

1 pursuaa~t tc~ its tcr~ns~ car if for any r oe tie sct~lc cnt ~rta~adi~i ia~ this eixle ~~t .A~'eea~n~n is

1~t a. t t~1 '~ctuate~i cart Jud~men dies nc~t becc}me ~in~l, tlt~ certi~cat can vft e ~ttl~n~nt ~~~

15 s alS tae vast i„ end the 6 ll~ts Acti~z~ ~ha11~racecd a~ t~~au h the e~ttle e~ Ci s 2~ad ~ae~v r

b c i~~d, with ~1dies r~s ry ~~ all ~fth~ir ~laat s def~as s,

1'~

C.4, N~ ~l~t-~~t

1S

Tlae Pam ~s air tit the ct~l~tn~n~t Mass shall ~rtified ~a a~c~rc nce w~ tl~

19 st d~urd~ ►] cable u~i~r Rule ~~~b~(2) oi't F~d~ral Rubs of civil Prc~ce~d and tit,

~„~{l acrcc~rdin ly, nt~ + tti ~ni Gds anus air y t~p~ gut of y c~~'th~ pzav i ns t~f this S~~tl~ t

2l A~r~ernncn~. I~~ Pat es fi~rthcxrr ~a t e at any surd ,ruian ar det~rmi tin1 ~r of ~ S~~istari+

~~ C~~rt ~r any ~ath~ar cc~~rt tit omits car Mows ~;ny S~~tl~rn nt ~l s giber t~ cast ~►ut of aa~y ~f

the ~r~avi~aons o 'this S~ttlemetat ~lg~~nt shill constituote a truateri~l ~ntadi~ic~tion ~►fthis

iticrr~cInlt A.~rc xn~ty S~#~~ ~?l~Vt'r~l~ ~lG` ~i1C~~111i»`A~. ~I"i~tIl ~'."C01a71111 1f1~1~ ~?3(~ S~~II" ~ ~"1V('. filli~ P ~'

the ri hi ttc> te~m~miz~at~ this ~ttlem t A. ~ t in its cnta ty.

2E

~.~. ltiiut~c~ t~ the €ttl~~ae~t l~s

27

T~+~ P zes h~.11 jointly rrequest ~pprc~v~l by h~ iii trio ~aurt of nit ~e #o th+~

28 Sr~ttl~rra~~t ~l~;ss t f~rr~}a ~a ihis Sect can 6.5. ~c~llc~wi~a the District +Ce~urt's issuance u~' the

l~

G~.sc~1a. CV I~t-057~ZCB

a~T~'I~,i 1"NT A REA ~°~Zt~I,~E C3~GL~A~

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 21 of 61 Page ID #:14631

P'r~liminary Approval Chder, ~ Parta ~ shall provide ~~tic~ oft ~ }~se~ S~ttlemcni 2
j Agr merit, a~visira the ~ne~n~ers oft~ ttle~»cnt Gloms oftt}~c t~~n:~ af~h~ g p~scd ct~ern~nt

~g rcern~nt d their r~~htto ubj~~t to the rape d Sce~tl~rn t Air Wit. ''his nit cc{which 4
may Esc pr~vi~l~ ire cc>nj~n~tian w ih car in e~rdinati~n with y ~rotic~ ~a#'tt ~ rl 'ak~ri ~ 5
~ttl~n~a~t A~t~em~nt~ shah be po fished ~s f~llc~v~~:

,~.1. ~'ithi~~ f~rr~yy-fivc Sys ~~5)ci~~s ~fte~°~e T,strict Gt~urt hisissued 7
the 1'r~lirnin~ry A prov C}rd~r~ thefit sha11 cau nc~ti~c caft ~~ setf~em~nt its b~ ublished far 8
~`aur(4)cc~nse~utiv~ we~kk~ i~ tie ~`~llc~u-ing ~ofgeneral circul~ti+an: ~'~ii e~vs,~n,~~1es 7'imr~s 9
anti~LrJs A~a~~le;~ l.~crr'ly:'~~cu~s in ~gl sh;and l>a t~~~ni~n in Spanish. Such nt~ticc w 11 include l0
the ~~rn,~ r~uirec~ by the I~islrict Court, w ch ire antac~pated tc~ i~ as f~ laws: (i~ a brief Il
~t~teza~~nt oafthe T~'ill zs t~cti~n,tie se~tleme~t +~ ~ic~dic in t~i~ S~ttl~~tcr~t ~,g rn~n ~n~ Y.hc ~~
cl:~irns rcica~c~ by the ~:itletnent brass;(iii t3ae dais and time ~~`#he h~ar~ng t~~r the Final A~prvval 13
c~f~he pmpc~~rd S feu ~t A~rce ent,(iii the deadli~~ ~c~r subrn tiir~ a~jc;ctic~~s tt~ the pry cd l~
ct~ie~n~nt~1.gr~r ~nt~ and(iv)the web pa,~e,a~dr~ s,an~f tcie h+~ne ~mc~ iax ~a~mbers that m~ l5
us~+~ t~ c~b~aan a copy ofthe ~lotice cif etlleme~ti{ ubsta~ttia~l~ in the ~'~arm ~tt~chcr3 icy ibis 1G
~e .lerncr~t A m t~s ~~hibit z`~3~")in English, pay ~h c~~ aiternativc ~siblcformals ~t~r ~7
~adivi~ivals nth visual m}rairrr~ rig.. Tie pity shad day the posts ~`ar the pupal ~~ ~~i~a~ nvt~c~c l8
d~scril~ in this section,teat the City:,a ~.tie ca~nenc ant ~~'t C~ p~i~rnc~ P~rirr~i,shad be

z~ ~nbursed For X11 such incurred cystsfern t~+e.~rmual~c~z~m~trnent,

x.5.2. VVifhin fivvcnty ~2U)days af~Cr the T~.strici ~trt has i~~a i tt~
2l Prelim~n~ry 1~, prav~l ~rdcr,the ~~ty shalt ~aa~se a espy ~►f e Nance c~~~ettl~n~~t tea die fisted
2 aid r~rn~i pasted an the +City's official w~bsi#e (vuwww.l~cc t~.ar~), can the Beau c~~' S~ree~
~3 , ec~rvvi~ces' ~ is al webs to ~~~v~c .la~c~.t~sl~icass~ and on ~ department ~~`Diss~i li~,y':~ ~i cial
4 wehsite (~ww. isa~iil~ty.lacity,arg) fc~r few ~~) ~s~cu~i~c woks. such web ites ~h~ll also rn~e
~~ a p~• cif tic ~tilatir.~ oaf S~ttleme~t availably i~ English and pasi~sh, and. ~n an ~cce~si ~e elcc n ~
2~i 1'ar at ghat jazz b~ r~ct~~gz~ z.~d snr~ rid ~y s~afltwarc c~mznoz~ly tas~d t~~ ind~~ri~u~is ~w°ith visual
~~ irz~~cn~s t~ r+ea~l wpb pages. ~~l p~~,~.s or content on these wekasitc;~ that ire dart raf t~~r~ p ct~s

car aur,.cs n~ tl

~fc~rrr~atio~ in the '~Fot~~e of ~ettl~r~~~t ~h~l ct~mply widh WGAG. The pity shill

13

~a~ T+~a. ~`V 1t~t15782 CFiZvi 't~2x}

5 "'r"1'I.1~ '~7° A<~4~rE:~i~~V`I' A?~Ii7 ftF7.E1~St: c)i t'[.~,it

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 22 of 61 Page ID #:14632

1. pay the costs for the publication ofthe notice described in this Section,but the City,upon the
2 commencement ofthe Campliance Period,shall be reimbursed fir alI such reasonably incurred.
3 costs from the Annual Commitnnent.
4 6.5.3. Within ten{10) days after the District Cr~urt has issued the
5 ~' Preliminary Appraval Order,Class Counsel.shall cause a copy ofthe Notice ofSettlementto be

provided to the organizations lisied an Exhibit"F"io this Settlement Agreement(ar such other

7 organizations that,in Class C'_ounsel'sjudgment,serve the interests ofpersons with disabi~iiies why

8 reside in the City and rely upon.wheelchairs, scooters,or other detizces for mobitity,possess

9 address, electronic-mail, or other contact information for such persons, and will provide copies of

10 the Notice of Settlement to such persons on a prompt and effective basis). Class Counsel shall pay

11 the reasonable costs far the publication ofthe notice described in this Section,but Class Counsel,

12 upon the commencementofthe Compliance Period,shall be reimbursed for all such reasonably

]3 incurred costs from tk~e Anxaual Couunitment.

l4 6.5.4. Within ten(10}days after the District Court has issued the

15 ~'reliminary Appro~ral Order,Class Counsel shall establish a website where a copy ofthe Notice of

16 Settlement will be available in English and Spanish. and in an accessible electronic fannai that can

17 be recognized and read by software commonly used by individuals with visual impairments to read
1$ web pales. All pages or content an the websites that are part ofthe process for accessing the
19 information in the notice shall. comply with WCAG. Class Counsel shall pay the reasonable costs

24 far the publication ofthe Notice ofSettlement described in this Section,but Class Coiuisel, upon

~1 the commencement ofthe Compliance Period, shall be reimbursed for all such reasonably inctured

2L cans from the Annul Commitment.

23 &.6. Press Release Re~awdine Settlement

24 '. The Parties agree that prior to the execution ofthis Settlement Agreement,Class

25 Counsel and counsel far the City issued the joint written press release regarding the settlement set:

26 .~' forth in this Settlement Agreement substanl:ially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit"E". The

27 Parties agree that after the fizll execution ofphis Settlement Agreement,they and their respective

28 counsel may discuss the settlement set forth in this Settlement Ageement witx► the media but shall

14

Gase Na. CV 1Q-05782 CB.M {RZx)

Sr7`TL~Iv~NT ACiKESEMETIT .AND C2ELEASE OF' CLATNI5

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 23 of 61 Page ID #:14633

u eix Est ~f~'~rts: {i)tta n~ur~ ~t such dis~russi~►~s are n stmt v~~th °the s~u ~~n~e tenor cif the ~~ir~t proms ~1~ ~t#a~~ed der tc~ as ~~ibi~ ~gE~'~ ~n~ iii) to r~~r~ ~ rim ~difip ~r~ the

c~thcr F' cs or their c~~nsel in nne~i~~ with the ttlt~m~ni ~ttd the mati~rs sit forth in ibis

~~itl~men~ A~;recment.

b.7, Faun s He~r~ng

Thy ~' e~ s aid jointly r~ga~st tl~~t the l~istri~;t ~~urt h ~l~ d c~ndu~t a

Fairncs~s ~3 r r~ to dec rie beih~r Final ~lppra`=al af'L~ae Settl~rn+~nt ~1 ant s~~I b~c r~rnt~d.

~►t the fairness ~Ie~a-ir , t~~ 1'arti~s shall join ~ m~~c fc~r ~mry of tic 1uci~rncnt ~su~~i~ ly tic

firm attacl~ct~ to this Set~~ment .t r eat E~ib t "I~"),p~'r~viding fear: Vii ) Final Ap~~v~l

I{~ c~fthis ettJ~m~nt,4~re~~nent ~s #`air, ~dey~at~, ti sanab~e; ~ii~ final certa~ica~ic~n c~ftt~

1 Sc~tic ez~t Cass f€~r se~tlenaen~ purp~s~e~ o~l~°, (iii) :final ~p~cov~10~ ~~ farm and eihad c~fno~ic.~

12 ~ef~~ Jud ~ne~at t~ tlac Settlement Glass, { ~~) final ~~prc~val crfthe appointment cif Class Counsel

13 'car t.~~

l+em~nt ~las~; ~v find ~pprc»~1 of the ~ ~intrr~csnt ~fthe i3~v~illits Plaintiffs as c~a s

l4 rcpres~ntat ves of c Sc~tic~n+~nt C lays, ~v~~ f sl prs~~ra~ ~rf the release ~f t Cats anc~ its Rel~t~

2~ ~nfiiti~s ~`rom it ;Released Claims, ~v i~ ~is~al a}~prt~val ~f an order tl~a1: ih~ Se~tl~men# Mass

I(i mcmbeis will b~ e~jc~ined andb~ !`min ert n any of the Rele~as~d Maims ~ ~i~n~t the ~it~

~7 and its Related.Entities hallow ~g entry of Jud~~neni. a,~d a tea ~rnmi inc~u~ng the cc~m~~etic~r~ t~f the

18 Gana~liaz~e Pez oci; Zvi i~ a finding by the )istrici ~~+urt ~zat tt~ ~ity'~ ex 'tore of the ~mou~1~

1~ sit fc~ in sci on 12,E bcla~v fix the pt~~crse~ set fart in this S+ettl eat ~a.~~e~rtent is }~r~per

~J and vnal~ly calculated basod au tl a~~alablc ~form~~ion tv znairrt~in d en~ur c~.sl~iliiy

1 of the ~'c~c~tri ~acilifiies ~tac~ted ~ t~pity +of J:~as Aga tiles to ~acrso~s with ~icrbil t~ ~7~ gab l~~aes;

2~ {i:~c~ c. nfumati~~a by ~hc ~~is~et Curt ~f the ir~dings sit ford within, tin her inal~ve, (x)

2~ ire Parties aid all m~mbcrs ~f the e~tt nez~t l~s~s t~ tie wn by tie Judgment; aaad (xi) the

24 '. T) strict Court's ~tetatic~n saf~uris~l~c~i~n aver ~~ Parties t~ enforce ~h~ ic~ra~ caf the dud~m~nt

?5 t~r~u~h~ut the man of this ~ttl~zn~nt r~~r ~m+~nt.

26 ',

27

28

S 'I,~MT'r ACi

1 ~

Caa~ i+{cr, C 1 ~'~t~2 ~H t Rat

A3v~71t~.F~ t7F ~I.~IM~

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 24 of 61 Page ID #:14634

1

6.$. (fib ecti~n~ to tie ~ttleme~at ~~rc+~~rne t

3 et~~~

Me w a~'the ettl~nt~1 ~ sh ~~l hive ~n op r~i°t t~ity to objeti~a t +~ ~ro sad t A~mentbut may nc~t c~~t-c ut. The Partrt~e ~h~ll rcq stt ai tote Dis~ri~t Court ortter

the f~llt~w n prca ur fr~r ~s rtit~n ofc~bj~ctions~ ifmay,tt~ tk~c `~eitl~.t~te~at A cr~~~t:

'.

~. .1. A~ S~tllcrn~nt Gl~s~ rr~tn~ber niay t~b,~~c tc~ this Setll~mcnt

6' A~reem~ni ~iy ~ilin~,within Warty-~ir~c(4~ days oftic:~m~ne:ra

rner~ oft~a~

stn

~fthe ~xc►t r~

"T to the ~+~~tl rrneni C~~ss re~}ui ~ izitd~r Section 6.~ ~tn~~~e~ rittczi c~b~~+:tis~ ~ with the T3is~ri~t

(: c►urt, with. aropy ~f such objt~ti~n~ s rv~ci rurrc~7tly cm ~l~ss Cotmse~ by ~s n~ r d~Iivt~y}

9 ~c:d~~ ~r ~thet o~~~hht c.~r~i~r cc lvery ~r by ~'iz~t CI~~s U.~', ~Vla~l delivery ~n ar aP~ix~~;

~ ~'. chi Court's ~~~1A'~~pru~~L~~ !learin~ end sp .it~~ to t ~c~

11 '.

6, .~, Va'i h r ~~1~o any end X11obj~~ns ter this 5 l~m~rnt~ ~gr~c~»ent

1 rec~ v~dby Cuss Cr~~l, Glass Cc~ur:scl :~h~lt pr~~id~ a crap cif 3~ c+hj+~tit>n tt► ~~un l~ '

~3 record fir t~~ ~ii~, ~iy tn~ssen~er del v+~z~y car ~lectrani~-mi ld~l~v~ry, rnrith tvr~~a ~~) c~a~art c~~ys

14' after c~ipt c~ h r~bjectian.

1

~i.8.3. ices ~ns~s y ~1 Cc~ i~n lc~x lac +City i~ wry timely- lei

obje~ti~ns ~ i! b~ films with the T~istr c~ C~~rt ~c~ leis ~ v~ (S~ ~~ys b+e~c~ ~h~ Faun

17 I in~, ar ~s o~th~r~ise ordr~dby ~thc Cst~~zrt.

18 6.~. ~dd~~i~onal tt~c~~

19

T~ ~~tie~ shill~e ~►ll pr~c~dural ~tep~ z~c~;~rd n the `~irnessIDing that nay

2t7 '. t~ r ~u~ t~ by the l~ s~i~.t ~ ~rart mad ~i~t ati~

s~ e their ~~~tive best ~f~~rtrt~s ~aa

~1 r~sunarn~t~ the settl~m~nt embodiedin this ~:ttle cnt ~r n~e~t,~is c~Y in a prc~v~1ref th~ss

22 a~ttl nt

ent, try of ~ Jud~;m~nt end d ~ iss~l w~~:h jai ~e 'the Crr n ~n~d

2~ 1'aner~a ~ciions.

~~ 6.10. F~ns~l At~~rc~val

2~

6.i0.1~ T'he Parries a tha°~ upon in~1~p~rc~v~,l~I)istri~t Co~rrt sb~ll

2~ enter tta Jsudgn~~nt u~i~r Rule 5~~) ~~th~ ~d~ral R.~1es ~a 'Civil ~r~rc~tiuure jsubsta~fi~ll inthe

7 forth at ached~i this '~et#i~m~nt ~ r rn~nt ac Exhibit "D"} ~s sing the illtt;~ pct ~n with

28 p~jud ~e, s~bj~act tc~ tie district ~ou~°t retainit~~; jur sci~c~i~ ~ r~soly~ any I~isp~t~ (as ~~~n

16

Case IVo. t'1r' 1G-t9~782 +CBArf

9~I"Ti.~h C,'~t,it~::C''~f['h'1 ~L"lt~RT'I,I:15T QF~I.~1,15

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 25 of 61 Page ID #:14635

tx:l+~~)rr ~ardin~ca pli wig teas ~tt1e ~t A.gr~~m~~ttk~~t ~~i +~t b~ ~c~lv fihr~u the

pressd+~s~rit~ in tin 19 be~o ,a.~d io rule can 'l tiff`s' oration ~'ar ~a,bl~ attorneys' 3
fps d ~ca~is,as c~~ ra ~n ct can ~1.3 flaw.

~.1{~.?. ~as~diti~n upon:()t ~ ~3~s~rict ~c~urt grant r~ Fi l ~p rval ~f

this Seal ~ t i ~e~nent, d 2 ~ Jud ;n~ent ~i~ amineFinal;iii)ire u r ~~ Curt cii~rs~is~~n

6 with pr+~jradi the ~`zn~ ~nt~ ter Sri ~~ctiuns;~u~t {iii) e u r ar +Cc~uri granting nil

v~1

7 c~ft ~crrt~r~'Frr rr~i~ eiti~:~»~r~t std tie C.~rrt~}r,T~uhnlifa ~ttl~~n b~r.:~t~t~nin ~in~l,the ~' ins

8 siipulat+~ ~.rtd awe ih~t Lie C:it} ca

rats tc~ tk~e I~isu~ct

t~r~ ~x~rcisi ,jur sdiet an c~~~r t s#atie

9 l~tiv el~im~ ~lleg in

t~urtcr ~"alz i~ Aciac~~a ~'~r the ale pur se c~~~nfa~ci ~t~ Settle ~n

l A~ ~m~n~ '~h~ City v~ ~ t assert, a it the J

~:nnt h ~ acne ~' na1,that I~ ~nc~t

ll lact~~jurisdiction t~ n~'tarce the terms ofthis S~:ctl~~nc l~ rear ~ ~,or arise anyjur s~~i~~i~ I

i d~~ ~e tc~ and enfar m~nnt r~+ct~eetiin~s ~rerna~ltc~i under the t~;rt~.~ ~►f` his S~ttl~cn~nt ~ e~m~n~.

1

6.1~.~. Should the ) sty ct ~ Burt d~n}~ t~~ Parties' r~c~uest to enter the

1~ ~~t~ tn~nt~ ~ c~uJci phis ~ettlem~~t ~4 r m nt rat wive F~~n~1 Approval by the ~ist~ict +Cc~wrt for

15 y r~~air slate ltd this Settl~mm nt r~,gmen~~~~t not b ~ final frrr any ryas rt in ac x~t~n

1+~ u~ t~ i~.~ t~rm~; Vii } thz~ S~ ~m nt ~g~r

ent ~ha ~ be nail and. void anti ~af:nc~ fc~r end cf7~ct; {iii

17 nr~tl~`tr in this ~~t~e ent ~~,r~~n~en s~^+~ll b~ dea~med t~ ~r~ jud c~ the s tic~n ~+~~n~ ~q~'th~

1 Far~i~s ur th respc~t taw any m tier; and(iii) n~ith~r the exast+~nce t~f this ~ttlem~nt r'l r ~ner~t, nor

1~ its c€~nt~n~ shall

~d ssil~l~ ire ~v~d~nc~ r~f~rr~rl tai fix

y pur~ase i~a any fit ~tic~n ~r

~(l
prc ~~iin ,yrl

~d inn ~dm ~si~n by t~ pity ~f any f t~ n din or liability.

l 7. Effect of 'in :1 App ~~I t7►rd~r

22

This. Settlearn t A~r~rnen~y upon I;inal A~prt~~~i„ shall tie binding, upo~a t~ City, PI~i~~tif1's,

and. all the ent ~l~ss m~ bars ~, ih~ ~~t+~nt ~per:ifi~~ly sit ~~rth its thin het ~an~z~t

2~ .~gr

ent, upa ala s ~c~~ ,shall. ~xtin ~s}x aliRel~.~r~ ~lai~ aid s1~11c€ynstitu ~ 1 fir I

2~ and sample re luti~an caf a!1issues at~d~~ss~d h~t~ir~, `his S~itlem ai

~ anti the cr~anp~e~~e

26 aa~d find di~~vsi inn ~nnd s~tti~m~nt ot'any end ail R~1

~l~itn~, ~s tieet~alod in ic~~ 9 to .

2~

17

~cNar. ~Y 1a-0578 ~CB~'[

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 26 of 61 Page ID #:14636

8. Term of tt~em~nt Are~r~n+~t~t

T`h~ ~►~strici C',~uri shall h~v~ cr~ntinui~~; j~trisd ~tic~n aver this ttl n~nt 11grt zn nt 3
thrc~u out ih~ S~ttl~mzi A~;~r~:e~n~nt's t~tm. °I'hi Scttl~n~ent .#~~r t~~~~t shall ~~ir~ t~~ty (3t~~

yes ~~tcr the d o c~mm~ r, n # o~i~e ~c~m~li~nc,~ Peric~ (with the sc~l+~ +~xc~pti~n ## tt~e

5 City z u t zn~l+~t~ ats r ~°iin~ r uire~ent~ ~R~r the +~t~ pli~tc~ ~'eria~d4 un~~r the Dis~i~t

6 C.~~uri's ctjntinuin ~urisciict an, ~s sei forthin SE~tion 1 bel~ ~. ~+~ih ngin this S~cti~n shall bar

7 either I'~.rty frc~rn mc~vin fir an ex~nsian ~fthe ~'~ttl~ ~ t ~~;r m+~nt to ~nfar~

y c~b~~g~it cans

hcr~in.

~.

elle~ ~nf Claims

l ~J 3.~. R~l+~a~et~ Cl~uns ~p tot Com~t~~met~t a#`the C~m,~la'~~ce Period

11 ff~t v~ upon die ~:n o `3ud tneni by the Disirict Cc►~~rt, Plaint fi`~ aiad the

l Se~1 ~nt ~`~arss rne l~r~ (an~i t}acir resp tiv~ heirs, ~ssgr~.s, uu essars, exe~~tars,

l3 ad~nir~isir~3~rs, a ens at~d repre ntati~=e~} ~`'I~~l~asir►~ I'a~'Eiesg'~ dt~ fu]l~ cl ~n~lly rile; quit

l~ and.~iis~~~~e the City anti its F.ela d ~ntiti~~ ~c~m y a~~.illcl~irns, ~~l~ t ~~s, d~m~ua ,

15 char es, cc►m~l~ini.4, accic>ns, lawsuits, ri ,its, liabilities, lt~ss~s, n~uri~s, obli atit~n~, €~ispt~ send

1 ~i cat s ofac o~ of ~sa~ kind wh~tk~~r sorted as ndividw~i Maims, as ~l~im ~n ~ clams b ig car ~n

l7 t h~lf~ft~ ~~n lpublic, and vvheth~rk~~~ car unl~nc~~n, sus tec a~ un~usp~t~.~i, rted aar

18 ~ ~i w~as~eri~i, or aciu~l ar cc~nin$~nt, 1~1~ f~rr injun~~ir~e, d laratary, 9r ~th~r nt~n- ~►ntar~ r~li~f,

weer de~ribe ,That vsrere brau~ht, couldhave be ibrc~u t, a~ could be brought aw ter in the

2il fuiur~ bar h~ Rol i~g Parl.i~s undcx ~►y A ss bility Laws ~d that in, any r~a~ r~lat~ tee or aria

~1 $ny of the + ity'~ +~r theR~lc~ En~it~s' a~l~g~ ~c~ic~ns, a is~ie~~s, incid t~, ~r nc~uct

2 x~lafied to the s~i~iility of any cif tom: Cz '~ P~~~stri~n F al ties t~ perst~rts with any abi~~t~

I~ sseabi~ ty at any time pricy to the dam en~e~neni c~~`~:he ~am~l an Period (tt~~ " el~~ d

2~ Ci~i~ns"~.

2r ~.2. !'telea~~+~ Cl~ s ~Juri the Cam l ce Peri4d

2~i ~~,f'fecti~+~ upon ~h~ tt~ c~~`Judgn~~nt iay thelli ri~t Cc~uti~ ilae R+el sin~; Fa.rti~s dc~

2'~ fully and finally r~l~

uuiiand. ~i s~h~rge the City andits ~ele~sedentities m ~n end alb

fi7ture claims, all~gation~, demands, +char ~~ ccr plsinfs, a~t~on~, Ja~s~iis~ sights,) ~bili ies, les s,

.~fgi,R=.;.~v

l8 ~~art::~~~.~°t°

C. ~eN~r. C'.V 1 ~782CB1~3 ~.~~t~'~~..~5

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 27 of 61 Page ID #:14637

injuries,~bli ~t~~ns,disputes i~ ~s~t t can ~a~any kind,t~th~r~ss~rt~d as an~i~idyl

2 claims,~s ctai~ns an a class basis yr can b~ ~.lfrsfthe

r~~ral public, end wlae#~i~r nc~w ter

3 u~k~a~wn,su.~ct

yr ~uspect~,~rt+~.car

~ss~~rt~, ar

t 1 gar ~c ting~r~t, sctl l~ fir

i~,jun~;t~v~, Cc~l~rr for ,car utter nc~n-m~sn~y rr lief,hor~ve~~er d~s~~ibe~,that c~~zld r

brcau~ht by the RBI sin ~att~ der any lac sibilii~ Laws and that. ~ ~nny way r late ~t~ ~r

f ~eris~ f~~ ~n~ ofthe C`i~ty'~ yr t~ lZ~l~d ~ nti~~s' al1e~;~cc a~tia ,c~

ion ,i ci~~tats,a

7 c~►n~u~t re:iated te► the accessibility ~a~' ~n}~ tuft

pity's ~ ~stri n ~a~iliti~s t~~ s nthany

IViobility bis~a lity a~i any time during the ~c~mpl's~nc~ P~ri~d ~"R leas+ ~`utut+~ Ala rr~s'

h

9 Rel~~.sed ~'~ Maims, t~~w~v~;r, shall nit include any ~1ain~s t~ c~f~rce ~Ix~ t cans of this

1 ~l ~ttl~me~t ~~;r+eez~n~en~.

~1

"T~ere ~~se sn this €action ~.2 r~vill apply end~ binding ~p~ f xn~rr~be~ +~f tla

12 ~ettl~Yne~~ ~~ass thrra

a~ut the term cif this ;5~ttl~mer~t ~1~ re~rnent.

l3 1Q, K~o~v~u ~~',~ T oven Claim

~~

''it rest tt~ t~a~ r~l~e cif el~ims ~s prc~vid~iin ~c~~n rove, Re ing F rti~s

1~ v~~ai~ ~ and rr~lxnqui ;any anci all.ri lats ~b~ fits

arced by t~tic~n ~ 5

cif the ~ali~'~r~ia

1~i Civil C'ad~, ~►r any of ~r similar st. t~ car rule cif any smote car jur~sciictic~~., ~:nd nc~v~l~d~~ i.

17 unt~~rsta~~d that at e fits vv tea respect fic~ t~~ ,r~etion ~ end t~ Set~~n~nt A~r~er~~nt may, the

18 tiat~ of execution ~f this Sett]~m~ t ~ ~c merit, e dis~~~ered tt~ be ~th~~ than ar ~iif~'~r~~t ~tcym

15~ fi is newro to a~ad 1iev~i to e tn~~. ~eleas~n P~rrti~~ I~c~+~ i fly pt d as~um~~~i~

~~ o:~th~; fadbeing di ~r ~t, r~ that this 5cttt~~aent ~~r

~rnt sh~.11b end r~ r~ inill spec

' :;tiv~ nc~t suibj ~t tc~ ter in~ti~rn or ssian by ~ir~ue many such dill ~ei fits, 2 under~t~nd anci aekr~~wlec e the s ,~i~e~nc~ rand n qu~n ~ ~,~'nt h specific ~~.~~r of ~ctitan

154 eft ~aliforni~ civil +~~~ ~(a~d any r~t,~r s il~r ~t~t~ ~ ~r arule t~~'any stag car jurisdictit~n~►,

4 aide~rp~xe~sly asssum~ f~11r~sponsii~il ty fir any l~s~s +ax

n,iequ~n+r~s that maybe in~uxr~iby

~5

in such ~+r~iv~r, R~1e~si Pert ~s expr~ssl~ +~ r:~tt~nd tba~ wee i+~n 2 ~2 c►fth Ca1i~`~rn a

26 G~ ivil Camr is as fiall~w~:

2'~

~8

19

~~seN~►. ~V l~-0S?~2 CB~i

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 28 of 61 Page ID #:14638

~`A G~NER~L~LA~~ ~~~ N+~~'~XT~NI~ TfJ +~L~Ihi ~~ H C~~7ITt7R D(~~ ~1t~T ~N{~L~ CSR t~S~'~GT TC? F..3~IST 3N Hid U HER FA~Tt~~ " T~i~fiIM :(7.F`~ C LITTP
T~~ ~~~~,u~~~~cx ~~ r~a~v~~ xr~ c~~ r~~s~r

s

~r
~`h~;farne~o gre~~is ~'re.~ly anti volut~ta~il~ given bye del Parties,~~in a;~r n

ts~ t~~ f~rr~ ain r~l~ase,did ~~t rely a~n ~n~ i icaceznet~ts, pr

car a~ ese tali s by the ~C~t~r

orits r~presenia~.ives~ rather thin a~ expressly sit Earth in this settlement.~.gr~ment~ I0
1l. ~o~enant Notf,~ ~e 11
i 1.~. Thy I' es a~;r~ei~td~rin the ~t~m~liance 1'`eriod,ire R~ calling ~'artics 1
will refrain and forb~~a'~m c~mrncncin ,institu~n a ar prpsccu~in~,any lawsuit,~~n,~x at~cs' ~3
pry: inp, in ]~w,purity oar cat~tctwise, a~~inst the City d its I~clateti Enliti~s arisit~, t~u~ cifoar 14
r~latin~ tc~ any oftie ~2~l~as~~ +~~~ims gar Released Future ~lai~s,inclndsn ,wi~ttotrtl mit~ti~n~ an 15
~c1~on claim n t~iat tba~ et~lem~nt A reernent was fra~dt~lentl~ inducted. '~" e P~trbi~ age ~~t 16
cmetaty da r es alone are i~ad u e tea ~crrn~cnsate ~`c~r njuxy ~aus~d car ttire~te~d b~ a br~a~h l7
cr#~thi~ covenarai not ic► sue} and that prcliininary aid p~zn~ar~ent injunctive relief reining aid 18
p~rhibii~n~, tk~e prosecu~icsn o~a~} action or proc~c~l n~ bmc~ght car i~stki~ i ire violation hc~re~f is ~ 19
nrs~ess and ap rcrpriai~ r~rriedy in tie event cif such a bra car thrc~atcr~rcc~ r ch. An a~tiox~ ar

pre ediz~ br~u~t ~c~ enfo~c~ (but nat ts~ res~irt~ car r~fvr~a~ t ae ~rzns of t~a~ ~tilement

1 ~

end is ~x pt~ ~rr~ this eavez~azxt nr~t tc~ ~ e.

11.2. 1~Uiihres~ct t~► ar~y +af t~r~ Pautips' ra~lig~ta~ns ~ earthin th% k~cm~nt

~3 Agreen~a~ent~ the ~'~rties a~re~ Zat no claim, action ~r prac da'~~ all~~; ng any vsal io of ~r failt~e

2~ tv frar any prvv~si~n ~fthis ~ttl~e ent Agreement shall ~lec~, comme~~ce or mair~i~i~aed

2S unlc~~ auu~ until.ire "art es have ct~rnpli~ wit~ia1i ~f the prtr dur~s set f~,rthin ~cti~n 1~ icavv.

~6 ~ I2. A,g~ua~ Gommitm~e~t far Pr rim Ace s Im~r~nw+~ ent

~7' The ~'~ties a rse tc~ the f~llawin~ rcz~:s as tla~ ~in~ and. ca~a~l t r uii~an ~#`i e c~~ir~s

28 pertaining to the Ci~y'S ~1dY#t~

~~F Px{J,~;t [l~ '~.~fi.~SS ~I31~3PQ'V

II#S i~tt~'121~; ~ ~Ol'l't~?}I~i1G~ ~' 1'It)t~.

2t~

~:aseNa. CV it~-U59~'2 CBM x.

sF'TTl,rt ' AtiF kT3T ~t~~i27 R~~»:A.3~ ~iF ~I.~ll4+~s

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 29 of 61 Page ID #:14639

1 l~,l, C~~nmen~~~ntof~~ Cr~ nliance 3'et~d

3 .F
4
S

`T~e Parties ~~r~ that tt~ C.'o~npl ance I'~r ud shad cc~tt~z~~n~~ ~~ the tiat~ ~ha~ the
12..2. A~u,~tt t~ft~~ ~, ~~tl ~c~ t~~nt "f'#~ City sail ~~p~nd ~ ~~tal c~f~l,3f~7,1~2,~8~ during the Gampl c~ Pe~+a~d fc~r

Pr~gr~n AccessIm~ruv~men~~. "i'he Annual crm~cnitrrie~►t fir each y~~r cif die Carnplianc~ P~ric

shall tie a~ fc~llu~vs ~subj~ct to Section 1~.3}:

8

{a~ Vicar the ~~e fis~sl ;~~~rs fallawing final pp val of this S+~ttl~nent

~i era ~t by the Distr~ t C~uurtk (~.~.~ ''ears 1-5}, t ~ pity l~x nd $31,()OO,U Iper' ~ .

1 ~b

{"b) Fir i~ae fire fiscal ~~e~ f~Ilo°+~ing tt~e peg €~ ~~c firth ~ ~e~ti~~n

11 J~. ~a~ ~lacrve ~i.e.~ 'Yeas 6-]~},

+Gity sh~tl ~x~e~d 3~~743,t~U~ per y .r.

12

(c} F+~r the ~v~ final ears follc~wi~~ the peri~+d set forth ~n ~~~tian

12.2~b) a~ve (a.~., 'Y~arr~I1-15~, the ~~ty s~a.lS expend X1,211,6 7 per y~a~.

l~

~d) 'car the ~v~ ~~l y~a~•s follra~ ink the per ~d yet ~€~rth in ecct~~n

l~ 1~,2~c) above (f.~.~ Years 1+6- ~), tla~ ~i1:y s~i~Il expp~mm~d

7,517,0+~6~ per yam.

16

{e~ Fir e eve fiscal years fallowing the pit sit ft~x~h in ~e~tit~~

1 12.~(~) ab~v~ (i.e., ~i'~ar~ 2I-2~}, thepity ~ha11 ~xp~t~ ~~,7 7~1'~% peer year=

l '.

(fj for the five sc~i y~a~rs fc>llc,u~in the period s+et f~rt:~ in S tic~n

1~l ' 12.2~e) ab~v~ {i.~., ~'' rs ~G-3tl), the pity shall e~p nri $b~~l~~,c~15 per y~~r.

2

',Chi t~it~ y u any and Ali revenue s+~ rr.~s avail l~ ~a it tc~ fi ~ ~ .r aa~~1

2l

mit t ~bli at~~n sit fi~~h in Lhis ~e~ti~aa l2. "The P~ti«s ~,thr~sug cut tie

22 C~a pliance Per~tr~l, the City sha11have site tend ~b lute d s~r~tir~r~

d~t~r~ ins ~ r~vven~e

23 rarc~sit will. use for s~+eh purposes, a~at~ s al have nc~ c~bli a~ic~n tea consult withPl nti~f's ~r Mass

2~ C~aun lre~rdi~ at~y such ~terminata~~,

2~ l?.3. F~~st Y r Fund

T Part ~~ a~ tai may and X11 a~a~uur~ts e~.p~en ~3 byYi ~ pity in s~a1~ r ~O1

27 16 ~anci iz~

y ~aeric~d there~f~r p~io~ to the +~~ e that this ettle~nent A

mens l~ ~ne~ ~° n~~ t~

2~ z~nake Fr+~~razn a

ss Impr~veme t~ (~r ft~r air ~xpes~~itur~s to impl ~n~nt the Set~l~n~ent

l

Case lN~. +~V It}~U578~ M fix)

~~~-ta ~~rr ~ ~r~cr 'r.~~rn ~~~:r s~ cry c

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 30 of 61 Page ID #:14640

l ~A~rn t a~ sitforth ~a ~ t ins 12.E a~ad 1 .11,la~t~~v)s ~l~ c~u~t ter rds~Cii 's

2 rfurr~ c~ ~fits fwa~iing c~bli~~ti~n under tic~~ 1 .2~a)as tci~~iatst y~ °{fie )offilm

3 ~'arrm li~nn~e P~ric~d. (F~r c rnpl~, fthe ~t ~xpez .~ l1,0 ,+D{)0 in ~

I e~;r 2Q15-tt~,the

4 pity's ~t~l ~aticrn in the first year c~~the Ct~~npli~n ~'eriod vvi~1 tie ~rc~~rt on ly r uc ,such

5 th~fi the ~i~ty ~ri~l sett sf~ its ~ablig ~i~n ~n~er ~ tic~n 12.?.(a)as tc~ tl~e firsfi year(Year `l)oftl~e

b ~t~m~ali

P~~icrt3. yep d n~ ~2~,t ,~t?~'? +pan Frs~ ct~n Ar cs Isnprc~v~z~ents ~urix~~;s~rch first

year ~'~' 1}.} :a~kz subseq~~z~t fil l yec~rr lhrc+u hc~ut the C~om l ~nc~e ~' r ad will ~rn c~ S
~ul~ 1 aI`t1~ appl~~abl~ ~~~rr.

12.4. ~Jse ~~`the Annul~~mm~t~e~tfir l'rn~rs~nn Ace~ss~m~provc~n+ranis I tl
The An~rual Gr~m~nt errt shall t~ u~e~3 far is~llati ,repair,rremm~di~.~ic~n,

co~struuctit~n, design, ns~ectic~n¢ mc~nt~rin~ anr~ s~app~rit cfls ~fthe ip~miaricsn ~f'the

1 Se~tl~ment A~re~mentastc~ P~ tram Fa.~ilities +misting ~s r~~fthe cc~m ence ant~f#h~

~~. ~`ampli~ Pori

{ala~n~ w~a~i~ the cat. er uses expressly pern~tt~ under t;~x s et~i n~nt

14 '. Afire nett),including ~~~ichc~ut limitation,fortt~ t~llc,~~in ty s c~~"Programor s

IS ' l~nprc7ven~~rits~

1 Es Via) In~tallatit~n ofrui ng curb rte} a

l7 } R~p~ir of c~ama e cause try trey rc~t~~ to sidewalk or vv :~~ray

1S ~~ces sc~ that the sidewalk car v~alkwa~ s~uz~faces are retie essi~~~e to and.usably by persotxs

~9 ~vk}a ~4~~blity Uasabilitae~,

24' ~~ [Jp radiz~g refeacisiin~ curb z~arnps to ~nply with sta d is sit

1 ~c~rth in acaz~ 1~.9 below,

2~ ~d) ~tepa r ofbroken and/or unev~ pa~em~ t in the pedestr~rights t~~

2 way {it~lu~iin uti t~ ~€rvers and r~paar covers)damper andl~x vii r than 11~ inch,

~4 '. (~ ~;~ Re .ir t~fvertical ~ar car ~nt~t dis~t~cem~nt or upheaval ~~`
~g
sidewalk car Gros alk swfiae~ gmater tk~~n Il2 inch ji~clud n~ ~~t~~=al flays,curbs d u~l ty

26 c~ver~),

'. id~ti~~~[ks.

~ +Ccazzect on cif nan-compliant crass-~ls~ in sidewalk ur sect~c ~ ~~'

22

C, 1~~. GV ~U-0572 ~Bl~'[ Ex

~F.fix;fM1~;~T ll(;KEC:Aii:ti"l f1t~T1) N.~'x~A~~ ~f~ ~Ia91AA~i

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 31 of 61 Page ID #:14641

1 {~~ R~~n~~=~l c~~` rcrirtid ~ tip trver~az~ in c~bji:~:ts andlc~x cab trust ~t
Z t1~~i n~rn~iw ecie~trian ci~latt~ t~f way tc~ 1 ss thy°► ~ fit ~f arc ,ssibl~ width;
3 ~i) '4~id in c~fp~cies~rian rid ht~ cif wad sand ~tit~r~s the~~o `to ~arc~~ride

4 i' t ~1` essibl~ r~idth;

~i) Provi~3 ng ~ ~ t+~ 'cl ran~~ tc~ the ~ntranc:es tafpu~li~ bus ~hcltcr ~
s
~j} Rpa:ir ~1' cxce:~~iv ~~r s~~pcs ~t lt~~ b~tttt~m t~f curb~~ l c~i

iz~ta csswals S
9
1.0 w~+~r suc~a ~i

(lc) Elirninatian ~fcurb ra~~p lips are curb x n~rs; (1~ Insts~Jl~t ~n c~~'~i~c;~:ssi~l~ try gr~trs, crr ~tl~e~ r mpliaz~t r~ are rrais~in~ f~°am ti c wills;

iatic~n,

( ~ Insst~~lat~n ~fmissi util ~~v~rs v~ere ~u~k~ r,~v ~.mssr~

12 ~`rarn s~ tic~~~lks, crass ks car ~~athv,ays, and

l (n) R~;mediatir~~ gather nog-ct~m iiant ccrndit cans.

l~ 'T~~ P~z~tics a rea that the r~nnu ICr>m~zitm~nt ~ .1 nc~~ b~u fc~r cdcstri

l5 '~ciiiti~s batedi rite l ~ja~cnt is t ~ ~c li~i~s caf the U~ tad tart ,~ State a~Coif mug,
16 the ~c~unty c f I.os r~n~~lcs, car ~th~r c~vcm~m~ t~l entities, b~ies,~ ~a~aats err agencies r~ ~r
17 t, n the ~i2~ (in~ludin~,, v~ith~ut lirnit~iic~n, t ieI~s11,r~~eles ~.7r~ifie~ ~ac~►l D ~trici, thy; ~.'~ift~rnia

18 ]fie ~ee~t cif T ns~aort~tic~ ,~uac~ the Lc~s ,1 +ales ~aur~t 1VI~t~res~l fi n Tira pmt taan
l9 '. Auth~r~ty~ whi ch a nit caws or m ntain~d by the pity. V~'itl~in trio {~} y rs ~ft~er the

2~ '~ cc~mm r~~em nt +~f t ~ C~napli~nc~ F rioci, }r as t~th~r s~ r~.a n~bl reed to by° the Panics, the
~~

+City ~~11identify {bye list, rn ar otheruisc) far +Clasp counsel the lracat tins c~i~ the Pcd~stri 2
~~cilitics tt~~t the City believes ar+~ im iii ly ac~j~~nt to such gt~v~ ment~.l ~~cili~ies a~ad v~ill

~3 r~~t be subj t tc► bra ~ir~~ ~mprav taents ~uxci~x this ~+~tlierncnt I~~n:cmt:nt.
2 ~2.~. All ~tia~n ~f~h~ Annual Cvmmit~~nt

25 Far the c~u~r~tYaz~ af`th~ ~~ plis~c~ P'~riad~ i s ua~ Cc~ naif~ nt sha~1 ~

26 allacl far Pr~r ~4 ~;s Im~~~=ements, subj+ t t~ ~.he lollawing;

27 (a~ t~~y ~m~~ants that the pity may ~x d c~z~ auxb .ramp car s d~ lc

~8 in ll~t ~n car r~rr~edi~ti~n w}aiah ivaa~ ne sit as chi, result c~~: {i} any alteratii~an arising f'r~

23

C:ace ice. C"V €0-0 982 ~BI~1~3

~~7T[_~;vtti~tv'T n~tzrr~~hf 1 r R~t~r:,~S~ C?~ CI4iMS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 32 of 61 Page ID #:14642

the resw a~in t~f meets ter +r~► ways ~vh~rein said xesurf'acin nvc~lve~i ~+~rl~ t~r~ ~ street gar 2 rc~~3u~~y sp ra ng ~rcaxn one n er~e~taan tca ~nc~th~r ~Ii~,~lt~~d caveria~ys caf additianal ~aaat~r~i is ia~

the rc~~d surface ( cl~ti~n slurry seais)~ (ii} ~~r~ei ~,ridczun car w deni~~ c~f~ther r r~ay~ end

4 E alleys, {iii.) t cr tic~n ~f ~ r~ew sit +~r the x~co gtr ctic~n c~ an e~tis~ »g Ot t; { ~~ tl~
5 t cc~r~s~uction cif a new pity buildin~> dark +~r c~th~r similar major f ility air site; (v~ s~vsa~r car ~tc~n~a

6 t~r~ n n~ta~Iatic~n €~r x~+~tar; (vi) br ~i~e, vi~duct~ and tunnel r~

x or e~a~st~~tia ;(vii) st :

7 1i htin nst~llat~ia car repairs ~r ~~ii) buy pad nstalla ~n ar repair shall ncyt count wart t~~

8 .A:nna,~~I Gc~mmit~ncnt,

(b) Far the first ~ r oft Camp ian~:~ P~ri~, ~U~~'a ~f~~ An tail

i~ Gt>xn mine t h l~ '~ ~lic►~afi~d to the .~ s ~.~u~ ~k ~'rc~grarr~ ~~s d~'in~dl ic~w~. For ~aclt yearn€•

ll ih~ fter, the City an~i Mass {:`+~un~el sha1.1mgt end ct~nfer tea di~~~ss in gam th w}~~th~z tt~e

1 ~r~ent e aaf~hc A,n~u~l ~~a tm++e~nnt allt~c d tc~ the ,~~ccc~s Rc~~Pr~a~ should.b~

~3 chan~~d bay u~x~i Baum ~r cif u~st~ r ive. ,cti arra~aunt of retnc:di~t~a mad can~aru~iign

l4 w~r~ ~r#`an 1, ~n~. such othc~ fa~:ors a~ the ~' es deem ~nel~v~nt. i~, ~'t~r a~ay ~~s of ar

l~ C~zr~~lianr.~ P~~r t~ amt f}~~ ~rsi yam, ih~ pity anc~ C'l~ G+~un~e1 ire u tbl t~ r can the

1(i z rata ~ ~fthe ~nnusl C+~mrnitrn at that should atic ted to tE~~ :,Access Request ~v~ram~ tie

17' p~rc~ntag~ sha11rcz~a n t ~ sa c as Lhe~ r~~a~,e That ~v~.s allc deed tae ~cc~in~ yeas.
1~''. (c~ Fc~r the first year c~ `~la~ C`a pl c~ ~' ci~l, Five ~Iillic3n all~rs

19;

I (~5*0{~~,{7{7~) of the .~.z~nua( ~~ ta~iizn t sl~ll all

tca cc stan~~t on and d~v~1~►p t

~~

T~~~fi~n t~ CUTb Tai~tp t~~" Ctt~ Gut inSl Iat~n 4i' ~~t3~t{~atipi~ ~i~]CIu(~ii~g5 Witt~'li+t~lt ~~17i~t~c~t~, ~`or

21 Prca ram .dlc~ ~ Im~ar+~vemen~s de cri ed in e~ri~ns 12.~~ }, l c} ~ X2.4 } ~~cive axad

22 inc~u+din ihr~~u~,h t1~e .tic~ess uc~t Pro sam descries in Se~taan ~2.8 t lv ~. Each. y

23 it~~r~eaaf r~ the City +d Cl~sss Cc~unscl shs l ~n~et air~ci confer Ca ~#iscuss i~ ~oc~d faith wl~~th~r tla~
~~ amount of the Annual Gammitrnent allcx;at~~ 1~ such can trust can end cle~~el~prn~nt sl~►~~ b~

~5 cb get#

upon t~a~ num car of curb ~~annps gar curb cutsi ~ c►r rer~~d~ated, the nip of

2b ~c~c~tions f ui~,e fur her curd

or curb gut installation ar yenned s~~r~ and. such other

27 fact+acs as the axti~c~ m r~l~v t, ', far era year cif t Cam ~iar►c~c ' t~~ ai~~r tai f~r~t fi r,

t~~ Gi~:y and Gloms ~c~un~e~ ~;re unable tv a ,r c~z~ tt~~ amount c~f~he Annul ~cam~irzn t that

24

~Se o.

"~77,~7N31' AC~iL~MEN'T.A'~II7r R11.,~~5~ ~F GJ~t

10-~57H2 CI3h~ Rix

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 33 of 61 Page ID #:14643

l so ld b~ al.ic~ai ~;+~ fir ~u~ r~r~tru~t ~n d de~~lt~pna~nt,ter
Z i~a~ ndunt ~laat was ~ll+~et in t~ pr~din~ y~ .

ret~unt:hall r

aita thre same as

1 .~. ~'a~ruurr-C)ver Provision

~#

'I've.~.~inu L'~mmita~a~e i sn~u~nts sit firth iz~ S~+~t can 1 .~ ~bc~~~("r~q~tir~d

am~►unt(s}~° € the i~s~ ~t~ ~~nua~ t ~~ent ~~' funds Pram t City.

{a) Iftt +pity ~~ ends rr~~r~ thin t ~ c~uir n~unt ~'or ~h~ Ann~axl

7 C;om it ant in any year, the excess rnaunt mill

~r iit~d t~r~rrar~l the ~nnua~ ~"c>rni~itmer~t in

8 fi:~tur yam.

(~+} Ifi~e City c.~. e~ads i s than the r uircd ax t~unl ft~r tie Ar~uu~ll

1~ Co cnitme~t iz~ any y r, e uz rnnaitt

or~i~n of t;~at ;r~~r's .Armuat C~mz~lm~nt mill lay

1 1 utilized ai plum t the tt1~r~~ nt A~,r~~ enti subser~t~~nt y rs ~s soon aa:~ p :cal, fat

12 v►~ii n nc~ lc~ng~r than t`h r~xi tlsr

fis~~.al yes. such ~nc~mt~atte€~ pt~rtivns shall b~ spent os

1 ap~r~pri~ted in additio~a to the rey~ircd punt ar nuts for the 1'~nnual C;ca mit t far such

1~ ~ubs uent y~ar~.

1~

(~~ Ira nc~ fiscal r cat er the~ first y~aur, i~ cord~nnc~ nth ti+~n 12,3

l~b +o~~~) shad ih~ pity ~xp~r~ 1 than 2~ ~nilti~n as its A n l~`~rnmitme~xt pars aat ttr the

l~ ~etticment rmt.

18 l~.~7. ~"rc~►iect ~'r~~riti~ativn

l Thy s ~c tic~n t~mi~~ ~f p~c~ul~r pr~j~ets fir Pica r~zaca Acc ,ss Im r~~e ~nt~

2f3 dine udin~, vv~~th~ut ~ium tat~c~n, the ~electi~~a ~f e t~s ~fP"rc~~ Acr~c~s ~aamp ~r~n nos sit Earth

21 i~a. S~tia~ 12.E eve had w~~l b~ ca~ducte~, t}~~ gel tion ~f l~ t erns h ~ast~l~~ gin,

22 z~ezn

ati~ or ~i ~r nstxu~t~~n mill

~~r~ductc~, t}a~ ~l txc~n t~fpersonnel, at~r a]~,

23 ~ ~t~lo iec~ end t h~.+~l~a~ c~ Vic: b~ utili d,

1 ~c card rand sc~ ~f~hc: particular p~rctj~is)

Z~ s~iall be deter~ni~~tl b the rC ~y in its discr~t ran, subj t to the f~llowiz~ p~it~~` cs:

25 (a} ~'r~gram.l essI~pravements z~~~d t~ ~~~ F ~iria ~litic

Zf s~rrvin~ ire ~nllovviing {in d~sc~ndi~g order c~fp~ ritiz~ii~n):

Z7'.

( ) Gity go~ernxn~ni ~f~ic~s end facilita~~ (inclut~ingthe ~e ia~n rigiyt~ cif

2 '. v+~ay adjacent to f~~il~~~ awn 1car c~ at~t~ ~~ the Cite ark the p~ hs vfta~~e1I~~ding ~ro~ such

~~ s ,as~;Ia'T~~~t r z' ~z~tr.~

Cas~No. GV 1~-0~78~ ~B~vI s t~ C~.~t~i

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 34 of 61 Page ID #:14644

a~ijar~;nt cdes~ri~n rights ofr~~~° tc~ the pr~~i~<~ry ~air~nc tc~ s~~hf ci~ifii~s~. Pram cc

t prc~vcrnents with rep i i:~ P~~i~str3a~ F critics ser~in~ City gov~rnm~nt c~t~i and fa~i~iti~s

3 sh~11 be pric~~i~ar..~ with

~,e~a1 ~f mpl~ta~n~ ~a~h r~c~rk within

first five years r

4 Cc~rr~ ~iancc ~'ez~iod ciffeas bi~~;

5 ~ i~ ira~ns rt~t~n rr~~iors,

b

viii) ~c~ ials~ ~n~tii~al facilities* a~si i~d living fa~iliti~:sy and vth~r similar

facilities, 8 '.

(iv) plies vfpubli~ ~c,~o m ~t ~~ such as c~ranmerc al busing

~ane~;

1 t~ (v facilities cc~nt~i~z~ing aptcryers; and

~l

Zvi) nth~r ar~~s such as r~s cicnt ~~ nc g}~ r~ic~s and undev~l~ap~d areas.

12

(b) With respect tai Program Accc~s mprc~verr~~n~,s ad ss n tic Pcd~stxiars

13 F'a~:ilities set fc~~th in this Sc~c:taan l~.7,tt~e fcrllawi~ng b~rraer rcmava~ ~rrork sJ~~l1 e~~+c priority:

14 {i) In Il atic~n cif mr~sing curb ramps;

15 iii) Repair ~fdiec~us~ byt~~e ~s to sid~waJk car walkway

16 surfaces sty thatthe sidewalk or Gal way suxf~ s are rr~~3e a ssib~e to d usable by ~r~n

17 wi#~ Iv~c~b~lty I}isahilitics,

I$ Baia) T.I~r~r~c~ing ~fexi~#. ngcurb r~m~s~ cc~mpiy wiih ttfe s11.an~~iarti.~ sei

19 f~a~tla ~n ~ectann 1~>`~ ~le~w;

0

(iv} Repair cifbrc►~r:~ ~nnd/ar un~vcn ~,a~crnG t %n it pedestrian r~~hts oaf

~1 wwa~y ~incl~ x~~ uti~aty givers ~sr repair cc~vcrs) deeper at~dlor vvi~~r than. ~l2 in k;

~v) R~aa x c►f'vertic~l or h~i~i~~n~l d spla ~en~ ~r upht val oaf 3
~ c~walk or crosswalk space ~tcr Haan 1~~ ir~~ {incla~~~g ~~dcwa~k flays,ca~rbs and u lty
' ~ v~~rs), 2S ~ui~ +~~rr~ct o~ cif nca~-rc~m~liat~i ~r~s~-slopes in sidew~lk~ or s~cti+o t~ ~~i si~evs~alks; 27 ~v~) Rc oval of protru~~ng az~l ov~rl~~.n~ing ob ~t~ armor ~b~tr~aci c~~s 28 ~t ~ro~v c~i~sirian nigfi~s cif wad t~ lc~s tl are ~ fc~i ~~~s~ ble midi ,

s~r~.E:urrrr r~x~k.tir~ ~~7 r rt e errca..~ut~rs

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 35 of 61 Page ID #:14645

1

(viii? ~~Iid~nr~ ~f xis°iarY r~~t t~f y and ~on~ th~r f~o p~avide

4fit ~f ces~ible v dth; 3
(ixy
4 ~~)
5i
llitU ~1'C1~3i3~ ~ ;

I'rc~~~id n ,4fit ofc1c4uG~i~cc tc► the cntrs~n s afg~b~i~ bus. sl°~lt~rs; R~ sir of c c~s~ivc ufit~r sl~►ps at t battv~n ~r~'curb ram s lead ~~

(xi} ~li~rinati+~n c~fe~artrrip liars an~ramps,

~~

(xi) Installation crf access bl~ try gates, ar t~t~t ~~a pli t r~mc~ atar~n,

8 v~~l~crc such gate are ~ni~ n~ m trey wellsg

fat i ~ Insstall~tic>n c►f ss~~ utility caves where such covers ire m s~~n

l t? :fr~arn sidcvv~, cra~sw~l~ and palh~r~ay~~ aid

ll j I

( ivy ~t~med Ming o~i~r ~~ mom l~su~t c~nc~ ki~ns.

l"~

(c) ~4'h~n rn cin~ bra Access Itnprov~rr nos in ~c r~aric.~ x chc

1~ i p~oril~e~ sct fs~rth in this S~ectic~n 1:2.7, the City sl~l also

ply ~h fai~~vving principles:

~~

(i) '~ pity sh~li pric,ritirc r~ i t ~r~ inst~llatic~~ e►r at~t~r

15 ca tnic~ivn. f~~ ltxcatians

d~+ nc t ~~e s~t~ ~ast~aints +~r t~~hr~ical ~nffe~,s bi ity issues

lC ~ ~z~~iin t~~ ~~nc~areis set fart}► in ~~~tic~n~ 1~.9 be~ov~r;

1'7 ~

~ii~ 'with r~s~ect tr, unust~~lly gat v~ ans~llatic~n ter tr~~disii~n

~$ c~nc~rr~inn~ any P

s~°i Faci1~~}~, ttr~ City shit h~v t

dis~r~tisan to a

ss swch iteia~s in

1~'. c+nr~tioz~ ti~v th lar~;cr strc~t~re~a ~ capit~~ ~rr~j is at such lc~at one;

20 i

(iii) irk ~n slit icult sites may k~ pc?~tpr~n ~~'t erg is an ~te~n~~re

1 aaccessi~l route within ~t~ z~~un th~.n ~ i'~t ~f tie can~di~€~n ~ti~eta tlg~ znau~iz~~ e~ct tt

~'cas~ le}. such ailtern~tivc r~ut~s will dc~it fib #o r ns wi th 1'~S~~a lity I3~sabilities fn

23 ~cc~rda re wig appl~cabl~ .A.D~ ' 'it~e Il re ulati~ns;

2~

(iv)

~ta~n~ ~t ~srhi~h 5i~; cc~nsuaint~r~:c strict n~pliaa~e with

appl~c~bl~ design ~~tandards im ra~ticabl~ may be m~d~ c~ pliani with.the scan sit f~ ii~

~6 ~tat~n 12.9 below ~c~ the m~xi~n~n ~~cte~i feasible;

2~'

{v~ T. e~ ih~t are the c~~u~~e ~~`s dew k b

~vi11b~p served to the

S extent easi~►t~ and protected trce~ may ~~ty

m oved in acc~~ancc with

~ ~►n ,eles

27

C`~.~e h~~. ~V 1b~4l57E? ~"IiM ~1

rt rrt' At~~~.~'~~xr nrr~aR .+~s~(~ C~.. s

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 36 of 61 Page ID #:14646

aluni+ci al C`~d~ ~b.{~~-~ti. ,anti.~1 ot~~r ~~plicabl~ +~i#y ant~lcar Stan cod , ~ll~s and pr~li~ies ~~
r~g~r~ling or s ~.nd tae r~tnov~~.

3~ 1.2.8. Arc s R a t Pr+a~r~ru

~ ~'

Bch y~ ~f ~a pliancy Period,the Cif shad retain auto ~p~rates~l cy

~n~l prc e~ur~ ~c~r S~ttl~ ~1~ss ~ ~b~rs t~ submitrequ s fc~r ~'ro~r ~c:e~ss Itnprr~v ants 6 ~t I~ac~ti~ns denti~i+~d by such mom rs(tip "r~,cc~e~s ~que~t ~r~gr~rn"j. T~~ A~ R asst

~r€~~,r sell c+ansist ~fand b~ c~verned y ~~~e full~sv~i~~ice:

~ '.

(a) l~ae c~st~ ~f tie r~rc.~~ Reba tPrc~gcar~a ~~iall be find leach y r

9,
from.the t~z~aual Cvrrunit~aent,a~~uing as prc~videt~ in +ectic~~ 12,2 ab~av~.

I4

Access ~ec~uesi~ may o~aly b~ made by mernber~ cif lie ~ettle~e~t

1 1 ~1ass,including individu~.l~ acting an l h~fflfm~n~rs ofthe Settlement Clams,ter c~r~ar tia~

l

tin en hehaifofme bee's a~fthe Sete nt Glass ~"the r~que~ vr~'~ (provided ihat the-individual

l3, can w~za~se ehalf't e re. u ~i is rn~ is ident~f~e~}. R~qu~st~ made b~ ~r~dividu~l~ ~i are nc~

14 esnt~ers oftie et~tl~m~nt Cl ~,~r y indi~~iduaJ~ why are ~~t actiz~~ cm ~eh~lfofrnembe~rs ofthe

1~ settlement ~~lass,shall ns3t b~ p used car addr~:; underthe ~~cecss ~ equ~st~"rc~~;r~n.

~6'.

~~ Tie ~`u toss all~ca tc~ the ~1c s R.~uest1'ro n shall u !fir

~7 Prcagr n r~ ss trnprovemez~ts ~~ apt fc~~th iz~ cti~ 12.4 ~~av~.

l (d) Thy ~~clion and tarn ~~ caf pert cul~ praje~ts c~radu~ttet~ n~~r l ~

l9' ~c,~e~~ Requ~s~!Pr~gr~ran(ir~c~udin~,~vit~aut limitation i]~ lent on ciftie tyres cifPrc~ ram
~(]r access Irr~grc~vezne~nts set ~'~r~h ~ ec~tica~ 12.E evethat~vvill be c~andu ted,tae ~ele~~i~n of

~~ ~' 't~n~~~iaa~i~n or gather c~anstn~ctian will be cvn~uccated, e s~1~c~it~n ~f

22 c~~l, ai~ri is m~thc~l~la ie~ and t~h~acalo~ies tc~ b~ utilized,aaad the er rands py ~fthe

2~ pa~cular pr+~j~cts}shad deter rte by t~~e City in its d s+~retion,subject to tl ft~llc~ww~~ng
~~ p~ic►r ties; {i) ~equ~ts fesr a ~a ~1sr sI ~r~v~menls ~~all be rev ev~d and i~vestig din the

S order re~e v ;+iii) t~~ h~glae~~t priori s}~~11 ~;c~ to qu~~ts fQr Program ac s Iznpra~re~ne is az~

2£~ residential z~~~~a~sar eta s ~r the are n e ary tc~ pr~avi~ie a~~ss to bus sups ~r tamer ftar~s cif

27 pu lac ~ransit~

d(i i)11~~ lees ~f Prcx

im t~c~ces~ Im~rcavemen~s identi~+~d in

fit~ns 1

a~

~~ (~~ ~t~a~~e shall. also eve pri~ricy.

s~z'~L ~

~C~~t~ 'htT ANn [ct~~.~=nsr ~~c c.i,~triiS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 37 of 61 Page ID #:14647

(~~ '~ pity shall aint n ~` cil~~ies tl~ ienable ~t1~m~nt lass

2 A+~SI`t~.}~2'S 1~ 3i1~i71111}~G£~SS ~`ey11~5~5 ~1~~ te1LE~l~~ne,try ~1~ctran c mail,by ~.ccess~ib~e ~l

nic

.,

f~~n avai~ble pan a websit~{t~ith the r~te~ant~rii~n~ t~ftl~e its eta pli~ni with °'V4'~~~i~,or

4 by ~1ta~dard ~na~l(in addat~t~n tee such a~h~r r~~thcads ~taat t1~e pity an y dot mi e}. Thy fit

1.

5 ~nsur~

lle ss Requ~st~ may b~ z ie ~u~h the C.xriev~nceProud r~~ as fex~nc~d in

b t c~n l' b~l~w,

~~9 ~pity sh~il require that each Aec.~ss ~t~quest pro~ade~ at a

ini~nuan, the f~allc~wing anforma~ic~r~. (i) the r u~st~r's name, addre and other contact

9 nf~s~a~~n; {iii a ~t~iem~nt that the rey~~e~t~r i~ a ~rsc~r~ wi#h ~ c~bilit~ ~isabilit~r or is making

10 the request an behalf of an ide~ifed p~rsc~n ~rida a A~c~bility I7isabi.li~ ~iii~ a s~escriptic~n ~f tiae

1 articular access barrier; Div) the lcrca~ac~n of the part~~ular access barrier; as~d ~v) the meted

I pr~fertexl by the requestor #c~ receive tl pity's r~sp~ar~s~ to e ~1~essR~u~ ~~.~_., by tel~pha~ne

13 by +~l

r~u~ic mail or by staaa~ard mail). A~ "~cce~s

prier" skull mean end refer tc~ quay r~s~ditican.

l r~c~t inr.~rnp~i~ ee with tt~e X010 AT~A Sta~d~t~ds fir t~cces~ibl~ I~e~ gn, su~j+e~t ~ ~u;tian 12,x.

~5 cussReguc~ts may l~ ~a~e b cttic ent G~ ~a~zr~b~rrs v~t~ a tes t farm t~aat shallb~

Ca made ava l~bd~ by the City aid sb~l~ be in a fez n substantially similar tc~ the r~que~t farm ~ttacY~etl

17 t+~ this ettlemcnt ~l regiment ~s Exhibit "G".

1 ~3

~~ ~ Thy City shad c~a~u~ent recei iof~ach,Ac~.c~es~ Request madeby a

l~► ~nber caf the settlement Class car on`t~half of a enaher cif die et~le~anent Gass. Each such

~{~ ~lcc~ss R~uest s~aall b~ ass ~d a specific rdentiii~tic~n number (car c~the~ identifyia~

~l i~fo~'~tic~~zz} ~t3d lob ed into ~ soii~

rc~p~ c+r jai ~r ~l trnn c syst~rn that c arils the

22 re~uesiac' mane end ~a tact inf~rn~.~~ic~r~, ~la+~ d;~te aft e requ t~ the type e► 'access brier, and

~~ the ~vcati~n~ cif tae acmes der. Within ten {~~) ci~ys ~~'re eipt, tk~ pity sal z~otity tic

24 reque~tar That his or her Acmes R~yuest bas teen

eive soil provide the rer~u~tc~r with ~e

25 id nti~cat~~an tb car t~th r ir~enii~yin~ infc~rcz~~t can as~i aed in Access Request. 'T Ciiy

Z 1h~11 use; its b~~t c arts to ~c~nduct its nv ti taon ar defer ir~tion ca w tier d whin ~.n

27 t'1c~c~~s R~uest may be c~zt~pi~te~cf it~i n ~aart~ (34~ days of~ t ~f ~ bzz~~tted ~~ssR~quues

Z~ ~ua~i Khali rc7mptl~r there der provide the ues~+~r ih pan e~tam~i~ti date ~y ~.v~ic t ~ pity

2'~

~'~se No. ~'V l~-4ST~2 C~ RZx

~ETT(:G~4(FT A(~k. ..72+3~ t1l~if~ JtF`i.Erl~ t)E ~:I.~ihIh3S

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 38 of 61 Page ID #:14648

exp~cis~access barriex to be r~rsr~~ 3 €~r adrir~ssed. T`l~e pity sl~~l

~~t e arts tai, d 1;~

2 ~~ ext tf sible~ cc7mpl~t~ ~~.ch such ~1c,cess Request within or~~ h ~ twenty ~1Z~~ dais of

3 r ipi. A.r~~ss R. pests t gar ncai compl~:~i r~ th n t~~ ~is~al ~ r in which they ~r r i~r l

shall rt~11 aver tc~ the follcr irr~ fis~a~ y r ar~c~ b~ ~.sidr~s in a~c~a~ian~~ with~~~rn a~`t~ is 5
~ectic~n 1~.~ dttrn~ such. year.
6 ~h} ~'he Parties a~niz~ ar~c~ ~~c~r~l e that the implenn~tatt~ttir~ ~f
7 il~e Access R~~u~s~tPrc~~,rram will require inve~ti~atian,as~essmerYt,adjustmentand ~c►opera~i~n
8 t try nthe 1'ar~t es throe taut the +~c~rilpli~n .P~riad (incl din r~ithnutlmit~tian, dui tt~ e

rn~b~r atad t~ off' Access i~u~u is rec~ive~ d ~►~ amaunt of An r:~al

~m nt funds

l a~l~ec~ tt~ aid ~ pe~nd~d tk~r~u the Access Req~~st ~'r~ ram}, ~n ~ basis, fih~ pity ~d

C'~a~s ~un.~el :~h~11 meet an~i confer to c~scuss in ~vad faith w~~t r the a~tc~cat an offiords, 1~
pr eci s, dimemoods end c~t~ r f~atur~s ofthe ~"1cce~s lt~qu~siPr am should be madi~i~eci t~ 1~
~nor~ cffe~ti~ely dress t ie Access Requests aa~ci the i~tter~sts r~~'the Se e ~r~t ~l~ss. 14
12.x. Sty d~rd,a for Arc si~rili ~~c~ Pro Ae es im r~v~ +ent~ 15
'I'he p~a°ti+es ~ ~e~ that ~.11 ~'rc~~r~m access T r~vem~°nnt~ under this ~ tivn ~ 2 s ~ lei
am ply t}~ the sta arks set f~rti in the ~~1~ AIWA ~'t~r s ~c~r A ens ble IJ~si n car the then17
current it~ra-~~an ~f Title 24 cif t~i~ Cali~c~ i~. wilding C'~od~, whichever ~r~v e s ~r~ater grotr~~ion 1
ar a~cr.~s tc~ pens ~i~h ~t?Iobility Di bilities, If end ass ~►y n~ f~d~ral car ~`a1 ~rrii .dishliy i
access d~essi s~a~~is t1~t appal t~ t ~accl~st~ anri his ~~ w~.~ refs nc~d inThis S+e~tt t 2~
.A~r+e~nn t ~ me e ' tiv~. car as appli~abl~ legal p ede~tt is established, t~►os~ ~ta~ds cts sl l 2l
they b m~ tie st~n~at~d for p~fa~rmann u~d~r th~~ Se~tit~n 1 .

12.1 . E~e~nntio~for~'ra~ram Accesm~r~►vem~~tt~ ~~
'I' I'ar~i~s ree~ that the ~;ity wall be ~xem~ted frc~~m any obl ~.ti~n tea ira~tall or 2~
per~~r.~a. ~. P~rogr~m A ss lm~~avem t ~t ~ p~rticul~r I'e estr ~n facility location i~: ~i) ~5
~~i tt b~~rr ors tt~ remediatian nt ll~d ~~ thin p~rlies ~su~}~ asst T.Q.S. ~'c~si C~ficc, fh~ ~~tte of

dal fo~nia~ car the Gas C~mpa~ny}; {ii} t ae pant ~ula~ lo~a~ion requires a ~'rr~~~rn ~. ess '4 '7
Ixnprc~verrment ~t is regn;red to be perf'carm~d Y~~ a third party pursuant to a. ~av+~ull~- ss eti per~ni~,
8 I
a +cc~ndatic~nal permit ter ath+~ ~~;reement wit,1~ such third ~ariy {in w ish cash, the Cil wildi

3A

base No. ~`V l0-QS7~2 ~BI~T x

s~`t'III:.~lv4~"Id`! ACi1tEElYIfsNT'~Ti~ RF ASr: Csf~ t."i rlihiS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 39 of 61 Page ID #:14649

1 a demand to such third party for the prompt completion ofthe Program Access Improvement);(iii)
2 the particular location is not within City boundaries ar is awned by a third party gavernmenfal

entity(e.g.,the ll~ited States,the State ofCalifornia,the bounty ofL,os Angeles,or a neighboring
4 municipa)ity); or(iv)there exists a technical.infeasibility to instailrng or performing a Pxogram
5 AccessImpmvement at the particular location because oftopography ar some other facior,
6 ineludin~;ifremediation would be "technically infeasible" as defined by Standard 106.5 ofthe
7 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
8 'f'he Parties also agree that the obligations offhe Ciiy with respect to Progarn
9 Access Improvements at a particular location or with respect to a particular access barrier may be
l~ postponed ifthe postponement is caused by or aitribufahle to a force m~jeure(khat is, due to acts of
ll God,war,governn}ent regulations {other than regulations by the City),terrorism,disaster
12 (including power outagesj,strikes,civil disorder, government declared fiscal emergency,or an
13 emergency beyond the Ciry's control that make it illegal or impossible for the City to perform the
14 access work at issue. Under this provision,the City's ob]igations may be tolled.for the period of
i5 the force majeure's effect.
16 12.1 l. Ose ofthe Annual Commitmentfor Qther Expenses
17 In addition to the matters set Forth above in this Section 12,the Annual
]8 Comminneni shall be used.for the following:
19 (a) Any reasonable costs incurred by fhc City to pzavide notice to the
20 ' Settlement Glass regarding the settlemezat embodied in this Settlement Agreement,the Faizness
21 Hearing,the Judgment or any other matter as required under this Settlement Agreement(including
22 as set forth in Secfiion 6.5 above)and to provide outreach and infom~afion tc~ the general public
23 ~ re~;ardin~;the Settlement Agreement.
24 (b} Any costs incurred by Clays Counsel to provide notice to the
25 settlement Class regazding the settlement embodied in this Settlement Agreement,the Fairness
26 Hearing,the Tudgznent or any other zxaatter as required under Phis Settlement Agreement(including
27 as setforth in Section 6.5 above).
~g (c} The City's Support Costs.

31

Case Nn. CV 10-05782 CBM(RZx)

s~.-rri,~n~*rr ~c~r.~t~r-r~ruLr-.ns~ or•cL~s

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 40 of 61 Page ID #:14650

l

(d} The c.~ast~ ~fc at n ,u~in~ end maia~t~in 1 Amass and

~I ~o~~tnaciaan Da~ab~s~,a sit earth in ~ee~tion ~ ~c~~v, ~e~ T~a~ ~cast~ c~~'tl~e a'-~D.t~ Cv~rdiraatpr ~`c~r the Pede~~tri~n kr`~h~t ~a~~ay

~s sit Earth in ~ 5
~i

r►n 15 l~el~w.

(

Plai tiff`s'I speciic~n ~" s, a~ sit far~h i~ a ta~an 18 luu$.

} °I~e Part ~s~ ~~tarney~' fees d cca incurred for any ~ sp~t~e,

pur~u~nt tc~ a t can lS~ below.

8

{ ~ "Mcrn taring Fees" mid tc~ ~la~ c~uns~l in tie Garte~r~.~'rrhrm~e

,r~cta~n of up to a m c um raf T~~nty-Fz~e T c~~ nd i~o~lars (2 ,0{Jf~} nu~ly ~~za~ ~ J~ tie

10 t irri, fo~rtki end fifth ye~r~ ~ 'thy C~c~r~pli

c Perim, a~

t forth in the C~rter.~ "

~ ~e~ttlem~ t

11 1~g r~aent ~it~~ced h~retn.

l2 l~. ~tcr~+ ~os~ructi~~ d A)tra~~ns

l

T ae pity shill enst t.hat atl n~ anst tiara auxd alteration °work at P ~stri

l ~4 Facilities frilly r~mpl s vvi~th the 2fl~it A.L)

t da~3s car t~►c4 ~sib(e I~esi~n ar the t~re~-~~t

l5 it~r~ti~n cif t

C li `orni~ Bur lc3ing Cnd~ ("G~CG" gr "Title 2~"~~ which er s nc

dpr~v'it~es grater

16 p~rc~te✓ct ~n yr ~c~~ss Ica r~crr~ wish It +ability I~is~ ilia: es, ~ the event ghat tae ~~ty cc~nstru may

1'7 ~~~et~~ Tian rac~tities car itcrs any ~u+~h existing P~t~estriar~ ~acititie~,those faci~iti~~ X1 11 fu ll

18 ~+at pry in X11 aspects vv t~ fhe ~1.1~►,~1 i~nc~~rd ~r GB+ q irement~ for n+cw constn Mora cac
l~' ~liera~t%~~s, I~ t went the e federal a~acUc►r stye ~c~~a~~~at a~dc~pts fiaa~ r disalailxty acmes

d~:si~n standards, tl City shall comply mat a~a~ su~cla updates amass st~x~d~rd men it p~rf~rm

1' n+e construct ~rt~ or alterat tins to its fa~ilitits.

Z'? 1~#. ~cc said ~e~nsfructi~~ ~at~ah~se

~3

]4.I. V►' ~aazt t~c~ ~ ~ yew after the c~snm~nc~rameni; ofth c~~aplia~nce Pericc~dd ar

~~ a crtherwis+~

Ma ly ~ r ltc~ by f ~ '~rrties, City skill crate ~ da~~b tl~c ".~►~~~s d

~S G~nsttucti~n ~7

e"~ that nos the ~'c~llt~w%r~ intom~taon.

2b'.

(a~ a li~t~~ag end map ~f X11 ~~ic~ns ai ~vhic~ curb rams ~~re ~a~allc

2? ar r c~iat~ed daring the pr~t~r twc~ {~) G ty ~s~al y

pur u~nt t+~ ~~~ terms ~£fi~ias c~tl~rr~nt

~S; r+ec~ai;

32

~asel~~r. CV lD-i1578~ +GBi

S "3"1`LE:~k.t~"C ARFs~~vi}"sYd'~' Hll RE1.. S~ (3~ ~i~AIM~

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 41 of 61 Page ID #:14651

1

(~r~ a lis~tir~g and map cifal~ l~cativ~s a~:~~ch Ped~s#r an ~`ac~ ties vv~~r~

2 r

iat~d car imprc~vtx~ during the prior twt~ 2}~i~ fi~c~1 y~ar~ p ua~i tc~ the t~rm~ ~ft ~

3 ~ttlec~t A~re~~n~nt}

{~~ a list o~the paendin~ Access Requests sr~brn ~t~d icy and ~eceir~ i ~y

i~~ City tturin~ the prior twc~ ~2} ~i fiscal y~ea~s pursu~€~t to t~~ terms ~f'this S tticmcni

6 A ~rnent;

7

~j~) ~ li~ctar~~ anti rn cafthe Ac~~ss R~qucsts proses ci and c~xn lewd

b the ~'ty during ~ c r sar tw-o ~2)q ty d al years puz~saaantto tici~~fi is'~~ttle eat

A~reerncnt,

14

{e) a listing aaa~l mad cifX11 to inns its r Acct tt~ which the Cat

ll

ivcxi grievances car cc~mglaints during t priort c~(~~ C",ity ~isca~ years th~ou~hh the Cxievanc~

~ystc~n dcrib~iin ~ectic~n l7 b~lov~

13

~fj the aun~aunt a~`1 rrau~l ~ ~mn~i~cnc~t ~'i cis ex cn~icci wring t~ pr ax

I4 tv~{2}C'ity fi~a~ years with a brc~~~ic~wn off'the amow~ts pcnded car e cra~l cafe o~ic ~f

.~
16 (~) ~listing and display ~ the sitrecur `a~in~,ar r~ v n ~ro,~e~s ~y
l7 the pity ~nvoty n alter~ti~ar~s carimprawer~a~z~ts tc~ pcdcstria~n pathways,capital impravcrraent
1~ prc~ject~ by the ~Gity inv~ ving alt+cratic~ns ~r irnpravc~a is t~ p~dcs~rian pat?a ys,and si,~r~i~cat~t
l9 nstru~ci pn ~r€~j~:t~ by'pri~~tc pax gubtic entities(~thcr thaan tic Cif)~nvcalvirag ali~rra~i€~n~ cap
~0 ~mpruv n~nt~ to ~siri~n ~aat~w~~~,arad ~d%n~ ~ccc~s1~e~ucs~ pur~u t try ~etic~n 1~.~ that
1 the City l~l evcs will e co~ad~d during the then cus~ent hsral yc~.
22 14. ~ 'I"h~ Access aid ~~~ci oz~ Ida base shall b~ m~d~ av~ilabl~ to tk ~u lip
~~ ~~~ in ~l t anic firm c~~ car though the +Guy's ~a ficial v~a~bsiie end (ii} in written ft~r #rang the

~ +rc~ pft AI~.A ~'t~rrdinxa~ar. Thy ~~ ss nfv~~ a in t dat~ba~ shall atsu be a~~ ~" 5
v~ilabl+e to the pul~lac up~an tc~ta~st ~n the f~rn~ ~a~' r ~ d maps, well as in n~s~uy ~,n~i ~6
~} i'~priai~; ~lernativG c~~t~,it~lutlin ft~~'~in ~~rlgt~a~5(nsiSt~~e~ v~it~ b~lloi ju~~em~n~.$),
2'~ la~;e err nt,Br~ill+~(i1`f~as,ibl~)mad a~c~ssitale e~~trc3 i ft~rrs~ts tbat can b~ rcc~ n~izcd ar~ci reat~ by
28 sc~f~w~ cc~mznc~nly us~i by individuals with visual i ~irment~ tc> r ~.a~i l i~c~rnxal~an. t~ l

S~°C° ,.F~viF3a'r rtG :EM1Ik9'I'r1 fLF S~~C1F("LA,Ch#S

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 42 of 61 Page ID #:14652

l P~~~s car ccant~~i an the C` ty`s vv~b~ite ihat Sze p~'t afthe ps~acess ~'ar ~bt~inin~;°the n~'c~~at ran in

t si~~l~as~ sh~l~ cs~nipl}~ °~~th r~G, 3
14.x. Following t creation ~~the ~cceees~ mad ~<~nstruGtio~a Data~b~.s~ sus sit ft~rth ~ '.
in e~tic~n ~4.1 ab~av+~,the City salrnainf~ n the ,t~Gc~ anti Construcut~n Datala iFor

~ i remainder ofthe C~rt~pli r~ Pei end ~}~all updatt~ the ~foxnnation t ~ t~ ~rz ~n ~u~1 basis.

~'

i

l5. A~3A C"ac~r~i nat+nr fir the ~edestria~n ~t,~~t of~Vav

7 15.1. within twelve ~12)months~rthe c~amrnencement t~~fit ~om~li

1'~riad, t~►~ C ~ s~a11bare. ~ uani tta this Settlement A~enient c~ ~c~ns ~+~nt wit a placable

9 C> t~

nesting requ ren~e~~ts, an A:~~ c~ordinat~r fear tl~e Pe striae Right ta~`'~rJ`~y. Such

r~:

1U ~csardin,~t~rr fcrr the Pedestrian 3~.i i~t c~~ Way, and sny c~ er A Cc~rc~iaa~tar fc~r °t~~ Pedestrian

Ri~hi of ~y subscqu+~ntl hire;: ~) shall have ~ut~s i~ial ~ er enc~ ~wal~~ n nr s st ng

1 public ~~ti~i~s in~au~tar~ t~~ c;~ssib iy of ~'ac~I dies und~ar TitleIIoft 1~D1~; {ii) shall t►~

13 l~ncrwiea ~.bl~ in current ~~ral d sta9t~ acees~ b pity ~t~n arils, ~i i~ sl~.t l v~ a izumur~t o

1~ thr~~ (3) y~ar~' x ience inpr~v~di~~,.~bA rv c~s rel~.t~ t~ acr, ibl~e acilat~~s; and ~ir~~ nnut

lS t~ I~ ns~ed eit r as architect car as ~ r~~ist~c~ civil. ~~ near. 7"t~ a~I~A ~arcii ~tr►r fc~r t

1 Pedestrian Right of~Vay shall. be ~ASp ~err~ifed withinno ar►c~r~ thin twelve m~r~~hs o ar ar his

1'~ hiring date.

18 15.2 ~n A~1~ Caarc in~tcar fir fine Pec~~stri~ Ri~lat crf tVi ay sh~l! Eye r~ta%ne~ d

1~ ~irectett by the ~i~y throu~hvt~t the Ga~mpliance Period.

~0 15.3, 'I'~ fey an~i e~p~~s~s c~~ tie ATU~1 ac~r~n~t~r ~~r t P'e~le ri~sa It' it ~f

~l VVay shall bepaidr~~ t~f the Annual ~a~nrt~itn~ent.

22

~

1~.~. For tla~ first fxive (~} fire s a~'th~ +~a plia~~ ~'eric~d, #~Ze AT).i~ Ccata~ina~r

3 fir the; Pe~~strian Right of may 1~ repc~r~ tc~ the Fart e~~ an v~+nriting, two ~Z t% ~~ e~~h pity fiscal

~4 year Once during„„ tl~ first half caf the fiscal ~re~r and t~nc during the second lfofth~ fiscal year)

c~~ tie statuu~ c~~'the Guy's c~mpli~.za~~ wit~r the terms ofth~s Settlement ~4 rnent. For t~i~ 26
r~m~i der o the Can~pl ante P~riad tl re~~~r, ~~ ADr~ ~c~rard n~# r fs~~ the P~c~s~tri Rag~t c►~' 2
i~Vay will ~ar~pvid~ sohr~~rts tc, ih~ Parties an~ ~nnu~l basis. ~.ach afthe rept~rts shall inc u~~ 2!3
tt~~ fo~lo in~,i~rarm~tion:

s~'!"i'?,L lvl' i~G'1EF:.t Nr ,"~[~ij rtt~t.~_f~sl: c.)~ G't~,ASNJC~

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 43 of 61 Page ID #:14653

t

~a) 11 d~t~il~ d~~iptian o~'tt►~ ccarnplis~ ~ffot'ts whack have been

4 ode sine the last r

rt with r+~sp~ct t~ ~a~h c~~'ihe ~ubstt~nnt~~~ t~ ~f this ~~tl~ jai

.~~~s~er~3tnt.

4

(Y,~ A ]ist ~fth~ ~'r~ram ~1.c~~sIm~~ et~ rfo~ or

5

lc~~i~ent~d ir~~e tl 1 :apart (incl~i s~ an it~~niz~ta~ of tt~~ a ~ ter c to +~r e c~fFr~

b ~11~~ Imp.~c~v~mmen~~ ~er~'a~~d ~~ pl~;r~~nt~~ what p t~ cifthe City's p tles~rian r~~ t~ of way

7 ar P s~ri~n Facilities ha~~ b

xnt~d~fi d azad ire +~rr~at ~~na~er, d wh:►t

s r~r~r h

r~

8 rf`c~rnc~e~i inctut~in ~ apart t~~`whi~ curd rarn~s, idew~lk~, cras~~r~1~,~, ~l ys and ~th~r

9 }carts ;~f fh~ +City's P~~stri

`aciliti~~ hive~hrought into ~taplianc~ ueith ~:ct tinl~. }.

1Q'

(~) Thy s tns ~►f any sch lid ~rvgr~m A +c~s~I prc~~~emcnis.

11 '

~~i} .~ d~s~ri tiara ~f~uy Pe~~:stri ~ i~ity tit the pity ~cie~i I~€a

I~ '. ~~c~mpt ~zor~ P ~r~r Access I~nprav

~ t~, as t f+~r~th ys~ S

in ~2.1A, and tip a~~ssaa s fir fat

13' d isita~,

1~

(c~) .~1 d rption c~~.ny rev~~sl sch~~ed Prc~ tn :~cc: s

IS I prcavesn~nis that have

t b~~ timely cc~ p stud axe of the

tt~ oft

r~ rt anc~ ata expl~,xxt~,ti~n

16 cif t~ r+ a.~an~s) ~~~hy suchPr~g~n ~ ass ~~~p~~>1~~:~r~tnts have nt~t begin ~ ac~ely cflm l~,tcd.

1

(~j ~ 1ist of ~ ~.c ~~ R u ~~ r~c~ viedby the +pity s~nc~ the to t

1.8

1~ list ~f films ~ri~v n s t~~r o~apl~ nt~ that weer eed by th« City

ZO throw. tt~ 'i~~
~~
F l~sst ~~k and t

y~t~ (n~~udin~ ~ap~ s caf y merit ~~ans cn in respanse.

gri~var ~s cat c~ampl~aznts) si~c~ a~

~2

~ ~ `I~e arnr~at t caf A aua1 ~c~mmitme~t ~s~ x tl is nr,~ tote ~ +t

3 C r~ rt and are it~a~rz. ~n ~~'t e ~ni~ni~e~ e~p~nd~d t+~

rf+artt~

r~,ra .mss lrriprc~v~me~at~

2 ~ p~tr,~uant t~ c~i~m 12.

~5

(i

list oaf ~n~ ne,~~ c~nsfiaciian ~r prcj is ~y t~ ~iiy r~suliin in

26 imvt~mcnts tc~ ~dcstrianri ,ht~ ~f ~v~y si~Yc~; t~~c la~i re~,art.

7

28

35

Esc Nip. C'`V lt~U5782 CBIvt R7x

5~'TTL~"Arf~']V'f 14t~i:ET t~E`v`T AIv~? N.£l.}~:A~E f7~ ~"LAIMS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 44 of 61 Page ID #:14654

l

15.x. In ~r ctic~n itl~ e r~g~rt n des~ri ~1 in "ec~ir►~ 15.4 ~ gave, tl~ ADS

~Cc~ard n r fc~ri ;E'edcstriar~ ~ig~st cif V~'ay 1brave tt~ ~t~tht~riiy d r~ ns biliLy to p~rfi~r

the f~ll4win~ aci~vties: 4
(a

R~vier~rn Pro~rasn A~t~ess ~rc~vea~ ii~ ann ll fcar cc~m~r~isn

with this ttl~tt~r~i A,r~eeni,

6

(b) ~'~vns~ltn~ ~s n

v►~th ~a~pr~pria City ers~n~el ~r

7 rip ~~~atali~es to obiaan in~~r~mat ~n ec~z~~~rnin~ tie pity's c.~mplia ~e with. the S tns can't is

S etil ~ez~. Agr+~em~ntW

Vci } Providingit zain~, nn access ~quire~aenis rels~ r~~ tea Pry

l0 ~~c ~:~~I prave~nent~ car ap~arngriate pity ~acrsc~nncl, iz~cludin~ i~ the Fiur+~aucifE~~in+ ring arad

11 the Bureau of Sir~t S iccc~~

12

~d~ G~nductir~ ~ielz~ spat chicks c~~Pc d~~Fa~ilitics tea nv~~ti ~t~

13 w kh~r. {i~ cearta~3l~ted ~'rv~r~un Access lrnpr~vements, (iii New

n~trucLion or 11~r~tians~ aid

1~ ~iia) essibl~ ~.emporaury mutes, are in

p ias~c.~ with t.t is Sit e~ t ~~;re~m~ni. "I~e

A

15 ~'c~c~rdinatcar ~"c~r t

Pedestrian ~,igh~t ~f Way X11mai~atain ~vpi

~f any check~is~s u~ +ar dam

1 ~i ccr~lectea3d tin verify cc~ pliar►ce with the

aada~ds set forth ins S~ctic~n 12.x► ~~r ~ pKrri~d c~t~ five ~

~7 yam. The ch klis~s us~ci car dada cc~lle~te~d

11beg vide~i or anade mailable t~ Clasc +C.c~unsel

8 ~apvn r~gi~:st.

19

(e~ Reviewing tie a'~~c~.cs R ues~s~ ~z~aevaa~ces car c€~m ainisg andih~

20 t~ity's ms~~r~s~ th is.
~1 15.6. ~t all times duz~g ~e Gamliance Pe~ac tl A13A Cca~rdinatc~r for iise

2 ~'ec~e~tri~n Right ts£ V►'~.~ sh~l live:

2~

~a Resp~ansibil ty ar~d ~~c~r iy t+~ r~c~~v and rend o Sell end

~4 Glass memt+~r~'

z~~bl+~ ana~uiri~es and c~~l~nts ~~nrr~n~ phy~~ ~~cc.~ss b~rri+crs `ect~

~~ ih+~ P~d~i k' lti .

6

~b~ Ress~ansi ility ~nr~ atarity t~ rec~mm~nd t.~e ado~tio~ ~r

7 r~li~i~,a~~n afthe C"ity's policies and. pr~cer~~a s ~an~ min ~cc~s~ 'ers a~e~t: n

~8. P e~z`i~rrt ~a~ilties.

3~i

Cass No. CV I11~S7~2 ABM ~iZx

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 45 of 61 Page ID #:14655

(c)

spc~~sib lii~ and authrrrity icy ensure t~~: Guy's adapti~n cif Witten

li ie~ a~a prn~cec~ scc~nr~rn n tae mai tena~e~ t~f mss t~l~ paths caf~ra~~l anti.k pink,such

p~ v~+a a~cec~ss~bl~ tea p~rs~n~ with Mobility I3isa~il ~i+~s. () Res t~nssbal~t~ ar~d ~, thc~rity t~ ensure t pity's ~d~►~a ian c►f c~it~n

pt~l cis ~n~l prc~c~i~ s ~c~nc~i-nin~ the pravisi~n cif prr~~riat~ si ~rlc i~ ~arc>c~~s, d ~irec ink p~rsc~ns with iv ~b t~ ~~sabili~
7 ~ternaive r+autes.
~~~ R osbality aru~ ~uthcarity tc~ r~c~

de h aver cc~n~tructic>~~ p~'t~ ~iat+e es~ bl~
~di~ a~arc~prat~

sup~rvisc~r~ ~uthc~rit ~ Ott ~.ny a~am t~4c:~ssi rm~ver~ient~ ox eu~ Cr~nstruclia ~r .i~1t~ i~ins

1€~ v~~r1~ b~ Ong ~rforzxa i

le~tri~ rig ~t fl~'u~ay ~t d~zs not comply wii~i ect~~~ ~2. `tom

1 ..-~

l~

15.7, Vt~ ~r r~esp t tc~ all ~fi~v~iies end t~bl~ a~ic>ns of the A r~ar~ii~l~ttrar fix tie

13 ~'~~ir~~nRight cif ~'ay st;t ~t~rthin Se~tic~n 1~, t ae 1~, A. Cvcsrtiinatc~r for the 1'~de~t~ri R tai a~'

14 Wad may u~~ e st ~r~r her ~r his deli nn ~s tea~s~~t such ~ctivit~e ~n~ c~hligat erns.

l~ l ~1'li e~eti~~ ~itl~ ~l~s~ C'oan~cl

l

D~rin~ the rat fire ~~~ }~e~rs t~fthe C'~ pli~nc~ ' tic~i, the Fart sal, ifr~qu~sted by

17 Cass C"a~ sel, mgt ~n ~ lei-

b ig t~ di uss the City's efforts ~~ ply +erai this ~~ement

I A em nt end ~ att apt tt~ resc~~ve ;any di~put~s r~,~~ardin its imple~nentatai~n or e~fr~r ~~i.

l Fir the r~maind~r ~f the Curnpl ce P rig t~z~; r, the Parties sh~~~ if`r~u~st~d ~iy i s

~~ ~oua~sel, mgt +are a~ a raual basis tc, discuss C°it~'~ ef' arts to mp~eme~t this ~ttl~z~a~rt

21 A~r~ ent a~~ i~a ~t~~mpt tc~ re lie any c~ sput~s re~~rdingiiiimpl~mment~i~~n ter ~ fc~~'ne~t~.

2 ~V`it~in six ~6~ months a#~~r the end c~~'the ~c~ pl ante 1'~rir~d, bt~t n~a Ins ~a~t t r n h

p~c~r ~+ the ~rmina i~a~a cif the t~irict our~'~ jurisdiclic~z~ 1~erein, the ~ ~y ~h~l~ pr~v d~ Clasp

2~ ~r~uns~~ with ~ ~` lreport d~.scri~ n~ the Guy's c~~npiian~ce ~+ th e t~rm~ cif is #1 ent

~5 ,~.greeme t, including a des ptic~

listi ;~~'tt Pr~gz~~xi tic s I~nprc~v tints impi+~aa i

2fi +~r cran~tucted during tie Cr~mpli ce P~rinc~ and t~~ ~ity~s ~th~r ,jc~r new ~vt~tnic~ ~a~ ci

27 ~icr~t~on pr~aj~a~ t~ e Ped~stri~n Facilities fur n~ die ~+~m~al ~n~e ~~ri .

2~

~7

C t~Ts. GV tt1-O'7~~ ~BA~

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 46 of 61 Page ID #:14656

17. Grievance and Camnlaint System 2
Within six(6} months after the commencement ofthe Compliance 1'erioci,and with input 3
from Class Counsel,the Ciiy shall establish.a policy and.procedure for Settlement Class members 4
io submit,and the City to respond to, grievances or complaints rcgardiz~g access to the City's 5
pedestrian rights ofway far persons with.Mobility Disabi:litics. The City shall maintain this policy 6
and procedure tlu~ou~hout the Compliance Period. This policy and proce~urc shall comply with.the 7
requirements of2$ C.F.R.§ 35.107.

18. Inspections
9 18.1. During the first live(S)years ofthe Compliance Period, Class Counsel may
10 conduct semi-annual inspections of: (i)any drawings andlox designs prepared by or fir the City for
11 Program Access Improvements concerning pedestrian right of way during the Conipliat~cc Period;
12 and(ii)the Pedestrian Facilities(the "Inspections")for purposes of monitoring the City's
13 compliance wrath this Sc~tlemeni Agrcement. For the remainder ofthe C~mpliancc Period
14 thereafter, Class Counsel may conduct the Inspections on an annual basis. During the Compliance
15 Period,Class Counsel shall have reasonable access to the City's designs and drawings for slreel
16 projects,to the extent that such designs and drawings are prepared for such work.
17 l $.2. Any reasonable and necessary monitoring fees and expenses incurred by
18 Class Counsel shall. be paid out ofthe Annual.Conunitment and the interest thereon(ifany),
19 subject to Section l 8.3 below. However, monitoring fees and costs that may be paid to Clasp
2Q Counsel sJ~all be capped each year and shall not exceed the following amounts,exclusive ofany
21 disputes resolved by the District Court:
zz
(a) For the fivefseal years following Final Approval offihis Settlement
23 Agre~meni by the District Court(i.e., Years 1-5),such fees and costs shall be capped at a
24 maximum of$250,000 each.year.~
25

26 ~I ~ Pvr the first through fifth year ofthe Compliance Period,class counsel in the Curter./Fahrrtie

Action shall l~ entitled to participate in the meetings,inspections and monitoring discussed herein, 27 as they relate to curb ramps. Class course]in the Carter/Fahmie Action shalt be entitled to receive

up to a maximum ofTwenty-Five Thousand Dollars($25,000} annually for attorney'sfees 28 reasonably and necessarily spent an theix Monitoring ofthe CarterlFahn~ie settlement,subject~o

the provisions ofSection 18.3 herein. Said payments shall be made from.the funds allocated in

38

Case No. C.V 10-05782 CAM(RZx

5ET'TL.ENff:'l~'T AGftEEMF:NT AND RT'LCAS~ OF C1..AIMS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 47 of 61 Page ID #:14657

i~ '~r ~e five fiscal years f lc~~wia~g the ~c~d set forth in S~c~c~n 2 l .2~~} above ~~.e., Y'~ars 6-~ (1), such ~~~ att~d masts ~ha~l tie ~app~~ at a imu t~f X13 ,~9U0

€;ach year.. 4

~~~ Fc~r tie dive scat years f~11~~is~ ~1ae p~erir~d t forth. in pec an

8,~(b~ abase ~i,e., Years I1-l5), such fees anri ct~st~ shall. b~ pp~i ~t ~ ma~ci w~a cif 15~,6~5 f►
each y r.

~~) Fir the v~ fi c~i years ~"c~~~+av~in tie er~c~i set fc~rtl~ ira ec~ r~

8 l$, (c) ~l~ve ~~,e., Years l6-2U), such f~ee~ and gists shad

pp~d at a maxiuCaaurn o: ` ~ 79,4~t~

9

10

~e Fcar the fi~~ ~sc~.l years follov~in~ t~~ penud sit frartl~ in cti~n

l 18.2~d) at~ve ~i.e., '~ s 21-25), such fe~~ m~nci cods shilll ca

iat a m arnum t~f 2t~C~9~~

12 e~aeh year.

J3

~~rr the live ~'i~ years ft~l~cr~wi~a i~ p~ric~d set forth.i~ ectic~n

l~ 18,E{e} above {%e.~ '''ears ~S- Oj~ s~a~k~ 1.'ees a~~ posts shall

capped t a r►a~ mUm o ~~~ ,58'~

lS

l~

7 ~.~, ,illrer~u~s#s by ~l s ~~au~ 1 fc~r pay rt ~fr b~~ and c s~°y m~nit~

27 fps

d oasis must

submitted trs the pity

writing,~ shilll subjes:t tc~ the same >t~ndard

l8 cubs and pr lure t}~r~ applicable tc~i

'sl Ym~r~t of a#anneys' fees end cyst tin ou ide

l cc~unss~l. Classes C~uz~s~ sh~,~l only

yid ~r min torir~~ fees d ar is actually ~nci re~s~an~bl~r

2U incurred end n essaa~y tc~ rr~~anit~arin of the izx~plemen rti~n cif

SSettiSeraaerat A~re~:m+~~t. ~.'l s

21. L+~uns~:l Khali use tt f~llowira ~a~cixnuzn xatt~s ~'ar l~s tic~~s: X550 per;haur fc~r p~~rr~~

~0 r hour f~rr assc~ci~itcs, end $l~~ ~r hcs~€ fir paralegals, These ht~ rly rte# s~h~ll incre ~~ ~3
t rate of 2.5°~'o pear year of the +~~rnpla"any P~n~d t~s s ~ ~'+~r ~zafl~►tian, 24

~5

26

S~~ti~r~ 18.2(a} fair t first ~n+d se nd year of the C~arnpliart~ 'rind. In the third thrc~~g3a f~f

28

rs a~'th~ +~c~mplian~c der ~i, sad ayz~a~:ats sh~l tae ~dc 'roam forih in c~.ira~ 1~.1l(h),

.Az~zau~.1 C~ m~ttment set

39

Case l+io, Cl+'I~-057~2 X8 4 CR~x)

S~T~`L.~AE~:tv`T` AC~iZI.E::'1'Ir~"I" A3~DRE[,FAS~ L)F~ ATI~S

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 48 of 61 Page ID #:14658

1. l g. 1)is~ute Resolution
2 1~.1. Mcet and Confer()blisation
3 Ifany Party believes that a dispute exists relating to any violalion ofor failure to

4 perform.any ofthe provisions ofthis Setf]ement Agreement,it shall.notify the other. Party in
S w-ritin~; and describe the alleged violation or failure to perform with particularity. T7~e Party
6 alleged to have commii#~d the violation or failure to perform shall provide a written response
7 within ten(10)business days cifreceipt ofsuch notice and shall have a period ofthirty (3(~)days to
8 cure the alleged violation ox failure to perform. Ifthe Party alleging a violation orfailure to
9 ~erFvrm maintains that the violation ar failure to perform has not been coved,the.T'arties shall meet
10 ar►d confer, in person or by telephone, and attempt to resolve the dispute on an informal basis far a
11 period of at least thirty (30) days.
12 19.2. Mediation ~bli~ation
13 Ilthe Parties are unable to resolve a dispute through the meet and confer process
14 described in Section 19.1 above, the Parties shall mediate the dispute. 7~e Parties shall have thirty
I S'. (30) days to jointly select a mediator. if the Parties are unable !o reach agreement on a mediatflr,
1 ~~ each side may submit three (3) names of proposed mediators to the District Court and the District
17' Court shall select the mediator. The mediation shall be conducted in the manner determined by the
18~ mediator, and the Parties shall engage in good faith efforts to resolve the dispute thzou~;h such
19 mediation.
20 19.3. Resolution by the District Conrt
2i If the parties are unable to resole a dispute through the mediation process described
22 in Section 1.9.2 above, any Party may rnal:e a motion to the Disfxict Court to enforce the Settlement
23 tlgreement in order to resolve the dispute. The Gity's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in any
24 such motion shall be paid from the Anneal. Co~it~ent, except that floe Court may deny the City
25 such payment if it detearmines that the Gity'sposi~ion with respect to such. motion was without any
26 substantial legal basis. Tl~e Court may awazd to Class Counsel their reasonable attorneys' fees and
27 cosis incurred in any such motion in the event that the District Court determines that Plaintiffs are
~g ' the pre~~aiiingparties on such motion in accordance with prevailing party standards under the

_

40

Case No. CV 10-U578? CBM (RZx)

5ETIZ.EM~1VT ACRFiEiMF:N'[' ANl) REIEASk OP CLAIMS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 49 of 61 Page ID #:14659

I ~~}A., Such attarn~ys'fps d +~~st~~ awarded t~ Cla.~s Counsel shall b~ paid fi~a the t~ttn~al

~~ j C~ m trnent~ ~xcegt thatthe Csurt ~na~ r~xd~x t~a~ City tc~

y such atltc~~ys'f ~ at~d casts(i.~.,

3' nctfrom the manual Cc>mtnitm~~t~ ifthe ~aurt d

r ainer that the pity's p~~i°~~~ v~itl~ r~ssp~ct t~

4 ~uc1~ ~naatic~~ w~~ r t~utany ~ubslantal ~~g~l b is.

1~.4. ~'irs~'~er ~r~ce 1'er,od

6~

~~twiflt~t i~~ ~.ny cat ~terms in this S~et°t em+ tr~,gr ment,~'laint ~,fi r

7 ther~s~;l~a~s az~d a.~ r~p~resenta~i~e~ ofthe et l tint ~l~ss, versant r~c~t tc~ sup,ale aca plaints

~' prt~v~ide t~€~t cue t~~°art alle y vials Gaza ofter fail

to rf'c~r~n and rav sign t~ft ~s ti~~me~t

~lgre~z~aent~ it ate a~ay le ,~ prc~ceeiiin~,ter at~ervv%se s ~ t~ en~'o any r ~s bid u can ~r ass

l~D '. a r~~u~t+~fas~y a~l~ged viol~ti~n c~~car Blur to perfc~r~n ~ny~ ~ovis~v~a t~ tla .~ ~ttl~ment ~gre~ment

1 try t~ Caty: ~i)~~ith r~: ct tea any e~ft C"ity'~ c~~ili~at +ins yet fc~rtt~ in S~tic~ns 12,13, 4,l ,l~

1~" '. car i7,f`Qr a perirad refone(1)year foll~win~,tl

ct~

me gem

ttaithe complianceP rod {`Grace

13' 1'~r c~d'~). I~c~t~in

i~ri~~ ~eiti~n shall wive and ofYlai~7tiffs' ar Settlement Clasp ~'~c

bars'

l~'. cl~.ims

s~n~ duriin~ tk►e ~ra~~ Periad rar limit

y moniterrin rights and duties provided

l Section ~$ a~xave.

1~'

2t7. .t+~~dit an~~ Pavu~ent~ end Gen~r~l R lease of Cl~im~

l7

xthin thirty (~~}day; ~r t ae Judgil~ent b raes Fanal, e City shall.: (i} pay'k e sum. t~f

~ ~' $5,

is + c ~ 'tht~ V~' llits Pl~i iffs~ anal {ii;} Pay the stun c~f'$2~,~~1U t~ SAL ,a~i ter s~r~ice

lei d to the ~~ttlem~nt lam.

2~ f 2~. Attt~r~evs' Fees d Costs

21

i~'ith yes ct to the is~u~ ca attr~rn~y~' and c~~~.~s incur t~ by Plaint f~ and t~~ went

2 '. thereo~by ~ City, the artie,~ ~

tc~ t~~ ollc~wein;~ as a c~znle rest~]u~an ~fh~ iss,~uu,~.

21.1. I~dc~ attc~~eys' fees yr ~t~sts in~r~rred bey Pl~i ~ ft's car ~~ass ~r~uur~sel in

24' ~p~nn~cta~n with any cifi ~ A~~it~n r~x the Gart~r,~`Fcahmr`~ ~.ctit~n ~n~~ b~ clairne~i except as

2S ex r~,~iy k forth in this ~l neat . ;e nn~nt.

2

21..2.. 'die ~'arties a~ t ai ~ar~d tion~d rt ► t D%strict Court granting Find

~fi '. App~~val of this ~til~rt~~: t ~ reemen~, tla~ Jud~,zraent

c~ma~x~, final, end tl~~ 7istric# ~c~u~t

~8 ~,rati~ l'1ain~i~ff'~' ~a'pli~atic~t~ ft~r aan a~rard Q'a~i~rney~' ~s ~ costs an tl~ce arn~uts sei frart~a iva

l

~~.se I`vo. Cti' 7 0-0~?82 ~3IVI (RZa~)

5~'T"I"1 ~ ;vtl:tv'1' AC:~2'r , ,ti ' ~ f ,~~VTR ~1~..EhS t}F' CI<A~A~

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 50 of 61 Page ID #:14660

1 this Section 21,the City shall pay to Class Counsel: (i)the sum of$13,300,000 as reasonable

2 attr~meys'fees in this rnatler; and (ii)11ie sutra of$1,7Q0,00(}fir costs and.expenses. These

3 amounts shall satisfy all claims for attorneys' fees,costs and athex expenses incurred by Plaintiffs

4 and CIass Counsel.in connection with each and al.l ofthe Actions(except as expressly set Earth in

5 this Sett]ernent Agreement).

6

21.3. Plaintiffs shall move or apply far approval Fey the District Court ofthe

7 reasonable attorneys' fees and ctists set forth in this Section 21,pursuant to Rule 23(h)~fthe

8 Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. The City shall not oppose such motion or applicatit~n. The City

shall pay the amounts set Earth in this Section 21 within thirty(:i0)days after: (i)the District Court

l0 has issued a written order granting Final Approval ofthis SetQement Agreement;(ii)the Judgment

it has become Final;and (iii} the District Court has approved the award ofattorneys'fees and costs in

l2 the amounts set forth in this Section 21.

l3 2l.4. The City's payment of the amounts set forth in this Section 21 is in full and

14 complete satisfaction ~fany and all claims for attorneys'fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs and
15 Class Counsel in any and aIJ o~the Actions as wcl] as any related li~i~ati~n {including without

16 limitation the Carter/Fahn~fe Action),and Plaintiffs(on behalfofthemselves and the Settlement

l7 Class)and Class Counsel expressly waive any rig}at to recover any additional attorneys'fees and

18 costs ofany 1Gind in connection with any ofthe Actions ar this Settlement Agreement,exceptfor

19 attameys'fees and casts recoverable by Plaintiffs and Class Couwse]as expressly provided in
~p Sections 18.2, 19.3 or any provision ~fthis Settlement Agreement other than this Section 21.

21 '. 22. Enforcement

22 '. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement,express or implied,is intended to or sha11 confer

23 ' upon any persan or entity not a Party to this Settlement Agreement any right, benefit or remedy of

24 any nai~~re whatsoever under or by reason ofthis Settlement Agreement. Only the Class

2~ ~! Representatives and Class Counsel may seek to enforce the terms ofthis SeLQement Agreement

?6 through the dispute resolution process provided for in Section 19 above, up to and including ~

27 motion before the District Courk. Ta the extent individual members Qfthe Settlement Class have

28 complaints regarding the City's compliance with the ternis ofthis Settlement Agreement,they musfi

42

case No. cv iaas~s2csM(xzx}

SETT'I,F•.MI:N'1'AGRFFMI:NTAND Et~LF:ASE l~F C.E.AIMS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 51 of 61 Page ID #:14661

brink them to the attention of'Class Counsel, who shall. have the sole and complete discretion to
2 seek to enforce any right, benefit or remedy under or by reason ofthis Settlement Agreerneni:.
23, Entire_A~reement
4 This Settlemcni Agreement, and the documents attached to or expressly re:C'erred to in this
Settlement Agreement,constitute the final and complete written expression and exclusive
statement ofall the agreements,conditions, promises,representations,and covenants betweCn the
~'ari:ie~ with respe~st to t}~e matters referenced in this Settlement Agreement,and supersede all prig
8 or contcmporancous negotiations, promises,covenants,ageements or representations ofany nature
9 whatsoever with respect to such matters, all cif which are su~crsedcd by this Settlement Agreement.
10 Each ofthe Parties understands and agrees that in the event ofany subsequent litigation,
11 contraver~y,or dispute concerning any oft1~e terms, conditions or provisions ofthis Settlement
1~ Agreement,no Party shall be permitted to offcx or introduce any oral evidence concerning any oral
13 promises or oral agreements between the Parties relating to ilae subject matters ofthis Settlement
14 tlgreement not included or referred to in this Settlement Agreen~eni and not reflected in a writing.
1S This Settlenacnt Agreement cannot be amended,modified or supplemented except by a written
16 document signed by all ofthe Parties and approved by the District Court.
l7 2'#. No Other ReAresentatious
l8 Each ofthe Parties represents, warrants and a~recs that,in executing this Settlement
l9 Agreement, he, she or it has relied solely on the statements expressly set forth in this Settlement
20 ~reemcnt, and has placed no reliance whatsoever on any statement,representation, or promise of
21 any other Party, or any other person or entity, not expressly set forth in this SetElement Agreement,
22 ~r upon the failure ofthe other Party,or any other person or entity,to make any statement,
23 representation or disclosure ofanything whatsoever. The Parties have included this provision: (i)
24 to preclude any claim that any Parley was in any way fraudulently induced to execute this
25 Settlementl~greement; and(ii)to preclude tale introduction.of paxol evidence to vary,intezpret,
z~
supplement,flr contradictthe terms ofthis Settlement Agreement. ~7

28,

43

Case No. CV 10-45782 CBNI(RZx}

SE77'IF;ME;N't AGFtE:£;NTEN'C A1~1I7 R~L,EASE C)F CLAIMS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 52 of 61 Page ID #:14662

l 5, Nt~ ~ss~~ment c~~'~'I~irns

2

each t~fthe Plaznif ,forthems~lv~s and a~ rip s~:n~tati~F~~ ofthe ~emcntCl~s~,

3 repre~e~t anci warrantfatthey ~~e nit

~f~zr~d rar ~i n~aise assi~rte ,~itlze~r ~Sy c~nixa~t car lad

4 ~a

~~ort.a~'tav~,any a~'t e claims r~leas~i under this ttle~ne~rt A r meet. T'c~ the ~xiet~t

t

tray have assigned ter ~r ~,s~'~rred any such ~laixns,Pl~i ti3 sate;tt~ d~fenti,i~aden~ni~' ~~ta~d

the City hartazlessfrom and agar t azi~ and ate claims,actians,ti~m~n~s,liabilities,d~:nages

7 lasses antl expea

$i Iudiz~ a~tt~rn~ys'fees}that ~n g~►t die serted ~r inctarr~d ley re~;sart ok ay

~uuch as~i~n eat gar fifer. Tt is the i~te~ii~n cif the Parties t this ind t~ dc~;s got rewire

F~ ~nt as ~ ~c►ndiiic~npred~nt t~ recay .

Iii 2+~, ~atic~

11

y na~ice be prc~vi ~c~ t~v~en or anaan t P~r~;ies in a~ct~rda c~ wit} the t~am~ cif

1? thus t~l~ ent l~

m~tat shall b~ ~i~e~ by el tr~n c u~si3 ter First +Class LT.S. nt~a l t~ the

t3 fallowing ad~~s:

~4
T+~ Plaitiif~s:

15

~►uy ~i. W~ll~ce, Esq,

16

Sider V~~lll~c.~

11 Kc~nec y ~'~tl~yns ,~'

17

~(} Pc~wel~ Street, u~ie l~Cl ~meville~ CA '~~G(}8

1 F!

Lines tai. I~at°c~,a~tiat~,, t~.n~.

19

t3o~dst~~~~ ~iorger~, Ddarian ~'c ~c~

3~(1 La~iceside ~ni~~, uifi.~ ~t~0 .

?fl

t~alci da ACA ~4fi12

21 JJiz~ny Is m, ~•

T' ~~~a1 Aid ~c~i .y — ~~l~ym~nt La~uj ~e~i~r

180 Ni+~~o~ry ~ire~t, Suiie 60{~

~~

StuFr~.~ sr~? ~C~ 94104

:~4

Anna Pv~. Riven, ~:sq.

~5

~isal~lty Iti~,hts ~,eg~1Center

25~ a. t~+ ntl ~~ul~varr~, uafie ~3

I.~~ AAt~~les, C.~ 9 57

~7

~~

h~

Case No. GV 10-t1S782 C~tM Rix

SF"t'tl.[~;l+~if"vt' AtAttF~°:t 2r"T' ANz) R. ,FAS~ OF~~,aIMS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 53 of 61 Page ID #:14663

1 Ta the City.

Cit}~ ;~.cturne}

3

City t~f Las ~n~el~s

2{~t~ troth Main Strut,Rtat~m ~~10 ~,c~s Angeles,G~9( l2

S ~ratl~ a c~►py tcr:
6

L~~r R.it~nber, Esq.

7

~, i~txut pity At~,r~ey

£~

pity of Los A.n ales

20~ ~t~rr~:}}a ?viaan street, Roams ~{~f1

L.c~~ ,An~~les~ +C'1~. 9~l

l f~

Kevin ~. Ciil Ems.

L.t~zant~ Str~ith, LLP

ll

~t~l~ Norfh ~vlain atr t, Suite

l

''~'~lnut Cre~, +~~ ~►4~9

l~

I4

At~y Warty s~~ay suk~sequ~ntly d ~atc ath indivi~u~ls or es~i tics for~ art c~fn~ti ,

l pray sled that l -days' r~ritter~ nc~fic~ ~f suach dcsi nay can is rov d it~ all other ~'art~es in

16 a rdattce ~~ tf~c terms oft ,s ect an.?6.

l7

7. ~r~~ti~~ ~#` tb~~s ~►~rreee~e~tt

1 1~

Thy Partic~ ac~nQwl+~d e end ~~;r~e tt~t this etticm+~r~t ~A. rncr~t ~~aal1 fir alb fur ~ be

l deed j~int~y-ciraf~~d end #ally-n~~otia d, a ~ as a result, s~aal~ not in any manner be int r d

2(~ in favor ~f, ~r as a~ ainsta any ~arr#icul~ Party by reason afbec n the dr~ftin~ Part, any r~a~e cif

1 law, inclur~in~~ witht~ut limit~tior~ ecti~n 1654 t~f the ~I fpt'caia Civil Ct~c~e~ ter and satth~r statute,

22 ~~e al d~isic~n car principle ~a ` rnc~n l~v~ that wt~ul~i require i~terpret~fi~€~n ofan ~m~igu t e~ or

23 un~er~~inties t~i~ Scttic ~r~t Agr~ee~n~r~t ~ ai k ~n~ a~th~ ~ar~~s, hail arc na app~ic~#ia~ and

~4 is ~reb~ ex~re~sly ~v~ived.

25

fi. ~'olua~tary ~l ee~+~~

fib.

F,ach tafih~e Parties r~~rescnts, r~ azais and al es that lie, she r~r it ~►~s read this ~'ee~tilement

27' re.~r~ent c~ rcfi~~y~ ~.n~ knt~~v~ aaad undetst~nds its cc~nts~ats, that this Settle et~t A r~erne~t has

~3 I n volu~ataz°il nteret! into, Thai he, she ~r i~ has r~~~vet~ imd p~nd~ t lc almice frcr~za his,l r

45

~asc No, CV l~-D57~2 CBS

S~'CTi,~ltil1~3~?T ACaR;E~MFJ~° ANURfI, ~CIF' ~I

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 54 of 61 Page ID #:14664

car its a~t~rr~~y~ with yes ~t to the ~dvi ~at~~ oT~x~~;utin fih s Set ~ ant em gat, ~d that

any all nor ti~,~titrn end nalysi ~f the facts ~~~ d n+~ces~ar~ c~~ cl s rabl~ eve l r~

c~r~luct~d prig ~~ the eace~u gran cifthis Set~l~m~nt 1 meat,

29. ~~trdia~~ ~~'+ t

.ill ~fth ~t~ and prc~visi~r~s ciftai's Se~tl+e~n~t~~a~ inept shall binding upon d

salt inure tc~ thel fit c~f'th~ ~'a~ties,their h~irs~~ suc;~e5sc~rs and ass ins, 7
3t?. ~,ut}~~►r
Bch cif tie P ig represent , ti~~arran mod. a yeas t~~t die, she car it hay the Il right and

autl~~rr~~y tca ent+~r ~ntt~ this S tl+~ ant ~~;reem~nt, and tla~t the n ~utin this ~t~~rn~z~t

1~3 r~~m nt lies ~^i~ full.right end ~uthc~rity t~ cammit end bir~~1 su~i~ ~' y.

11 3l. +~t~vern ~~ Lew

12

Tl~l is..b ent sE~alt ~~ ~c~vern ~~~ and ~~ar~~~ in secr~rdanc r~~th t i xca~l v~rs sf

13 t~ Sty#~ of ~'al f n a with r~s ct t+~ ~7r~.t3ei~ lts c~f~ta non law c~ tract unt pret~ gin,

l~ P~r~~r~~6 ~~~d~n~~

15

The be ing,~r 1a~k it~ere~ ,p~ eking ~~ a t e paz ~ahs in tl i~~rn~nt

1 A,~z~ement fc~x ~an~ ien~e aly, c~ }~lx n+~t c~usdered 'anthe ~c~nsru~t~on ar

17 i~t~rprct~tior~ ~ tai t~l~~nnt A`~rc~ment.

l8 '. ~3. E~c~u~i~B by ~c m~i~e ~ttt! its Co~tnterns~rt

19'

Zhis tl~m t ~ern+~nt m~~r ~x uteri bey the F ps in sip

r~mtcr~ s, d all

2i~ ~u~~► eo t rpm t~ to ur s Il b~ dammed Ica c~~nst tote ane end tl~ sa~ae a~rec:~nen~.

2l '

2

25

27

28 I

A6

useNa. C~ ~~-OS782 ~B

~ Ti.~t `r .~~r;It}:t '~it:iv"T .A3~t!) xF:t.,rt,SF. C~,A~vtS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 55 of 61 Page ID #:14665

l'

WIT~ES~ V~HEREt~F; ~: ~: Parties ~rei~ have apprc~vec~ and

~ '. Agreement can the dues set ftrrth c~ppasit their respective s ~nalure~.

3'

EXE~UT'ED by the Parties a~ ~`oll ws; ~ '.

ecu~d this ~~i1~m~ t

5 U~.'~'ED:

_„ .' `~i~IS 'I`H~ Q 'T`Y' ~ ~,+C} r Ci~L~

~~

7

Jat 4s ~'. ~1ark

Its

~pu~y ~'ity ~. rz~ y

I~AT~T~: l ~► ll l~ ~3'
UA.'1"~I~?: l~'. IS'. lb'. 17' ~~
~A"TED; I9
21 ~1AT~:D:
2 ~4 ~S DAfiED: 26 27' 28'

~I5 T'~i~ G~T~' +D' ~~S ~~~:~~5

~~,

F

i~uel A. tarp Its: City Ac~aini~tirat v~ (~f'fic ;r

,d ,2415 C~7~1iI Ii,~I~i"I"~~ At~"IVEL'Y ~IVI~t I~D~~'E TD~i'I' ~~ FREE
Bar; [.illibeth t~~varra
Its: x ~Cive Dpi ter

fi ~Q15 ~y: A~[ar~ Willis, n~di~id lly and r r s~nt~a`~~ ~f the a~:ti3cmcnt ~las~

{~1S key: Judy Griffin, r~da~idually anc~ as r~pres~n t~ve of the ettl~ ~e~t Class

,~O1~ By: Brent I'ilgr~~na indi~ ~dr~ally end a the tt2~rr~ent b ass

niative ~

X67

~asel~ct, ~~ ~I~57~2 C'f~7.v.i~R7x)

SC'Y'1"3..~A1~~"1~ .Av}?t:.L:'*S~.ta"T`~JR~alSF +~^ G~.,.~+~XMS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 56 of 61 Page ID #:14666

1 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
2

3 4 DATED: January 7,2016
5

~$ LOZANO SMITH LLP

6

I3y:

7

Kevin Gilbert, Esq.

8

Attorneys for Defendant City ofLos Angeles

9

10 DATED:~-~- %~~~
11 12 13 14 15

,~~,2015 ~_~..

SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL Kt7NECKY WOTYKNS,LLP

B .~ Y'

.~-~-~-'`~

Guy B. Wallace,Esq.

.Lead Counsel for the PlaintiffClass

16 DATED: (~.:t~~:+:

~'

2015 (iOLD~TEIN BORGEN DARDARTAN 8~ HO

17

78

19 Linda M.Dardariali
20 .E~ttorneys for Plaintiffs
21

22
23 DATED:
24

,2015 DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENI`ER

25
26 Anna M.Rivera
z~
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 28

48

Case No. CV 10-05782 CBM{RZx)

SETTLEMENT AGREFMEN'1'AND RELEASE OF t:Lf~iS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 57 of 61 Page ID #:14667

1 2 DA`fED: ''~ `~'"~'~~'' `' ,X015 3

7~1-IE LEGAL AI.D SOCIETY ~- EMPLUYMEN`[' LAW CEN'I'f?R

~^ , _

fJ

._ ___

,

By

-1~- __..

~__

5

finny lei

Attorneys fc~r Plaintiffs 7

8

21162659.9

9

ld

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2b

27

2$

49

Case No. CV 10-05782 CBM x

Sk.TTi.EMENT AGRFEMI?NT AND RELEASE Uk CLAIMS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 58 of 61 Page ID #:14668

1 IN V4~ITN~S VVI~~R~?F,~h~ Parties kes~tca bays apprc~ve~i and + e~ ithis ~~aettl~ eut

~ 3
4

ea~r~nt an the dams ~t ~~rt~a peas to t it r~sp~ctiv~ si~n;~tur~s. E~CL~"I'ED by d ~' ~s ~~ f~11or~~;

5 ~AT~I~:~~,,2U1~
6
7
8

THE CI'~"Y(7~'l:.(~S A~y~EL,F

~3

J ~sP.Glary

Its

L•puty'+city A.tt~ars~ ?

DAI~D.~ l tl 11 i~ 13
D~►T~I~: l~ 15 1~ 1~' 18
UA"I~I~: 19' 2~} 21 2~ 23 2 25 2~i ?7 28

,201~ T~ ~'~'"rY ~3F Ia~I~ AI~G~LES
..~ __ Ii~u~~ .A. S~nta~a
Its. ~:zt} ~,d nistra~tive ~ict~r
, 2015 ~OMI~I~~dI`II~~ A~TIVE~.Y I,TtIING IN]C3~~'~NFF~ NT ANA FR
I_illit~ I~a~atrtr It~~ ~t~ruti~r~ ~:ir~c~r

,2Q~1S ~3~:

~•

°~~~rk ~~~l~i~ts, ir~iivid~ual~y and as r~pr~s~ntativ~ of tie

~t~iertaent ~l~sss

Icy C~ri~i ~, div c~~t~y end ~s reprr~se~a~a~t ~~ +af tie Se~tlem~;nt Gass

Brent l r n,individually and. asr~ ntati~+e ~f tlae S~atltnent C1s~s

47

t.ase 2+10 C'V l~k-0S782 CBS

w4t'l 1L~Mii~C Pi4Flll+lil~lGYaFd IL11A.f I6FJw~~Me V.~ I~RtY\il~'P:~l

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 59 of 61 Page ID #:14669

Iti ~'~'3"`I""~h~~~ 4~`l lf:kF~.Ot=. the k'arti~;. i~urct~, k,~~~~ t~~;~r~.~~~ecl .ir~c~ ~~rcut~;d this ~c~t~leii~~.;i~t
w
,Arc ►nc:nt ~n~ the dat~ti .et It~r:E1 i~~?},u~ t~ lh~ir re~~~ectiv~ ~id_~t;it~►rr~.

=1

f ),~`!~'£,I~: r,

.~''_~r~t+y~.~'_. ~~ :~': ~

I 1 U~_ LI1~1" O7= I (1ti,.:11~(~i~~[,.~,1,'~,

f~~;.

_: . . .

~ ,

~,,,G,,, ~

~,

It; ( iii4 l3c~~uh t, its :1tt~'rrttc:~

n
,~~ l)r~l'U:~ __ _....._ ~ , =~il~

flil..: C'I I'1' t7E~ L(~~:~~'~C~I~(,i•.S

I1
l
13 t)A7 t~I):
1 •~

11~: (i ~ :\tlni;ssttr:iti~ ~~ (1tii:~r . ~~ '; 1; ("~)~1~1C.~\Tf 11~ ~~("1~11;~=I.l' I..I~'t'~(1

i~

I3~

~..i!!i':~~tl~ \ ~.~.r~t~ iG
~ i~; L~.\L'C 111?\'L 1~1Ctt1+~F'

I~

1 it
1
~jl I
,,
?'~
7_~
1~ ~; ~'G I ~? ' :~
~,

?i~ i ~ 13v:

~1jr4; t\'illit~. inciiti itl+t.~!!+° ut,.~ .~ re~~i'l"~~•itt~li~'i 111~1he
~~',lirtlt'1tS ~~l;:ti~

1~

~

?tt15 )i}:

1 ~ iritIin, ir~cl~vEzi~E3l1v ~nci ~t rrr~,ci:tatir~ i3I t~l

~4t ~~~3t~•ni t'la»

.

~.._ _..__._.~ _...._

~_ . ......

13r~.rat {'~l ,rcrrs. i;tcli~~i~l~~atlt aid ~~s r~~~rescnt~~tiv~ c~t~

tli~ Sttt.lcr►~,~~jt C Irt~;~

.

l YL ....

_.._. .___.._

1
_...:.:_ .....

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 60 of 61 Page ID #:14670

1

IN ONES WHER. ,theParties h~re~o have a ~v+~i aa~ti

2 ~ ~.gre~m~nt~nthe dam ~tford ~p~osit~ thou r~s

tiv~e ~zg~►a

es.

3 '~.

E~~TED by t~.e ~'a~e:~ s faro : 4.

e~uted this ~ettlernent

~'
7 ~~
~1~'I'~T.~: 1{l ~) 12 13
DATED: 1~
1s ~~ ~~ ~s
r, ~ 19 ZO ~~ 22 3 2~ 25 26 7 2~

+~~y 1~tt~rnc~►
2015 ~ ~U' ~.C?~' « 1GE~F
'del .Sant T~: City Ac~n Otis ive t cam°
2{~l~ CDMI~~'~E~S 1~.~'I'I'4'E~Y LIVIl~T~
IR~TDEPP' .. ENT ~,I`~FREE~~~.
~y, __~ ~ : ~~v~ r

~

~.. ~,

E.~ w

ft

- ~.~.-~ 0 .1 . - 4. .

. ~

Jody ~~°~~, iudividual~y as preset ave a~f t ~t~1 ►+ant Mass

Brent Piles,ind vs~Pual~y and~r ne~en v~ of tie S ~meni Clasp

~: ~ ~ ~ ~

."k do

C ° '.~I• I±k

E

~ '1` E

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 415 Filed 08/25/16 Page 61 of 61 Page ID #:14671

1 I Al'Pltt?V'ED ~i:~ 'I"C! ~'C~Ttl~i:
2

~I 4 ~ ~AT~I):
3

_ -- _ _,20~a L,CJIf1NNC~ ~ivll"1 N l.;l,P

6

i
7'

Sevin ~i1~a~rt,~ ~q.

~ttarn~ys fcsr U~fc:ndant ~i~y ref Lis ~Ln el~~

9

l t~ Dt1,T~L~:~
11
12
~~
1~
~5

.~ » -,~,2~11~ ~.

SGH~l~F.:It~t~:1~ L'~.~LLA~~.

1~°~JTYKTNS, ~,~.F'

~~~,. ~_.

~~: f

~~~~

(ILf~' ~~. ~1~~~3if. {','iC~.

L~a~i t,auns~l 1~~r the 1"l~i~tiff~'l a

1~ TJI~TE~: ~.~:s?.tit~~~~ - ~f- a ?(115 17
1~

~iC.~LDS1'~I`~ B(~Rtz~~ l~r~t]~.~,RIAT3 ~~

~~ 7~
21 ~2 23
T7r~'T'~t); ~', < ~ Z~ ~~
'?
7 7g

~.;It1C~~1 , ~~[t~~l'iAt2
Attomcys fur ~I~iz~tiffs

i~ ,~0'1~ DISABILITY RIC~-~"T~ LEGAL ~EI~`T`~R

~~

~

~~y

~; ~

_~

~a1na ~~. Rivera

~ttor~]eys fir ~l<iintiifa

A8

Case Nc~. C~ IQ-057 2 C'I3;vi ~x~

S~1'ttr°~ti;,ar ~~ttz~:r•,n~~~~~ ~~+'n ut-.~.r•.n~;~; Cap i,1.,1tn~~s

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:14677

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARK WILLITS, JUDY GRIFFIN, Case No.: CV 10-5782 CBM (RZx) BRENT PILGREEN, and
12 COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT & FREE (“CALIF”), ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
13 on behalf of themselves and all others ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS similarly situated,
14 Plaintiffs,
15 vs.
16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity,
17 Defendant.
18

19

20

The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion For Attorneys’

21 Fees and Costs brought pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 23(h) (the “Motion”).

22 (Dkt. No. 380.)

23

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL OVERVIEW

24

On August 4, 2010, Plaintiffs Mark Willits, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen,

25 and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”) (collectively,

26 “Named Plaintiffs”) filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of persons with mobility

27 disabilities against the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) and various individual

28 defendants based on the alleged inaccessibility of the City’s sidewalks and other

1

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:14678

1 “pedestrian rights of way.” The Complaint asserted two federal claims under the

2 American with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

3 Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act” or “Section 504”), and four state law claims.

4 A. State Court Actions

5

In December 2006, Saundra Carter and nine other individuals filed a class

6 action complaint in state court against the City alleging disability discrimination in

7 connection with the City’s sidewalks. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.

8 BC363305.) In December 2007, Nicole Fahmie commenced a class action

9 against the City in state court based on, among other things, lack of ramps or

10 cutouts on the City’s curbs. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC381773.)

11 Carter and Fahmie (collectively, “Carter/Fahmie”) were consolidated on January

12 27, 2011 under Case No. BC363305.1

13

Victor Pineda, Anatoli Ilyashov, and CALIF commenced a state court class

14 action against the City and various individual defendants in December 2008 on

15 behalf of persons with mobility disabilities who have been denied access to

16 pedestrian rights of way in the City. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.

17 BC403327, hereinafter “Pineda”.)

18 B. Procedural History

19

On December 10, 2010, the Court denied defendants’ motion to stay

20 proceedings pending Pineda, but dismissed the state law claims without prejudice

21 “to be pursued in state court.”2 (Dkt. No. 57.) The Named Plaintiffs commenced

22 a state court action against the City following this Court’s dismissal of their state

23

24 1 A settlement was reached in 2011 in Carter/Fahmie. Although the Named

25

Plaintiffs objected to the Carter/Fahmie class action settlement, the settlement was approved by the Superior Court in 2012. The Named Plaintiffs appealed the

26

Superior Court’s approval of the Carter/Fahmie settlement, and the California Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court order certifying the settlement class

27

and approving the settlement based on due process grounds. Carter v. City of Los Angeles, 224 Cal. App. 4th 808 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).

28 2 The Court also dismissed the individual defendants on that date. (Dkt. No. 57.)

2

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:14679

1 law claims. (Case No. BC457403, hereinafter “Griffin”).3

2

The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification for injunctive

3 and declaratory relief only on January 3, 2011, and appointed Schneider Wallace

4 Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP (“SWCKW”), Disability Rights Legal Center

5 (“DRLC”), Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho (“GBDH”), and the Legal Aid

6 Society – Employment Law Center (“LAS-ELC”) as Class Counsel. (Dkt. Nos.

7 59, 177.)

8

Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the

9 purported res judicata effect of the State Court Actions, which was denied as

10 premature by this Court on August 10, 2012. (Dkt. No. 150.)

11

The Court granted preliminary and final approval of the parties’ class action

12 settlement agreement in this case (the “Settlement Agreement”).

13

Plaintiffs’ instant Motion seeks $13,300,000 in attorneys’ fees and

14 $1,700,000 in costs expended in connection with this litigation and the State Court

15 Actions.4

16

II. STATEMENT OF THE LAW

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(h) provides that “[i]n a certified

18 class action, the court may award attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs that are

19 authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h).

20

In “civil rights and other injunctive relief class actions, courts often use a

21 lodestar calculation because there is no way to gauge the net value of the

22 settlement or any percentage thereof.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011,

23 1029 (9th Cir. 1998). In determining the amount of a reasonable fee, the Court

24 first determines “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation

25 multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Jankey, 537 F.3d at 1132 (citing Hensley

26 3 Carter/Fahmie, Pineda, and Griffin shall be collectively referred to herein as the 27 “State Court Actions.”
4 Currently pending before the Clerk is Plaintiffs’ application to tax costs. (Dkt. 28 No. 377.)

3

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:14680

1 v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983)). “The hours expended and the rate

2 should be supported by adequate documentation and other evidence.” Hanlon,

3 150 F.3d at 1029. The Court then “exclude[s] from th[e] initial fee calculation

4 hours that were not reasonably expended,” such as hours that are “excessive,

5 redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Jankey, 537 F.3d at 1132 (citing Hensley v.

6 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983)). The Court, however, must provide a

7 “comprehensible” explanation for any fee reductions. T.B. ex rel. Brenneise v.

8 San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 806 F.3d 451, 486 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied sub

9 nom. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. v. T.B., 136 S. Ct. 1679 (2016).

10

III. DISCUSSION

11 A. Prevailing Party

12

The Court finds Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable fees and costs as a

13 prevailing party under the ADA and Section 504. See 42 U.S.C. § 12205; 29

14 U.S.C. § 794a(b); Jankey v. Poop Deck, 537 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2008); La

15 Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest, 624 F.3d 1083, 16 1089 (9th Cir. 2010).5

17 B. Lodestar

18

a. Hourly Rates

19

The Court finds, based on the evidence submitted, that the following hourly

20 rates are reasonable:6

21

22 5 The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state

23

law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are not entitled to fees and costs as a prevailing party under state law, and are not

24

entitled to a state-law multiplier of the lodestar. See Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1112 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. City of Los

25

Angeles, Cal. v. Chaudhry, 135 S. Ct. 295 (2014); Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utilities Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995); City of San Jose v. San Jose Police

26

Officers’ Ass’n, 2013 WL 4806453, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2013); Yates v. Union Square, 2008 WL 346418, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2008).

27 6 See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984); United Steelworkers of Am.

v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990); Camacho v. Bridgeport 28 Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008).

4

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:14681

1

Name

Title

2

Guy Wallace

Attorney

Hourly Rate $750

3

Mark Johnson

Attorney

Andrew Lee

Attorney

4

Jennifer Uhrowczik Attorney

$700 $525 $450

5

Kiran Prasad

Attorney

6

Michelle Nguyen Katharine White

Attorney Attorney

$450 $300 $300

7

Amanda Riley

Attorney

$300

8

Chris Springer

Paralegal/Law Clerk $235

Charles Greenlee Paralegal/Law Clerk $200

9

Scott Gordon

Paralegal/Law Clerk $200

10

Sam Marks

Paralegal/Law Clerk $200

11

David A. Borgen Attorney

$795

12

Linda Dardarian Attorney

$775

13

Andrew Lee

Attorney

$550

14

Jason Tarricone

Attorney

$525

15

Katrina Eiland

Attorney

$400

16

Nancy Hanna

Attorney

$375

17

Raymond

Attorney

$325

Wendell 18
Scott G. Grimes Paralegal/Law Clerk $250

19 Elizabeth Kramer Paralegal/Law Clerk $250

20

Damon Valdez

Paralegal/Law Clerk $225

21

Wendy E. Whitt Paralegal/Law Clerk $225

22

Charlotte Nguyen Paralegal/Law Clerk $195

23

Stuart Kirkpatrick Paralegal/Law Clerk $195

24

Jinny Kim

Attorney

$644

25

Rachael

Attorney

$473

26

Langston

27

Alexis Alvarez

Attorney

$385

28

Mary Broughton Paralegal/Law Clerk $165

5

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:14682

1

Michael Hsueh

Paralegal/Law Clerk $110

2

Shawna Parks

Attorney

$695

3

Ronald Elsberry Attorney

$680

4

Surisa E. Rivers Attorney

$550

Trevor Finneman Attorney 5

$375

Law Clerk

Law Clerk

$230

6 Shawna L Parks Attorney

$695

7 José R. Allen, Esq. Attorney

$1,115.60

8

9

b. Hours Worked

10

Based on the evidence submitted, the Court finds the following hours were

11 reasonably expended:

12

13

Name

Willits Hourly Hours Lodestar

14

Rate

15

Guy Wallace

$750

2,902.5 $2,176,875.00

16

Mark

$700

1,922.4 $1,345,680

17

Johnson

Andrew $525

1,034.7 $543,217.50

18

Lee

19

Jennifer $450

331.4 $149,130.00

Uhrowczik

20

Kiran

$450

272.2 $122,490.00

21

Prasad

Michelle $300

101.3 $30,390.00

22

Nguyen

23

Katharine $300

76.0 $22,800.00

White

24

Amanda $300

217.7 $65,310.00

25

Riley

Chris

$235

277.5 $65,212.50

26

Springer

27

Charles $200

534.1 $106,820.00

Greenlee 28

6

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:14683

1

Scott

$200

100.1 $20,020.00

Gordon

2

Sam Marks $200

1,026.7 $205,340.00

3

David A. $795

113.8 $90,471.00

4

Borgen

5

Linda

$775

1,276.1 $988,977.50

6

Dardarian

Andrew $550

576.3 $316,965.00

7

Lee

8

Jason

$525

278.0 $145,950.00

9

Tarricone

10

Katrina $400

207.3 $82,920.00

Eiland

11

Nancy

$375

44.4 $16,650.00

12

Hanna

13

Raymond $325

133.7 $43,452.50

14

Wendell

15

Scott G. Grimes

$250

372.2 $93,050.00

16

Elizabeth $250

63.3 $15,825.00

17

Kramer

18

Damon $225

946.4 $212,940.00

Valdez

19

Wendy E. $225

329.3 $74,092.50

20

Whitt

21

Charlotte $195

100.3 $19,588.50

22

Nguyen

23

Stuart

$195

Kirkpatrick

178.5 $34,807.50

24

Jinny Kim $644

859.4 $553,453.60

25

Rachael $473

180.2 $85,234.60

26

Langston

27

Alexis

$385

28.6 $11,011.00

Alvarez

28

7

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:14684

1

Mary

$165

567.9 $93,703.50

Broughton

2

Michael $110

77.4 $8,514.00

3

Hsueh

4

Shawna $695

101.9 $70,820.50

5

Parks (DRLC)7

6

Ronald $680

63.7 $43,316.00

7

Elsberry

8

Surisa E. $550

810.6 $445,830.00

Rivers 9

Trevor

$375

112.9 $42,337.50

10

Finneman

11

Unnamed $230

149.3 $34,339.00

12

Law Clerk

13

Shawna L $695

15.2 $10,564.00

Parks

14

José R. $1,115.60 560.2 $624,962.12

15

Allen, Esq.

16

TOTAL

$9,013,060.32

17

18

Name

Carter/Fahmie Hourly Rate Hours Lodestar

19

Guy

$750

499.7 $374,775.00

20

Wallace Mark

$700

141.2 $98,840.00

21

Johnson

22

Andrew $525

1.7

$892.50

Lee

23

Charles $200

11.6 $2,320.00

24

Greenlee

25

26 7 Shawna Parks was the Legal Director / Director of Litigation at DRLC until her departure in 2012. The fees sought for Park’s time spent during her employment
27 with DRLC is designated under “Shawna Parks (DRLC),” and the fees sought for Park’s time spent in connection with her own law practice is designated under
28 “Shawna L Parks.”

8

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:14685

1

Sam Marks $200

4.4

$880.00

2

TOTAL

$477,707.50

3

Pineda

4

Name

Hourly Rate Hours Lodestar

5

Guy

$750

188.2 $141,150.00

Wallace

6

Mark

$700

142.9 $100,030.00

7

Johnson

Andrew $525

67.4 $35,385.00

8

Lee

9

Kiran

$450

13.5 $6,075.00

Prasad

10

Shawna $695

121.6 $84,512.00

11

Parks

12

(DRLC)

Sage

$625

236.9 $148,062.50

13

Reeves

14

Surisa E. $550

67.2 $36,960.00

15

Rivers

16

Debra J. $450

410.2 $184,587.75

Patkin

17

Unnamed $230

108.5 $24,955.00

18

Law Clerk

19

TOTAL

$761,717.25

20

21

Griffin

Name

Hourly Hours Lodestar

22

Rate

23

Guy

$750

0.8

$600.00

Wallace

24

Mark

$700

6.5

$4,550.00

25

Johnson

Shawna $695

2.0

$1,390.00

26

Parks

27

(DRLC)

28

Surisa E. $550

18.6

$10,230.00

9

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:14686

1

Rivers

2

Trevor

$375

1.4

$490.00

Finneman

3

TOTAL

$17,260.00

4

5 The Court also finds, based on the evidence submitted, that the above-listed
6 hours expended by non-appointed class counsel Shawna Parks and Jose Allen, and
7 hours expended in connection with the State Court Actions, benefitted the class in
8 this case. See F.R.C.P. 23(h) 2003 Advisory Committee Notes; Wininger v. SI
9 Mgmt. L.P., 301 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002).
10 Accordingly, the Court awards $10,269,745.07 in reasonable attorneys’ fees
11 to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
12 C. Costs
13 Plaintiffs seek $1,631,511.98 in costs as follows: (1) SWCKW:
14 $1,079,353.37; (2) GBDH: $231,937.31; (3) LAS-ELC: $276,257.48; (4) DRLC:
15 $43,918.94; and (5) Parks: $44.88.
16 (1) SWCKW
17 Plaintiffs seek a total of $1,079,353.37 in costs expended by SWCKW as
18 follows:8 19

20

CATEGORY

AMOUNT

21

REQUESTED

Copying/Scanning (external) $94,122.20 22

Copying (internal)

$86,565.00

23

Document Management

$393,837.20

24

Experts

$324,429.95

25

Filing/Service Fees

$23,702.74

26

Legal Research

$34,395.54

27 8 The amount of costs sought on behalf of SWCKW is based on the amounts set
28 forth in the declarations of Eugenia Gueorguieva.

10

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:14687

1

Mediation

$58,929.50

2

Messenger

$1,853.90

3

Overnight Mail

$2,169.79

4

Telephonic Court

$473.00

Appearance

5

Travel and Transportation $52,953.09

6 Depositions (video services) $4,472.50

7

Postage

$509.96

8

System Access Fees

$939.00

9

TOTAL

$1,079,353.37

10

11

Copying (internal). SWCKW seeks $86,565.00 in internal copying costs.

12 The evidence demonstrates SWCKW made 290,629 internal copies for this action

13 and 11,222 in connection with the State Court Actions, at a cost of $0.20 per page,

14 totaling $60,370.20. Accordingly, the Court awards $60,370.20 in costs expended

15 by SWCKW for internal copying.

16

Travel and Transportation. SWCKW seeks $52,953.09 in travel and

17 transportation costs. SWCKW submits evidence verifying $51,791.49 in travel

18 and transportation costs were expended by SWCKW. SWCKW declares that it

19 cannot locate receipts confirming $9 and $409.80 in travel expenses purportedly

20 expended on December 15, 2012 and January 11, 2013, respectively, and therefore

21 do not seek reimbursement for those costs. SWCKW fails to submit evidence that 22 $742.80 was actually expended for airfare on March 16, 2012.9 Accordingly, the

23 Court decreases travel and transportation costs by $1,161.60, and awards

24

25 9 SWCKW submits evidence that the $742.80 travel cost sought “is consistent with airfares charged by Southwest Airlines for other events that took place in Los
26 Angeles during the above-captioned litigation,” but fails to submit evidence of the actual cost for the March 16, 2012 airfare requested. See Vectren Commc’ns
27 Servs. v. City of Alameda, 2014 WL 3612754, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2014); Butler v. Homeservices Lending LLC, 2014 WL 5460447, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27,
28 2014).

11

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:14688

1 $51,791.49 for travel and transportation costs expended by SWCKW.

2

Other Categories. The evidence submitted demonstrates that the amount of

3 the costs sought for the remaining categories were reasonably expended by

4 SWCKW. Accordingly, the Court awards the following amounts for costs

5 reasonably expended by SWCKW: (1) Copying/Scanning (external): $94,122.20;

6 (2) Document Management: $393,837.20; (3) Experts: $324,429.95; (4)

7 Filing/Service Fees: $23,702.74; (5) Legal Research: $34,395.54; (6) Mediation:

8 $58,929.50; (7) Messenger: $1,853.90; (8) Overnight Mail: $2,169.79; (9)

9 Telephonic Court Appearance: $473.00; (10) Depositions (video services):

10 $4,472.50; (11) Postage: $509.96; and (12) System Access Fees: $939.00.

11

The Court therefore awards $1,051,996.97 in costs reasonably expended by

12 SWCKW.10

13

(2) GBDH

14

Plaintiffs seek $231,937.31 in costs expended by GBDH in this action as

15 follows:

16 CATEGORY
17

AMOUNT REQUESTED

18

Court Reporters/Transcripts $10,267.05

19

Special

$7,816.12

20

masters/Mediators/Arbitrators

21

Copying Costs - In-house $10,664.80

22

Depositions

$3,100.00

Experts 23

$157,804.65

Overnight Mail

$180.06

24

Copying and Scanning -

$1,023.12

25

outside agency

26 10 Plaintiffs seek costs expended by SWCKW in this action and in connection with
27 the State Court Actions. The Court finds, based on the evidence submitted, that costs which were reasonably expended by SWCKW in connection with the State
28 Court Actions benefitted the class in this litigation.

12

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:14689

1

Filing/Service Fees

$7,360.90

2

Class Notice:

$990.00

3

Postage/USPS

$64.04

4

Legal Research

$19,812.27

5

Telephone/Conference Calls $45.33

6

Travel and Transportation $10,362.35

7

Travel – Lodging

$2,446.62

8

TOTAL

$231,937.31

9

Taxable Costs. Plaintiffs seek $18,083.17 in taxable costs expended by

10 GBDH (i.e., $10,267.05 (court reporters/transcripts), and $7,816.12 (Special

11 masters/Mediators/Arbitrators). Accordingly, the Court decreases GBDH’s costs

12 by $18,083.17.11 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54; Local Rule 54.

13

Other Categories. The evidence submitted demonstrates that the amount of

14 costs sought for the remaining categories were reasonably expended by GBDH in

15 this action. Accordingly, the Court awards the following amounts for costs

16 reasonably expended by GBDH in this action: (1) Copying Costs - In-house:

17 $10,664.80; (2) Depositions: $3,100.00; (3) Expert Fees: $157,804.65; (4)

18 Overnight Mail: $180.06; (5) Copying and Scanning - outside agency: $1,023.12;

19 (6) Filing Service Fees: $7,360.90; (7) Class Notice: $990.00; (8) Postage USPS:

20 $64.04; (9) Legal Research: $19,812.27; (10) Telephone/Conference Calls:

21 $45.33; (11) Travel and Transportation: $10,362.35; and (12) Travel – Lodging:

22 $2,446.62.

23

The Court therefore awards $213,854.14 in costs reasonably expended by

24 GBDH.

25

26

27 11 To the extent not already including in Plaintiff’s pending application to the Clerk to tax costs (Dkt. No. 377), Plaintiffs are directed to apply for all taxable
28 costs with the Clerk pursuant to Rule 54.

13

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:14690

1

(3) LAS-ELC

2

Plaintiffs seek $276,257.48 in costs expended by LAS-ELC in this action as

3 follows:

4 CATEGORY
5

6

clerk’s fees

7

depositions

AMOUNT REQUESTED
$230.00
$539.70

8

reproducing exhibits to

$9.99

9

deposition

10

Special Master

$27,697.87

copying (in house)

$6,721.40

11

copying/scanning (outside) $28,189.65

12

document management and $16,290.04

13

hosting

14

Experts

$167,325.98

15

legal research

$245.10

16

mediation

$21,462.98

17

messenger

$134.29

18

overnight mail

$69.37

19

travel and transportation

$5,418.33

20

long distance phone charges $119.78

21

photo reproduction

$20.92

22

temporary staffing

$872.08

investigator fees

$910.00

23

TOTAL

$276,257.48

24

25

Taxable Costs. Plaintiffs seek $28,477.56 in taxable costs expended by

26 LAS-ELC (i.e., $230 (clerk’s fees), $539.70 (depositions), $9.99 (reproducing

27 exhibits to deposition), and $27,697.87 (Special Master fees)). Accordingly, the

28 Court decreases LAS-ELC’s costs by $28,477.56. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h); Fed.

14

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:14691

1 R. Civ. P. 54; Local Rule 54.

2

Long Distance Phone Charges. Plaintiffs originally requested $119.78 in

3 long distance phone charges purportedly expended by LAS-ELC. LAS-ELC,

4 however, declares that it was unable to locate evidence supporting any of the long

5 distance phone charges, and therefore will not be seeking reimbursement of those

6 costs. Accordingly, the Court does not award LAS-ELC any amount for long

7 distance phone charges.

8

Other Categories. The evidence submitted demonstrates that the amount of

9 costs sought for the remaining categories were reasonably expended by LAS-ELC

10 in this action. Accordingly, the Court awards the following amounts for costs

11 reasonably expended by LAS-ELC: (1) copying (in house): $6,721.40; (2)

12 copying/scanning (outside): $28,189.65; (3) document management and hosting:

13 $16,290.04; (4) expert fees: $167,325.98; (5) legal research: $245.10; (6)

14 mediation fees: $21,462.98; (7) messenger: $134.29; (8) overnight mail: $69.37;

15 (9) travel and transportation: $5,418.33; (10) photo reproduction charges: $20.92;

16 (11) temporary staffing: $872.08; and (12) investigator fees: $910.00.

17

The Court therefore awards $247,660.14 in costs reasonably expended by

18 LAS-ELC.

19

(4) DRLC

20

Plaintiffs seek $40,908.94 in costs expended by DRLC as follows:

21 CATEGORY
22

23

Clerks’ fees

24

Depositions

AMOUNT REQUESTED
$1,891.45
$10,135.95

25

Interpreter’s and Translator $2,067.50

26

Fees

27

Fees for Service of Process $1,028.00

Reporter’s Transcripts

$789.00

28

15

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:14692

1

Reproduction of Documents - $1,736.40

2

Chambers Copies

3

Other Costs ‐ Photographs $6,075.00

4

Copying and Scanning ‐ outside agency

$4,050.09

5

Copying Costs ‐ In‐house

$833.98

6

Filing/Service Fees

$87.40

7

Experts

$10,821.12

8

Messenger

$99.00

9

Overnight Mail

$261.13

10

Travel and Transportation $2,891.86

11

Postage

$45.76

12

System Access Fees

$580.30

13

Translation of Documents $145.00

14

Official Court Reporter

$380.00

15

TOTAL

$43,918.94

16

Taxable Costs. Plaintiffs seek $23,723.30 in taxable costs expended by

17 DRLC (i.e., $1,891.45 (clerks fees), $10,135.95 (Depositions), $2,067.50

18 (Interpreter’s and Translator Fees), $1,028.00 (Fees for Service of Process),

19 $789.00 (Reporter’s Transcripts), $1,736.40 (Reproduction of Documents 20 Chambers Copies), and $6,075.00 (Other Costs ‐ Photographs)). Accordingly, the

21 Court decreases DRLC’s costs by $23,723.30. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h); Fed. R.

22 Civ. P. 54; Local Rule 54.

23

Other Categories. The evidence submitted demonstrates that the entire

24 amount of costs sought for the remaining categories were reasonably expended by

25 DRLC in this action. Accordingly, the Court awards the following amounts for 26 costs reasonably expended by DRLC: (1) Copying and Scanning ‐ outside 27 agency: $4,050.09; (2) Copying Costs ‐ In‐house: $833.98; (3) Filing/Service

28 Fees: $87.40; (4) Expert Fees: $10,821.12; (5) Messenger: $99.00; (6) Overnight

16

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 418 Filed 08/25/16 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:14693

1 Mail: $261.13; (7) Travel and Transportation: $2,891.86; (8) Postage: $45.76; (9)

2 System Access Fee: $580.30; (10) Translation of Documents: $145.00; and (11) 3 Official Court Reporter: $380.00.12

4

The Court therefore awards $20,195.64 in costs reasonably expended by

5 DRLC.

6

(5) Parks

7

Plaintiffs seek $44.88 in costs expended by Parks. The evidence submitted

8 demonstrates the $44.88 in costs were reasonably expended and benefitted the

9 class. The Court therefore awards $44.88 in costs reasonably expended Parks.

10

IV. CONCLUSION

11

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion, and awards $10,269,745.07

12 in attorneys’ fees and $1,533,751.77 in costs to Plaintiffs.

13

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

16 DATED: August 25, 2016. 17 18 19

____________________________ Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall United States District Judge
CC:FISCAL

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 12 Plaintiffs seek costs expended by DRLC in this action and in connection with
27 the State Court Actions. The Court finds, based on the evidence submitted, that costs which were reasonably expended by DRLC in connection with the State
28 Court Actions benefitted the class in this litigation.

17

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 212 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:5839

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 MARK WILLITS, JUDY GRIFFIN, )

13

BRENT PILGREEN, and CALIF, on behalf of themselves and all others

) )

CASE NO. CV 10-5782 CBM (RZx)

14 similarly situated,

)

15

Plaintiffs,

) )

CLASS ACTION

)

16 17

vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, et al.,

) ) ) )

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

18

)

Defendant.

)

19

)

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 212 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:5840

1

The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary

2 Judgment (“Motion”). [Docket No. 179.]

3 4 A. 5

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL OVERVIEW The Substantive Legal Dispute Plaintiffs allege that Defendants City of Los Angeles (“the City” or

6 “Defendant”) unlawfully failed, and are failing, to properly install and maintain

7 accessible pedestrian rights of way, including curb ramps, sidewalks, crosswalks,

8 pedestrian crossings, and other walkways (“pedestrian rights of way”). (Compl. at

9 ¶ 3.) [Docket No. 1.] Plaintiffs allege that the pedestrian rights of way, when

10 viewed in their entirety, suffer from numerous deficiencies, including: (1) unsafe,

11 non-compliant, or missing ramps; (2) broken pedestrian rights of way that are

12 cracked, crumbled, steep, sunken, or uneven or that have improper slopes or

13 broken and inaccessible surfaces; (3) physical obstacles on the sidewalk between

14 intersections, such as improperly placed signs, light poles, newspapers or bus stop

15 benches; and (4) apron parking. (Compl. at ¶¶ 5, 24.)

16

According to Plaintiffs, such deficiencies are directly attributable to

17 Defendants’ policies and practices, or lack thereof, with respect to the City’s

18 pedestrian rights of way and disability access. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) Plaintiffs allege that

19 Defendants’ failure to install and maintain such pedestrian rights of way

20 constitutes a systematic denial of meaningful access and discrimination that, in

21 turn, violates federal and state nondiscrimination statutes. (Id.)

22 B. Relevant Procedural History

23

On August 4, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging

24 violations of (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); (2) Section 504 of

25 the Rehabilitation Act; (3) California Government Code § 11135; (4) the Unruh

26 Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51; (5) California Government Code §

27 4450; and (6) the California Disabled Persons Act (the “CDPA”), California Civil

28

2

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 212 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:5841

1 Code § 54. The Court previously dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs’ state law

2 claims. [Docket Nos. 53, 57.] The Court has certified the class. [Docket No. 59.]

3

II. STANDARD OF LAW

4

Summary judgment against a party is appropriate when “the movant shows

5 that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

6 judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A party asserting that a fact

7 cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to

8 particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents,

9 electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations. . .

10 admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A

11 party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of

12 the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions of the pleadings and

13 discovery responses which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material

14 fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.

15 Ed. 2d 265 (1986). If the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving

16 party must then set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56,

17 “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty

18 Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986);

19 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B).

20

In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the court does not

21 make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence and draws all

22 inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec. Serv.,

23 Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630-31 (9th Cir. 1987). The

24 evidence presented by the parties must be admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

25 Conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient

26 to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment. See Thornhill

27 Publ’n Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).

28

3

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 212 Filed 02/25/13 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:5842

1

Partial summary judgment is also appropriate for “part of each claim or

2 defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Rule 56 “make[s] clear that summary judgment

3 may be requested as to any issue (any ‘part’ of a claim or defense) . . . .” William

4 W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima & James M. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil

5 Procedure Before Trial § 14:36 (Nat’l ed., Rutter Group 2012). The interpretation

6 of a statute is a question of law for the court to decide and therefore appropriate

7 for summary judgment. Forest Conservation Council v. Rosboro Lumber Co., 50

8 F.3d 781, 783 (9th Cir. 1995).

9

III. DISCUSSION

10

Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks partial summary judgment that:

11

12

(1) Public sidewalks in the City of Los Angeles are services, programs,

13

activities, and facilities covered by Title II of the Americans with

14

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), programs, activities, and facilities covered by

15

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), and are

16

subject to the access requirements of both federal laws. Plaintiffs therefore

17

ask the Court to rule that the City may not assert its First, Fifth, Sixth,

18

Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Affirmative Defenses with

19

respect to public sidewalk coverage by Title II and Section 504.

20

21

(2) Under Title II of the ADA, there is no undue burden defense available to

22

public entities for failure to make their facilities that have been newly

23

constructed or altered since January 26, 1992, the effective date of the

24

ADA, readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.

25

Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to rule that the City may not assert its

26

Seventh and Fifty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses of undue burden with

27

respect to Plaintiffs’ ADA claims for City facilities that have been newly

28

4

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 212 Filed 02/25/13 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:5843

1

constructed or altered since the ADA went into effect on January 26, 1992.

2

3

(3) Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, there is no undue burden

4

defense available to recipients of federal financial assistance for failure to

5

make their facilities that have been newly constructed or altered since June

6

3, 1977, the effective date of the Rehabilitation Act regulations, readily

7

accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Plaintiffs therefore

8

ask the Court to rule that the City may not assert its Seventh and Fifty-

9

Fourth Affirmative Defenses of undue burden with respect to Plaintiffs’

10

Section 504 claims for City facilities that have been newly constructed or

11

altered since the Section 504 regulations went into effect on June 3, 1977.

12

13

(4) Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, there is no undue burden

14

defense available to recipients of federal financial assistance for failure to

15

make their facilities that were in existence prior to June 3, 1977, the

16

effective date of the Rehabilitation Act regulations, readily accessible to

17

persons with disabilities. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to rule that the

18

City may not assert its Seventh and Fifty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses of

19

undue burden with respect to Plaintiffs’ Section 504 claims for program

20

access to existing facilities that were constructed prior to June 3, 1977, and

21

that have not been altered since that date.

22 A. Whether Sidewalks Are a Service, Program, or Activity Covered by

23

Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

24

Plaintiffs argue that sidewalks are subject to the access requirements of

25 Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because Title II

26 provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such

27 disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the

28

5

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 212 Filed 02/25/13 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:5844

1 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to

2 discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

3

The ADA defines “public entity” as “any State or local government [and]

4 department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or

5 States or local government.’” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1); Lee v. City of Los Angeles,

6 250 F.3d 668, 691 (9th Cir. 2001).

7

8

Lee held that “the ADA’s broad language brings within its scope ‘anything

9 a public entity does.’” 250 F.3d at 691 (quoting Yeskey v. Penn. Dep’t of Corr.,

10 118 F.3d 168, 171 & n.5 (3d Cir. 1997)). “[M]aintaining public sidewalks is a

11 normal function of a city and without a doubt something that the [City] does.

12 Maintaining their accessibility for individuals with disabilities therefore falls

13 within the scope of Title II.” Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073, 1076

14 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). The Barden court stated that the inclusion of

15 sidewalks within the definition of “services, programs, or activities” of a local

16 government is consistent with the plain language of the Rehabilitation Act, which

17 defines “program or activity” as “all of the operations of” a local government. Id.

18 at 1077.

19

In Simpson v. City of Charleston, the Southern District of West Virginia

20 held that although a city enacted an ordinance holding landowners responsible for

21 adjacent sidewalks, the city had authority over its sidewalks such that it was

22 required to draft a transition plan pertaining to curb ramps pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §

23 35.150(d)(2). 22 F. Supp. 2d 550, 554 (S.D.W. Va. 1998). The Court held,

24 however that under Title III of the ADA, which unlike Title II is explicitly

25 premised on ownership, leasing, or operation of a public accommodation, the

26 owner or lessor of the adjacent land had a duty to remove barriers in existing

27 sidewalks. Id. at 555. Because that was a Title III case, it is not particularly

28

6

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 212 Filed 02/25/13 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:5845

1 helpful. In Culvahouse v. City of LaPorte, an Indiana district court found a city

2 responsible for maintaining its sidewalks under the ADA, but in that case Indiana

3 municipalities had exclusive jurisdiction over sidewalks according to Ind. Code §

4 36-1-3-9(a) and case law. See 679 F. Supp. 2d 931, 940-41 (N.D. Ind. 2009).

5

Consistent with these cases, the Court makes the following findings, to be

6 used for all purposes in this litigation:

7

 Any public sidewalk over which the City of Los Angeles has

8

responsibility to inspect and notify property owners of repair needs is a

9

“program, service, or activity” within the meaning of Title II of the

10

Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

11

Act of 1973.

12

 The City of Los Angeles is a “public entity” within the meaning of Title

13

II of the ADA.

14

To the extent that the City’s First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth,

15 and Fourteenth Affirmative Defenses are based on the theory that public sidewalks

16 are not covered by Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

17 the Court rules that the City may not assert those affirmative defenses with respect

18 to those public sidewalks over which the City of Los Angeles has responsibility to

19 inspect and notify property owners of repair needs is a “program, service, or

20 activity” within the meaning of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and

21 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

22 B. 23 24

Whether the City May Assert an Undue Burden Defense With Respect to New Construction or Alterations Under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act The City’s Seventh and Fifty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses assert that the

25 city cannot be held liable for failing to make its sidewalks and pedestrian rights of

26 way accessible to people with mobility disabilities because doing so would result

27 in an undue financial burden.

28

7

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 212 Filed 02/25/13 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:5846

1

Such a defense is foreclosed under Title II of the ADA with respect to

2 streets, pedestrian rights of way, sidewalks, and curb ramps that have been newly

3 constructed or altered since January 26, 1992, and under Section 504 of the

4 Rehabilitation Act with respect to streets, pedestrian rights of way, sidewalks, and

5 curb ramps that have been newly constructed or altered since June 3, 1977.

6 Sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, and other parts of the pedestrian right of way

7 are “facilities” and “services, programs, or activities” under Title II of the ADA

8 and Section 504. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.104; 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(i); Barden, 292 F.3d at

9 1076-77. Title II of the ADA provides an undue financial burden defense for

10 facilities already in existence as of January 26, 1992, but not for facilities

11 constructed or altered after that date. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150. The Rehabilitation Act

12 provides similarly for facilities constructed or altered after June 3, 1977.

13

The Court finds that the City may not assert its Seventh and Fifty-Fourth

14 Affirmative Defenses related to undue financial burden as to “newly constructed

15 or altered” pedestrian rights of way, sidewalks, and curb ramps as defined under

16 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the

17 Rehabilitation Act.

18

Plaintiffs seek to preclude Defendants from offering evidence related to its

19 financial situation. That request is denied without prejudice. Requests to preclude

20 specific evidence that could be used for multiple purposes may be brought at a

21 later date as motions in limine.

22 C. Whether the City Can Assert an Undue Burden Defense With Respect

23

to Existing Facilities Covered by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

24

The parties disagree as to whether there is an undue burden defense under

25 the Rehabilitation Act for existing facilities (as opposed to newly constructed or

26 altered facilities). Unlike the ADA regulations for existing facilities, see 28

27 C.F.R. 35.150, the Section 504 regulations do not contain an explicit undue

28

8

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 212 Filed 02/25/13 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:5847

1 burden defense for existing facilities.

2

This specific issue has rarely been decided by courts. The Northern District

3 of California held that a school district could not make an undue financial burden

4 defense as to facilities constructed prior to 1977. Putnam v. Oakland Unified Sch.

5 Dist., No. C-93-3772 CW, 1995 WL 873734, at *13 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 1995).

6 The Putnam court noted that other Section 504 regulations do contain express

7 undue burden defenses, thus giving more intent to the lack of such a defense in the

8 context of existing facilities. See id.

9

Moreover, when Congress enacted the ADA (which came after the

10 Rehabilitation Act), it dictated that Title II regulations be consistent with

11 Rehabilitation Act regulations with the exception of program accessibility,

12 existing facilities, and communications regulations. As to existing facilities, the

13 ADA Title II regulations contained an undue burden defense. Congress therefore

14 recognized that no undue burden defense exists under the Rehabilitation Act

15 regulations. Congress has never amended the Rehabilitation Act to include an

16 undue burden defense for existing facilities.

17

The Court is not persuaded by the City’s cases, as those relate to Section

18 504 as a whole, rather than specifically to facilities constructed prior to 1977.

19

The Court therefore finds that no undue burden defense exists as to

20 pedestrian rights of way, sidewalks, and curb ramps that were constructed prior to

21 and that have not been altered since June 3, 1977, and therefore constitute existing

22 facilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The City may not assert its

23 Seventh and Fifty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses related to undue financial burden

24 as to those facilities.

25

IV. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

26 The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of
27 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the City
28

9

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 212 Filed 02/25/13 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:5848

1 of Los Angeles’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Opposition to

2 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

3

V. CONCLUSION

4

The Court GRANTS the Motion but denies without prejudice any request

5 to preclude evidence that may be used for multiple purposes.

6

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 DATED: _February 25, 2013 9 10

___________________________________ CONSUELO B. MARSHALL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 417 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:14675

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARK WILLITS, JUDY GRIFFIN, Case No.: CV 10-05782 CBM (RZx)

BRENT PILGREEN, and 12 COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING

INDEPENDENT & FREE (“CALIF”), JUDGMENT 13 on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, 14

[JS-6]

Plaintiffs, 15 vs.

16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity,
17 Defendant.
18

19

20

The Court hereby enters final judgment in this action as between Plaintiffs

21 and the Class and Defendant City of Los Angeles (the “City”), as defined in

22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). Pursuant to this Final Judgment:

23

(1) All Released Claims of Plaintiffs and the Class are hereby released as

24

against the City and its Related Entities as defined in the Settlement

25

Agreement;

26

(2) Without affecting the finality of the Court’s judgment in any way, the

27

Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class

28

1

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW Document 417 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:14676

1

members, the City, and the Settlement Agreement throughout the

2

term of the Settlement Agreement, for the sole purpose of supervising

3

the implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation of

4

the Settlement Agreement;

5

(3) This action is dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear its own

6

costs and attorneys’ fees except as provided by the Settlement

7

Agreement and the Court’s orders;

8

(4) This document constitutes a final judgment and separate document

9

for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a); and

10

(5) The Court finds that this Final Judgment should be entered and that

11

there is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Final Judgment as

12

to Plaintiffs and the Class and Defendants. Accordingly, the Clerk is

13

hereby directed to enter Judgment forthwith.

14

15 DATED: August 25, 2016. 16 17

____________________________ Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall United States District Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:1

1 Paula D. Pearlman (SBN 109038) Paula.Pearlman@lls.edu
2 Shawna L. Parks (SBN 208301) Shawna.Parks@lls.edu
3 Surisa E. Rivers (SBN 250868) Surisa.Rivers@lls.edu
4 DISABILITYRIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 919 Albany Street
5 · Los Angeles, California 90015 Tel: (2I3) 736-1031; Fax: (213) 736-1428
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 7 (Continued on next page)

F!LED
10AUG - 4 AM II : I 0

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARK WILLITS., JUDY GRIFFIN,

BRENT PILGRE~:~NA and

12 COMMUNITIES Al.TIVELY

LIVING INDEPENDENT AND FREE CLASS ACTION

13 ("CALIF"), on behalf ofthemse1ves

and all others similarly situated,

14

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF:

Plaintiffs,

15
vs.
16

1. Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.)

CITY OF LOS ANGELE,S,_ ~public

2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

17 entity; ANTONIO VILLAKAlGOSA, in his official capacity as Mayor; ERIC

of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.)

18 GARCETTI, in his official capacity as 3. California Government Code Section

President of the Los Angeles City 19 Council; ED REYE~Sr<fAUL
KREKORIAN DEr'H"\IIS P. ZINE

11135, et seq.
4. Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil

20 TOM LABONGE, PAUL KORETZ, TONY CARDENAS, RICHARD
21 ALARCON BERNARD PARKS

Code §51, et seq.)
5. California Government Code § 4450,

JAN PERRY, HERB J. WESSOj\I',.JR.,

et seq.

22 BILL ROSENDAHL.,.,. GREIG SlYliTH, JOSE HUIZAR, ANu JANICE

6.

California Disabled Persons Act (Cal.

23 HAHN, in their official capacities as

Civil Code § 54)

members of the Los Angefes City

24 Council,

25

Defendants.

26

27

28

-I . CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:2
1 Guy B. Wallace (SBN 176151) gwallace@schnetderwallace.com
2 Mark T. .Johnson (SBN 076904) mjohnson@schnetderwallace.com
3 Andrew P:-Lee (SBN 245903) alee@schneiderwallace.com
4 SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
5 180 Montgomery Streek Suite 2000 San Franctsco CA 941v4
6 Tel. (415) 42!'-7100; Fax: 415-421-7105
7
8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25
26
27
28
-2CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:3

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. The first two claims alleged herein arise under the Americans with Disabilities

3 Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq.) ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

4 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794 et seq.) ("Section 504"), such that the jurisdiction of this Court is

5 invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Through the same actions and

6 omissions that form the basis ofPlaintiffs' federal claims, Defendants have also violated

7 Plaintiffs' rights under state law, over which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction

8 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims for

9 declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 65 of

10 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

11

2. Venue over Plaintiffs' claims is proper in the Central District of California

12 because Defendants reside in the Central District of California within the meaning of28

13 U.S.C. § 1391, and because the events, acts, and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs'

14 claims occurred in the Central District of California.

15

INTRODUCTION

16 3. This lawsuit is brought against the City of Los Angeles ("the City"), the Mayor,

17 and City Council Members in their official capacities (collectively, "Defendants") to

18 redress the Defendants' systemic and pervasive discrimination against Plaintiffs and

19 similarly situated individuals with mobility disabilities through the denial of meaningful

20 access to the City's curb ramps, sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian crossing0 and other

21 walkways (hereafter "pedestrian rights of way"). Plaintiffs include a membership

22 organization dedicated to providing services and advocacy by and for persons with

23 J disabilities in the City and three residents of the City with mobility disabilities, as well as

24 those similarly situated.

25

4. The City's pedestrian rights of way, when viewed in their entirety, are not

26 readily accessible to and usable by persons with mobility disabilities due to the pervasive

27 existence of numerous architectural and other physical access barriers along the path of

28 travel. The City has constructed, caused and/or failed to eliminate these barriers. As a

- 3CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:4

1 result, Plaintiffs and other persons with mobility disabilities must choose between

2 remaining segregated from significant amounts of daily activities -- including visiting

3 public facilities, places of public accommodation, or friends -- and thereby remaining

4 safe, or risking injury or death by traveling on or around inaccessible pedestrian rights of

5 way. The lack of access to the City's system of pedestrian rights of way d~prives people

6 with mobility disabilities of their independence, and essentially relegates them to second-

7 class citizen status.

8 5. The discrimination and denial of meaningful access to the City's pedestrian

9 rights of way for persons with mobility disabilities complained of herein is the direct

10 result of Defendants' policies and practices with regard to the City's pedestrian walkways

11 and disability access, including, but not limited to the following:

12

a. The failure to install curb ramps at intersections in the City that are necessary

13

to provide meaningful access to the pedestrian rights of way;

14

b. The failure to develop and implement a process for identifYing intersections

15

and comers throughout the City at which curb ramps are necessary to provide

16

meaningful access to the pedestrian rights of way;

17

c. The failure to install accessible curb ramps at locations where no curb ramps

18

exist, or where inaccessible curb ramps exist, within the time required by

19

applicable state and federal disability access laws or on any other reasonable

20

schedule;

21

d. The failure to install accessible curb ramps within the time permitted by

22

statute or within any other reasonable time frame, after receiving a request to

23

do so or otherwise being notified of the need for a curb at a particular

24

location;

25

e. With respect to intersections on streets that are resurfaced or other wise

26

altered or newly constructed, the failure to install accessible curb ramps at

27

those intersections;

28

f. With respect to newly constructed curb ramps, the failure to adopt and utilize

- 4-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:5

1

or require and enforce the utilization of a design standard that complies with

2

acceptable federal design guidelines and/or applicable state building cede

3

standard.

4

g. The failure to ensure the repair or elimination of mid-block barriers to access

5

on City sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways in the form of broken,

6

cracked, crumbled, steep, sunken, uneven or otherwise inaccessible surfaces,

7

as well as obstacles placed in the path of travel, such as bus stop benches or

8

light poles, when necessary to provide meaningful access to the pedestrian

9

rights of way.

10

h. The failure to adopt or implement any adequate procedure for inspecting,

11

repairing and maintaining the pedestrian rights of way from barriers to

12

access;

13

1. With respect to intersections on streets that are resurfaced or otherwise

14

altered or newly constructed, the failure to repair or eliminate mid-block

15

barriers to access on City sidewalks and other pedestrian rights of way.

16

J. The failure to adopt, implement or enforce ordinances or other requirements

17

necessary to ensure that pedestrian rights of way are kept free cf temporary

18

or permanent obstructions resulting in barriers to access, such as the

19

enforcement of California Vehicle Code§ 22500(±) and Los Angeles

20

Municipal Code § 80.53, prohibiting what is known as apron parking

21

(vehicles parking in driveways so they protrude onto the pedestrian rights of

22

way and leave insufficient space for persons with mobility aids to pass

23

through).

24 6. These policies and practices, or lack thereof, have resulted in discrimination

25 against persons with. disabilities in the form of denial of access to the City's pedestrian

26 rights of way that manifests in common ways throughout the City. Nearly half of the

27 City's thousands of miles of pedestrian rights of way are in need of repair and are not

28 accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. The City's current expenditures on this

-5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:6

1 problem will not address all of the current inaccessible and broken pedestrian rights of 2 way for more than 80 years. Moreover, this estimate does not even include stretches of 3 accessible pedestrian rights of way that will become damaged or worn during the

4 intervening years.

5

7. In addition, the City fails to provide curb ramps at all required locations and the

6 installation of curb ramps has been shrinking. Notably, the City's purported installation

7 of curb ramps has been reduced from 7,205 in 1999-2000 to only 570 in 2006-2007.

8 Continuing its policy to make the public sidewalk system more accessible "as-needed" 9 and based on complaints filed by "concerned constituents,"1 the City estimated it would

10 install a meager 916 curb ramps per year between 2007 and 2009. Without curb ramps,

11 Plaintiffs cannot access the City's pedestrian rights of way or their intended destinations

12 at all or at least without significant difficulty, delay, or danger. Finally, Plaintiffs are

13 informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants have no plan to maintain

14 curb ramps or accessible sidewalks once they are built.

15

8. As a result of the above, the City's pedestrian rights of way, when viewed in

16 their entirety, are characterized by numerous physical access barriers, including hut not

17 limited to the following:

18

a. Unsafe, noncomplying (slopes too steep, hazardous cross-slopes, high curb

19 ramp lips), or missing of curb ramps;

20

b. Broken pedestrian rights of way that are cracked, crumbled, steep, sunken, or

21

uneven or that have improper slopes or broken and inaccessible surfaces;

22

c. Physical obstacles on the sidewalk between intersections, such as improperly

23

placed signs, poles, or bus stop benches; and

24

d. Apron parking (vehicles parking in driveways so they protrude onto the

25

pedestrian rights of way and leave insufficient space for persons with mobility aicis tv

26

27 ' See A_mericans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Revised Transition Plan, City of Los 28 Angeles, Revised September, 2000, p. 3-26, attached herein as Exhibit A.

-6CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:7

1 pass through).

2

9. Accessibility of pedestrian rights of way goes to the heart of the purpose of the

3 Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and other disability rights laws, including

4 integration and accessibility. Defendants provide and are responsible for maintaining

5 these public pedestrian rights of way, which constitute an essential government program,

6 service, and activity for residents and visitors alike. Yet, when viewed in their entirety,

7 this system of pedestrian rights of way is not accessible to persons with mobility

8 disabilities in violation of multiple federal and state disability rights laws. This lawsuit

9 seeks to force Defendants to comply with these laws and finally, some 20 years after the

10 enactment of the ADA and many more years after enactment of California's disability

11 rights protections, provide access to City pedestrian rights of way for all Californians.

12

10. Plaintiffs thus bring this action to remedy violations of Title II of the ADA, 42

13 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., and its accompanying regulations, Section 504 of the

14 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S. C. § 794, et seq. (the "Rehabilitation Act") and its

15 accompanying regulations, as well as analogous state statutes including California

16 Government Code§ 11135, California Civil Code§ 51, et seq., California Civil Code§

17 54, et seq. and California Government Code §4450. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and

18 injunctive relief pursuant to the above statutes, as well as an award of attorneys' fees and

19 costs under applicable law. Named Plaintiffs Willits, Griffin and Pilgreen also seek

20 I damages.

21

PARTIES

22

11. Organizational Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free

23 ("CALIF") is an independent living center: a private, non-profit community-based

24 corporation providing services and advocacy by and for persons with disabilities in the

25 City, including individuals who have been discriminated against and subjected to

26 hazardous conditions due to the access barriers at issue in the present case. CALIF seeks

27 to achieve full inclusion, equality, and civil rights for people with disabilities.

28 Accordingly, the interests that CALIF seeks to protect through this litigation are germane

-7CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:8

1 to its mission and purpose. Furthermore, CALIF's members include persons with 2 mobility disabilities that have been harmed and continue to experience harm because the 3 City has failed and continues to fail to provide access to its system of pedestrian rights of 4 way and/or CALIF has suffered injury as a result of the City's inaccessible pedestrian 5 rights of way. Because CALIF seeks only injunctive relief, individual participation of

6 CALIF members is not required.

7 12. Named Plaintiff Mark Willits is a resident ofthe Woodland Hills who is

8 quadriplegic and uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Plaintiff Willits is a

9 "qualified person with a disability" and a person with "a disability" within the meaning of

10 all applicable statutes and regulations including 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), 28 C.P.R.§

11 35.104, 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B), and California Government Code§ 12926.

12 13. Named Plaintiff Judy Griffin is a resident of the Westwood neighborhood of Los

13
14

Angeles Plaintiff

with muscular dystrophy who uses a motorized Griffin is a "qualified person with a disability"

wheelchair for mobility.

and

a

person

-
with

"a

disability"

15 within the meaning of all applicable statutes and regulations including 42 U.S.C. §

16 12131(2), 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B), and California Government Code

17 § 12926.

18

14. Named Plaintiff Brent Pilgreen is a resident in Sherman Oaks who is

19 quadriplegic and uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Plaintiff Pilgreen is a

20 "qualified person with a disability" and a person with "a disability" within the meaning of

21 all applicable statutes and regulations including 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), 28 C.P.R. §

22 35.104, 29 U.S. C.§ 705(20)(B), and California Government Code§ 12926.

23

15. The Plaintiff class consists of all persons with mobility disabilities who have

24 been denied access to pedestrian rights of way in the City as a result of Defendants'

25 policies and practices with regard to the City's pedestrian walkways and disability access.

26

16. Hereafter, references to Plaintiffs shall be deemed to include the named

27 Plaintiffs and each member ofthe class, unless otherwise indicated.

28

17. Presently, and at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant City of Los

- 8-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:9

1 Angeles has been a public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and have 2 received federal financial assistance within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, and 3 state financial assistance within the meaning of Government Code Section 11135. The 4 City of the Los Angeles has received federal and state financial assistance sufficient to 5 invoke the coverage of Section 504 and California Government Code Section 11135. 6 18. The City is a local government entity with the responsibility of providing 7 Plaintiffs with access to its public facilities, programs, services, and activities. The City 8 is responsible for constructing, maintaining, repairing, and regulating the system of

9 pedestrian rights of way within the City.

10

19. Antonio Villaraigosa is the Mayor of the City (hereinafter the "Mayor"); Eric

11 Garcetti is the President of the City Council; Ed Reyes, Paul Krekorian, Dennis P. Zine,

12 Tom LaBonge, Paul Koretz, Tony Cardenas, Richard Alarcon, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry,

13 Herb J. Wesson, Jr., Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Jose Huizar, and Janice Hahn are

14 members of the Los Angeles City Council (hereinafter the "City Council"). The Mayor

15 and the City Council are each, in their official capacity, legally responsible for ensuring

16 compliance with federal and state law by the City. 17 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each defendant was 18 the agent and employee of every other defendant and was at all times acting within the

19 scope of such agency.

20

21. The City, the Mayor and the City Council members will be collectively referred

21 to as "Defendants." 22 22. Hereafter, references to Defendants shall be deemed to include all named

23 Defendants, unless otherwise indicated.

24

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

25

23. Defendants have systematically failed, and are failing, to install and maintain

26 accessible pedestrian rights of away in violation of federal and state law. As a result of

27 Defendants' policies and practices with regard to the City's pedestrian walkways and

28 disability access, the pedestrian rights of way are characterized by pervasive disability

- 9CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:10

1 access problems, which include but are not limited to the following examples:

2

a. Unsafe, noncomplying (slopes too steep, hazardous cross-slopes, high curb ramp

3

lips), or missing curb ramps;

4

b. Broken pedestrian rights of way that are cracked, crumbled, steep, sunken, or

5

uneven or that have improper slopes or broken and inaccessible surfaces;

6

c. Physical obstacles on the sidewalk between intersections, such as improperly

7

placed signs or bus stop benches; and

8

d. Apron parking (vehicles parking in driveways so they protrude onto the

9

pedestrian rights of way and leave insufficient space for persons with mobility

10

aids to pass through).

11

24. Many pedestrian rights of way have buckled due to tree roots, resulting in abrupt

12 changes in level. Others have obstacles such as light poles, newspaper stands, and bus

13 benches narrowing the path oftravel. Many pedestrian rights of way are overdue for

14 maintenance, with broken, cracked, crumbled, sunken, and/or caved concrete.

15 Defendants have also failed to provide accessible alternative routes during coristruction.

16 25. Apron parking is prohibited by California Vehicle Code§ 22500 and Los Angeles

17 Municipal Code § 80.53. However, Defendants through their local parking enforcement

18 officers do not ticket violators who park on aprons or otherwise effectively enforce these

19 prohibitions. As a result, in certain parts of the City, cars frequently are parked such that

20 they block the path of travel along pedestrian rights of way. This results in obstacles

21 along pedestrian rights of way that make the path of travel too narrow for pedest:ians

22 with mobility disabilities.

23

26. Defendants have also failed, and are failing, to install and maintain curb ramps in

24 violation of federal and state law. For example, thousands of intersections in the City

25 have no curb ramps or an inadequate number of curb ramps. Even among the

26 intersections that do have curb ramps, many of them have curb ramps that are improperly

27 installed and/or maintained, have lips where the sidewalk meets the street that are too

28 steep to use, or are otherwise noncomplying (slopes too steep or hazardous cross-slopes).

- 10CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:11

1 Many other curb ramps are not maintained; they are broken, cracked, crumbled, sunken,

2 and/or caved.

3 27. Additionally, as a result of Defendants' policies and practices with regard to the

4 City's pedestrian walkways and disability access, large segments of the City's pedestrian

5 rights of way do not comply with new construction or alteration accessibility

6 requirements. For example, on information and bel:ef, the City fails to install curb ramps

7 consistently when it repaves streets. As a result, persons with mobility disabilities have

8 been denied meaningful access to the City's pedestrian rights of way, public buildings,

9 parks, transportation, and/or places of public accommodation either through complete

10 denials of access or through delay of travel or unsafe conditions.

11

28. These systemic failures have caused the City's pedestrian rights of way to be

12 inaccessible when viewed in their entirety in violation of state and federal law.

13

29. Plaintiffs allege that these barriers are not isolated or limited circumstances.

14 Rather, these barriers are present throughout the City, thus denying access to persons with

15 disabilities City-wide. Persons with mobility disabilities encounter numerous obstacles to

16 using pedestrian rights of way throughout the City, including but not limited to the

17 Downtown, Venice, Eagle Rock, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Echo Park, the Valley,

18 Hollywood, Westside and LAX neighborhoods. As a result of these barriers, persons

19 with disabilities have been denied access to accommodations or public services.

20 Furthermore, these barriers discourage persons with mobility disabilities from exploring

21 or visiting areas of the City. These barriers have also delayed travel and caused these

22 persons to fear for their safety, as these conditions often create situations that are

23 downright dangerous for persons with disabilities.

24

30. This discrimination and systemic inaccessibility has a severe negative impact on

25 persons with mobility disabilities within the City as represented by the experiences of the

26 named Plaintiffs.

27

31. Plaintiff CALIF has suffered injuries as a result of the City's inaccessible

28 pedestrian rights of way and/or members who reside and/or work throughout the City and

- 11CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:12

1 who have used, and will continue to use or attempt to use, the City's system of pedestrian 2 rights of way and who have encountered, and will continue to encounter the various types

3 of access barriers described herein. 4 32. The experience of Named Plaintiffs Willits, Griffin and Pilgreen are further 5 representative of the nature of barriers experienced by persons with disabilities in the

6 City. 7 33. Due to his mobility disability, Named Plaintiff Mark Willits uses a motorized 8 wheelchair. He lives near the intersection of San Feliciano Drive and W. Mulholland 9 Drive in Woodland Hills. He has encountered numerous obstacles to using the sidewalks 10 in his neighborhood and throughout the City. This includes, but is not limited to, those

11 described below.

12

34. Plaintiff Willits is deterred from traveling in his neighborhood because of hundreds

13 of missing curb ramps. For example, there are missing curb ramps at 15 separate

14 intersections along San Feliciano Drive, between Mulholland Drive and De La Guerra

IS Street, stretching approximately 1.2 miles. In addition, there are missing curb ramps at

16 10 separate intersections along Don Pio Drive, between Martinez Street and Pampas

17 Road, stretching approximately 1 mile.

18

35. Plaintiff Willits has encountered various permanent obstructions on Don Pio Drive

19 such as signposts, streetlamps, and power poles, which make the sidewalk completely

20 impassable in many places. There are no curb ramps for half a mile at each intersection

21 along Canoga Drive between Argentine Drive and Ensenada Drive; or the intersection of

22 Canoga Avenue and Mulholland Drive. Likewise curb ramps are missing at the

23 following locations in Plaintiff Willits neighborhood: along Santa Lucia Dnve where it

24 intersects De La Luz Avenue, Cardenas Avenue, Galendo Street, and Canoga Drive;

25 along Margarita Drive where it intersects Cass Avenue, Blackfriar Road, Stark Avenue,

26 and Aida Place; along the Mulholland Drive frontage road where it intersects Greer Road,

27 Leydon Avenue, Willens Avenue, Brookfield Avenue, Coloma Avenue, and Manson

28 Avenue (rendering bus stops along this road inaccessible to Plaintiff Willits).

- 12CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:13

I

36. Similarly, Plaintiff Willits is unable to access other areas of his neighborhood

2 because of missing curb ramps at the following intersections: Cerrillos Drive and Algunas

3 Road; Cerrillos Drive and Quinta Road; Ybarra Road and Coyle Place; Llano Drive and

4 Ninfa Court; Llano Drive and Buena Ventura Street; numerous intersections surrounding

5 Woodland Hills Elementary School (including San Miguel Street and Ninfa Court, De La

6 Osa Street and Clave! Court); Avenida Morelos and Conej o Avenue; Avenida Morelos

7 and Independencia Street. 8 37. The problems that Plaintiff Willits experiences are not limited to his neighborhood. 9 Plaintiff Willits often runs errands and/or shops around the Beverly Center. However, he 10 is unable to access the sidewalks in that area because of damaged, buckled and c:acked 11 sidewalks. For example, Plaintiff Willits is deterred from traveling along Blackburn 12 Avenue between South Orlando Avenue and South Edinburgh Avenue because of

13 uplifted sidewalks.

14

38. Similarly, Plaintiff Willits must go downtown for errands and is often forced to

15 travel in the street along with traffic because of the absence of curb ramps. Por example

16 Plaintiff Willits must travel in his wheelchair in the street along with traffic on 6th Street

17 where it turns into 5th Street. The street there becomes an overpass over the 110 freeway

18 and there are no curb ramps on the sidewalks on either side of the overpass. He is also

19 deterred from using the sidewalk on 6th Street between Bixel and Beaudry because of

20 uplifted, cracked sidewalks.

21

39. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Willits has been and continues to be deprived

22 of his independence while experiencing segregation from his neighborhood and other

23 parts of his community. He is unable to visit public facilities, places of public

24 accommodations or friends in order to remain safe from the serious risks associated with

25 the inaccessible pedestrian rights of way in the City. He is also forced to risk his safety by

26 traveling in the street while avoiding these obstacle<;.

27

40. Due to her mobility disability, Named Plaintiff Judy Griffin uses a motorized

28 wheelchair. Plaintiff Griffin lives in residential section of Westwood Village. She has

- 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:14

1 encountered numerous obstacles to using pedestrian rights of way in her neighborhood

2 and throughout the City. This includes, but is not limited to, those described below.

3

41. Plaintiff Griffin is a homemaker and run errands and shops for her family. She also

4 has ongoing medical appointments, requiring her to travel downtown. Plaintiff Griffin

5 uses public transportation to travel throughout the City on her errands and to visit her

6 doctors. Because of multiple barriers she encounters, however, Plaintiff Griffin must face

7 serious risks each day she travels around the City. Moreover, the bus stops she

8 encounters are located adjacent to sidewalks that are blocked by poles, bushes or other

9 obstacles. These areas include, but are not limited to, sidewalks adjacent to bus stops

10 along San Vicente Boulevard between Bundy Drive and Barrington Avenue and along

11 Olympic Boulevard between Westwood Boulevard and Century Park East. As a resl'lt,

12 Plaintiff Griffin often must wait in an area away from the bus stop, causing buses to

13 frequently pass her because she is unable to wait at the designated stop. In fact, Plaintiff

14 Griffin must be dropped off in the street with oncoming traffic when she takes certain

15 buses because the sidewalk adjacent to the bus stop is blocked by poles or bushes.

16

42. Plaintiff Griffin must frequently travel to 1500 San Pablo and 1640 Marengo at

17 USC Medical Center for medical appointments. In this area of the City, she encounters

18 inaccessible sidewalks caused by the absence of curb ramps and poorly maintained curb

19 ramps and sidewalks. These areas include barriers such as large cracks, lifted sidewalks,

20 and poles. For example, the curb ramps at the intersection of Marengo Street and Mission

21 Road, which she must cross to get to the bus stop, are difficult to traverse because of their

22 poor condition. In addition, the sidewalk on the east side of Marengo is inaccessible

23 because there are no curb ramps. Likewise, the sidewalk on the west side ofMarengu is

24 unsafe to travel due to the uplifted sidewalk in front of the USC Medical Center.

25

43. Plaintiff Griffin travels to downtown Los Angeles where she transfers to a bus to

26 USC Medical Center. Specifically, Plaintiff Griffin travels along Cesar E. Chavez

27 Avenue between Main Street and Broadway where she encounters uprooted sidewalks

28 that are inaccessible. For example, the sidewalk on the south side of Cesar Chavez ·.vhere

- 14CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 15 of 36 Page ID #:15

1 N. Spring intersects is impassable due to a severely uprooted and cracked sidewalk. The 2 northwest corner of Main and Cesar Chavez has no curb ramp. Therefore, Plaintiff 3 Griffin must access the sidewalk by entering one of two driveways entering a Chevron 4 gas station and risk being hit by vehicles entering and exiting the gas station. Similarly, in 5 crossing over Main Street on Cesar Chavez from the northwest corner to the southwest 6 corner, Plaintiff Griffin must travel outside of the crosswalk into a lane of traffic to access 7 the curb ramp and sidewalk. In addition, Plaintiff Griffin is unable to access any of the 8 restaurants on the southwest corner of Broadway and Cesar Chavez because of a missing

9 curb cut.

10

44. Plaintiff Griffin also is unable to travel in her neighborhood near the intersection of

11 Eastborne Avenue and Pandora Avenue because the west side of Pandora does not have a

12 curb cut and there is an alleyway on Pandora between Eastborne Avenue and Santa

13 Monica Boulevard without curb ramps. As a result, Plaintiff Griffin must go into the

14 street and enter a dangerously uneven driveway to access the sidewalk. Several stretches

15 of sidewalks feature cracks, significant holes, breaks, and bumps.

16

45. Plaintiff Griffin, who is an artist, frequently shops at Blick Art Materials on the

17 corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Colby Avenue. In doing so, she must cross over

18 Santa Monica Boulevard by traveling on the street along vehicular traffic to access curb

19 ramps at the intersections. This is due to the placement of pedestrian crosswalks that

20 intersect with the north sidewalk on Santa Monica Boulevard where there are no curb

21 ramps. Furthermore, it is unsafe for Plaintiff Griffin to travel outside of the crosswalks in

22 this area, which experiences fast and heavy traffic flow. Plaintiff Griffin faces a similar

23 risk when she attempts to shop at Vicente Foods located on San Vicente and S. Bundy

24 Drive. When crossing on Bundy towards the grocery store, Plaintiff Griffin is unable to

25 access the sidewalk from the crosswalk with the curb ramp blocked by two steel poles,

26 but instead must enter through a driveway along traffic and risk being struck by a vehicle.

27

46. Similarly, poorly maintained curb ramps create an obstacle for Plaintiff Griffin,

28 causing her to face serious risks every day. For instance, often she crosses at the

- 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 16 of 36 Page ID #:16

1 intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Sawtelle where the curb ramps and gutters 2 are bumpy and difficult to cross over. As a result, Plaintiff Griffin often needs to back up 3 to make a second attempt to get over the curb ramp. On one occasion an automobile that

4 was waiting to make a right hand tum started to go forward as Plaintiff Griffin was 5 backing up and came inches from hitting her. In addition, Plaintiff Griffin risks having

6 her wheelchair topple over or become stuck if she travels over these curb ramps.

7

47. Apron parking is widespread in Plaintiff Griffin's neighborhood. Although apron

8 parking is illegal, local parking enforcement officers do not ticket violators who park on

9 aprons and block the sidewalks, even though they do ticket vehicles parked parallel to the

10 curb in violation of parking signs. Plaintiff Griffin has consistently experienced apron

11 parking on a number of sidewalks along Eastbome Avenue and intersecting streets where

12 there is limited, permit parking. The narrow spaces between the vehicles on the sidewalk

13 prevent Plaintiff Griffin from traveling along the sidewalk. As a result, Plaintiff Griffin

14 often must travel on the street to reach her destination, literally risking her life.

15 48. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Griffin l:las been and continues to be deprived

16 of her independence while experiencing segregation from her neighborhoo~ and other

17 parts ofher community. She often decides to not visit public facilities, places of public

18 accommodations or friends in order to remain safe from the serious risks associated with

19 the inaccessible pedestrian rights of way in the City. 20 49. Due to his mobility disability, Named Plaintiff Brent Pilgreen uses a motorized 21 wheelchair. PlaintiffPilgreen lives at the intersection ofMartha Street and Noble Avenue 22 in Sherman Oaks, California. He has encountered numerous obstacles to using pedestrian 23 rights of way in his neighborhood and throughout the City. This includes, but is not

24 limited to, those described below.

25

50. Plaintiff Pilgreen is deterred from traveling on sidewalks near restaurants and

26 stores in his neighborhood and in other areas of the City because of uplifted, cracked

27 sidewalks and permanent obstructions blocking sidewalks. For example, Plaintiff 28 Pilgreen is deterred from traveling along either sidewalk on Sepulveda Boulevard

- 16CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 17 of 36 Page ID #:17

1 between Burbank Boulevard and Albers Street because of the placement of poles, bus 2 stop benches, or fire hydrants blocking the sidewalk, severely cracked sidewalks and 3 hazardous cross-slopes. Plaintiff Pilgreen will no longer travel along Sepulveda 4 Boulevard because of the risks he must face, including balancing his wheelchair along the 5 top rim of sidewalks crossing over steep driveways while hoping not to fall. As a result, 6 Plaintiff is deterred from numerous activities, including shopping (at his local Target

7 store) and dining at local restaurants. 8 51. Plaintiff Pilgreen frequently eats at Tommy's Burgers on Victory Boulevard and 9 Vesper Avenue. The sidewalks surrounding Tommy's are uplifted by tree roots and 10 inaccessible to Plaintiff Pilgreen, which deters him from visiting any other businesses in 11 the area, including the 7-Eleven next door. Plaintiff Pilgreen is unable to access the 12 sidewalk on Hatteras Street near Victory Boulevard, which is adjacent to a FedEx K:nkos 13 because the sidewalk is broken and drops approximately six inches. Plaintiff Pilgreen also 14 is deterred from traveling on the sidewalks on both Lemona Street and Kester Avenue 15 running between Hatteras and Califa Street because of buckling, cracked and lifted

16 sidewalks.

17

52. As a result of barriers he has encountered, Plaintiff Pilgreen must be driven t::l the

18 location he wants to visit in his neighborhood or surrounding areas. Each trip he is

19 required to take in a vehicle causes him extreme exhaustion and requires at least a day to

20 physically recover. Consequently, Plaintiff Pilgreen often avoids leaving his home and is

21 deprived of his independence and is segregated from his neighborhood and other parts of

22 his community. Moreover, he is unable to visit public facilities, places of public

23 accommodations or friends in order to remain safe from the serious risks associated with

24 the inaccessible pedestrian rights of way in the City.

25

53. These experiences are typical ofthose experienced by persons with mobility

26 disabilities in the City and demonstrate the inaccessibility, fear, humiliation, and isolation

27 that people with mobility disabilities experience while trying to navigate the system of

28 pedestrian rights of way in the City. Defendants have been put on notice of allegations of

- 17CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 18 of 36 Page ID #:18

1 class-wide violations of federal and state laws regarding people with mobility disabilities 2 for tort claims filed by Plaintiffs Griffin, Willits and Pilgreen and multiple complaints by 3 persons with mobility disabilities about the City's pedestrian rights of way. There is no

4 adequate remedy at law and Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed. 5 54. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Defendants to 6 ensure compliance with Title II of the ADA and its accompanying regulations, Section 7 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act and its accompanying regulations, California Government 8 Code§ 11135, et seq., California Civil Code§ 51, et seq., California Civil Code§ 54, et 9 seq. and California Government Code§ 4450. Named Plaintiffs also request damages

10 under all applicable statutes.

11

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

12

55. The organizational plaintiff CALIF and named Plaintiffs bring this action

13 individually, and on behalf of all persons with mobility disabilities who have been denied

14 access to pedestrian rights of way in the City because of their disabilities as a class action

15 under Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

16

56. Each member of the proposed class is a "qualified person with a disability" ar.dlor

17 a person with a "disability" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), Section 504 of the

18 Rehabilitation Act, and/or applicable California law. The persons in the class are so

19 numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and that the disposition of

20 their claims in a class action rather than in individual actions will benefit the parties and

21 the court. The class consists of tens of thousands of persons with mobility disabilities.

22

57. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege

23 that Defendants have failed and continue to fail to comply with the ADA and with the

24 Rehabilitation Act and analogous state statutes in its implementation of the City's policies

25 and practices with regard to the City's pedestrian walkways and disability accL:ss.

26

58. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are informed, believe, and thereon allege that

27 Defendants have not adopted and do not enforce appropriate policies and procedures to

28 ensure that Defendants are in compliance with these statutes to ensure nondiscrimimttion.

. 18. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 19 of 36 Page ID #:19

1 against persons with disabilities and equal access to programs, services and activities for

2 persons with disabilities. 3 59. The violations of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and related federal and 4 California State statues set forth in detail have injur~d all members of the proposed class

5 and violated their rights.

6

60. Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,

7 thereby making appropriate final injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the class

8 as a whole. Class claims are brought for the purposes of obtaining declaratory and

9 injunctive relief only.

10

61. The claims of Named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class in that they arise

11 from the same course of conduct engaged in by Defendants. The relief sought herein will

12 benefit all class members alike.

13

62. Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

14 They have no interests adverse to the interests of other members of the class and have

15 retained counsel who are competent and experienced in litigating complex class actions,

16 including large-scale disability rights class action cc.ses.

17

63. The requirements ofRule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met with

18 regard to the proposed class in that:

19

a. The class is so numerous that it would be impractical to bring all class

20

members before the Court;

21

b. There are questions oflaw and fact which are common to the dass;

22

c. The named Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are typical

23

of the claims of the class;

24

d. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent common class

25

interests and are represented by counsel who are extremely experienced in

26

law reform class actions and the disability rights issues in this case;

27

e. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to

28

the class; and

- 19 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 20 of 36 Page ID #:20

1

f. The questions of law and fact which are common to the class predominate

2

over individual questions.

3

64. The common questions of law and fact, shared by the named Plaintiffs and all

4 class members, include:

5

a. Whether Defendants are violating Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. sections

6

12131, et seq., by failing to make their programs, services and activities

7

accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities, and otherwise

8

discriminating against persons with disabilities, as set forth above;

9

b. Whether Defendants are violating Section 504 of the Rehabilit8.tion Act, 29

10

U.S. C. § 794 et seq., by failing to make their programs, services and

11

activities accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities, and otherwise

12

discriminating against people with disabilities, as set forth above.

13

c. Whether Defendants are violating California Government Code Section

14

11135 (a), which prohibits denial of benefits to persons with disabilities of

15

any program or activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any

16

financial assistance from the state.

17

d. Whether Defendants are violating California Civil Code §51 et seq., by

18

failing to provide full and equal access to people with disabilities.

19

e. Whether Defendants are violating California Civil Code §54 et seq., by

20

failing to provide full and equal access ~o persons with disabilities.

21

f. Whether Defendants are violating California Government Code §4450, et

22

seq., by failing to provide full and equal access to persons with disabilities.

23

65. Plaintiffs contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed class

24 members that would set forth the subject and nature ofthe instant action. To the extent

25 that any further notices may be required, Plaintiffs contemplate the use of ~dditional

26 media and/or mailings.

27

I II

28

I I I

-20CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 21 of 36 Page ID #:21

1

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2

The Americans with Disabilities Act

3

(Against All Defendants)

4

42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

5

66. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

6 foregoing paragraphs.

7

67. Congress enacted the ADA upon finding, among other things, that "society has

8 tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities" and that such forms of

9 discrimination continue to be a "serious and pervasive social problem." 42 U.S.C.

10 § 12101(a) (2).

11

68. In response to these findings, Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the

12 ADA is to provide "a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

13 discrimination against individuals with disabilities" and "clear, strong, consistent,

14 enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disatilities." 42

15 U.S.C. § 12101(b) (1)-(2).

16

69. Title II of the ADA provides in pertinent part: "[N]o qualified individual with a

17 disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be

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

19 subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

20

70. At all times relevant to this action, the City is a "public entity" within the >:neaning

21 of Title II of the ADA and provides a program, service or activity to the general public.

22

71. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs are qualified individuals with

23 disabilities within the meaning of Title II ofthe ADA and met the essential eligibility

24 requirements for the receipt of the services, programs, or activities of the City. 42 U.S.C.

25 § 12131.

26

72. Defendants are mandated to operate each program, service, or activity "so that, when

27 viewed in its entirety, it is readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities."

28 28 C.P.R.§ 35.150; see also 28 C.P.R.§§ 35.149 & 35.151. Pedestrian rights of way

- 21 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 22 of 36 Page ID #:22

1 themselves constitute a vital public program, service, or activity under Title II of the

2 ADA. 28 C.P.R.§ 35.104; Barden v. City ofSacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (2002).

3 73. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA specifically provide that a

4 public entity must install curb ramps at intersections whenever it newly constructs or

5 alters sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways at a~1y time after January 26, 1992 and

6 must comply with Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or with the

7 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities

8 (ADAAG). 28 C.P.R.§ 35.151. A street resurfacing project by a public entity is an

9 alteration under the meaning of the regulation. Kinney v. Yersalim, 9 F.3d 1067, 1073-74
10 (3rd Cir. 1993); Lonberg v. City ofRiverside, 2007 WL 2005177, * 6 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

11

74. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide that a public entity must

12 maintain the features of all facilities required to be accessible by the ADA. 28 C.F.R. §

13 35.133. Facilities required to be accessible include roads, walks, and passageways. 28

14 C.P.R.§ 35.104.

15

75. The regulations implementing Title II also provide that a public entity must

16 provide and maintain accessibility for temporary facilities, including but not limited to,

17 "temporary safe pedestrian passageways around a construction site." 28 C.F .R. 36 App.

18 A4.1.1(4).

19

76. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that the City's pedestrian rights of

20 way are not fully, equally, or safely accessible to Plaintiffs when viewed in their entirety.

21 The premises administered by Defendants include facilities within the meaning of

22 ADAAG and UFAS. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basi~ allege, that

23 since January 26, 1992, Defendants have constructed, altered, or repaired parts of these

24 facilities within the meaning of the ADAAG and the UFAS, and that Defendants through

25 their policies and practices have failed to make such facilities readily accessible to and

26 usable by persons with disabilities as required under federal accessibility standards.

27

77. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants violated and

28 continue to violate the ADA by failing to enforce City and State apron parking codes or

. 22. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 23 of 36 Page ID #:23

1 otherwise prohibit apron parking and thereby denying them the benefits of the City's

2 pedestrian rights of way. 3 78. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants and their agents 4 and employees have failed to provide accessible alternative routes during construction 5 through their policies and practices with regard to the City's pedestrian walkways and

6 disability access.

7 79. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants and their agents

8 and employees have and continue to violate the ADA by failing to timely respond to and

9 remedy complaints about the said barriers through their policies and practices with regard

10 to the City's pedestrian walkways and disability access.

11

80. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants committed the

12 acts and omissions alleged herein with intent and/or reckless disregard of Plaintiffs'

13 rights.

14

81. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

15 suffered, and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship and anxiety, due to Defendants'

16 failure to address accommodations, modifications, services and access required for

17 Plaintiffs' disabilities.

18

82. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive

19 relief are appropriate remedies.

20

83. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive

21 relief as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action.

22 Plaintiffs Willits, Griffin, and Pilgreen also seek an award of damages.

23

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

24

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

25

(Against All Defendants)

26

29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.

27

84. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

28 foregoing paragraphs.

- 23CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 24 of 36 Page ID #:24

1 85. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides in pertinent part: "[N]o 2 otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall, solely by reason of her or his 3 disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or te subjected 4 to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance ..."

5 29 U.S.C. § 794. 6 86. Plaintiffs are otherwise qualified to participate in the services, programs, or

7 activities that are provided to individuals in the City. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(b).

8

87. The City is a direct recipient of federal financial assistance sufficient to invoke the

9 coverage of Section 504, and has received such federal financial assistance at all times

10 relevant to the claims asserted in this Complaint.

11

88. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants and their agents

12 and employees have and continue to violate the Rehabilitation Act and the regulations

13 promulgated thereunder by excluding Plaintiffs from participation in, denying Plaintiffs

14 the benefits of, and subjecting Plaintiffs based solely by reason of their disability to

15 discrimination in the benefits and services the City's pedestrian rights of way and for the

16 reasons set forth above.

17

89. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants committed the

18 acts and omissions alleged herein with intent and/or reckless disregard of Plaintiffs'

19 rights.

20

90. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs suffered and

21 continue to suffer humiliation, hardship, and anxiety due to Defendants' failure to address

22 accommodations, modifications, services and access required for their disabilities.

23

91. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive

24 relief are appropriate remedies.

25

92. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive

26 relief and to recover from Defendants the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in

27 bringing this action. Plaintiffs Willits, Griffin, and Pilgreen also seek an award of

28 damages.

-24CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 25 of 36 Page ID #:25

1

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

2

California Government Code§ 11135

3

(Against All Defendants)

4 93. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

5 foregoing paragraphs. 6 94. Section 11135(a) ofthe California Government Code provides in pertinent part: 7 "No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of ... disability, be unlawfully 8 denied the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or 9 activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any financial assistance from the

10 state."

11

95. The City is funded directly by the State of California and receives financial

12 assistance from the State of California sufficient to invoke the coverage ofGovemment

13 Code Sections 11135, et seq. The City was the recipient of such funding and financial

14 assistance at all time relevant to the claims asserted in this Complaint.

15 96. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants and their agents

16 and employees have and continue to violate California Government Code§ 11135 by

17 unlawfully denying Plaintiffs the benefits of, and unlawfully subjecting Plaintiffs to

18 discrimination under the City's programs and activities and for the reasons set forth

19 above. 20 97. Defendants have refused and failed to provide Plaintiffs with full and equal access 21 to their facilities, programs, services and activities as required by California Government 22 Code Sections 11135, et seq. through their policies and practices with regard to the City's
23 pedestrian walkways and disability access. 24 98. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have 25 suffered, and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship and anxiety, due to Defendants' 26 failure to address accommodations, modifications, services and access required for
27 Plaintiffs' disabilities.

28

-25CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 26 of 36 Page ID #:26

1

99. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

2 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies.

3

100. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this

4 action.

5

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

6

Unruh Civil Rights Act

7

(Against All Defendants)

8

California Civil Code § 51 et seq.

9

101. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

10 foregoing paragraphs.

11

102. This cause of action arises under California Civil Code section 51, which

12 provides in pertinent part that "All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and

13 equal, and no matter what their ... disability or medical condition are entitled to the full

14 and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business

15 establishments of every kind whatsoever." Cal. Civil Code§ 51(b).

16

103. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 51 (f), a violation of the ADA also

17 constitutes a violation of California Civil Code §51 et seq.

18

104. Defendants own, operate and/or lease business establishments within the

19 meaning ofthe Umuh Civil Rights Act. City facilities are public accommodations whose

20 facilities and programs are open to the general public and are operated for the public

21 benefit. The City provides its facilities, programs and services to the public, enters into

22 business contracts with a myriad of business entities, and markets and promotes its

23 programs, services, facilities and activities to the general public. The City is a "business

24 establishment" and pedestrian rights of way are "accommodations, advantages, facilities,

25 privileges, or services" within the meaning of California Civil Code§ 51 et seq.

26

105. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants and their

27 agents and employees have and continue to violate California Civil Code§ 51 et seq.,

28 through their policies and practices with regard to the City's pedestrian walkways and

-26CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 27 of 36 Page ID #:27

1 disability access, by denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to its pedestrian rights of 2 way comparable to the access that it offers to others and for the reasons set forth above,

3 including violating the ADA.

4

106. The actions of Defendants constitute intentional discrimination against persons

5 with disabilities and violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code§§ 51, et seq., in

6 that physically disabled persons have been and are denied full and equal

7 accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services provided to non-disabled

8 persons.

9

107. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

10 suffered, and continue to suffer, humiliation, hardship and anxiety, due to Defendants'

11 failure to address accommodations, modifications, services and access required for

12 Plaintiffs' disabilities.

13

108. Because Defendants' discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

14 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies.

15

109. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this

16 action.

17

110. Plaintiffs Willits, Griffin, and Pilgreen also seek an award of damages. Under

18 California Civil Code § 52.1 (f), Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs Willits, Griffin, and

19 Pilgreen for their actual damages, and up to three times their actual damag~s, but no less

20 than $4,000 for every violation of California Civil Code § 51 et seq. Named Plaintiffs

21 have complied with the California Tort Claims Act requirements.

22

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

23

California Government Code § 4450, et seq.

24

(Against All Defendants)

25

111. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

26 foregoing paragraphs.

27

112. The City's pedestrian rights of way are publicly funded and intended for use by

28 the public within the meaning of California Government Code§ 4450, et seq.

-27CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 28 of 36 Page ID #:28

1

113. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants' and their

2 agents and employees have and continue to violate California Government Code § 4450, et

3 seq., and regulations implemented pursuant thereto, by constructing, altering, installing,

4 maintaining, and/or operating its pedestrian rights of way in violation of disability access

5 requirements and for the reasons set forth above. The aforementioned acts and omissions

6 of Defendants constitute a denial of equal access to and use of the City's pedestrian rights

7 of way and caused Plaintiffs to suffer deprivation of their civil rights.

8

114. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

9 suffered, and continue to suffer, humiliation, hardship and anxiety, due to Defendants'

10 failures to address accommodations, modifications, services and access required for

11 Plaintiffs' disabilities.

12

115. Because the City's discriminatory conduct is ongoing, declaratory and

13 injunctive relief are appropriate remedies.

14

116. Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this

15 action.

16

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

17

Violation of California Civil Code § 54

18

(Against Defendants)

19

117. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

20 foregoing paragraphs.

21

118. California Civil Code§ 54(a) provides that "[i]ndividuals with disabilities or

22 medical conditions have the same rights as the general public to the full and free use of

23 ...public services...."

24

119. Plaintiffs are persons with disabilities within the meaning of California Civil

25 Code§ 54(b)(1) and California Government Code§ 12926.

26

120. Defendants provide public services within the meaning of§ 54 et seq.

27

121. By failing to provide reasonable and equal accommodations to Plaintiffs in light

28 of, and based upon, Plaintiffs disabilities, Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of their

-28CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 29 of 36 Page ID #:29

I right to have full and free use of public services, and therefore violate California Civil

2 Code§ 54.

3 122. Under California Civil Code§ 54(c), a violation of the ADA also constitutes a

4 violation of California Civil Code § 54 et seq. 5 123. For all the reasons outlined above, Defendants violated the rights of Plaintiffs 6 under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and therefore violated California Code § 54.

7

124. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have

8 suffered and continue to suffer humiliation, hardship, anxiety and indignity. 9 125. Under California Civil Code§ 54 et. seq., Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive

10 relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

11

126. Plaintiffs Willits, Griffin, and Pilgreen also seek an award of damages. Plaintiffs

12 Willits, Griffin, and Pilgreen are entitled to damages, including but not limitecl to,

13 statutory damages in an amount up to a maximum of three times the amount of her actual 14 damages. Cal. Civ. Code§ 54.3. Named Plaintiffs have complied with the California

15 Tort Claims Act requirements.

16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment as follows:

18

1. A declaration that Defendants' conduct as alleged herein has violated, and

19 continues to violate, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 504 ofthe

20 Rehabilitation Act of 1973; California Government Code§§ 11135 and 4450; and

21 California Civil Code§§ 51 and 54;

22

2. Issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring each Defendant to

23 undertake remedial measures to mitigate the effects of Defendants' past and ongoing

24 violations of Title II ofthe ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, California

25 Government Code §§ 11135 and 4450; and California Civil Code §§ 51 and 54; and the

26 regulations promulgated under each of these statutes. At a minimum, Defendants must

27 be enjoined to take the following actions:

28

-29CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 30 of 36 Page ID #:30

1

a. Ensure that the City's pedestrian rights of way when viewed in their entirety

2

are readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities;

3

b. Undertake prompt remedial measures to eliminate the physical barriers to

4

access to pedestrian rights of way to make such rights of way accessible to

5

Plaintiffs in accordance with federal and state nondiscrimination statutes;

6

c. Ensure that all future new construction and alterations to City pedestrian

7

rights of way comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility

8

Guidelines and/or Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, Title 24 ofthe

9

California Code of Regulations standards and Cal. Govt. Code§§ 4450, et

10

seq.; and

11

d. Remain under this Court's jurisdiction until Defendants fully comply with the

12

Orders of this Court;

13

3. Award Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, as provided by law;

14

4. Award of damages to named Plaintiffs Willits, Griffin, and Pilgreen to the extent

15

provided by law; and

16

5. Such other relief as the Court finds just and proper.

17
18 DATED: August_3_, 2010

Respectfully Submitted,

19

DISABILITY RlGHTS LEGAL CENTER

20

21

SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL

BRAYTON KONECKY LLP

22

23 24

By:~~~~-"--A---

Shawna L. Parks

25

Surisa E. Rivers

26

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27

28

-30CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 31 of 36 Page ID #:31
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 Manuel Real and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Rosalyn M. Chapman. The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
CVlO- 5782 R (RCx}
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.
Unless otherwise ordered, the United States District Judge assigned to this case will hear and determine all discovery related motions.

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is
filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all 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 retumed to you.

CV-18 (03/06)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 32 of 36 Page ID #:32

Paula D. Pearlman, SBN 109038 paula.pearlman@lls.edu DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 Tel: 213-736-1031 (see attachment for add'! atty info)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK WILLITS, JUDY GRIFFIN, BRENT PILGREEN, (see attachment for additional plaintiffs)
PLAINTIFF(S)
v.

CASE NUMBER
cv 10

57 82-

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, in his official capacity as Mayor (see attachment for additional defendants)
DEFENDANT(S).

SUMMONS

TO: DEFENDANT(S): City of Los Angeles, a public entity; Antonio Villaraigosa, in his official capacity as Mayor (see attachment for additional defendants);

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you

ri must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint D

amended complaint

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

or motion must be served on the plaintiffs attorney, Surisa E. Rivers

, whose address is

Disability Rights Legal Center, 919 Albany Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015

. 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: _ _·_4_A_UG_20__1-0 - - - - -

UJt Clerk,

/;;_-:-~~~~~"~
Dl . _ rt.. ~\

I

-\

By:

-

-

''·
\-

-

-.

ooJ

.

J

I

O

oL

"

-

'=-

1

-

--

-

-

[Use 60 days ifthe 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-OlA (!2/07)

SUMMONS

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 33 of 36 Page ID #:33

1

ATTACHMENT TO SUMMONS

2

3 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY INFORMATION:

4
Shawna L. Parks (CA Bar No. 208301) 5 shawna.parks@lls.edu
Surisa E. Rivers (CA Bar No. 250868) 6 surisa.rivers@lls.edu
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 7 919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015 8 Tel: (213) 736-1031 9 Fax: (213) 736-1428

10 Guy B. Wallace (CA Bar No. 176151)

gwallace@schneiderwallace.com 11 Mark T. Johnson (CA Bar No. 076904)

12 mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com

13 Andrew P. Lee (CA Bar No. 245903) alee@schneiderwallace.com
14 SCHNEIDER,WALLACE , COTTRELL, BRAYTON, KONECKY LLP

15 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000

16

San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 421-7100

17 Fax: (415) 421-7105

18
ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS
19
20 And COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT AND FREE 21 ("CALIF"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

22
23 ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS

24 ERIC GARCETTI, in his official capacity as President of the Los Angeles City

25 Council; ED REYES, PAUL KREKORIAN, DENNIS P. ZINE, TOM LABONGE,

26

PAUL KORETZ, TONY CARDENAS, RICHARD ALARCON, BERNARD PARKS, JAN PERRY, I-i.bRB J. WESSON, JR., BILL ROSENDAHL, GREIG

27 SMITH, JOSE lilliZAR, AND JANICE HAHN, in their official capacities as

28 members of the Los Angeles City Council,

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 34 of 36 Page ID #:34
UNITED STATE~ u!STRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT 0} cALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you are representing yourself D) MARK WILLITS, JUDY GRIFFIN, BRENT PILGREEN, and COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT AND FREE ("CALIF"), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated

DEFENDANTS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, in his official capacity as Mayor; ERIC GARCETTI, in his official capacity as President of the Los Angeles City Council (see attachment for add'\ defendants)

County of Los Angeles
(b) Attorneys (Finn Name, Address and Telephone Number. If you are representing yourself, provide same.)
Paula D. Pearlman Disability Rights Legal Center, 919 Albany Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015 Tel: 213-736-1031 (see attachment for additional attorney information)

County of Los Angeles Attorneys (If Known)

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

D 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff

~3 Federal Question (U.S.
Government Not a Party)

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

Citizen of This State

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

PTF DEF 04 04

0 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 D 3 0 3 Foreign Nation

06 06

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

!i"1 Original Proceeding

D 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from

State Court

Appellate Court

0 4 Reinstated or D 5 Transferred from another district (specify): D 6 Multi- 0 7 Appeal to District

Reopened

District

Judge from

Litigation

Magistrate Judge

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

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

0 MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT:$ Per Proof

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.)
ADA, (42 u:s.C. Section 12131 et seq.); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ofl973; CA Gov't Code Section 11135 (see attachment for additional information)

VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only.)

·· · b'r$\J:'stl\'nh:e:sJ; > I· CONTRACT . . · (:\(j~J~> > \' .. ·tp~Ts i{!Jili'\. :i>R!Js,ol'!ili< ;;·HA ':

0400 State Reapportionment 0110 Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY

PERSONAL

(.c•i <•PET\T)O!\!S'' . 0 710 Fair Labor Standards

0410 Antitrust

D 120 Marine

D 310 Airplane

PROPERTY

0 510 Motions to

Act

0 430 Banks and Banking

0130 Miller Act

0 315 Airplane Product D 370 Other Fraud

Vacate Sentence 0 720 Labor/Mgmt.

0450 Commerce/ICC

0140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability

0 371 Truth in Lending

Habeas Corpus

Relations

Rates/etc.

0150 Recovery of

0 320 Assault, Libel & D 380 Other Personal D 530 General

D 730 Labor/Mgmt.

0460 Deportation

Overpayment &

Slander

Property Damage 0 535 Death Penalty

Reporting &

0470 Racketeer Influenced

Enforcement of

0 330 Fed. Employers' 0 385 Property Damage D 540 Mandamus/

Disclosure Act

and Corrupt

Judgment

Organizations

D 151 Medicare Act

0480 Consumer Credit

D 152 Recovery of Defaulted

0490 Cable/Sat TV

Student Loan (Excl.

0810 Selective Service

Veterans)

0850 Securities/Conunodities! 0 153 Recovery of

Exchange

Overpayment of

LM;aab,,·;nhe.ty 0 340
0 345 ~:~i~~YProduct
D 350 Motor Vehicle 0 35 5 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal

Pro?uct Liab_ility

Other

v~. \<B~~~BW':n±~\·:·i .: 0 550 Civil Rights

0 740 Railway Labor Act 0790 Other Labor

0 422 Appeal 28 USC D 555 Prison Condition

Litigation

D 423 ~~hdrawa\28 ~-~::.~;)f~N#~-~/fE~ 0 791 ~:~~i~e~-~;c.

I\>' usc _157 .. ·.· . . 0 610 Agriculture
·.CiVIL--":E!rGHTS·.>?i? D 620 Other Food &

r::_=,;2fRoP..¥a::t~)fRJG:B.tS
0 820 Copyrights

0 875 Customer Challenge 12

Veteran's Benefits

Injury

0 441 Voting

Drug

D 830 Patent

USC 3410

0 160 Stockholders' Suits

0890 Other Statutory Actions D 190 Other Contract

0 362 Personal Injury- 0 442 Employment

0 625 Drug Related

Med Malpractice 0 443 Housing/Acco-

Seizure of

D 840 Trademark
y;;:r· sbbli\L.sE¢URifY

0891 Agricultural Act

0 195 Contract Product

D 365 Personal Injury-

mmodations

Property 21 USC 0 861 HIA (!395ft)

0892 Economic Stabilization

Liability

Product Liability 0 444 Welfare

881

0 862 Black Lung (923)

Act

0 196 Franchise

0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 445 American with D 630 Liquor Laws

0 863 DIWC/D!WW

0 893 Environmental Matters

. REAL· PROPERTY

Injury Product

Disabilities - 0 640 R.R. & Truck

(405(g))

0 894 Energy Allocation Act 0 895 Freedom of Info. Act 0900 Appeal of Fee Determi-
nation Under Equal
Access to Justice 0950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

0 210 Land Condemnation D 220 Foreclosure

·. ·..--:.:,:_JL'iJaX!bMitlQiR~A:riQN~Y.t·

D 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment D 462 Naturalization

0 240 Torts to Land

Application

IIYf'446

I 0 245 Tort Product Liability 0 463 Habeas Corpus- 0 440

0 290 All Other Real Property

Alien Detainee

0 465 Other Immigration

Actions

Employment American with Disabilities Other Other Civil
R;ghts

0 650 Airline Regs 0 660 Occupational
10 Safety /Health 690 Other
I

0 864 SSID Title XVI
0 865 RSI (405(g)) .; :i'Ep);R.j\1\Tt,XSUITS D 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
D 871 IRS-Third Party 26
usc 7609

CV10 5782
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Case Number:-------------------------~ AFTER COMPLETING THE FRONT SIDE OF FORM CV-71, COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW.

CV-71 (05/08)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page I of2

Case 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 35 of 36 Page ID #:35
UNITED STATE~ uiSTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT Ot- ~ALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

VIII(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? fi'No 0 Yes If yes, !istcase number(s): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VIII(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? li'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) D A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or 0 B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions oflaw and fact; or 0 C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication oflabor if heard by different judges; or 0 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) 0

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. Check here if the government, its agencies or emolovees is a named p!aintiff. If this box is checked, g{! to item (!U.:_

County in this District:*

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

Los Angeles County

~ 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. Check here if the g_s.vernment, its ~encies or employees is a named defendant. If this box is checked, go to item (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 if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose.

Note· In land condemnation cases' use the location of the tract of land 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 t ofland involved

Notice to Counsel/Parties: The CVw71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the information or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the

contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-l is not filed 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

Ali 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))

862

BL

Ali 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 mTiended; 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

SSID

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

Act, as amended.

865

RS1

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 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-RZ Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 36 of 36 Page ID #:36

1

ATTACHMENT TO CIVIL COVER SHEET

2

3 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY INFORMATION:

4 Shawna L. Parks (CA Bar No. 208301) 5 shawna.parks@lls.edu
Surisa E. Rivers (CA Bar No. 250868)) 6 surisa.rivers(a)lls.edu
DISABILITYRIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 7 919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, California 90015 8 Tel: (213) 736-1031; Fax: (213) 736-1428

9 Guy B. Wallace (CA Bar No. 176151)

10 gwallace@schneiderwallace.com

11 Mark T. Johnson (CA Bar No. 076904)

rnjohnson@schneiderwallace.com 12 Andrew P. Lee (CA Bar No. 245903)

13 alee@schneiderwallace.com

14

SCHNEIDER ,WALLACE, COTTRELL, BRAYTON, KONECKY LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000

15 San Francisco, CA 94104

16 Tel: (415) 421-7100; Fax: (415) 421-7105

17 ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS

18

19

ED REYES, PAUL KREKORIAN, DENNIS P. ZINE, TOMLABONGE, PAUL KORETZ, TONY CARDENAS, RICHARD ALARCON, BERNARD PARKS,

20 JAN PERRY, HERB J. WESSON, JR., BILL ROSENDAHL, GREIG SMITH,

21 JOSE HUIZAR, AND JANICE HAHN, in their official capacities as members of

22 the Los Angeles City Council,

23 ADDITIONAL CAUSES OF ACTION

24 Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil Code §51; California Government Code§

25 4450; California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code §54; This lawsuit is

26 brought against Defendants to redress the defendants' systemic and pervasive

27

discrimination through denial of meaningful access to City's pedestrian rights of way

28

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 1 of 58
(MRWx),APPEAL,CLOSED,DISCOVERY,RELATED−G
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−05782−CBM−MRW

Willits et al v. City of Los Angeles et al Assigned to: Judge Consuelo B. Marshall Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner Related Case: 2:09−cv−00287−CBM−RZ
Case in other court: 9th CCA, 14−56138 Cause: 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/04/2010 Date Terminated: 08/25/2016 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Mark Willits on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Guy B Wallace Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP 2000 Powell Street Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−421−7100 Fax: 415−421−7105 Email: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah S Colby Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP 2000 Powell Street Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−421−7100 Fax: 415−421−7105 Email: sscolby@schneiderwallace.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Paul Lee Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho 300 Lakeside Drive, Ste. 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510−763−9800 Fax: 510−835−1417 Email: alee@gbdhlegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna Mercedes Rivera Disability Rights Legal Center 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 1520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−736−1031 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: anna.rivera@drlcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Borgen Goldstein Borgen Dardarian and Ho 300 Lakeside Drive Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510−763−9800 Fax: 510−835−1417 Email: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 2 of 58
Jason H Tarricone Goldstein Borgen Dardarian and Ho 300 Lakeside Drive Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510−763−9800 Fax: 510−835−1417 Email: jason@clsepa.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer A Uhrowczik Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP 2000 Powell Street Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−421−7100 Fax: 415−421−7105 Email: juhrowczik@schneiderwallace.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jinny Kim The Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center 180 Montgomery Street Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104−4244 415−864−8848 Fax: 415−593−0096 Email: jkim@las−elc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katrina L Eiland Outten and Golden LLP One Embarcadero Center 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−638−8800 Fax: 415−638−8810 Email: keiland@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Dardarian Goldstein Borgen Dardarian and Ho 300 Lakeside Drive Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 510−763−9800 Fax: 510−835−1417 Email: ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Thomas Johnson Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP 2000 Powell Street Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−421−7100 Fax: 415−421−7105 Email: mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Carlson Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP 180 Montgomery Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94107 415−421−7100 Fax: 415−421−7105 Email: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 3 of 58
TERMINATED: 06/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
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: 09/03/2014
Peggy A Farrell Disability Rights Legal Center Civil Rights Litigation Program 800 South Figueroa Street Suite 1120 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−736−1496 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: peggy.farrell@lls.edu TERMINATED: 12/31/2012
Rachael Langston Legal Aid Society−Employment Law Center 180 Montgomery Street Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 415−864−8848 Fax: 415−864−8199 Email: rlangston@las−elc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Elsberry Disability Rights Legal Center 800 S. Figueroa Street Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−736−1031 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: ronald.elsberry@lls.edu TERMINATED: 06/18/2013
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: 03/07/2012
Surisa E Rivers Surisa Rivers Law Office 2529 Foothill Blvd Suite 202 La Crescenta, CA 91214

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 4 of 58

818−330−7012 Fax: 213−402−6077 Email: riverslawoffice@gmail.com TERMINATED: 09/21/2012

Trevor J Finneman Disability Rights Legal Center 800 South Figueroa Street Suite 1120 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−736−1496 Fax: 213−736−1428 Email: trevor.finneman@lls.edu TERMINATED: 09/25/2013

Plaintiff
Judy Griffin on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Sarah S Colby (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna Mercedes Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Borgen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy B Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason H Tarricone (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer A Uhrowczik (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katrina L Eiland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda M Dardarian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Thomas Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew David Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 5 of 58

Plaintiff
Brent Pilgreen on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014
Peggy A Farrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2012
Rachael Langston (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Elsberry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/18/2013
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012
Surisa E Rivers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/21/2012
Trevor J Finneman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2013
represented by Sarah S Colby (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anna Mercedes Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Borgen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guy B Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason H Tarricone (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer A Uhrowczik (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katrina L Eiland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Dardarian

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 6 of 58

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Thomas Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew David Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013

Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014

Peggy A Farrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2012

Rachael Langston (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald Elsberry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/18/2013

Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012

Surisa E Rivers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/21/2012

Trevor J Finneman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2013

Plaintiff
Communities Actively Living Independent and Free ("Calif") on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

represented by Sarah S Colby (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna Mercedes Rivera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Borgen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy B Wallace (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 7 of 58
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason H Tarricone (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer A Uhrowczik (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katrina L Eiland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda M Dardarian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Thomas Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Uzeta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/26/2013
Paula D Pearlman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2014
Peggy A Farrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2012
Rachael Langston (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawna L Parks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2012
Surisa E Rivers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/21/2012
Trevor J Finneman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2013

V.
Movant
Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning Citizens Coalition Los Angeles

represented by Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning Citizens Coalition Los Angeles 1921 North Saint Andrews Place Hollywood, CA 90068 323−957−9588 Fax: 929−464−7066

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 8 of 58 PRO SE

V.
Defendant
City of Los Angeles a public entity

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand Los Angeles City Attorney Office 200 North Main Street Room 917 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−473−6858 Fax: 213−473−6818 Email: adena.hopenstand@lacity.org TERMINATED: 12/08/2010
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 TERMINATED: 01/31/2013
Gerald M Sato Los Angeles City Attorney's Office 600 City Hall East 200 North Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012−4131 213−978−6947 Fax: 213−473−6875 Email: gerald.sato@lacity.org TERMINATED: 01/31/2013
Kevin E Gilbert Orbach, Huff, Suarez & Henderson 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1630 Oakland, CA 94612 510.999.7908 Fax: 510.999.7918 Email: kgilbert@ohshlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin P McLaughlin Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP 1220 Seventh Street Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 510−995−5800 Fax: 415−678−3838 Email: kmclaughlin@publiclawgroup.com TERMINATED: 03/04/2015
Kimberly E Colwell Meyers Nave Riback Silver and Wilson 555 12th Street Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94607 510−808−2000 Fax: 510−444−1108 TERMINATED: 01/07/2013
Kimberly M Drake San Francisco, CA 94115 510−282−5779 Email: kdrake@jarvisfay.com TERMINATED: 01/31/2013

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 9 of 58

Defendant Antonio Villaraigosa in his official capacity as Mayor
Defendant Eric Garcetti in his official capacity as President of the Los Angeles City Council

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 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Ugaz Los Angeles City Attorney's Office Business and Complex Litigation 200 North Main Street City Hall East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−7564 Fax: 213−978−7011 Email: sara.ugaz@lacity.org TERMINATED: 01/31/2013
represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2010
Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012
represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2010
Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2012
Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 10 of 58

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Defendant Ed Reyes

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2010

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Defendant
Paul Krekorian in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Counci

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2010

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 11 of 58

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Defendant Dennis P. Zine

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2010

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Defendant
Tom Labonge in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Counci

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2010

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 12 of 58

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Defendant
Paul Koretz in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Counci

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2010

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Defendant
Tony Cardenas in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Counci

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 13 of 58

Defendant Richard Alarcon

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Defendant
Bernard Parks in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Counci

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2010

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Defendant
Jan Perry in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Counci

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 14 of 58

Defendant Herb J. Wesson, Jr. in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Counci
Defendant Bill Rosendahl in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Counci

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012
represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012
represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald M Sato

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 15 of 58

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Defendant
Greig Smith in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Counci

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012

Defendant
Jose Huizar in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Counci

represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 16 of 58

Defendant Janice Hahn in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Council
Amicus League of California Citites

Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012
represented by Adena Michelle Hopenstand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Seth Dermer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald M Sato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin E Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly E Colwell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly M Drake (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Ugaz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2012
represented by Timothy Towery Coates Greines Martin Stein and Richland LLP 5900 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90036−3697 310−859−7811 Fax: 310−276−5261 Email: tcoates@gmsr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Special Master
Judge James Larson Special Master for Discovery

represented by James Larson Jams The Resolution Experts Two Embarcadero Center Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−982−5267 Fax: 415−982−5287 Email: jlarson@jamsadr.com

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 17 of 58 PRO SE

Date Filed 08/04/2010
08/04/2010 08/04/2010 08/05/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine.Case assigned to Judge Manuel L. Real for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.(Filing fee $ 350 PAID.), filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (et) (mg). (Entered: 08/04/2010)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine. (et) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
2 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (et) (mg). (Entered: 08/04/2010)
3 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Related Case(s): CV09−0287 CBM (RZx) (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
4 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant City of Los Angeles served on 8/6/2010, answer due 8/27/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
5 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Antonio Villaraigosa served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Eric Garcetti served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
7 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Paul Krekorian served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Paul Koretz served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Tom Labonge served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amante, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 18 of 58

08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Ed Reyes served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Dennis P. Zine served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Herb J. Wesson, Jr served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Tony Cardenas served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Richard Alarcon served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Bernard Parks served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
16 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Janice Hahn served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
17 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Bill Rosendahl served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
18 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Jan Perry served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 19 of 58

08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/16/2010 08/18/2010 08/20/2010
08/20/2010 08/24/2010 08/25/2010 08/25/2010 08/25/2010

19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Jose Huizar served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
20 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, upon Defendant Greig Smith served on 8/9/2010, answer due 8/30/2010. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Julie Amanti, L.A. City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
21 ORDER re NOTICE TO COUNSEL by Judge Manuel L Real: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Manuel L Real. Counsel are advised that the Court expects strict compliance with the provisions of the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. NONCOMPLIANCE MAY LEAD TO THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE STRIKING OF THE PLEADINGS AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION. (See order for further details) (shb) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
22 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, Order re: Notice to Counsel served on 10/18/2010. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
23 CERTIFICATION and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants All Defendants, identifying MARK WILLITS, JUDY GRIFFIN, BRENT PILGREEN, COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT and FREE ("CALIF") and CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, in his official capacity as Mayor; ERIC GARCETTI, in his official capacity as President of the Los Angeles City Council; ED REYES, PAUL KREKORIAN, DENNIS P. ZINE, TOM LABONGE, PAUL KORETZ, TONY CARDENAS, RICHARD ALARCON, BERNARD PARKS, JAN PERRY, HERB J. WESSON, JR., BILL ROSENDAHL, GREIG SMITH, JOSE HUIZAR, AND JANICE HAHN, in their official capacities as members of the Los Angeles City Council. (Hopenstand, Adena) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
24 FIRST STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to All Defendants, filed by Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine.(Hopenstand, Adena) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
25 STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE filed by Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine re: Notice of Related Case(s) 3 . (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 08/24/2010)
26 NOTICE change of attorney info filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. and all individual defendants (Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
27 First NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Gabriel Seth Dermer on behalf of Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
28 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Gerald M Sato on behalf of Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine (Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 08/25/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 20 of 58

08/25/2010 08/26/2010 09/01/2010
09/07/2010 09/07/2010 09/08/2010 09/08/2010

29 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 −Related Case− filed. Related Case No: CV 09−00287 CBM(RZx). Case transferred from Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman and Judge Manuel L. Real to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 10−05782 CBM(RZx).Signed by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall (rn) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
30 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents, RE: Notice (Other) 26 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is Change of Attorney Information (G−06). To efile, see category: Other Filings: Notices; for event: Change of Attorney Information (G−06). If you are unsure of the events, use the SEARCH feature on CM/ECF menu bar. 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: 08/26/2010)
31 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 10/4/2010 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Parks Declaration, # 2 Exhibits A to G to Parks Dec, # 3 Exhibit H to Parks Dec, # 4 Willits Declaration, # 5 Pilgreen Declaration, # 6 Navarro Declaration, # 7 Griffin Declaration, # 8 Wallace Declaration, # 9 Johnson Declaration, # 10 Exhibit A to Johnson Dec, # 11 Shoup Declaration, # 12 Exhibit A and B to Shoup Dec, # 13 Exhibit C to Shoup Dec, # 14 Exhibit D and E to Shoup Dec, # 15 Mastin Declaration, # 16 Exhibit A to M to Mastin Dec, # 17 Exhibit N to Z to Mastin Dec, # 18 Dukakis Declaration, # 19 Garcia Declaration, # 20 Goldkorn Declaration, # 21 Harthorn Declaration, # 22 Jahanabad Declaration, # 23 LaPlant Declaration, # 24 Matamoros Declaration, # 25 Orlina Declaration, # 26 Overton Declaration, # 27 Ray Declaration, # 28 Rubenstein Declaration, # 29 Shimozono Declaration, # 30 Soto Declaration, # 31 Varga Declaration, # 32 Williams Declaration, # 33 Wilson Declaration, # 34 Martinez Declaration, # 35 Proposed Order Granting Class Cert Motion)(Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
32 First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue hearing from October 4, 2010 to November 1, 2010, First EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File opposition filed by defendant City of Los Angeles.(Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
33 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending Comletion of State Court Proceeding (Colorado River doctrine) Points and Authorities, and declaration of Gerald Sato in support thereof filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 11/1/2010 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
34 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents, RE: First EX PARTE APPLICATION 32 ; MOTION to Stay Case pending Completion of State Court Proceeding 33 . The following error(s) was found: Proposed Document was not submitted as a separate attachment. There is no [Prop] Order attached. Please do a Notice of Lodging document and attach the [Prop] Order as the second attachment. To efile, use the SEARCH feature on the CM/ECF menu bar to find "Notice of Lodging" event. 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: 09/08/2010)
35 Opposition Opposition re: First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue hearing from October 4, 2010 to November 1, 2010First EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File opposition 32 Declaration of Surisa E. Rivers filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Surisa Rivers in Support of Opposition to Def Ex Parte Application for Continuance, # 2 Exhibits to Rivers Declaration in Support of Opposition)(Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 09/08/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 21 of 58

09/08/2010 09/08/2010 09/08/2010 09/10/2010
09/13/2010 09/27/2010 09/27/2010 10/04/2010 10/04/2010

36 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION to Stay Case pending Comletion of State Court Proceeding (Colorado River doctrine) Points and Authorities, and declaration of Gerald Sato in support thereof MOTION to Stay Case pending Comletion of State Court Proceeding (Colorado River doctrine) Points and Authorities, and declaration of Gerald Sato in support thereof 33 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY (COLORADO RIVER DOCTRINE))(Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
37 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue hearing from October 4, 2010 to November 1, 2010First EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File opposition 32 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing etc. re Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification)(Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
38 REPLY in support First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue hearing from October 4, 2010 to November 1, 2010First EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File opposition 32 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
39 STANDING ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. This action has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall. Both the Court and the attorneys bear responsibility for the progress of litigation in the Federal Courts. To secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, all counsel are ordered to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District of California and comply with these rules. This Order controls the procedures used in this case. See Item 7, regarding Motions: Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. Local Rule 6−1 provides: "The notice of motion shall be filed with the Clerk not later than twenty−eight (28) days before the date set for hearing, and shall be served on each of the parties electronically or, if excepted from electronic filing, either by deposit in the mail or by personal service." This Court typically hears motions on Mondays, beginning at 10:00 a.m. The briefing schedule for the motion shall be governed by Local Rules 6 and 7. (Refer attached Order for other requirements.) (lom) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
40 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court grants 32 Ex Parte Application of Defendants City of Los Angeles, et al. for Continuance of Hearing/Extension of Due Date for Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Court further orders that: 1. Defendants' opposition is due no later than October 4, 2010; 2. Plaintiffs' reply is due no later than October 18, 2010; and 3. The hearing date is scheduled for November 8, 2010 at 10:00 A.M. (lom) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
41 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine. Motion set for hearing on 11/15/2010 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof)(Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
42 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION to Dismiss Case 41 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order granting Mtn to Dismiss)(Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
43 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Certify Class Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 31 filed by Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Denying Class Certification, # 2 Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence)(Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
44 DECLARATION of Ali Nahass in opposition to MOTION to Certify Class Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 31 filed by Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 22 of 58

10/04/2010 10/04/2010 10/09/2010
10/18/2010
10/18/2010 10/21/2010 10/25/2010 11/01/2010 11/15/2010

P. Zine. (Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
45 DECLARATION of Carl Mills In Opposition To MOTION to Certify Class Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 31 filed by Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Exhibit A to Mills' Declaration)(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
46 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion,, 43 , Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 (Attachments: # 1 Frame vs. City of Arlington (5th Cir. 8/28/2010))(Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
47 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Stay Case pending Comletion of State Court Proceeding (Colorado River doctrine) Points and Authorities, and declaration of Gerald Sato in support thereof MOTION to Stay Case pending Comletion of State Court Proceeding (Colorado River doctrine) Points and Authorities, and declaration of Gerald Sato in support thereof 33 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Surisa Rivers in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition, # 2 Exhibit A to D to Rivers Declaration, # 3 Exhibit E go H to Rivers Declaration, # 4 Declaration of Rivers re Failed Filing Attempts)(Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 10/09/2010)
48 REPLY support MOTION to Stay Case pending Comletion of State Court Proceeding (Colorado River doctrine) Points and Authorities, and declaration of Gerald Sato in support thereof MOTION to Stay Case pending Comletion of State Court Proceeding (Colorado River doctrine) Points and Authorities, and declaration of Gerald Sato in support thereof 33 filed by Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine. (Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
49 REPLY Support MOTION to Certify Class Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 31 Plaintiffs' Reply to Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Defendants' Objections in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification)(Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
50 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. There are three matters currently pending before the Court: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, 31 ; (2) Motion of Defendant City of Los Angeles to Stay Proceedings, 33 ; and (3) Motion of Defendant City of Los Angeles to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 41 . On the Court's own motion, a hearing on all of the above−referenced matters is hereby scheduled for Monday, November 15, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. (lom) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
51 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion of Defendants City of Los Angeles to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
52 REPLY support MOTION to Dismiss Case 41 filed by Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine. (Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
53 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing re: Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (#31); Motion of Defendant City of Los Angeles to Stay Proceedings (#33) and to Dismiss Complaint (#41) held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Case called, arguments held. Motion of the City of Los Angeles to Stay proceedings 33 and Motion to Dismiss Complaint 41 are denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is submitted without further oral arguments 31 . Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (lw) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 23 of 58

11/29/2010 12/08/2010 12/09/2010
12/10/2010 12/21/2010 01/03/2011
02/28/2011 03/01/2011 03/04/2011

54 FIRST STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Los Angeles answer now due 12/8/2010, filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.(Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
55 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by defendant Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine.(Sato, Gerald) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
56 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) re Scheduling Conference by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, this case is set for a Scheduling Conference on Mar. 7, 2011 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 expert's 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, and whether discovery must be conducted prior to the filing of the motions. (lom) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
57 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, that Defendants' Motion to Stay the Proceedings is DENIED 33 , Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim is DENIED 41 , Plaintiffs' claims asserted under state law are DISMISSED without prejudice to be pursued in state court, and the individual Defendants are DISMISSED. (lom) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
58 NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
59 ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 31 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The plaintiff class is defined as follows: All persons with mobility disabilities who have been denied access to pedestrian rights of way in the city of Los Angeles as a result of Defendants' policies and practices with regard to its pedestrian rights of way and disability access. The class is certified for injunctive and declaratory relief only. The class claims are Count I (alleging violations of the ADA) and Count II (alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act) of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Plaintiffs Mark Willits, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, and CALIF are the class representatives. Disability Rights Legal Center and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, LLP are appointed class counsel. Pursuant to the discretion afforded the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(A) and 23(d), the Court waives notice to the class members for the purpose of class certification only. (lom) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
60 JOINT REPORT of The Early Meeting of Counsel Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.16 and 26(f) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
61 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, the Scheduling Conference which is set on Mar. 7, 2011, is hereby continued to Mar. 9, 2011 at 10:30 A.M. (lom) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
62 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Misc Report 60 . The following error was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. To find the correct event, see category: Other Filings: Pretrial and Trial Documents; for event: see above. If you are unsure of the events, use the SEARCH feature on the CM/ECF menu bar. 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

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 24 of 58

03/09/2011 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 03/17/2011 05/03/2011 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 05/04/2011
05/11/2011 05/16/2011

do so. (ir) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
63 NOTICE AND REQUEST of Settlement Procedure Selection (Sp3); parties request to appear before a retired judicial officer or other dispute resolution body for mediation type settlement proceedings. Filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin and Defendant City of Los Angeles. (lom) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
64 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Granted the NOTICE AND REQUEST of Settlement Procedure Selection (Sp3) requiring the parties to appear before a retired judicial officer or other private or non−profit dispute resolution body. For Settlement Procedure No. 3, counsel are responsible for contacting the mediator at the appropriate time to arrange for further proceedings. (lom) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
65 MINUTES of Scheduling Conference held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Court ordered as follows: 1. all fact discovery shall be completed on or before Oct. 30, 2011; 2. all expert discovery shall be completed on or before Dec. 30, 2011; 3. motions shall be set for oral argument on or before Feb. 13, 2012 at 10:00 A.M.; 4. Pre Trial Conference is set on Apr. 2, 2012 at 2:30 P.M.; 5. 10−14 day Court Trial is set on May 15, 2012 at 10:00 A.M.; and 6. Settlement Conference shall be held on or before Nov. 15, 2011.Court Reporter: Mark Schweitzer. (lom) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
66 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 11−80012. The court, in its discretion, denies the petition for permission to appeal the district court's January 4, 2011 order granting class action certification. Order received in this district on 3/17/2011. (dmap) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
67 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Discovery From The City of Los Angeles filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 5/30/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
68 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Discovery From The City of Los Angeles 67 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rivers re Joint Stipulation re Discovery Dispute, # 2 Exhibits to Rivers Declaration re Joint Stipulation, # 3 Declaration of Sato re Joint Stipulation re Discovery Dispute, # 4 Proposed Order re Joint Stipulation re Discovery Dispute)(Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
69 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky: On the Court's own motion, the hearing on 67 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery, noticed for 5/30/11, is continued to 6/6/11 at 10:00AM before Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
70 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Kimberly Colwell, Kevin Gilbert, Kimberly Drake, Britt Strottman and Eric Casher on behalf of Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine. Filed by Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine (Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
71 STIPULATION to AMEND Answer to Complaint (Discovery), Answer to Complaint (Discovery) 55 filed by Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
72 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Compel Discovery From The City of Los Angeles 67 , Supplemental filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rivers in Support of Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 25 of 58

05/23/2011 06/06/2011 06/09/2011 06/20/2011 06/21/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 09/27/2011
09/28/2011 09/30/2011
12/29/2011 12/29/2011

to Compel Discovery)(Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
73 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
75 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery 67 is denied. The motions for fees are denied. The Court's rulings are made for the reasons stated on the record. No further order shall issue. Court Recorder: Recorded on Courtsmart. (ib) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
74 STIPULATION AND ORDER to Allow Defendants to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court hereby adopts the Stipulation of the parties as an Order of this Court. Pursuant thereto, Defendants may file an Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Amended Answer shall be filed on or before July 1, 2011. (lom) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
76 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
77 NOTICE Of Unavailability of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
78 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Surisa E Rivers counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Changing Address to 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120, Los Angeles, Ca 90017. Filed by Plaintiff Willits, et al. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
79 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Paula D Pearlman counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Changing Address to 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Filed by Plaintiff Willits, et al. (Pearlman, Paula) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
80 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Shawna L Parks counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Changing address to 800 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1120, Los Angeles CA 90017. Filed by Plaintiff Willits et al. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
81 STIPULATION to Reschedule Pre−Trial Schedule and Trial Date filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C−P to Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit Q−AF to Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 6 Proposed Order)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 09/27/2011)
82 NOTICE of Unavailability filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (December 26, 2011 through January 25, 2012) (Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
83 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall; The Court hereby adopts the Stipulation 81 of the parties. The Court modifies the pretrial schedule and continues the trial date as follows: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed on or before Apr. 30, 2012; 2. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before June 30, 2012; 3. Motions shall be set for oral argument on or before Aug. 13, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 4. Pretrial Conference shall be set on Oct. 1, 2012 2:30 p.m.; 5. A 10−14 day Court Trial shall be set on Nov. 13, 2012 10:00 a.m. and 6. A Settlement Conference shall be held on or before May 15, 2012. (ys) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
84 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 1/23/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
85 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 84 filed by Plaintiff Mark

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 26 of 58

01/09/2012
01/09/2012 01/10/2012 01/10/2012 01/23/2012 01/26/2012 01/26/2012 01/26/2012 01/27/2012

Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Joint Stipulation, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits A−P to Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Joint Stipulation, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits Q−FF to Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Joint Stipulation, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit GG to Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Joint Stipulation, # 5 Exhibit Exhibits HH−LL to Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Joint Stipulation)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
86 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 84 filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Supplemental Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Supplemental Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of Documents)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
87 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 84 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Drake, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
88 DECLARATION of Kevin Crawford in opposition MOTION to Compel SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 84 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Drake, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/10/2012)
89 OBJECTION TO UNTIMELY FILED DECLARATION OF KEVIN CRAWFORD IN OPPOSITION re: MOTION to Compel SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 84 filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 01/10/2012)
90 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky: Court hears argument of counsel re 84 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, etc and Request for Attorneys' Fees. Within 10 days, each side shall provide proposed orders that will grant Plaintiff relief. Recorded on Courtsmart. (ib) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
91 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 1/23/2012 to 1/23/2012 as to Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Steve Cuellar at steve.cuellar@lls.edu with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 1/23/2012. Category: Daily. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Transcript Order Form (AO−435) 91 . The following error(s) was found:Form AO435 must be amended to address box 17 has multiple selections, only make 1 selection. Transcript deadline terminated. You MUST electronically refile the above referenced Request for Transcript in this case to correct this deficiency. (ml) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/26/2012)
92 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 1/23/2012 to 1/23/2012 as to Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Steve Cuellar at steve.cuellar@lls.edu with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 1/23/2012. Category: Daily. (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
93 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 1/23/12 9:49am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Exceptional Reporting Services, Inc., phone number (361)949−2988. 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 2/17/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/27/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 27 of 58

01/27/2012 01/30/2012 01/30/2012
01/30/2012 01/31/2012
02/06/2012 02/07/2012
02/16/2012 02/21/2012 02/22/2012 02/24/2012 03/01/2012

4/26/2012. (ml) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
94 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 1/23/12 9:49am (ml) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
95 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 2/27/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Joint Stipulation re MTC 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
96 DECLARATION of Mark T. Johnson In Support of MOTION to Compel 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation MOTION to Compel 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation 95 filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dec of MTJ ISO MTC 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation − Exhibits A to B, # 2 Exhibit Dec of MTJ ISO MTC 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation − Exhibit C, # 3 Exhibit Dec of MTJ ISO MTC 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation − Exhibits D to E)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
97 EXHIBIT 1 to 3 to MOTION to Compel 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation MOTION to Compel 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation 95 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
98 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Exhibit to Motion 97 . 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. (mz) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
99 (STRICKEN) NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION to Compel 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation MOTION to Compel 30(b)6 Testimony and Document Preservation 95 AMENDED filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 3/5/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (Johnson, Mark) Modified on 2/16/2012 (ib). (Entered: 02/06/2012)
100 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Motion 99 . The following error(s) was found: The correct event is either Stipulation or Application. The document is not a proper request for continuance. Also, there is no proposed order. 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. (ib) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
101 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN E−FILED DOCUMENTS by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky: The document is stricken. RE: Notice of Motion 99 . See Notice of Deficiencies in Electronically Filed Documents 100 . (ib) (ib) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
102 ORDER AFTER HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 84 by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. Plaintiffs' request for fees is denied. (See document for details). (Attachments: # 1 Willits Search Stats−Boolean Search) (ib) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
103 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky: The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Rule 20(b)(6) Deposition Testimony 95 , originally scheduled for 2/27/12 is continued to Monday, March 5, 2012 at 10AM. (ib) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
104 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel, 95 , Notice of Motion, 99 , Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 96 filed by Plaintiff Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
105 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky: Upon Plaintiffs' Withdrawal of Motion to Compel Further Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Testimony Re ESI and Document Preservation 95 , the hearing on March 5, 2012 is

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 28 of 58

03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012
03/07/2012 03/07/2012 03/13/2012 03/14/2012 03/15/2012 03/15/2012
03/21/2012

vacated. (ib) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
106 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL re 102 Order on Motion to Compel, filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 4/16/2012 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
107 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL re 102 Order on Motion to Compel, MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL re 102 Order on Motion to Compel, 106 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
108 DECLARATION of Mark T. Johnson In Support Of MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL re 102 Order on Motion to Compel, MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL re 102 Order on Motion to Compel, 106 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBITS A−E TO DECLARATION OF MARK T. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
109 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Scheduling Conference set for 3/14/2012 09:30 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall 76 . (jl) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
110 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Shawna L Parks counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits.Shawna L. Parks 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 Mark Willits et al. (Parks, Shawna) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
111 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claims for violations re curb ramps and parking aprons filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 4/16/2012 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit A−E to RJN, # 3 Exhibit F to RJN, # 4 Exhibit G to RJN, # 5 Exhibit H−J to RJN, # 6 Proposed Order)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
114 MINUTES of Status Conference held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court ordered that on or before March 26, 2012, counsel shall file a list of names of persons who may act as a special master in this case. Curriculum Vitae of each person shall also be filed. Court Recorder: CS 3/14/12. (lom) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
112 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Adding Maria Michelle Uzeta as attorney as counsel of record for Mark Willits et al. for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits et al. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
113 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 03/14/2012 to 03/14/2012 as to Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Jill Amy Roaquin at jroaquin@schneiderwallace.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: Scheduling Conference 03/14/2012. Category: Expedited. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
115 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 3/14/12 9:58am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Babykin Courthouse Services, phone number (626) 963−0566. 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 4/11/2012. Redacted

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 29 of 58

03/21/2012 03/23/2012 03/26/2012
03/26/2012 03/26/2012 03/27/2012 03/27/2012 04/02/2012 04/02/2012 04/02/2012 04/02/2012
04/05/2012

Transcript Deadline set for 4/21/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/19/2012. (ml) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
116 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 3/14/12 9:58am (ml) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
117 Joint STIPULATION for Order APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER FOR DISCOVERY filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
118 OPPOSITION re: MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL re 102 Order on Motion to Compel, MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL re 102 Order on Motion to Compel, 106 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Kimberly E. Colwell, # 2 Objection to Evidence)(Drake, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
119 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by plaintiff Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
120 Opposition re: MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claims for violations re curb ramps and parking aprons 111 filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
121 OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION [corrected] re: MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claims for violations re curb ramps and parking aprons 111 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
122 NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
123 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL 106 and MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings 111 are submitted without oral argument as of April 16, 2012. (jl) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
124 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, APPOINTING Magistrate Judge James Larson, Ret.as discovery special master. 117 (jl) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
125 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claims for violations re curb ramps and parking aprons 111 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
126 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL re 102 Order on Motion to Compel, MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL re 102 Order on Motion to Compel, 106 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Mark T. Johnson In Support of Plaintiffs' Objections to and Motion for Review of Order of Magistrate Judge on Motion to COmpel, # 2 Memorandum Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Objections to Evidence Offered ISO Plaintiffs' Objections to and Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order, # 3 Proposed Order [PLAINTIFFS' ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED] Order on Motion for Review of Magistrate Judges Ruling on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of Documents)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
127 PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OBJECTION re: MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claims for violations re curb ramps and parking aprons 111 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 30 of 58

04/06/2012 04/06/2012 04/06/2012 04/10/2012 04/11/2012 04/11/2012
04/12/2012
04/20/2012 05/02/2012 05/10/2012
05/21/2012 05/21/2012 05/25/2012 06/06/2012
06/06/2012

128 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation City's Reply in support of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/06/2012)
129 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation City's Reply in support of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 128 (jl) (Entered: 04/06/2012)
130 Amended STIPULATION for Order FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER FOR DISCOVERY filed by plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 04/06/2012)
131 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, GRANTING Stipulation to Amend Order Appointing Special Master 130 (jl) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
132 REPLY Opposition MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claims for violations re curb ramps and parking aprons 111 (Amended) filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
133 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for STRIKING PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS AMENDED REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A SUR−REPLY filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Ex Parte Application)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
134 OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for STRIKING PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS AMENDED REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A SUR−REPLY 133 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
135 AFFIDAVIT by affiant: James Larson filed by Special Master James Larson (Larson, James) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
136 AFFIDAVIT by affiant: James Larson Amended Affidavit filed by Special Master James Larson (Larson, James) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
137 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 filed by PLAINTIFFS Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 6/11/2012 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 11, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 11)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
138 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall STRIKING Portions of Defendant's Amended Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 133 . Plaintiffs' Application is GRANTED as to Sections D.1 and D.3 of the Amended Reply, and DENIED as to Section D.2. (jl) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
139 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 137 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Kimberly E. Colwell)(Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
140 REPLY In Support of MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 137 filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
141 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: MOTION for Review of ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON MOTION TO COMPEL 102 and MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claims for violations re curb ramps and parking aprons 111 are set for oral argument on Monday, June 11, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. (jl) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
142 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Adding Trevor J. Finneman as attorney as

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 31 of 58

06/11/2012 06/22/2012 06/25/2012 07/09/2012 07/16/2012
07/17/2012 08/10/2012 08/10/2012 08/10/2012 08/21/2012 08/21/2012 08/27/2012
09/17/2012

counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits, et al. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
143 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions 137 , Motion for Review of Magistrate−Judge's Order 106 and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 111 are continued to July 9, 2012 at 11::00 a.m. for oral argument. (lom) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
144 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES RE: DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
145 Joint STIPULATION to Continue pre−trial and trial schedule from June−November 2012 to February−September 2013 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Joint [proposed] Order on Joint Stipulation re Pretrial Schedule)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
146 MINUTES of Motion 106 , 111 , 137 held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Plaintiffs' Motion for Review, etc., 106 and for Sanctions 137 and the Motion of the City of Los Angeles for Judgment on the Pleadings 111 are submitted without further oral arguments. Court Reporter: Leandra Amber. (lom) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
147 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Sara Ugaz counsel for Defendants Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom Labonge, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Bill Rosendahl, Greig Smith, Antonio Villaraigosa, Herb J. Wesson, Jr, Dennis P. Zine. Adding SARA UGAZ as attorney as counsel of record for Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant SARA UGAZ (Ugaz, Sara) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
148 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. correcting Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06), Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06), Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06) 147 (Ugaz, Sara) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
149 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: denying 106 Motion for Review (jl) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
150 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: denying 111 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (jl) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
151 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: denying 137 Motion for Sanctions (jl) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
152 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin P McLaughlin counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles. Adding Kevin P. McLaughlin as attorney as counsel of record for Defendant City of Los Angeles for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles (McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
153 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Laurie Rittenberg counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles. Adding LAURIE RITTENBERG as attorney as counsel of record for Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES (Rittenberg, Laurie) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
154 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 7/9/2012 to 7/9/2012 as to Plaintiffs' Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits Court Reporter Leandra Amber. Court will contact Jill Amy Roaquin at jroaquin@schneiderwallace.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 7/9/2012. Category: 14 Day. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
155 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending outcome of expedited state appeal filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 32 of 58

09/21/2012 09/21/2012 09/24/2012
09/25/2012 09/25/2012 09/25/2012
09/26/2012 09/26/2012 09/27/2012

10/15/2012 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Kimberly E. Colwell, # 2 Exhibit A to Colwell Declaration, # 3 Declaration Laurie Rittenberg, # 4 Exhibit 1 of 3 to Rittenberg Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 2 of 3 to Rittenberg Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 3 of 3 to Rittenberg Declaration)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
156 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Surisa E Rivers counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Filed by plaintiffs Mark Willits, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (Rivers, Surisa) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
157 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay Case from October 15, 2012 to October 22, 2012 Re: MOTION to Stay Case pending outcome of expedited state appeal 155 filed by Plaintiffs' Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Support of Ex Parte Application for Continuance of Hearing on Defendants Motion to Stay Action, # 2 Proposed Order)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
158 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay Case from October 15, 2012 to October 22, 2012 Re: MOTION to Stay Case pending outcome of expedited state appeal 155 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay Case from October 15, 2012 to October 22, 2012 Re: MOTION to Stay Case pending outcome of expedited state appeal 155 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay Case from October 15, 2012 to October 22, 2012 Re: MOTION to Stay Case pending outcome of expedited state appeal 155 157 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
159 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney David A. Borgen and Linda M. Dardarian on behalf of Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits (Borgen, David) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
160 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court hereby GRANTS 157 Ex Parte Application to Continue Defendant's Motion to Stay Case to 10/29/2012 at 11:00 A.M. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion and Defendants reply papers shall be due in accordance with Local Rule 7−9 and Local Rule 7−10, based upon the new hearing date of October 22, 2012. (ys) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
161 JOINT ORDER RE PRETRIAL SCHEDULE AND TRIAL DATE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Having considered the Stipulation 145 the Court hereby approves the following: 1. All fact Discovery shall be completed on or before 2/15/2013; 2. Expert reports shall be exchanged by 3/1/2013; 3. Expert rebuttal reports shall be exchanged by 4/5/2013; 4. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before 5/3/2013; 5. A settlement conference shall be held on or before 5/10/2013; 6. All motions shall be set for oral argument on or before 6/10/2013; 7. The Pretrial Conference shall be held on or before 8/23/2013 at 2:30 P.M.; 8. A 10−30 day Court/Bench Trial shall be set to begin on 9/23/2013 at 10:00 A.M. (ys) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
162 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney William C. McNeill, Jinny Kim, Rachael Langston on behalf of Plaintiff Mark Willits. Filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits (Kim, Jinny) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
163 ORDER RE: PRESERVATION OF DISCOVERABLE DOCUMENTS filed by Special Master James Larson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Larson, James) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
164 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on Monday, July 9, 2012; 11:19 A.M. Court Reporter: Leandra Amber, phone number (213) 894−6603, www.leandraamber.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 PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/18/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/28/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/26/2012. (Amber, Leandra)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 33 of 58

09/27/2012 10/05/2012
10/09/2012 10/11/2012 10/11/2012 10/15/2012 10/16/2012
10/24/2012 10/26/2012 10/31/2012 11/01/2012

(Entered: 09/27/2012)
165 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings Monday, July 9, 2012; 11:19 A.M. re Transcript 164 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(Amber, Leandra) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/27/2012)
166 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition re: MOTION to Stay Case pending outcome of expedited state appeal 155 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Guy B. Wallace in Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion to Stay Proceedings, # 2 Exhibit A−E to the Declaration of Guy B. Wallace, # 3 Exhibit F−J to the Declaration of Guy B. Wallace, # 4 Exhibit K−P to the Declaration of Guy B. Wallace, # 5 Declaration of Mark T. Johnson in Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion to Stay Proceedings, # 6 Exhibit A−D to the Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 7 Declaration of Erich Seamon in Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion to Stay Proceedings, # 8 Exhibit A to the Declaration of Erich Seamon)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
167 DECLARATION of William Taylor IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' OBLIGATIONS TO COMPLY WITH ORDER RE: PRESERVATION OF DISCOVERABLE DOCUMENTS filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
168 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Peggy A Farrell counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Adding Peggy A. Farrell as attorney as counsel of record for Mark Willits, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free ("CALIF") for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits, et al. (Farrell, Peggy) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
169 ORDER RE: EMAIL PRODUCTIONS, RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITIONS AND OTHER DISCOVERY ISSUES filed by Special Master James Larson (Larson, James) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
170 REPLY in support MOTION to Stay Case pending outcome of expedited state appeal 155 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
171 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Appointment of Counsel Motion to Appoint Additional Class Counsel and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 11/19/2012 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of William C. McNeill in Support of Motion to Appoint Additional Class Counsel, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Declaration Declaration of Linda M. Dardarian in Support of Motion to Appoint Additional Class Counsel, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 9 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion to Appoint Additional Class Counsel)(Kim, Jinny) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
172 SCHEDULING NOTICE IN CHAMBER MINUTE ORDER. The MOTION to Stay Case 155 set for hearing on 10/29/2012 at 11:00 a.m. has been rescheduled. The Motion is now set for hearing on Thursday, November 1, 2012, at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cs) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/24/2012)
173 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE: PRESERVATION OF DISCOVERABLE DOCUMENTS − DELETION OF EMAILS (Larson, James) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
174 SCHEDULING NOTICE IN CHAMBER MINUTE ORDER. The hearing set for November 1, 2012 at 10:00 a.m., on the Motion to Stay has been taken off calendar and under submission. No appearances are necessary. The Courts order will follow. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cs) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/31/2012)
176 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Before the Court is Defendant City of Los Angeles Motion to Stay Action. [Docket No. 155.]Having reviewed the moving and opposition papers, the Court DENIES

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 34 of 58

11/02/2012 11/15/2012 11/27/2012 11/28/2012
12/14/2012
12/17/2012
12/18/2012 12/18/2012 12/20/2012 12/21/2012

Defendant City of Los Angeless Motion to Stay Action. 155 (pj) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
175 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jason H Tarricone on behalf of Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits (Tarricone, Jason) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
177 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion to Appoint Class Counsel 171 . The Court ORDERS that Defendant City of Los Angeles is required to serve future correspondence and discovery only on Plaintiffs' lead counsel Guy Wallace, of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP. (jp) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
178 REPORT of ORDER RE: CLASS MEMBER CONTACT INFORMATION filed by Special Master James Larson. (Larson, James) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
179 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant's First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifty−Fourth Affirmative Defenses filed by plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 1/8/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law, # 2 Declaration of Jason Tarricone, # 3 Proposed Order)(Borgen, David) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
180 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Opposition re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant's First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifty−Fourth Affirmative Defenses 179 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judcial Notice, # 2 Exhibit Exh A to RJN, # 3 Exhibit Exh B to RJN, # 4 Exhibit Exh C to RJN, # 5 Exhibit Exh D to RJN, # 6 Exhibit Exh E to RJN, # 7 Exhibit Exh F to RJN, # 8 Exhibit Exh G to RJN, # 9 Exhibit Exh H to RJN, # 10 Statement of Genuine Disputes in Support of Opp to Plaintiffs' Partial MSJ, # 11 Declaration Decl of M. Santana, # 12 Declaration Signature Page to Decl. of M. Santana, # 13 Exhibit Exh A to Decl. of M. Santana, # 14 Declaration Decl. of R. Olive, # 15 Declaration Signature Page to Decl. of R. Olive, # 16 Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Plaintiffs' Partial MSJ)(Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
181 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation FOR REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration OF MARK T. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 5 PAGE OVERLENGTH REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (WITH EXHIBIT A), # 2 Proposed Order)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
182 OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation FOR REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 181 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Colwell, Kimberly) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
183 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: denying 181 Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for deviation from the Court's Standing Order. The Court DENIES the Application. (lom) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
184 NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Finneman, Trevor) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
185 REPLY In Support MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant's First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifty−Fourth Affirmative Defenses 179 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Statement of Genuine Disputes, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Reply Declaration of Jason Tarricone)(Borgen, David) (Entered: 12/21/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 35 of 58

12/31/2012 01/04/2013 01/04/2013 01/04/2013 01/04/2013 01/04/2013
01/07/2013 01/07/2013
01/10/2013 01/10/2013
01/14/2013 01/15/2013

186 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Peggy A. Farrell 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 Mark Willits, et al. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
187 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Jason H Tarricone counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Filed by Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Willits, et al. (Tarricone, Jason) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
188 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Linda M Dardarian counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Filed by Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Willits, et al. (Dardarian, Linda) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
189 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney David Borgen counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Filed by Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Willits, et al. (Borgen, David) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
190 NOTICE OF FIRM NAME CHANGE filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
191 IN CHAMBER MINUTE ORDER/OFF THE RECORD. THE Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 179 previously scheduled for 1/8/13 10:00 AM has been continued on the Courts own motion. The motion is now set for hearing on 1/15/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(cs) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/04/2013)
192 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin E Gilbert counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles.Kimberly E. Colwell is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
193 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06) 189 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Change of Address. 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: 01/09/2013)
194 IN CHAMBER MINUTE ORDER/OFF THE RECORD. THE COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION continues the hearing time on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment set for 1/15/2013, from 11:00 am to 1:30 p.m. before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cs) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/10/2013)
196 Notice of Electronic Filing re Statement 195 , Text Only Scheduling Notice, 194 e−mailed to kdrake@meyersnave.com bounced due to Delivery to the following recipients failed. kdrake@meyersnave.com. Primary e−mail address corrected. Notice of Electronic Filing resent addressed to k.marlow.drake@gmail.com with a request that she update her profile. Pursuant to the General Order and Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(tyw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/17/2013)
195 STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
206 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The case is called and appearances are made. Court and counsel discuss the motion. The Court takes the motions under submission and its order will follow. Court Reporter: Wil Wilcox. (cs) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 36 of 58

01/24/2013 01/28/2013
01/30/2013 01/31/2013 01/31/2013 01/31/2013 01/31/2013 01/31/2013 02/01/2013
02/04/2013 02/21/2013 02/21/2013 02/21/2013

197 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories of City of Los Angeles filed by plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Rachael Langston, # 2 Exhibit A−E, # 3 Exhibit F−P)(Kim, Jinny) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
198 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Trevor J Finneman counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Adding Ronald Elsberry as attorney as counsel of record for Mark Willits; Brent Pilgreen; Judy Griffin; and C.A.L.I.F. for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Mark Willits (Finneman, Trevor) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
199 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Deposition filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 2/28/2013 at 10:00 AM before Special Master. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Guy B. Wallace)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
200 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin E Gilbert counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles.KIMBERLY DRAKE is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
201 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin E Gilbert counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles.GABRIEL DERMER is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
202 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin E Gilbert counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles.ADENA HOPENSTAND is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
203 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin E Gilbert counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles.GERALD SATO is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
204 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin E Gilbert counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles.SARA UGAZ is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
205 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant City of Los Angeles Court Reporter. Court will contact Kevin Gilbert at kgilbert@meyersnave.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Pre−Trial Proceeding: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. Other: 1/15/13. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
207 STATEMENT JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
208 REPLY in support of MOTION to Compel Deposition 199 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, Defendant Eric Garcetti. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
209 DECLARATION of Guy B. Wallace in support of MOTION to Compel Deposition 199 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
210 DECLARATION of Mark T Johnson in support of MOTION to Compel Deposition 199 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 02/21/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 37 of 58

02/22/2013 02/25/2013
03/05/2013 03/11/2013 03/11/2013 03/11/2013 03/12/2013 03/25/2013 03/27/2013 04/01/2013 04/08/2013

211 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS ORDERED as follows: (1) all fact discovery shall be completed on or before August 16, 2013; (2) all expert discovery shall be completed on or before November 1, 2013; (3) Pre Trial Conference is set on February 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.; (4) motions shall be set for oral argument on or before December 9, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.; (5) 10 Day Court Trial is set on February 25, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (lom) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
212 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 179 . The Court is not persuaded by the City's cases, as those relate to Section 504 as a whole, rather than specifically to facilities constructed prior to 1977. The Court therefore finds that no undue burden defense exists as to pedestrian rights of way, sidewalks, and curb ramps that were constructed prior to and that have not been altered since June 3, 1977, and therefore constitute existing facilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The City may not assert its Seventh and Fifty−Fourth Affirmative Defenses related to undue financial burden as to those facilities. The Court GRANTS the Motion but denies without prejudice any request to preclude evidence that may be used for multiple purposes. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the City of Los Angeles's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (lom) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
213 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Andrew Paul Lee counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Changing Firm Name and Address to Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, 300 Lakeside Drive, Ste. 1000, Oakland, CA 94612. Changing email and fax to alee@gbdhlegal.com; 510−835−1417. Filed by Plaintiffs Mark Willits, et al. (Lee, Andrew) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
214 NOTICE of Decision: ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL 30(b)(6) DEPOSITIONS filed by SPECIAL MASTER James Larson. (Larson, James) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
215 REPLY in support of MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories of City of Los Angeles 197 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
216 DECLARATION of Mark T Johnson in support of MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories of City of Los Angeles 197 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
217 DECLARATION of MARK JOHNSON in support of MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories of City of Los Angeles 197 Amended Declaration filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
218 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 4/22/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Kevin Gilbert, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Order)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
219 NOTICE of Decision: INTERIM ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES filed by Special Master James Larson. (Larson, James) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
220 Opposition re: MOTION to Certify Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) 218 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Linda M. Dardarian)(Dardarian, Linda) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
221 REPLY in support of MOTION to Certify Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) 218 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 38 of 58

04/09/2013 04/09/2013
04/10/2013
04/18/2013 04/19/2013 04/25/2013

222 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for ESTABLISHING A DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF EMAIL PRODUCTION ORDERED ON OCTOBER 11, 2012 filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 7 Exhibit F to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 8 Exhibit G to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 9 Exhibit H to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 10 Exhibit I to Declaration of Mark Johnson)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
223 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel SUFFICIENT RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FIFTH SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 7 Exhibit F to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 8 Exhibit G to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 9 Exhibit H to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 10 Exhibit I to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 11 Exhibit J to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 12 Exhibit K to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 13 Exhibit L to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 14 Exhibit M to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 15 Exhibit N to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 16 Exhibit O to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 17 Exhibit P to Declaration of Mark Johnson)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
224 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for REQUIRING DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PRODUCE EMAILS AND ATTACHMENTS RESPONSIVE TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS NOS. 29−33 (SET TWO) THAT USE PROXY EMAIL ADDRESSES filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 7 Exhibit F to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 8 Exhibit G to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 9 Exhibit H to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 10 Exhibit I to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 11 Exhibit J to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 12 Exhibit K to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 13 Exhibit L to Declaration of Mark Johnson)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
225 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: MOTION to Certify Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) 218 is submitted without oral argument as of April 22, 2013. (jl) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
226 NOTICE of Decision: ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ADEQUATE VERIFICATIONS filed by Special Master James Larson. (Larson, James) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
227 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIAL MASTERS ORDER OF OCTOBER 11, 2012 RE RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITIONS CONCERNING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 7 Exhibit F to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 8 Exhibit G to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 9 Exhibit H to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 10 Exhibit I to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 11 Exhibit J to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 12 Exhibit K to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 13 Exhibit L to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 14 Exhibit M to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 15 Exhibit N to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 16 Exhibit O to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 17 Exhibit P to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 18 Exhibit Q to Declaration of Mark Johnson, # 19 Exhibit R to Declaration of Mark Johnson)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 04/25/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 39 of 58

04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/30/2013 04/30/2013 05/01/2013 05/08/2013 05/08/2013 05/08/2013
05/10/2013
05/13/2013

230 NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief in support of city of Los Angeles' Motion for Certification of Order for Interlocutory Appeal pursuant to 28 USC § 1292(b); Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration; and [Prop] Order filed by Movant League of California Citites. Lodged [Prop] Order.(lom) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
231 DECLARATION of Timothy T Coates in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File Amicus Brief 230 filed by Movant League of California Citites. (lom) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
232 NOTICE OF LODGING OF [Proposed] Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of City ofLos Angeles' Motion for Certification of Order for Interlocutory Appeal 230 filed by Movant League of California Citites. (lom) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
228 NOTICE Unavailability of Attorney Kevin Gilbert (April 29−May16 and June10−24, 2013) filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
229 MINUTES ORDER(IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 218 Motion to Certify (jl) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
233 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File Amicus Brief 230 is DENIED as moot. (jl) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
234 REPLY in support of MOTION for Order for REQUIRING DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PRODUCE EMAILS AND ATTACHMENTS RESPONSIVE TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS NOS. 29−33 (SET TWO) THAT USE PROXY EMAIL ADDRESSES 224 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
235 REPLY in support of MOTION for Order for ESTABLISHING A DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF EMAIL PRODUCTION ORDERED ON OCTOBER 11, 2012 222 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
236 DECLARATION of Mark T Johnson in support of MOTION for Order for REQUIRING DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PRODUCE EMAILS AND ATTACHMENTS RESPONSIVE TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS NOS. 29−33 (SET TWO) THAT USE PROXY EMAIL ADDRESSES 224 , MOTION for Order for ESTABLISHING A DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF EMAIL PRODUCTION ORDERED ON OCTOBER 11, 2012 222 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
237 REPLY in Support MOTION to Compel SUFFICIENT RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FIFTH SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 223 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to MPA, # 2 Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 8 Exhibit F to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 9 Exhibit G to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 10 Exhibit H to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 11 Exhibit I to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 12 Exhibit J to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 13 Exhibit K to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 14 Exhibit L to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 15 Exhibit M to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 16 Exhibit N to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 17 Exhibit O to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 18 Exhibit P to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 19 Exhibit Q to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 20 Exhibit R to Declaration of Guy Wallace)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
238 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of Objection to Order of Special Master Regarding Verifications re Notice of Decision by other Court 226 filed by defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 6/17/2013 at 11:00 AM

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 40 of 58

05/13/2013
05/24/2013 05/24/2013 05/24/2013 05/31/2013
06/03/2013 06/13/2013 06/17/2013 06/17/2013 06/17/2013 06/17/2013 06/18/2013
06/27/2013

before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Kevin P. McLaughlin, # 2 Exhibit A−F to Kevin P. McLaughlin Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
239 REPLY in support of MOTION for Sanctions DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIAL MASTERS ORDER OF OCTOBER 11, 2012 RE RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITIONS CONCERNING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION 227 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
240 NOTICE of Decision: ORDER RE: SIX MOTIONS BY PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS filed by SPECIAL MASTER James Larson. (Larson, James) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
241 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Matthew David Carlson on behalf of Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits (Carlson, Matthew) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
242 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Review of Objection to Order of Special Master Regarding Verifications re Notice of Decision by other Court 226 238 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
243 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Katrina L Eiland counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Adding Katrina L. Eiland as attorney as counsel of record for Plaintiffs Willits, et al. for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Mark Willits, et al. (Eiland, Katrina) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
244 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for Review of Objection to Order of Special Master Regarding Verifications re Notice of Decision by other Court 226 238 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
245 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: MOTION for Review of Objection to Order of Special Master Regarding Verifications re Notice of Decision by other Court 226 is SUBMITTED without oral argument as of June 17, 2013. 238 . (jl) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
246 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of Order of Special Master on Six Motions filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 7/22/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
247 DECLARATION of Kevin P. McLaughlin In Support of MOTION for Review of Order of Special Master on Six Motions 246 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−E, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits G−I)(McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
248 EXHIBIT F (Part I) to McLaughlin Declaration to MOTION for Review of Order of Special Master on Six Motions 246 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
249 EXHIBIT F (Part II) to McLaughlin Declaration to MOTION for Review of Order of Special Master on Six Motions 246 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
250 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Ronald Elsberry 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 Michelle Uzeta. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
251 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Exhibit to Motion 248 , 249 . 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

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 41 of 58

06/28/2013 07/01/2013 07/01/2013
07/08/2013 07/11/2013 07/11/2013 07/15/2013 07/19/2013 07/23/2013 07/29/2013
08/14/2013

appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
252 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)OFF THE RECORD: ORDER DENYING 238 OBJECTION TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MASTER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court finds that personal knowledge is not required for interrogatory verifications by the City's agents, and that the Special Master's verification procedures are consistent with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33. The Court affirms the Special Master's April 19, 2013 Order. The Motion is DENIED.(See document) (ys) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
253 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant City of Los Angeles' Objection to Order of Special Master on Six Motions (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
254 DECLARATION of Mark Johnson re Response (non−motion), 253 DECLARATION OF MARK T. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES OBJECTION TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MASTER ON SIX MOTIONS filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
255 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION for Review of Order of Special Master on Six Motions 246 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
256 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 13−80116. The League of California Cities' motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioner City of Los Angeles' petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is granted. The opposed petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is granted. See Order for more details. Order received in this district on 7/11/13. (mat) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
257 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 13−56216 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as to petitioner City of Los Angeles. (mat) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
258 Pursuant to the order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed on 7/11/2013, docket entry number 256, the appeal filing and docketing fee have been paid in the amount of $455.00, receipt number LA074783. (dmap) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
259 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court finds that defendant's objection to Order of Special Master on six motions, fld 7/17/13 246 , currently set for hearing on July 22, 2013, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, this motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. No appearances are necessary on July 22, 2013. The Court will issue a written order. (bp) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
260 ORDER DENYING IN PART, GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR REVIEW OF OBJECTION TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MASTER ON SIX MOTIONS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: For the reasons stated above, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART AND OVERRULES IN PART defendants objection. (See document for further details) IT IS SO ORDERED. (yl) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
261 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Compel SUFFICIENT RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FIFTH SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 223 (SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark T. Johnson, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
262 STIPULATION for Order On Stipulation re Pretrial Schedule and Trial Date filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered:

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 42 of 58

08/15/2013 08/23/2013 09/25/2013 10/01/2013 10/01/2013
10/08/2013 10/08/2013
10/08/2013 10/11/2013 11/26/2013 12/12/2013 04/18/2014

08/14/2013)
263 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION RE PRETRIAL SCHEDULE AND TRIAL DATE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshal 262 . The Pretrial conference shall be held on or before September 29, 2014. A 18−20 day Court Trial shall be set to begin on November 4, 2014 at10:00 a.m. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DATES. (im) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
264 NOTICE of Decision: ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS FURTHER MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET 5) filed by SPECIAL MASTER James Larson. (Larson, James) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
265 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiff Mark Willits. Trevor J. Finneman 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 Willits. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
266 NOTICE of Decision: Amended Order Granting In Part Plaintiffs' Request To Modify Discovery Deadlines (Set 5). filed by Special Master James Larson. (Larson, James) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
267 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Notice of Electronic Filing re Notice of Decision by other Court 266 e−mailed to Kimberly E Colwell bounced due to invalid e−mail address. The primary e−mail address associated with the attorney record has been deleted. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrey) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/01/2013)
268 NOTICE of Decision: SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE SIX MOTIONS BY PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS filed by Special Master James Larson. (Larson, James) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
269 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on Tuesday, January 15, 2013; 1:55 P.M.. Court Reporter: Wil S. Wilcox, phone number 213−290−2849. 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 PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/29/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/8/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2014. (Wilcox, Wil) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
270 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings Tuesday, January 15, 2013; 1:55 P.M. re Transcript 269 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Wilcox, Wil) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/08/2013)
271 ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA # 13−56216. Appellant's request for an exemption under Ninth Circuit Rule 46−5 is granted. Appellant's counsel, Mary C. Tsai, Esq., may represent appellant in this appeal. The briefing schedule established previously shall remain in effect. Order received in this district on 10/11/13. (car) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
272 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Maria Michelle Uzeta counsel for Plaintiff Mark Willits. 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 Mark Willits. (Uzeta, Maria) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
273 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiff Mark Willits. Adding Anna Riveria as attorney as counsel of record for Mark Willits for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera added to party Mark Willits(pty:pla))(Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
274 STIPULATION for Trial on Modification of Pretrial and Trial Schedule filed by plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Stipulation re Pretrial Schedule and Trial Date)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/18/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 43 of 58

04/28/2014
04/29/2014 04/29/2014 04/29/2014
04/29/2014 04/29/2014 04/29/2014 04/29/2014 04/29/2014 04/29/2014 04/30/2014

275 ORDER ON STIPULATION RE PRETRIAL SCHEDULE AND TRlALDATE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Stipulation 274 , the pretrial sch~dule and trial date in this matter as follows: Discovery procedings in the above~ referenced matter are stayed between 4/4/2014 to 7/7/2014, 2014 dming which time the parties will continue their settlement discussions. All expert discovery to be completed on or before 12/19/2014. All motions to be set for oral argument on or before 1/19/2015. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/9/2015 02:30 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Bench Trial set for 4/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The parties have been unable to agree upon an appropriate fact discovery cut off. Accordingly, the pmties have agreed to submit the issue of an appropriate fact discovery cut off in this matter to Magistrate Judge Larson for his recommendation, and ultimately for resolution by the District Court. (gk) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
276 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel filed by plaintiff Mark Willits.(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
277 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support Re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
278 DECLARATION of Guy B. Wallace in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A of GBW Decl., # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B of GBW Decl., # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C of GBW Decl., # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D of GBW Decl., # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E of GBW Decl., # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F of GBW Decl., # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G of GBW Decl., # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H of GBW Decl., # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I of GBW Decl., # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J of GBW Decl., # 11 Exhibit Exhibit K of GBW Decl., # 12 Exhibit Exhibit L of GBW Decl., # 13 Exhibit Exhibit M of GBW Decl., # 14 Exhibit Exhibit N of GBW Decl., # 15 Exhibit Exhibit O of GBW Decl.)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
279 DECLARATION re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 Declaration of Mark Willits filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
280 DECLARATION re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 Declaration of Lillibeth Navarro filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
281 DECLARATION re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 Declaration of Judy Griffin filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
282 DECLARATION re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 Declaration of Brent Pilgreen filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
283 NOTICE OF LODGING filed [Proposed] Order re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
284 NOTICE OF LODGING filed [Proposed] Order Setting Briefing Schedule re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
285 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Proposed Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles from Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel filed

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 44 of 58

04/30/2014
04/30/2014 05/01/2014 05/13/2014 05/14/2014 05/16/2014 05/21/2014
05/22/2014

4/29/2014 283 . The following error(s) was found: This document tendered for the judge's approval should have been submitted as a separate PDF attachment to a 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. (gk) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
286 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Proposed Order Setting a Briefing Schedule on Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for an Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles from Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel filed 4/29/2014 284 . The following error(s) was found: This document tendered for the judge's approval should have been submitted as a separate PDF attachment to a 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. (gk) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
287 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
288 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File re Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Application for an Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles from Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel, STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File as to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
289 OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mike Arias)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
290 ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File 288 . Defendant City of Los Angeles opposition brief is due on or before May 13, 2014; Plaintiffs reply brief is due on or before May 20, 2014. (rne) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
291 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 filed by Plaintiffs Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Extending Time for Filing Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Application for an Order Prohibiting Defendant from Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims with Anyone Other than Class Counsel)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
292 ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER PROHIBITING DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELS FROM NEGOTIATING OR SETTLING CLASS MEMBERS' FEDERAL CLAIMS WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN CLASS COUNSEL by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Stipulation 291 , the Court orders that Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of Plaintiffs' Application for an Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles from Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims with Anyone other than Class Counsel 276 is due on or before 5/23/2014. (gk) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
293 REPLY Support EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 05/22/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 45 of 58

05/22/2014 05/22/2014
05/28/2014 05/28/2014 06/18/2014
07/07/2014 07/14/2014 07/14/2014 07/15/2014 08/22/2014

294 DECLARATION of Guy B. Wallace support EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
295 DECLARATION of Guy B. Wallace in support of reply EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles From Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims With Anyone Other Than Class Counsel 276 REPLY DECLARATION OF GUY B. WALLACE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A2, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
296 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Filing of a Sur−Reply re Reply (Motion related), 293 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (email), # 2 Exhibit B (Sur−Reply))(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
297 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Filing of a Sur−Reply re Reply (Motion related), 293 296 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
298 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: ORDER RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER PROHIBITING DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES FROM NEGOTIATING OR SETTLING CLASS MEMBERS' FEDERAL CLAIMS WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN CLASS COUNSEL. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SUPPLEMENT FILING OF A SUR−REPLY. The Court has received Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for an Order Prohibiting Defendant City of Los Angeles from Negotiating or Settling Class Members' Federal Claims with Anyone Other Than Class Counsel. (Docket No. 276.) This Court ordered a briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' ex parte application, and the issues therein were fully briefed. (Docket Nos. 289,290,293.) Good cause showing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' ex parte application. The Court hereby Orders that Defendant City of Los Angeles abstain from negotiating or settling certified class members' federal claims under the ADA and Section 504 without the participation of Class Counsel. This Court has also received Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Supplement Filing of a Sur−Reply. (Docket No. 296.) Defendants fail to show that a sur−reply is necessary under Local Rule 7−19. Defendants' Ex Parte Application is DENIED. 296 276 (bp) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
299 NOTICE of Decision: SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: FACT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF DATE filed by Special Master James Larson. (Larson, James) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
300 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Appeal of Order on Ex Parte Application to Supplement, Order on Ex Parte Application for Order,,,,,,,,,, 298 (Appeal fee of $505 receipt number 0973−14112235 paid.) (McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
301 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 300 . (McLaughlin, Kevin) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
302 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 14−56138, 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 300 as to Defendant City of Los Angeles. (mat) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
303 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 300 filed by City of Los Angeles, CCA # 14−56138. The Order is This is a preliminary injunction appeal. Appellees' motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is denied without prejudice to renewing the arguments in the answering brief. The parties are reminded to submit electronically formatted excerpts of record along with their briefs and paper copies of the excerpts of record. Failure to timely file the opening brief shall result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42−1. Order received in this district on 8/22/14. [See document for details] (mat) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 46 of 58

08/26/2014 09/03/2014
09/03/2014 09/09/2014
11/19/2014 11/20/2014
11/26/2014 01/06/2015 02/09/2015 02/11/2015

304 STIPULATION to Continue Pre−Trial and Trial Schedule from April 14, 2015 to August 17, 2015 filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
305 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Brent Pilgreen, Judy Griffin, Mark Willits. (Attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera added to party Communities Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla), Attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera added to party Judy Griffin(pty:pla), Attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera added to party Brent Pilgreen(pty:pla))(Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
306 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. 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, Brent Pilgreen, Judy Griffin, Mark Willits. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
307 ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL AND TRIAL SCHEDULE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Upon Stipulation 304 , this Court hereby approves the foregoing Stipulation and modifies the pre−trial and trial schedule in this matter as follows: All formal litigation proceedings in the matter are further stayed between 8/1/2014 until 10/1/2014 during which time the parties will continue their settlement efforts. Fact Discovery shall be extended to 2/5/2015. All motions to be set for oral argument on or before 5/15/2015. All expert discovery to be completed on or before 5/29/2015. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/22/2015 02:30 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Bench Trial set for 8/18/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (gk) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
308 Joint REQUEST for Order for Setting a Case Status Conference filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free. Request set for hearing on 1/6/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
309 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: oint Reequest for an Order Setting a Case Status Conference for 1/6/2015 at 10:00 AM filed 11/19/2014 308 . The following error(s) was found: Proposed order not submitted pursuant to Local Rule 52−4.1. Counsel placed this Request to set a Status Conference on the judge's law and motion calendar for 1/6/2015. Clerk has removed the Request from the calender. 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. (gk) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
310 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting Joint REQUEST for Order for Setting a Case Status Conference 308 . Status Conference set for 1/6/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (rne) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
311 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Following discussions with the parties, the Court sets a Telephonic Status Conference for 2/18/2015 03:00 PM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Counsel are to call the Clerk at least 2 days before this hearing and provide her with your land line numbers for when the Court calls your case. The Court further orders the Joint Status Report to be filed by no later than 2/11/2015. Court Reporter: Debbie Hino−Spaan. (gk) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
312 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Kevin E Gilbert counsel for Defendant City of Los Angeles. Changing Firm Name to Lozano Smith. Changing Email to kgilbert@lozanosmith.com. Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
313 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 02/11/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 47 of 58

02/12/2015 03/04/2015 03/04/2015
03/04/2015 03/18/2015 03/20/2015 03/20/2015 03/24/2015 05/26/2015
06/10/2015 06/10/2015

314 IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court has reviewed the joint status report filed on February 11, 2015 313 . On the Court's own motion, the telephonic status conference, currently scheduled for February 18, 2015, is hereby ordered continued to March 24, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. The Court further orders a joint status report to be filed by no later than March 20, 2015. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
315 REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY Kevin Gilbert at Lozano Smith in place of attorney Kevin McLaughlin at Meyers Nave and Consent Order filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
316 Notice of Electronic Filing re REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY Kevin Gilbert at Lozano Smith in place of attorney Kevin McLaughlin at Meyers Nave and Consent Order 315 e−mailed to Matthew D. Carlson bounced due to recipient not found. Primary e−mail address corrected. Notice of Electronic Filing resent addressed to mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cbr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/04/2015)
317 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granting Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney Kevin E. Gilbert, Lozano Smith, for Defendant City of Los Angeles in place of Attorney Kevin P. McLaughlin, Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson 315 . (gk) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
318 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jennifer A Uhrowczik counsel for Plaintiff Mark Willits. Adding Jennifer A. Uhrowczik as attorney as counsel of record for Mark Willits for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Jennifer A. Uhrowczik. (Attorney Jennifer A Uhrowczik added to party Mark Willits(pty:pla))(Uhrowczik, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
319 STATUS REPORT −− JOINT filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
320 (IN CHAMBERS) NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court has received the parties joint status conference statement, filed on March 20, 2015 319 . On the Court's own motion, the Telephonic Status Conference, currently scheduled for March 24, 2015, is hereby ordered continued to May 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. All other hearing dates will remain as previously ordered. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
321 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiff Mark Willits. 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 Attorney for Plaintiff Anna Rivera. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
322 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference Re Settlement Negotiation before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court and counsel confer via telephone. Status Conference is held. Following discussions with the parties, the Court will set a Further Status Conference and Preliminary motion for approval of settlement hearing on 6/16/2015 at 10:00 AM. Counsel for the parties shall be present in person. Any renewed documents that need to be filed must be filed no later than 6/9/2015. Court Reporter: Sheri Kleeger. (jp) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
323 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
324 ORDER ON STIPULATION RE SCHEDULE RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 323 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshal. The parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval shall be filed on or before June 16, 2015; and, the hearing on the motion for Preliminary Approval shall be on June 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. The Court further orders the Pretrial Conference will be continued to July 27, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. and the Court Trial will remain for August 18, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 48 of 58

06/16/2015 06/16/2015 06/24/2015 06/24/2015 06/24/2015
06/25/2015 06/26/2015
06/30/2015 07/08/2015 07/15/2015

325 STIPULATION to Reschedule Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
326 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, GOOD CAUSE appearing, this Court hereby approves the foregoing Stipulation and modifies the schedule for preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement in this matter as follows: (1) The parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval shall be filed on or before June 25, 2015; and, (2) The hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval shall be on July 14, 2015 at 10:00 AM. (jp) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
327 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Guy B Wallace counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Changing Address and Firm Name to Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400, Emeryville, CA 94608. Filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits et al.. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
328 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Mark Thomas Johnson counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Changing Address and Firm Name to Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400, Emeryville, CA 94608. Filed by Plaintiffs Mark Willits et al. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
329 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Jennifer A Uhrowczik counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Changing Address to 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400, Emeryville, CA 94608. Filed by Plaintiffs Mark Willits et al. (Attorney Jennifer A Uhrowczik added to party Communities Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla), Attorney Jennifer A Uhrowczik added to party Judy Griffin(pty:pla), Attorney Jennifer A Uhrowczik added to party Brent Pilgreen(pty:pla))(Uhrowczik, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
330 STIPULATION to Reschedule Preliminary Approval Schedule and Request for Conference Call with Court filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
331 ORDER ON STIPULATION RE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS, HEARING ON PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE CALL WITH COURT 330 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. 1) A conference call has been scheduled for June 30, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., to allow the parties to brief the Court on the pending proceedings; and 2) The parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval shall be filed on or before July 7, 2015, or as otherwise ordered by the Court following the above−noticed conference call. Counsel shall email the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Yolanda Skipper, at Yolanda_Skipper@cacd.uscourts.gov, with their contact information for the conference call no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, June 29, 2015. The Court will contact counsel for the conference call 5 to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled time. Firms with two or more counsel in the same office should plan on utilizing one line to participate in the conference call. (jre) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
332 MINUTES: Proceedings: TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Counsel inform the Court that the State case is still pending. Status Conference held. Following discussions with the parties, the Court orders the parties to alert this Court once they make the request to the State Court ordering counsel for plaintiff to participate at the settlement conference. Court Reporter: Marea Woolrich. (jp) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
333 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Courts own motion, the Status Conference re settlement negotiations and preliminary motion for approval of class settlement hearing, currently scheduled for 7/14/2015, is hereby ordered continued to 7/16/2015 at 10:00 AM. (jp) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
334 STATUS REPORT −−Updated−−re settlement proceedings and hearing on preliminary approval filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 07/15/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 49 of 58

07/15/2015 07/16/2015
07/21/2015
07/21/2015 07/28/2015
07/28/2015 07/29/2015 08/05/2015 08/06/2015 08/10/2015

335 STATEMENT Case Management Statement filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
336 MINUTES OF FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE settlement negotiations and preliminary motion for approval of settlement hearing before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Following discussions with the parties, the Court will continue the matter to 8/11/2015 at 10:00 AM., and also for a preliminary motion for approval of settlement hearing. Parties shall file the a status report by no later than 8/4/2015, if no settlement is reached., or the filing of the preliminary motion for approval by no later 8/4/2015. The Pretrial Conference set for 7/27/2015 is here by vacated and will be reset at the 8/11/2015 hearing. The Court trial will remain the case. Court Reporter: Sanda MacNeil. (jp) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
337 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on JULY 16, 2015, 10:26 a.m. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: SANDRA MACNEIL, phone number 213−894−5949; MACNEILSANDY@GMAIL.COM. 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 8/11/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/21/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/19/2015. (MacNeil, Sandra) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
338 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings JULY 16, 2015, 10:26 a.m. re Transcript 337 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (MacNeil, Sandra) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/21/2015)
339 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on June 30, 2015, 9:17 a.m. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Marea Woolrich, phone number/email: mareawoolrch@aol.com. 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 8/18/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/28/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/26/2015. (mwo) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
340 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings June 30, 2015, 9:17 a.m. re Transcript 339 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mwo) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/28/2015)
341 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Changing address to 256 S. Occidental Blvd., Suite B, Los Angeles, CA 90057. Changing e−mail to anna.rivera@drlcenter.org. Filed by Plaintiffs Mark Willits, et al.. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
342 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dardarian, Linda) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
343 ORDER RE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS, HEARING ON PRELIMINARY APPROVAL by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: This Court hereby approves the Stipulation re Settlement Proceedings and Hearing on Preliminary Approval 342 , and modifies the schedule for preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement in this matter as follows: The parties' Joint Motion for Prelimina1y Approval shall be filed on or before 8/11/2015. The hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval shall be on 8/18/2015 at 10:00 AM. (gk) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
344 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS−ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Counsel are hereby notified that the Court Trial currently set for 8/18/2015 is hereby vacated and a Status Conference re settlement negotiations and preliminary motion for approval of settlement hearing is now set in the above matter on 8/18/2015 at 10:00 AM. The new trial date and any other dates will be reset at this status conference if necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jp) (Entered: 08/11/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 50 of 58

08/14/2015 08/18/2015 11/25/2015 01/08/2016
01/11/2016 01/12/2016 01/21/2016 02/03/2016
02/05/2016 02/09/2016

345 STATUS REPORT REGARDING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Dardarian, Linda) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
346 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court and counsel confer regarding the status of the case. Status conference held. Parties will continue with mediation. Following discussions with the parties, the Court set the following dates: All fact discovery Cut−Off: 3/31/2016; All expert discovery cut−off: 5/31/2016; Motion hearing Cut−Off: 7/26/2016 at 10:00 AM; Final Pre Trial Conference: 9/19/2016 at 2:30 PM; Court Trial date: 10/18/2016 at 10:00 AM (est. 18−20 days.). Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (jp) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
347 NOTICE of Change of address by Kevin E Gilbert attorney for Defendant City of Los Angeles. Changing attorneys address to 2001 N. Main Street, Suite 500, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. Filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
348 Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Certification of Settlement Class, Setting Date for Fairness Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 1/12/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Motion− Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibits to Settlement Agreement, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 5 Proposed Notice to Class, # 6 Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval, Certification of Settlement Class, and Setting Date for Fairness Hearing) (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
349 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Courts own motion, the Joint Motion for order for preliminary approval of settlement, filed on January 8, 2016 348 , currently scheduled for January 12, 2016, is hereby ordered continued to February 2, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. (shb) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
350 DECLARATION of Guy B. Wallace In Support Of Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Certification of Settlement Class, Setting Date for Fairness Hearing 348 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
351 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Courts own motion, the Joint Motion for order for preliminary approval of settlement, filed on January 8, 2016 348 , currently scheduled for February 2, 2016, is hereby ordered continued to February 9, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. (shb) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
352 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The matter before the Court is the parties Joint Motion For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement (the Motion). (Dkt. No. 348.) The Motion is set for hearing on February 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. The Court orders as follows: (1) The Courts class certification order (Dkt. No. 59) was decided prior to Wal−Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, wherein the Supreme Court stated that Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance withthe Rulethat is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc. The parties shall be prepared to discuss at the hearing how the Rule 23 standard set forth in Dukes is met for purposes of the Motion. (2) The parties request that the Court issue findings (Motion at 12:7−20), but offer no evidence insupport of those findings. The parties shall file evidence in support of the requested findings no later than February 5, 2016. (See order for further details). (shb) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
353 SUPPLEMENT Memorandum Regarding the Court's Minute Order of February 3, 2016 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
354 MINUTES OF JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER (1) GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT; (2) GRANTING CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS; (3) DIRECTING NOTICE TO THE CLASS; AND (4)

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 51 of 58

02/19/2016 02/29/2016
02/29/2016 03/02/2016 03/03/2016 03/11/2016 03/15/2016 03/16/2016

SETTING DATE FOR FAIRNESS HEARING, FLD 1−8−16 348 : Motion Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The parties shall file a stipulation and order detailing the specific languages in which the Notice shall be written no later than February 19, 2016. Motion for attorney fees with a proposed order shall be filed on or before March 4, 2016. The Court will issue a written order on the Joint Motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement 348 . Court Reporter: Chia Mei Jui. (shb) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
355 STIPULATION for Settlement Regarding Languages in Which Settlement Notice Will Be Published filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dardarian, Linda) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
356 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, GRANTING STIPULATION for Settlement Regarding Languages in Which Settlement Notice Will Be Published, 355 . IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Notice substantially in the form of Exhibit A to the proposed Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims, which is also attached hereto (hereinafter the Notice), shall be translated into the following languages: Armenian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese. 2. The translated versions of the Notice shall be published in newspapers thatcorrespond to those languages as follows: Asbarez (Armenian), World Journal Chinese Daily News (Chinese), Rafu Shimpo (Japanese), The Korean Times (Korean), LA Kurier (Russian), La Opinion (Spanish), and Nguoi Viet (Vietnamese). 3. The translated versions of the Notice shall be published in these publications for four (4) consecutive weeks. The Notice shall be published four times in LA Kurier, which publishes weekly, so that the Notice runs in this publication for four (4) consecutive weeks. Publication shall be completed within sixty (60) days of the date of the Courts granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. (shb) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
357 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 348 . The Fairness Hearing shall be held on July 12, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 2nd Floor, of the above−referenced Court. (See order for further details). (shb) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
358 STIPULATION for Order Modifing Schedule regarding Motion for Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order regarding Modification of Schedule regarding Motion for Fees and Costs)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
359 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, re Stipulation for Order Modifying Schedule regarding Motion for Fees and Costs, 358 . This Court hereby approves the foregoing stipulation and modifies the schedule as follows: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) shall be filed on or before March 25, 2016. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 shall be filed on or before March 25, 2016. 3. Plaintiffs Motion for Service Awards shall be filed on or before March 25, 2016. 4. The hearing on these Motions shall be on July 12, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. (shb) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
360 Joint STIPULATION for Order to Approve Publication of Short Form of Settlement Notice filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dardarian, Linda) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
361 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The matter before the Court is the parties' Stipulation Regarding Publication of Short Form of Settlement Notice. 360 . The Court will approve the Short Form of Settlement Notice, as amended, which is attached to this Order as Exhibit A ("Amended Short Notice"), provided the 1−855−303−0067 number listed for telephonically requesting a full settlement notice is a toll free number. The parties shall file a response to this Order and any objections to the Amended Short Notice no later than March 17, 2016. (shb) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
362 DECLARATION of JINNY KIM re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 361 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Kim, Jinny) (Entered:

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 52 of 58

03/21/2016 03/21/2016
03/21/2016 03/22/2016 03/25/2016
03/25/2016 03/25/2016 03/25/2016

03/16/2016)
363 STIPULATION to Clarify Publication of Notice of Settlement, Re: Stipulation for Order, 360 , Stipulation for Settlement, 355 , Stipulation for Order, 358 , Order,, 359 , Order,,,, 356 , Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 361 , Order,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings, 357 , filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
364 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: re: Stipulation Regarding Publication of Short Form of Settlement, 360 . Having considered the Stipulation and good cause appearing, the Court approves the short form settlement notice attached to this Order as Exhibit A ("Short Form Notice"). The Short Form Notice shall be translated into the languages and published as directed by the Courts February 29, 2016 Order On Stipulation re Languages in Which Settlement Notice Will Be Published (Dkt. No. 356), and published in The Los Angeles Times and The Los Angeles Daily News as directed by the Courts February 29, 2016 Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. No. 357). (shb) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
365 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Motions for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Plaintiffs' Motion for Service Awards filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order on Schedule re Plaintiffs' Motions for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses Pursuant to FRCP 23(h) and 54(d), and Plaintiffs' Motion for Service Awards)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
366 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, GRANTING Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Motion for fees, costs and expenses and Motion for Service Awards 365 . This Court hereby approves the foregoing stipulation and modifies theschedule as follows: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) shall be filed on or before April 22, 2016. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 shall be filed on or before April 22, 2016. 3. Plaintiffs Motion for Service Awards shall be filed on or before April 22, 2016. 4. The hearing on these Motions shall be on July 12, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. (shb) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
367 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS− NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: re: Stipulation to Clarify, 363 . The matter before the Court is the parties Stipulation Clarifying Publication of Notice for Class ActionSettlement (the Stipulation). (Dkt. No. 363.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court finds good cause has not been shown regarding timing andduration of the publications and does not approve the Stipulation. The Courts orders (Dkt. Nos. 356, 357) do not appear to be inconsistent with the settlement agreement preliminary approved of by the Court and the parties stipulations regarding additional proposed languages for publication. As previously ordered by this Court, the short form notice shall be published daily for four consecutive weeks in all publications, with the exception of La Kurier for which the short form notice shall be published one time each week for four consecutive weeks. (Dkt. No. 356, 357.) (shb) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
368 REQUEST for Relief from Request for Amendment of Order Re Publication of Settlement re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,,, 367 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
369 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re REQUEST for Relief from Request for Amendment of Order Re Publication of Settlement re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,,, 367 368 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
370 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 368 REQUEST for Relief. This Court hereby approves Defendants Request for Amendment of Order Re: Publication of Settlement and orders as follows: The Parties shall proceed to comply with the Courts prior order regarding distributing notice of the settlement. However, publication of the approved short form notice of settlement is amended as follows: Los Angeles Times − English − One time each week for four consecutive weeks; Los Angeles Daily News − English − One time each week for four consecutive weeks;

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 53 of 58

03/25/2016 04/13/2016 04/14/2016
04/14/2016 04/14/2016 04/14/2016 04/19/2016
04/22/2016

Asbarez − Armenian − One time each week for four consecutive weeks; World Journal Chinese Daily News − Chinese − One time each week for four consecutive weeks; Rafu Shimpo − Japanese − One time each week for four consecutive weeks; The Korean Times − Korean − One time each week for four consecutive weeks; La Opinion Spanish One time each week for fourconsecutive weeks; Nguoi Viet − Vietnamese − One time each week for fourconsecutive weeks; LA Kurier − Russian − One time each week for fourconsecutive weeks. (shb) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
371 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Following discussions with the parties, the Court will have the parties meet and confer and submit a stipulation and proposed order re the publication of notice.Court Reporter: Liza Gonzalez. (lc) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
372 REQUEST for Hearing Case Management Conference filed by Plaintiff Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A) (Wallace, Guy) Modified on 4/14/2016 (jp). (Entered: 04/13/2016)
373 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: REQUEST for Hearing Case Management Conference 372 . The following error(s) was found: (1) Hearing information is erroneous on 4/13/2016 at 10:00 AM., hearing set which does not appear on the Request. (2) Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. (3) Clerk has termed ONLY this erroneous hearing; Request remains pending before Judge's ruling; Proposed Order shall be filed as separate attachment to the e−filed "Request for Hearing and/or NOTICE OF LODGING" and e−mailed to a Judge Marshall generic email addresses a WordPerfect or Microsoft Word version of the document. 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. (jp) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
374 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF CASE due to Unavailability of Judicial Officer filed. The previously assigned Magistrate Judge is no longer available. Pursuant to directive of the Chief Magistrate Judge and in accordance with the rules of this Court, the case has been returned to the Clerk for reassignment. This case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner for any discovery and/or post−judgment matters that may be referred. Case number will now read as CV10−05782 CBM (MRWx). (mg) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
375 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs Request for Case Management Conference Regarding ClassNotice 372 . The Court GRANTS the Request for a telephonic case management conference on the first available date, and sets a telephonic case management conference for April 19, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
376 REQUEST for Hearing Case Management Conference Regarding Class Notice filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Request set for hearing on 4/19/2016 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
378 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE 376 before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Status Conference held. Following discussions with the parties, the Court will have the parties meet and confer as to the settlement issues in the State case. The Court will allow the parties to coordinate the State Court hearing with the Federal Court hearings, if will assist the parties. The Court further sets the following deadlines: Plaintiff to file his motion for attorney fees no later than 4/22/2016. Fairness hearing will remain on calendar for 7/12/2016 at 10:00 AM. If in the next 30 days, the parties find it necessary for a future telephonic status conference hearing, they will file their request with the Court and the clerk will notify them of this new date. Court Reporter: Maria Buistillos. (jp) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
377 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against defendant All Plaintiffs filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Guy B. Wallace in Support of Plaintiffs' Application to Tax Costs Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits A−D to GBW Decl, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit E Part 1 to GBW Decl, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit E Part 2 to GBW

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 54 of 58

04/22/2016 04/22/2016
06/13/2016

Decl, # 5 Exhibit Exhibits F−G to GBW Decl, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit H Part 1 to GBW Decl, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit H Part 2 to GBW Decl, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit I to GBW Decl, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit J Part 1 to GBW Decl, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J Part 2 to GBW Decl, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit K to GBW Decl) (Uhrowczik, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
379 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Approving Motion for Service Awards filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 7/12/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Mark Willits iso Motion for Service Awards, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Judy Griffin iso Motion for Service Awards, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Brent Pilgreen iso Motion for Service Awards, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Lillibeth Navarro iso Motion for Service Awards, # 5 Proposed Order Proposed Order Approving Motion for Service Awards) (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
380 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Expenses filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 7/12/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Class Notice, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − Fees and Costs Summary, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Guy Wallace iso Ps' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, # 4 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 01, # 5 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 02, # 6 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 03−10, # 7 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 11−12, # 8 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 13 Part 1, # 9 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 13 Part 2, # 10 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 13 Part 3, # 11 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 14−16, # 12 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 17 Part 1, # 13 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 17 Part 2, # 14 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 17 Part 3, # 15 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 17 Part 4, # 16 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 18−31, # 17 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 32−47, # 18 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 48, # 19 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 49, # 20 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 50, # 21 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 51−55, # 22 Exhibit GBW Decl − Exhibit 56−59, # 23 Declaration Declaration of Eugenia Gueorguieva iso Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, # 24 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit A−D, # 25 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit E, # 26 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit F, # 27 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit G Part 1, # 28 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit G Part 2, # 29 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit H, # 30 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit I, # 31 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit J−M, # 32 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit N Part 1, # 33 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit N Part 2, # 34 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit N Part 3, # 35 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit N Part 4, # 36 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit N Part 5, # 37 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit N Part 6, # 38 Exhibit EPG Decl − Exhibit O−Q, # 39 Declaration Declaration of Linda Dardarian iso Ps' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, # 40 Exhibit LMD Decl Exhibits Part 1, # 41 Exhibit LMD Decl Exhibits Part 2, # 42 Exhibit LMD Decl Exhibits Part 3, # 43 Exhibit LMD Decl Exhibits Part 4, # 44 Declaration Declaration of Jinny Kim iso Ps' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, # 45 Exhibit JK Decl Exhibit A−G, # 46 Exhibit JK Decl Exhibit H−K, # 47 Exhibit JK Decl Exhibit L Part 1, # 48 Exhibit JK Decl Exhibit L Part 2, # 49 Exhibit JK Decl Exhibit L Part 3, # 50 Exhibit JK Decl Exhibit L Part 4, # 51 Exhibit JK Decl Exhibit L Part 5, # 52 Exhibit JK Decl Exhibit L Part 6, # 53 Exhibit JK Decl Exhibit L Part 7, # 54 Exhibit JK Decl Exhibit M−O, # 55 Declaration Declaration of Anna Rivera iso Ps' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, # 56 Exhibit AR Decl Exhibit A, # 57 Exhibit AR Decl Exhibit B, # 58 Exhibit AR Decl Exhibit C−G, # 59 Exhibit AR Decl Exhibit H Part 1, # 60 Exhibit AR Decl Exhibit H Part 2, # 61 Declaration Declaration of Jose Allen iso Ps' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, # 62 Exhibit JRA Decl Exhibit A, # 63 Declaration Declaration of Shawna L. Parks iso Ps' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, # 64 Exhibit SAP Decl Exhbit A−B, # 65 Declaration Declaration of Richard M. Pearl iso Ps' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, # 66 Exhibit RMP Decl Exhibit A−F, # 67 Exhibit RMP Decl Exhbit G−L, # 68 Declaration Declaration of Jeff Mastin iso Ps' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, # 69 Proposed Order Proposed Order Approving Ps' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses) (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
381 MINUTE ORDER − IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion For an Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses Pursuant to federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) (the "Motion") 380 . The parties' settlement agreement also limits payment of attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, but the Motion seeks fees and/or costs incurred by the Law Office of Shawna L. Parks or Jose R. Allen, Esq., neither of whom have been appointed as Class Counsel. The parties are

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 55 of 58

06/20/2016 06/29/2016 07/01/2016 07/07/2016 07/07/2016 07/07/2016
07/07/2016
07/12/2016

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than June 20, 2016, as to why the Court should not award reasonable fees/costs under Rule 23(h) only, and solely to Class Counsel, consistent with the parties settlement agreement. Failure to respond to this Order within the time specified will result in the Court awarding reasonable fees/costs to Class Counsel only pursuant to Rule 23(h). (lom) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
382 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willitsto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, 381 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Guy Wallace in Support of Memorandum Regarding the Court's Minue Order of June 13, 2016)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
383 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Guy B Wallace counsel for Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Matthew D. Carlson is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Mark Willits, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 06/29/2016)
384 DECLARATION of Guy B. Wallace Regarding Objections filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Guy Wallace)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
385 DECLARATION of Kevin Gilbert re Order,,,, 356 , Order,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings, 357 Regarding Publication of Notice of Settlement filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
386 SUPPLEMENT to Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Certification of Settlement Class, Setting Date for Fairness Hearing 348 City's Supplemental Brief in Support of Request to Approve Class Action Settlement and Issue Findings filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
387 Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action and Response to Objection filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. Motion set for hearing on 7/12/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Guy Wallace In Support of Final Approval and Response to Objection, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Guy Wallace In Support of Final Approval and Response to Objection, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Guy Wallace In Support of Final Approval and Response to Objection, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Guy Wallace In Support of Final Approval and Response to Objection, # 5 Declaration Declaration of Jinny Kim In Support of Final Approval and Response to Objection, # 6 Declaration Declaration of Stuart Kirkpatrick In Support of Final Approval and Response to Objection) (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
388 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion For an Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) 380 . The Court requires additional evidence from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall submit evidence verifying the costs identified in this order were reasonably and necessarily incurred, and indicate the case name and number for which each cost was incurred. Plaintiffs' response to the Court's inquiry shall be filed no later than 7/14/2016. See document for further information. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
389 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS − ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES RE FAIRNESS HEARING by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall:. The parties are hereby notified that the Fairness hearing along with the Plaintiffs motion for service awards 379 ; Plaintiffs motion for an award of reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Procedure 23(h) 380 and the joint motion for final approval and response to objection 387 are all hereby continued to 8/2/2016 at 11:00

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 56 of 58

07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/19/2016 07/25/2016 07/29/2016 08/01/2016
08/01/2016 08/01/2016 08/02/2016
08/02/2016

AM. (jp) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
390 DECLARATION of Linda M. Dardarian in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Expenses 380 (Supplemental) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Dardarian, Linda) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
391 DECLARATION of Anna Rivera in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Expenses 380 filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
392 DECLARATION of John Hwang re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 388 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit R, # 2 Exhibit S, # 3 Exhibit T, # 4 Exhibit U, # 5 Exhibit V)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
393 DECLARATION of Jinny Kim re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 388 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−G to Declaration of Jinny Kim)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
394 DECLARATION of Guy Wallace re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 388 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−G to Declaration of Guy Wallace)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
395 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits, served on 7/18/2016. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
396 DECLARATION of Guy B. Wallace In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Expenses 380 Supplemental Declaration of Guy B. Wallace Regarding Plaintiffs' Updated Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Litigation Expenses filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
397 Request for Named Plaintiffs to Appear Telephonically (Kim, Jinny) Modified on 8/1/2016 (shb). (Entered: 07/29/2016)
398 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: GRANTING 397 Request for Order to Appear Telephonically at the hearing on the Joint Motion for Final Approval set for August 2, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. Plaintiffs counsel will alert the Clerk of the telephone numbers at which these plaintiffs will be at when the Court calls. They must be available for at least one−half hour before the scheduled time. (shb) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
399 DECLARATION of Guy B. Wallace In Support Of Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action and Response to Objection 387 filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
404 Letter from Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning Citizens Coalition Los Angeles (shb) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
400 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Sarah S Colby on behalf of Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits (Attorney Sarah S Colby added to party Communities Actively Living Independent and Free(pty:pla), Attorney Sarah S Colby added to party Judy Griffin(pty:pla), Attorney Sarah S Colby added to party Brent Pilgreen(pty:pla), Attorney Sarah S Colby added to party Mark Willits(pty:pla))(Colby, Sarah) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
403 MINUTES OF FAIRNESS HEARING and Plaintiffs motion for service awards 379 ; Plaintiffs motion for an award of reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Procedure 23(h) 380 and Joint motion for final approval and response to objection 387 . Motion Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B.

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 57 of 58

08/04/2016 08/04/2016 08/10/2016 08/11/2016 08/15/2016
08/15/2016 08/17/2016 08/17/2016
08/17/2016 08/18/2016

Marshall: Following discussions with the parties, the Court will take the following motions under submission: Plaintiffs motion for service awards 379 ; Plaintiffs motion for an award of reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Procedure 23(h) 380 and Joint motion for final approval and response to objection 387 . A written order will follow. The Court further orders counsel to file declarations reany additional evidence by no later than August 12, 2016, before the court makes the final ruling. Court Reporter: Lisa Gonzalez. (shb) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
401 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Anna Mercedes Rivera counsel for Plaintiff Mark Willits. Changing address to 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 1520, Los Angeles, CA 90071. Filed by Plaintiff Mark Willits. (Rivera, Anna) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
402 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits for Court Reporter. Court will contact Sam Marks at smarks@schneiderwallace.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
405 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Submissions in response to Court's Minute Order (Dkt. No. 403) filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order on Schedule re the Parties' Supplemental Submissions)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
406 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File, 405 . The Court hereby approves the foregoing stipulation and modifies theschedule as follows: 1. Any supplemental submissions in connection with the Courts Minute Order Dkt. No. 403 shall be filed by no later than August 17, 2016. (shb) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
407 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 08/02/16 − 12:45 P.M. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Lisa M. Gonzalez, phone number 213−894−2979; csrlisag@aol.com. 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 9/6/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/15/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/14/2016. (Gonzalez, Lisa) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
408 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 08/02/16 − 12:45 P.M re Transcript 407 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Gonzalez, Lisa) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/15/2016)
409 STIPULATION for Consideration of in support of request for final approval of class action settlement and requested findings filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alfred Mata in support of request for final approval of class action settlement, # 2 Declaration of Ron Lorenzen in support of request for final approval of class action settlement)(Gilbert, Kevin) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
410 MEMORANDUM in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Expenses 380 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Guy Wallace in Support of Motion for Award of Reasonable Attorney's Fees, Costs and Expenses, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Guy Wallace, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Guy Wallace)(Wallace, Guy) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
411 DENIED, see docket entry no. 414 − STIPULATION for Order to Allow Plaintiffs to File The First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, Mark Willits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− First Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Wallace, Guy) Modified on 8/26/2016 (lom). (Entered: 08/17/2016)
412 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Stipulation for Consideration, 409 . The following error(s) was found: Proposed

Case: 2:10-cv-05782-CBM-MRW As of: 09/18/2016 08:11 AM PDT 58 of 58

08/18/2016 08/25/2016 08/25/2016
08/25/2016 08/25/2016
08/25/2016

Document was not submitted as separate attachment. 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. (shb) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
413 IN CHAMBERS − NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Courts own motion, the Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for September 19, 2016, is hereby ordered continued to September 20, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. (shb) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
414 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS− ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO FILE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The matter before the Court is the parties' Stipulation To Allow Plaintiffs To File the First Amended Complaint (the "Stipulation") 411 . The Court finds no good cause has been shown to amend the complaint and therefore does not approve the Stipulation. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom) Modified on 8/26/2016 (lom). (Entered: 08/26/2016)
415 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 387 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and finds that it is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class as a whole. The Court further finds that the City's expenditure of the amounts set forth in Section 12.2 of the Settlement Agreement for the purposes set forth in the Settlement Agreement is proper and reasonably calculated based on the available information to maintain and ensure accessibility of the existing Pedestrian Facilities located in the City of Los Angeles to persons with Mobility Disabilities. Accordingly, the Settlement shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. (See attached document for details. Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A. ) (lom) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
416 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS 379 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion for a service award in the amount of $5,000 each to Plaintiffs Willits, Griffin, and Pilgreen, and $25,000 to CALIF. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
417 JUDGMENT by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Pursuant to this Final Judgment: (1) All Released Claims of Plaintiffs and the Class are hereby released as against the City and its Related Entities as defined in the Settlement Agreement; (2) Without affecting the finality of the Court's judgment in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class members, the City, and the Settlement Agreement throughout the term of the Settlement Agreement, for the sole purpose of supervising the implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement; (3) This action is dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as provided by the Settlement Agreement and the Courts orders; (4) This document constitutes a final judgment and separate document for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a); and (5) The Court finds that this Final Judgment should be entered and that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Final Judgment as to Plaintiffs and the Class and Defendants. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to enter Judgment forthwith. (MD JS−6, Case Terminated). (lom) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
418 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 380 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Fees awarded in favor of Plaintiff's and against Defendants. The Court GRANTS the Motion, and awards $10,269,745.07 in attorneys fees and $1,533,751.77 in costs to Plaintiffs. (shb) (Entered: 08/29/2016)