Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 95 Page ID #:6731

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 95 Page ID #:6732

1 ANDYDOGALI

2

adogali(@,forizs-dogali.com Admittea Pro Hac Yice

3

FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A. 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300

4

Tampa, Florida 33634 Telephone: (813) 289-0700

5 Facsimile: (813) 289-9435

6

Eugene Feldman, SBN 118497 genefeldman@mindspring.com

7

Eugene Feldman, Attorney at Law, APC 555 Pier Avenue, Suite 4

8

Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3800 Telephone: (310) 372-4636

9 Facsimile: (310) 372-4639

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11 [Additional counsel listed on next page]

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

WESTERN DIVISION

16
CARl SHIELDS AMBER BOGGS 17 and TERESA STOCKTON, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly 18 situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20 II v.

Case No. 10-cv-581 0 DMG (FMOx) Class Action CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

21

WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS US, INC., DISNEY

22

ONLINEf INC., DOES 1-10 INCLUS VE,

23

Defendants.

24

Judicial Officer: Hon Dolly M. Gee

25

26

27

28

5

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 3 of 95 Page ID #:6733

1 I DAVID H. RAIZMAN, SBN 129407
david.raizman~dbr.com
2 II JAMES M. AL IERI james.altieri@dbr.com
3 II Admitted Pro Hac Vice DRINKERBIDDLE&REATHLLP
4 II 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1400
p Los Angeles, California 90067-1517
5 II Telephone: 10~ 203-4000 Facsimile: 310 229-1285
6 II Attorneys for Defendants Walt Disney
7 II Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. and Disney Online 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 2-

6
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 4 of 95 Page ID #:6734

1 I

Cari Shields and Amber Boggs, on behalf of themselves and each of the

2 I Class Members of each of the represented Settlement Classes, as defined below,

3 II make and enter into this Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release

4 II ("Settlement Agreement") with Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Walt

5 II Disney Parks and Resorts Online, and Disney Online.

6 II I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

7

A. Definitions

8

Capitalized terms used throughout this Settlement Agreement shall have the

9 I following meanings:

10 I

1. "Action" shall mean the lawsuit entitled Cari Shields, et al. v.

11 II Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., eta!., U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. Case No. 1-CV-

12 II 5810 DMG (FMOx), which was previously removed to the United States District

13 II Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") and is pending before the

14 II Honorable Dolly M. Gee.

15 II

2. "Area," as used in Sections II.A.2.b.(i) and II.A.2.b.(iv) below

16 II and in reference to areas within each of the Disney Parks, shall mean any one or

17 II more of the following areas within the respective Disney Parks:

18 II

a. Disneyland - (i) Adventureland, Frontierland, New

19 II Orleans Square and Critter Country, (ii) Main Street, U.S.A., and (iii) Fantasyland,

20 II Mickey's Toontown and Tomorrowland;

21 I

b. DCA - (i) Buena Vista Street, Hollywood Land and "a

22 I bug's land," (ii) Pacific Wharf and Cars Land, and (iii) Condor Flats, Grizzly Peak

23 I and Paradise Pier;

24

c. Magic Kingdom - (i) Main Street, U.S.A., (ii)

25 Adventureland, Frontierland and Liberty Square, and (iii) Fantasyland and

26 Tomorrowland;

27

d. Epcot - (i) Future World, and (ii) World Showcase:

28

7

-3-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 5 of 95 Page ID #:6735

1 II

e. Disney's Hollywood Studios - (i) Echo Lake,

2 II Commissary Lane and Streets of America, and (ii) Hollywood Boulevard, Pixar

3 II Place and Sunset Boulevard; and

4 II

f. Disney's Animal Kingdom- (i) Africa and Asia, and (ii)

5 II Oasis, DinoLand U.S.A., Camp Minnie-Mickey and Discovery Island.

6 II

3. "Class Counsel" shall mean Forizs & Dogali, P.A., 4301 Anchor

7 II Plaza Parkway, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33634, and Eugene Feldman Law

8 II Offices, 555 Pier Avenue, Suite 4, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3800.

9 II

4. "Class Member" shall mean a member of one or more of the

10 II Settlement Classes identified in Section I.D(l)-(4).

11 II

5. "Disney" shall mean Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.

12 ("WDPR"), Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online ("WDPRO"), and Disney

13 Online.

14 II

6. "Disney Cruise Line" shall mean the business owned and

15 II operated by Magical Cruise Company, Ltd. that offers, among other things, various

16 II cruise ship excursions to members of the public.

17 II

7. "Disney Parks" shall mean the Disneyland and Disney

18 II California Adventure theme parks (respectively, "Disneyland" and "DCA") located

19 II at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, California, and the Magic Kingdom, Epcot,

20 II Disney's Hollywood Studios, and Disney's Animal Kingdom theme parks located

21 II at the Walt Disney World Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. "Park" refers to any

22 II one of the Disney Parks.

23 II

8. "Disneyland Resort" shall mean Disneyland, DCA, and

24 II adjacent, contiguous and related hotels, restaurants, stores, and other facilities and

25 II accommodations.

26 II

9. "Disney Websites" shall mean the websites found at

27 II www.disneyworld.com, www.disneyland.com, and www.disnevcruise.com.

28 II

8

-4-

CLASS ACTION SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 6 of 95 Page ID #:6736

1 II

10. "Effective Date" shall mean the first date upon which all of the

2 I following have occurred: (a) entry by the Court of the Final Approval Order, and

3 I (b) either: (i) the expiration, without an appeal or challenge, of the period to appeal

4 II or challenge any portion of the Final Approval Order, or (ii) in the event of such an

5 II appeal or challenge, the Parties have received actual notice that the Settlement

6 II Agreement ·has received final approval after the final resolution of any appeal or

7 II challenge.

8 II

11. "Final Approval" shall mean the Court's entry of the Final

9 II Approval Order after having found this Settlement Agreement to be fair, adequate,

10 and reasonable.

11

12. "Final Approval and Fairness Hearing" shall mean the hearing

12 II by the Court to (a) review this Settlement Agreement and determine whether the

13 II Court should grant final approval to the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule

14 II 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) consider any timely objections

15 II made pursuant to Section XI and all responses by the Parties; (c) consider the

16 II request for attorneys' fees and expenses submitted by Class Counsel; and (d)

17 II consider the Named Plaintiffs' requests for service payments.

18 II

13. "Final Approval Order" shall mean the document attached to

19 II this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit C, or any order of similar effect constituting

20 II the Court's final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

21 II

14. "Handheld Device" shall mean the Disney-designed device

22 II currently available at the Disney Parks, which uses Disney's proprietary technology

23 I and provides, among other things, an audio description of selected rides and

24 I attractions and certain outdoor areas of the Disney Parks.

25 I

15. "Information Sheet" shall mean any one or more of the

26 II following documents that are currently available at the Disney Parks: "Services for

27 Guests with Visual Disabilities," "Services for Guests with Service Animals," and

28

9

- 5-

CLASS ACTION SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 7 of 95 Page ID #:6737

1 I the Information Sheet or guide that contains the schedule of parades and shows at

2 II any Park (the "Schedule Information Sheet").

3 II

16. "Named Plaintiffs" shall mean Cari Shields and Amber Boggs.

4 II

17. "Next Generation," when used in reference to the Handheld

5 II Device, shall mean the version of the Handheld Device that will replace the current

6 II Handheld Device and will offer enhanced capabilities to guests with visual

7 I impairments.

8

18. "Notice" shall mean the document attached to this Settlement

9 Agreement as Exhibit A.

10 II

19. "Operating Guidelines" shall mean WDPR's written guidelines

11 II that pertain to the operation of various aspects of the Disney Parks.

12 II

20. "Parties" shall mean the Named Plaintiffs, defendants WDPR,

13 II Disney Online and WDPRO.

14 II

21. "Plaintiffs" shall mean Named Plaintiffs and plaintiff Teresa

15 Stockton.

16

22. "Preliminary Approval Order'' shall mean the document

17 I attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit B, or any order of similar effect

18 II constituting the Court's preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.

19 II

23. "Released Claims" shall mean the claims released by the Named

20 II Plaintiffs and the Settlement Classes as specifically set forth in Sections V and VI

21 below.

22

24. "Restaurants" shall mean the dining establishments at the

23 I Disney Parks that are identified on the "Dining" pages of the respective

24 I www.disneyland.com or www.disneyworld.com websites as "quick-service" or

25 I "table-service" restaurants but not including any kiosks, food carts or mobile food

26 vendors.

27

25. "Settlement Classes" shall mean the Classes identified in

28 Section I.D.(l)-(4).

10

-6-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 8 of 95 Page ID #:6738

1

26. "Walt Disney World Resort" shall mean the Magic Kingdom,

2 II Epcot, Disney's Hollywood Studios and Disney's Animal Kingdom, and the

3 II adjacent, contiguous and related hotels, restaurants, stores and other facilities and

4 II accommodations.

5

27. "WCAG 2.0" shall mean Version 2.0 of the Web Content

6 Accessibility Guidelines published by the Worldwide Web Consortium.

7

B. Acknowledgment of Purpose and Scope of the Settlement

8

Agreement

9

The Parties have entered into this Settlement Agreement for the

10 following purposes:

11

• to resolve all disputes asserted in the Action or covered by this

12

Settlement Agreement to avoid further expenses and protracted

13

litigation;

14

• to agree on the reasonable and appropriate modifications and assistive

15

measures to enhance equal access for guests with visual impairments

16

at the Disney Parks;

17

• to agree on the reasonable and appropriate modifications and assistive

18

measures to enhance accessibility for individuals with visual

19

impairments who use the Disney Websites; and

20

• to reach a final resolution of all class claims and defenses asserted in

21

this Action or covered by this Settlement Agreement.

22

C. Statement of Dispute

23

The Named Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of

24 California for the County of Los Angeles (Case Number BC438241) on May 21,

25 2010, which action was removed to the Court on August 5, 2010. In a First

26 Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of 10 alleged national classes,

27 that WDPR and Disney Online engaged in certain practices. in violation of federal

28

11

-7-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 9 of 95 Page ID #:6739

1 and California law, which discriminatorily denied members of the represented

2 classes the benefit of the full use and enjoyment of the Disney Parks and of the

3 websites owned or operated by Disney. WDPR and Disney Online denied the

4 allegations in the First Amended Complaint.

5

The parties agree that as part of the Court's issuance of a preliminary

6 approval order substantially in accordance with Exhibit B to this Settlement

7 Agreement, Named Plaintiffs will be deemed to have filed a Second Amended

8 Complaint in the Action to: (1) add WDPRO as a named defendant in the Action,

9 thus conditionally subjecting WDPRO to the rights and obligations provided for in

10 this Settlement Agreement; (2) remove Teresa Stockton as a named plaintiff in the

11 caption and in the allegations of the operative complaint in the Action; and (3) add

12 allegations regarding the accessibility of the Disney Cruise Line website

13 (www.disneycruise.com) to individuals with visual impairments. Disney denies the

14 material allegations in the Second Amended Complaint as well. A copy of the

15 Second Amended Complaint, which shall be deemed filed as of the Court's

16 preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement, is attached as Exhibit D to this

17 Settlement Agreement.

18

D. Class Allegations

19

On February 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification,

20 seeking certification of 10 national classes. On June 29, 2011, the Court entered an

21 order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion, certifying the

22 following Classes: (1) the Signage Class; (2) the Kennel Class, but only with

23 respect to claims that individuals with visual impairments have been, or will in the

24 future be, deterred from visiting the Disney Parks out of concern that there might

25 not exist reasonable relief areas for service animals; (3) the Companion Ticket

26 Class; (4) the Parade and Show Class; and (5) the Website Class. The five classes

27 certified by the Court shall be referred to in this Settlement A!!reement as the

28

12

-8 -

CLASS AC110N :::ib 11 LcNitl'l 1 AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 10 of 95 Page ID #:6740

1 II "Certified Classes." The Court declined, without prejudice, to certify: (1) the

2 II Disney Character Class; (2) the Locker Class; (3) the Parking Class; (4) the Maps

3 II Class; and (5) certain subclasses of the Kennel Class allegedly composed of

4 II individuals with visual impairments accompanied by service animals who paid a fee

5 I for use of the kennel or were deterred from attending the Disney Parks because of

6 II Disney's (a) charge of a kennel fee, or (b) policy forbidding the tethering of service

7 II animals at locations within the Disney Parks while guests with visual impairments

8 II experience rides or attractions; and (6) the Audio Description Device Class.

9 II

As part of the motion seeking preliminary approval of this Settlement

10 II Agreement, the Parties shall jointly seek conditional approval, for settlement

11 II purposes only, of four reconstituted Settlement Classes that would replace not only

12 I the Certified Classes but also the uncertified classes alleged in Plaintiffs' First

13 I Amended Complaint. Specifically, the Parties shall request that the Court certify

14 I the following four Settlement Classes:

15 II

(1) The Website Class: All individuals with visual impairments

16 II who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have

17 II been or will be unable to gain equal access to or enjoyment of one or more of the

18 II websites owned or operated by Disney such as www.disney.go.com,

19 II www.disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com, and www.disneycruise.com as a

20 II result of their visual disability.

21 II

(2) The Effective Communication Class: All individuals with

22 II visual impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.

23 II §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the

24 II Disney Parks because of (i) the absence of maps in an alternative format, or (ii) the

25 I absence of menus in an alternative format, or (iii) the absence of schedules of

26 I events at the Disney Parks in an alternative format, or (iv) inadequate or

27 I inconsistent operation of the audio description service on the Handheld Device, or

28 II (v) Disney's refusal to provide a free or discounted pass to their sighted

-9-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

13

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 11 of 95 Page ID #:6741

1 I companions, or (vi) the failure to be read, in full, the menus, maps or schedules of

2 I events at the Disney Parks.

3 II

(3) The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual

4 II impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

5 II and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney

6 II Parks because of (i) the fee charged for the use of a kennel for their service animal,

7 II or (ii) the absence of reasonably-designated service animal relief areas, or (iii) the

8 absence of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not allow

9 service animals, or (iv) the lack of equal interaction with Disney employees who

10 II portray Disney characters because the individuals with visual impairments are

11 II accompanied by service animals.

12 II

(4) The Infrastructure Class: All individuals with visual

13 II impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

14 II and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney

15 II Parks because of (i) physical barriers to access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable

16 II modifications to Disney's policies and practices to permit such equal access or

17 II enjoyment. Among other things, the members of this class have been or will be

18 II denied equal access to or enjoyment of the parade viewing areas at the Disneyland

19 II Resort and the Walt Disney World Resort, and to public lockers or parking lots at

20 II the Disneyland Resort.

21 II

The Parties stipulate to certifying the above Settlement Classes for

22 II settlement purposes only, conditioned upon the Court entering the Final Approval

23 II Order and the successful conclusion of appeals, if any, from the entry of the Final

24 I Approval Order. The Parties further agree that evidence of this limited stipulation

25 I for settlement purposes only will not be deemed admissible in this or any other

26 II proceeding and that it would be unsupportable to contend otherwise.

27

28 ~

14

- 10-

CLASS ACTION SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 12 of 95 Page ID #:6742

1

E. The Conduct of the Litigation

2 II

Named Plaintiffs have vigorously prosecuted this Action, and Disney

3 II has vigorously contested it, including extensive document, written and witness

4 I discovery and many hours with retained consultants and employees analyzing the

5 II claims and considering and developing reasonable modifications and assistive

6 II measures. These extensive effmts permit the Parties to assess the relative strengths

7 II and weaknesses of their respective positions in the Action.

8 II

In the absence of an approved settlement, the Parties recognize that

9 II they would face a potentially long and arduous litigation that would continue to

10 I consume time and resources and present each of them with ongoing litigation risks

11 I and uncertainties. The Parties wish to avoid these risks and uncertainties, as well as

12 II the consumption of time and resources, through settlement pursuant to the terms

13 II and conditions of this Settlement Agreement. After careful review and

14 II consideration, the Named Plaintiffs, for themselves individually and on behalf of all

15 II members of the Settlement Classes, and Class Counsel are of the opinion that this

16 II Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and provides appropriate

17 II relief for the Settlement Classes. Class Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs, for

18 II themselves individually and on behalf of all members of the Settlement Classes,

19 II believe that this Settlement Agreement is in the best interest of the Settlement

20 II Classes based on all the facts and circumstances. As reflected by the signatures of

21 II counsel at the end of this document, the Parties have consented to this Settlement

22 II Agreement and will represent to the Court that this Settlement Agreement is fair

23 and reasonable.

24

F. No Admission of Liability

25 I

Nothing contained in, nor the consummation of, this Settlement

26 I Agreement is to be construed or deemed an admission of liability, culpability,

27 I negligence, or wrongdoing on the part of Disney or any of the parties released by

28 II this Settlement Agreement. Each of the Parties to this Settlement Agreement has

- 11 -

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

15

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 13 of 95 Page ID #:6743

1 II entered into this Settlement Agreement with the intention of avoiding further

2 II disputes and litigation with the attendant inconvenience and expenses. This

3 II Settlement Agreement is a settlement document and shall be inadmissible as

4 I provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence or any other similar law.

5 II. RELIEF TO BE PROVIDED TO SETTLEMENT CLASSES

6

A. Affirmative Relief

7

In consideration of the dismissal and release of all claims asserted in

8 II the Second Amended Complaint, Disney agrees to perform the following

9 II affirmative steps to enhance accessibility for guests with visual impairments at the

10 II Disney Parks and on the Disney Websites. Except where otherwise noted, Disney

11 II agrees to complete performance of such steps within one year after the Effective

12 II Date of this Settlement Agreement:

13 II

1. The Website Class

14

a. In connection with the planned redesign of the Disney

15 II Websites, Disney agrees to enhance the accessibility of such websites to users with

16 II visual impairments in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section II.A.1 of

17 I this Settlement Agreement. Subject to Section II.A.1.a.(v) of this Settlement

18 II Agreement, Disney shall implement such accessibility enhancements in accordance

19 II with the accessibility standards set forth in Section II.A.l.b below and by the

20 II following dates:

21

(i) By December 31,2012:

22

A. The majority of the content-related pages of

23 II the www.disneyworld.com website will be accessible to screen readers, including a

24 II page containing an accessible version of the hours and schedules for the Walt

25 Disney World Parks otherwise posted on the website.

26

B. All of the menus currently posted on the

27 I www.disneyworld.com website will be accessible to screen readers.

28 I

C. For Restaurants at the Disney Parks located

- 12-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
16

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 14 of 95 Page ID #:6744

1 at the Walt Disney World Resort, sample menus accessible to screen readers (which

2 provide examples of the menu items, but do not necessarily accurately and

3 II completely reflect all short-term, temporary or daily menu items) will be posted on

4 I the www.disneyworld.com website.

5

(ii) By July 2013:

6

A. Guests of the Walt Disney World Resort

7 II using screen readers on the www.disneyworld.com website will be able to purchase

8 II tickets and passes to the Walt Disney World Parks and book rooms and packages at

9 I WDPR-owned properties at the Walt Disney World Resort to the same extent as

10 II individuals who are not using screen readers.

11 II

B. The majority of the content-related pages of

12 II the www.disneyland.com website will be accessible to screen readers, including a

13 II page containing an accessible version of the hours and schedules for the Disneyland

14 I and DCA Parks otherwise posted on the website.

15 II

C. All of the menus currently posted on the

16 www.disneyland.com website will be accessible to screen readers.

17

D. For Restaurants at Disneyland and DCA,

18 II sample menus accessible to screen readers (which provide examples of the menu

19 items, but do not necessarily accurately and completely reflect all short-term,

20 temporary or daily menu items) will be posted on the www.disneyland.com

21 website.

22

(iii) By June 30, 2014: Guests of the Disneyland Resort

23 using screen readers on the www.disneyland.com website will be able to purchase

24 II tickets and passes to Disneyland and DCA and book rooms and packages at

25 II WDPR-owned properties at the Disneyland Resort to the same extent as individuals

26 I not using screen readers.

27

(iv) By December 31 , 2015:

28

A. Individuals using screen readers on the

- 13-

CLASS ACTION SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

17

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 15 of 95 Page ID #:6745

1 I www.disneycruise.com website will be able to book staterooms, reserve onboard

2 I activities, and book shore excursions on Disney Cruise Line cruises to the same

3 I extent as individuals who are not using screen readers.

4 I

B. The majority of the content-related pages on

5 I the www.disneycruise.com website will be accessible to screen readers.

6 I

(v) Diligence. Disney agrees to undertake diligent,

7 I good faith efforts to satisfy the deadlines listed in this Section II.A.1.a. The Parties

8 I agree that Disney will have complied with the provisions of this Section II.A.1.a as

9 I long as Disney has undertaken diligent, good faith efforts to meet the referenced

10 I deadlines.

11 b. Applicable Accessibility Standards. In fulfilling the
12 obligations set forth in Section II.A.1.a above, WDPRO and WDPR agree to follow
13 the WCAG 2.0 guidelines to the extent required by this Section II.A.l.b and
14 Section II.A.1.c.
15 (i) All Level A guidelines, except for Success Criteria
16 4 .1.1 Parsing.
17 (ii) The following Level AA guidelines:
18 A. 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum), except for text
19 that requires a certain foreground and background appearance to conform to the
20 branding requirements that Disney establishes for the text;
21 B. 1.4.5 Images ofText;
22 C. 2.4.5 Multiple Ways;
23 D. 2.4.6 Headings and Labels;
24 E. 2.4.7 Focus Visible, except when the
25 technical limitations of the supported web browsers, or other technical limitations,
26 make it impractical to implement;
27 F. 3.2.4 Consistent Identification; and
28

- 14-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

18

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 16 of 95 Page ID #:6746

1

G. 3.3.3 Error Suggestion.

2

(iii) The following Level AAA guidelines:

3

A. 2.3.2 Three Flashes;

4

B. 2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only);

5 II

C. 2.4.1 0 Section Headings;

6 II

D. 3.1.4 Abbreviations;

7 II

E. 3.3.5 Help; and

8

F. 3.3.6 Error Prevention.

9

(iv) To the extent that any of the Disney Websites

10 II utilize security measures designed by third parties, such as those offered by

11 II CAPTCHA or Turing, WDPRO agrees to implement such third party's features or

12 II tools for making such security measures accessible to users with visual

13 II impairments.

14 II

c. Excluded Disney Websites Content. The following

15 II portions of the Disney Websites need not comply with WCAG 2.0 standards or

16 otherwise be made accessible to screen readers:

17

(i) Content provided by users of the Disney Websites;

18 II

(ii) The websites or web pages (other than the Disney

19 II Websites or the web pages that comprise the Disney Websites) that are reachable

20 II from links contained within the Disney Websites;

21 II

(iii) Content contained on websites or platforms owned

22 II or operated by a party other than Disney;

23 II

(iv) Content provided on the Disney Websites through a

24 II direct feed from a party other than Disney, such as an RSS (Rich Site Summary)

25 II feed;

26 II

(v) Live webcasts;

27 II

(vi) Those portions of the Disnev Websites that are

28 II built and maintained by parties other than Disney;

19

- 15-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 17 of 95 Page ID #:6747

1 II

(vii) Immersive, interactive marketing campatgns,

2 II provided that ALT tags are provided for all images; and

3 II

(viii) Short-term marketing websites or web pages that

4 II are publicly available for less than four months in duration, provided that ALT tags

5 II are provided for all images; and

6 II

(ix) Personalized media content, including Photo Pass.

7

d. Accessibility Policy. Within 90 days after the Effective

8 Date:

9

(i) WDPRO will adopt a written policy memorializing

10 II its commitment to website accessibility and to compliance with the standards set

11 II forth in Sections II.A.1.b and II.A.1.c above ("the Accessibility Policy");

12 II

(ii) WDPRO and WDPR will each communicate the

13 II Accessibility Policy to all of their respective employees and outside contractors

14 II who each determines have responsibility for developing or maintaining the

15 II accessibility features of the Disney Websites;

16 II

(iii) Contracts between WDPRO and outside

17 contractors, which are entered into after the Effective Date, and relate to the

18 performance of services on the Disney Websites by such outside contractors, will

19 include a provision requiring compliance with the Accessibility Policy; and

20

(iv) WDPRO will create a link to content within the

21 Disney Websites that will reaffirm the importance to Disney of making the Disney

22 Websites accessible to all of Disney's guests, including those who have visual

23 impairments, and will provide a method for making complaints or comments about

24 the accessibility of the Disney Websites.

25

e. Accessibility Testing/Development. As WDPRO

26 enhances the accessibility of the Disney Websites, as provided above, it will:

27

(i) Select and use an electronic testing tool

28 periodically to assess the Disney Websites;

20

-16-

CLASS ACTION SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 18 of 95 Page ID #:6748

1

(ii) Select and develop testing protocols for its quality

2 I assurance process that include testing the Disney Websites against the requirements

3 II stated in this Settlement Agreement; and

4 II

(iii) Test periodically the Disney Websites against the

5 I version of the JAWS screen reader utility identified in the Accessibility Policy.

6 I

f. Audits. WDPRO agrees to conduct periodic audits of the

7 II Disney Websites to monitor its ongoing compliance with the accessibility standards

8 II it has agreed to follow in Section II.A.l.d above, provided that no audits are

9 II required of any "Future Requirements," as defined in Section II.A.l.h below, or of

10 I any of the accessibility standards in Section II.A.l.d that have been superseded by

11 I such Future Requirements. Such audits will utilize both electronic and human

12 II testing components, including at least one individual with a visual impairment. If

13 II any audit under this Section II.A.1.f uncovers any failure to comply with the

14 II obligations contained in this Settlement Agreement with respect to any newly-

15 I launched portion of the Disney Websites, WDPRO will log any such non-

16 I compliance and prioritize the remediation of any such non-compliance in the same

17 I manner as other non-accessibility-related issues are remediated.

18 II

g. Telephone Service. Within 90 days after the Effective

19 II Date, Disney will provide a telephone service to assist guests with visual

20 II impairments who wish to purchase tickets and passes to the Disney Parks or to

21 II book rooms and packages at WDPR-owned properties at the Walt Disney World

22 II and Disneyland Resorts. The telephone service shall be available at all times,

23 II except when the computerized reservations systems that will be used by the service

24 I are unavailable for routine maintenance, backup and upgrades and for unplanned

25 II and unforeseen circumstances. This telephone service shall be available until

26 II WDPRO meets the standards identified in Sections II.A.l.a.(ii)A and II.A.l.a.(iii)

27 11 above. 28

h. Intervening Legislation or Regulation. In the event that

- 17-

CLASS ACTION SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

21

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 19 of 95 Page ID #:6749

1 I the U.S. Department of Justice, or other governmental body or agency with the

2 I power to so act, issues website-related accessibility requirements (the "Future

3 II Requirements") that become effective during the performance of the obligations

4 II made in this Settlement Agreement, Disney may comply instead with any Future

5 II Requirements that apply to the Disney Websites, and will not be obligated to

6 II provide the affirmative relief required in Section II.A.l .a.

7

2. The Effective Communication Class

8

a. Schedules

9

(i) As of the Effective Date, Disney will continue to

10 II make available by telephone an audio recording that provides the schedules for

11 major entertainment offerings (e.g., Fantasmic, World of Color) at Disneyland and

12 DCA.

13

(ii) As of the Effective Date, Disney will provide a

14 II telephone service to read parade and show information contained in the current and

15 applicable Schedule Information Sheet and answer questions about such parades

16 and shows upon request. Within 90 days after the Effective Date, the telephone

17 number for this service will be included on the "Services for Guests with Visual

18 Disabilities" Information Sheet that is available at the Disney Parks and will be

19 posted on the www.disneyland.com and www.disneyworld.com websites on the

20 respective "Visual Disabilities" pages. This telephone service will be available at

21 II least until the earlier of the following events: (a) the Next Generation Handheld

22 II Device is deployed and contains the information available on the Schedule

23 II Information Sheet, and (b) the applicable portions of the "Park Hours and

24 II Schedule" pages of the www.disneyland.com and www.disneyworld.com websites

25 containing the information on the Schedule Information Sheet are available in

26 screen-readable format.

27

(iii) Disney will take the actions identified in Sections

28 II II.A.1.a.(i)A and II.A.1.a.(ii)B for making information accessible that is contained

- 18 -

CLASS ACTION SEITLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RPLEASE
22

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 20 of 95 Page ID #:6750

1 on the "Park Hours and Schedule" pages of the www.disneyland.com and

2 www.disneyworld.com websites.

3

b. Menus

4

(i) As of the Effective Date, Disney will provide a

5 telephone service to read information from menus for Restaurants whose menus are

6 posted on the "Dining" pages of the respective www.disneyland.com and

7 www.disneyworld.com websites and answer questions about such menus upon

8 request. Within 90 days after the Effective Date, the telephone numbers for this

9 service will be included on the "Services for Guests with Visual Disabilities"

10 Information Sheet and will be posted on the "Visual Disabilities" pages of the

11 respective www.disneyland.com and www.disneyworld.com websites. This

12 telephone service will be available at least until the earlier of the following events:

13 (a) the Next Generation Handheld Device is deployed and contains menu content

14 for the Restaurants that Disney identifies in Schedule E-1 of Exhibit E to this

15 Settlement Agreement, and (b) the menus available on the www.disneyland.com

16 and www.disneyworld.com websites are available in screen-readable format.

17

(ii) Disney will take the actions identified in Sections

18 II.A.1.a.(i)B and II.A.1.a.(ii)C for making information accessible that is contained

19 on the "Dining" pages of the www.disneyland.com and www.disneyworld.com

20 websites.

21

(iii) Disney will include in the audio description service

22 II on the Next Generation Handheld Device menu content for the three Restaurants

23 II that it identifies in Schedule E-2 of Exhibit E to this Settlement Agreement.

24 II

(iv) In developing the Next Generation Handheld

25 II Device, Disney will explore the possibility of including menu content for all

26 II Restaurants whose menus are available on the www.disneyland.com and

27 II www.disneyworld.com websites. Disney agrees to use diligent, good faith efforts

28 II to include menu content for the Restaurants that it identifies in Schedule E-3 of

- 19-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

23

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 21 of 95 Page ID #:6751

1 II Exhibit E to this Settlement Agreement.

2 II

(v) Disney will update its Operating Guidelines for

3 II food and beverage locations to provide that employees should read menus,

4 II including entire menus, to guests, upon request.

5 II

(vi) Disney will provide a Braille menu at the four

6 II Restaurants it identifies in Schedule E-4 of Exhibit E to this Settlement Agreement.

7 II These Braille menus may be sample menus that provide examples of the menu

8 II items, but do not necessarily accurately and completely reflect all short-term,

9 II temporary or daily menu items.

10 II

c. Stationary Braille Maps

11 II

Disney will provide at least two stationary Braille maps in

12 II each of the Disney Parks, except that stationary Braille maps will not be installed at

13 II DCA Park until approximately six months after its current renovation project is

14 II completed, which is targeted for June 2012.

15 II

d. Mobile Braille Maps

16 II

Disney will provide mobile Braille maps at the Disney

17 II Parks for guests with visual impairments to borrow upon posting a refundable

18 II deposit not to exceed the deposit required for borrowing ofthe Handheld Device.

19

e. Handheld Device

20 II

(i) Disney will take the actions stated in Sections

21 II II.A.2.b.(iii) and II.A.2.b.(iv) and will also provide information in the audio

22 II description service of the Handheld Device relating to the locations of service

23 II animal relief areas. Named Plaintiffs acknowledge that these actions may benefit

24 members of the Effective Communication Settlement Class.

25

(ii) In developing the Next Generation Handheld

26 I Device, Disney will explore the possibility of: (a) providing navigational

27 II capabilities that will allow guests with visual impairments to hear information

28 II directing them to their desired locations; and (b) posting GPS coordinates for

-20 -

CLASS ACTION SETTLEM ENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

24

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 22 of 95 Page ID #:6752

1 various attractions or other locations within the Disney Parks for use by guests with

2 visual impairments who use map or global positioning system devices.

3

(iii) Disney has considered any input provided by

4 Named Plaintiffs regarding the functionality of the Handheld Device prior to

5 Named Plaintiffs' entering into the Settlement Agreement.

6

f. Companion Tickets

7

(i) Within 10 business days after the Effective Date,

8 Disney will provide, at no charge, on a one-time basis, 100 one-day tickets for

9 admission to either Disneyland or DCA, and 100 one-day tickets for admission to

10 either Magic Kingdom, Epcot Center, Disney's Hollywood Studios or Disney's

11 Animal Kingdom, to no more than two 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, as

12 provided below. The Parties shall jointly select up to two charitable organizations

13 whose primary purpose is to serve individuals with visual impairments, but only

14 one organization for the tickets to the Disney Parks at the Disneyland Resort and

15 one organization for the tickets to the Disney Parks at the Walt Disney World

16 Resort.

17

(ii) The Parties agree that, by providing the enhanced

18 capacity and content of the audio description service on the Handheld Device (as

19 described in Section II.A.2.e above), and by providing temporary kenneling at

20 attractions on which service animals cannot ride (as described in Section II.A.3.e

21 below), Disney materially increases the ability of class members to visit the Disney

22 Parks without the assistance of a sighted companion.

23

3. The Service Animal Class

24

a. Within 90 days after the Effective Date, Disney will

25 designate at least three service animal relief areas in the public areas at each of the

26 Disney Parks and will continue to allow service animal relief in any open area at the

27 Disney Parks.

28

b. Within 180 days after the Effective Date, Disney will add

-21 -

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

25

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 23 of 95 Page ID #:6753

1 information about the location of the designated service animal relief areas in each

2 of the Disney Parks to (i) the "Visual Disabilities" and "Services for Guests with

3 Service Animals" pages of the respective www.disneyland.com and

4 www.disneyworld.com websites; and (ii) the "Services for Guests with Visual

5 Disabilities" and the "Services for Guests with Service Animals" Information

6 Sheets. Disney will also add information about the location of the designated

7 service animal relief areas in each of the Disney Parks to the relevant stationary and

8 mobile Braille maps provided pursuant to this Settlement Agreement.

9

c. Within the time stated in that Section II.A.2.e.(i), Disney

10 will take the actions noted in that Section to add information to the audio

11 description service on the Handheld Device describing the location of designated

12 service animal relief areas.

13

d. Disney will update the Operating Guidelines for its

14 custodial employees and for employees working in the areas adjacent to the

15 designated service animal relief areas to note the location of the designated service

16 animal relief areas and policies for use of the areas.

17

e. Disney will provide temporary kennels or cages at

18 attractions at which service animals cannot ride.

19

f. Disney will post on the respective "Visual Disabilities"

20 pages of the www.disneyland.com and www.disneyworld.com websites, and

21 include on the "Services for Guests with Service Animals" and "Services for Guests

22 with Visual Disabilities" Information Sheets, its policy, applicable at attractions at

23 which service animals cannot ride, of allowing guests with service animals to leave

24 such service animals with another member of the guest's party and to permit the

25 guest or individual temporarily handling the service animal to exchange places with

26 the guest who has just taken the ride or attraction.

27

g. Not later than 14 days after the Effective Date, WDPR

28 will commence permitting guests with visual impairments at the Disneyland Resort

-22-

CLASS ACfiON SEITLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

26

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 24 of 95 Page ID #:6754

1 II who are accompanied by service animals to use the service animal relief area and

2 II run at the Disneyland Resort kennel free of charge, provided that the guest stays

3 II with the service animal at all times while visiting the kennel.

4 II

h. Disney will update its Operating Guidelines for WDPR

5 II employees who portray characters in the Disney Parks to provide that their

6 II interactions with a guest accompanied by a service animal should occur as if the

7 II guest were not accompanied by the service animal. Training for WDPR employees

8 working as characters will include training on this aspect of the updated Operating

9 Guidelines.

10

4. The Infrastructure Class

11

a. Within six months after the Effective Date, Disney will

12 update its relevant Operating Guidelines to provide that disabled parade viewing

13 areas are available to all guests with disabilities, including guests with visual

14 impairments, who require preferential viewing as a result of their disability. Disney

15 will continue to make these viewing areas available on a first-come, first-served

16 basis.

17

b. Disney has reviewed its current designated disabled

18 parade viewing areas in the Disney Parks to consider whether the level of non-

19 parade ambient noise materially interferes with a guest's ability to experience the

20 parade. The Named Plaintiffs acknowledge that Disney has already considered

21 their input on this subject.

22

c. Disney will install five keyed lockers at a single location

23 at each of the Disneyland and DCA Parks. Locker keys will be made available to

24 guests with visual impairments at a location determined by WDPR to be

25 appropriate and near the keyed lockers. The rental rate of keyed lockers will not

26 exceed the rental rate of non-keyed lockers.

27

d. Parking

28

(i) Disney will designate in the Pinocchio Lot at the

-23 -

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

27

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 25 of 95 Page ID #:6755

1 II Disneyland Resort the number of disabled parking spaces required by the applicable

2 II Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines and by Title 24 of the California

3 II Building Code (the "Design Standards"). Consistent with these Design Standards,

4 II Disney will designate these parking spaces in the location that it determines to be

5 II the most proximate to the tram loading/unloading area adjacent to the Pinocchio

6 II Lot and the Mickey & Friends Parking Structure (the "Loading Area"). Disney will

7 I also create paths of travel between these parking spaces and the Loading Area that

8 II comply with the applicable provisions ofthe Design Standards.

9 II

(ii) Disney will, to the extent necessary, relocate or

10 II reconfigure any disabled parking spaces or paths of travel in the Mickey & Friends

11 II parking structure so that, other than the guest's own vehicle, a guest with

12 II disabilities is not required to travel behind parked vehicles.

13 II

B. Modification of Obligations in the Ordinary Course

14 II

Nothing in this Settlement Agreement is intended, nor shall it be

15 II interpreted, to prevent Disney, as part of its ongoing operations of the Disney Parks

16 II or of the Disney Websites, from implementing changes to the features of the Parks

17 II or Disney Websites, or their operation, that would modify any of Disney's

18 II obligations under Section II.A. of this Settlement Agreement (including eliminating

19 II any such feature or its operation), provided that any such changes to the Parks or

20 II Disney Websites or their operations comply with the Americans with Disabilities

21 II Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.), the Umuh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code§§ 51

22 II et seq.), the Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code§§ 54 et seq.) and all other laws

23 II and regulations prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

24 II ill. NOTICE TO SETTLEMENT CLASSES

25 II

In their motion seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement,

26 II the Named Plaintiffs, WDPR and Disney Online will propose that Class Counsel

27 II email or mail a copy of the Notice substantially in the form of Exhibit A to this

28 I Settlement Agreement to each individual known to Class Counsel to have a visual

-24-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
28

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 26 of 95 Page ID #:6756

1 II disability and to have expressed any concerns similar to those which Named

2 II Plaintiffs have alleged in the Action. WDPR and Disney Online will make

3 II reasonable efforts, and will bear the costs, to publish the Notice in the next edition

4 II of the regularly-circulating publications of the National Federation of the Blind, the

5 American Council of the Blind, The American Foundation for the Blind, and the

6 Los Angeles Radio Reader Service. Counsel for the Parties shall distribute the

7 Notice described in this Section within 14 calendar days after the Court enters the

8 Preliminary Approval Order.

9 II

The failure of any Class Members to receive the Notice shall not be a basis

10 I for invalidating this Settlement Agreement or any order entered pursuant to this

11 Settlement Agreement, and the settlement shall nevertheless be binding upon all

12 Class Members.

13 II IV. CAFANOTICE

14 II

Within 14 calendar days after the Court enters the Preliminary Approval

15 I Order, WDPR and Disney Online shall serve notice of the proposed settlement in

16 compliance with the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§

17 1711 etseq.

18 V. RELEASE BY NAMED PLAINTIFFS

19 II

In consideration for the mutual promises and covenants set forth or referred

20 II to in this Settlement Agreement, the Named Plaintiffs, upon the entry of the Final

21 II Approval Order, will release Disney, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, and

22 II in the case of all such entities, their respective past and present owners,

23 II representatives, officers, directors, shareholders, attorneys, agents, employees,

24 II insurers, successors and assigns (collectively referred to as the "Released Parties")

25 I from any and all claims, counter-claims, liabilities, obligations, demands, and

26 II actions of any and every kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, that have

27 II arisen or might have arisen at any time up to and including the Effective Date. This

28 II Release includes any claims that were, or could have been, asserted in the Action,

-25-

CLASS ACTION SEITLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

29

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 27 of 95 Page ID #:6757

1 II including, without limitation, individual and class claims for discrimination and/or

2 II denial of equal access to or enjoyment of any goods, services, facilities, websites,

3 II privileges, advantages, or accommodations based upon a disability related to visual

4 II impairment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101

5 II et seq.), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.), the Disabled

6 II Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code §§ 54 et seq.), any other state, local or federal statute,

7 II rule, or regulation, or common law that governs, addresses, or affects the rights of

8 II individuals with disabilities to gain equal or full access to or enjoyment of places of

9 II public accommodation or places open to the public. This release includes, but is

I0 II not limited to, claims for relief alleging a pattern and practice of disability-based

11 II discrimination in, or an unlawful disparate impact associated with, access to or

12 II enjoyment of the Disney Parks or the websites owned or operated by Disney.

13 II VI. RELEASE BY CLASS MEMBERS

14 II . In consideration for the mutual promises and covenants set forth or referred

15 II to in this Settlement Agreement, Class Members who are not Named Plaintiffs,

16 II upon the entry of the Final Approval Order, will release the Released Parties from

17 II any and all claims, counter-claims, liabilities, obligations, demands, and actions of

18 II any and every kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, that the Class

19 II Members may have against the Released Parties for discrimination and/or denial of

20 II equal access to or enjoyment of any goods, services, facilities, websites, privileges,

21 II advantages, or accommodations based upon a disability related to visual

22 II impairment under the common law or any state, local or federal statute, rule or

23 II regulation, arising from Disney's practices or procedures in connection with, or the

24 II condition of, the Disney Parks or websites owned or operated by Disney prior to the

25 II Effective Date, or as those practices, procedures or conditions at the Disney Parks

26 II or of the websites owned or operated by Disney are subsequently modified to

27 II comply with the terms of this Settlement Agreement. This release includes but is

28 II not limited to any and all claims that have arisen or might have arisen that could

-26 -

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANn R F T-.:; 6 <::B
30

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 28 of 95 Page ID #:6758

1 II have been asserted in the Action, including claims in violation of the Americans

2 II with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal.

3 I Civil Code§§ 51 et seq.), the Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code§§ 54 et seq.),

4 II any other state, local or federal statute, rule, or regulation, or common law that

5 II governs, addresses or affects the rights of individuals with disabilities to gain equal

6 II or full access to or enjoyment of places of public accommodation or places open to

7 II the public. This release includes, but is not limited to, claims for class-wide

8 I injunctive or declaratory relief alleging a class-wide pattern and practice of

9 II disability-based discrimination in, or an unlawful disparate impact associated with,

10 II access to or enjoyment of the Disney Parks or the websites owned or operated by

11 II Disney. This release is intended to bind all Settlement Classes and Class Members

12 II and to preclude such Class Members from assetting or initiating future claims with

13 respect to the issues in this Action or the subject matter of this Settlement

14 Agreement.

15 II VII. CIVIL CODE§ 1542 WAIVER

16 II

As further consideration and inducement for this Settlement Agreement and

17 II upon the satisfaction or waiver of any conditions subsequent set forth in this

18 II Settlement Agreement, to the extent permitted by law, with respect to the Released

19 II Claims, Named Plaintiffs, for themselves and for all Class Members, (i) waive and

20 II release any and all rights under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code or any

21 II analogous state, local, or federal law, statute, rule, order or regulation that they have

22 II or may have, (ii) acknowledge that the effect and impact of Section 1542 has been

23 II explained to them by their own counsel, and (iii) further acknowledge that they may

24 II later discover facts different than or in addition to those which they now know or

25 believe to be true with respect to the claims, demands, debts, liabilities, actions,

26 causes of action, costs and expenses released, and agree that this Settlement

27 II Agreement shall be and will remain effective notwithstanding such different or

28 II additional facts. California Civil Code Section 1542 reads as follows:

-27-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

31

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 29 of 95 Page ID #:6759

1

"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

2

WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO

3

EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING

4

THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST

5

HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT

6

WITH THE DEBTOR."

7 Named Plaintiffs, for themselves and for all Class Members, expressly waive
8
the protections of California Civil Code Section 1542 with respect to the Released
9 Claims.
10

11

VIII. NAMED PLAINTIFFS' SERVICE PAYMENTS

12

In recognition of the Named Plaintiffs' role in prosecuting this Action,

13

including the provision of information to Class Counsel, assisting with disclosures

14

and feedback to Disney, responding to Disney's discovery requests, and appearing

15

and testifying at depositions noticed by Disney, Class Counsel shall file a motion

16

for an award of service payments of no more than $15,000 for each Named Plaintiff

17

to be paid by Disney, which motion shall be heard at the time of the Final Approval

18

and Fairness Hearing. Class Counsel shall file this motion within 14 days after the

19

Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. Disney shall neither oppose nor

20

support this motion. The amount of each service payment will be determined by

21

the Court.

22

If approved by the Court, and subject to each of the Named Plaintiffs

23

providing counsel of record for Disney with completed Forms W-9, Disney shall

24

pay the approved service payment amounts to the Named Plaintiffs within 30 days

25

after the Effective Date by means of a check sent by certified U.S. mail to the

26

address provided by Class Counsel. Disney shall issue Forms 1099 to each of the

27

Named Plaintiffs for the full amount of such payments. 28

32

-28-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 30 of 95 Page ID #:6760

1 I IX. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

2 II

Class Counsel shall file a motion for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees

3 II and costs not to exceed $1,550,000. This award and amount shall include all fees

4 II and costs recoverable including any attorneys' fees and costs incurred after the date

5 I of this Settlement Agreement. This motion shall be heard at the time of the Final

6 I Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Counsel shall file the motion for an award of

7 II fees within 14 days after the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. Disney

8 II shall not oppose this motion or any proposed order awarding fees and costs in an

9 II amount not to exceed $1,550,000 in the aggregate.

10 II

Subject to each of the Class Counsel providing counsel of record for Disney

11 II with completed Forms W-9 and appropriate and complete wiring instructions,

12 II Disney shall pay any amounts due pursuant to this section and an Order of the

13 II Court within 30 days after the Effective Date by wiring the appropriate amount to a

14 II bank account designated for such purposes by Class Counsel.

15 X. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

16

Named Plaintiffs, WDPR and Disney Online will submit this Settlement

17 II Agreement to the Court, and request (1) preliminary approval of the terms of the

18 II Settlement Agreement, (2) approval of the Notice attached as Exhibit A to this

19 II Settlement Agreement, or such other notice that the Court shall mandate, and (3)

20 I approval of all other steps to be taken to obtain Final Approval. Named Plaintiffs,

21 I WDPR and Disney Online will request that the Court enter a Preliminary Approval

22 I Order, substantially in the form of Exhibit B.

23 II

Named Plaintiffs, WDPR and Disney Online shall cooperate to obtain the

24 II Court's prompt preliminary and final approval of the Settlement Agreement. To

25 II expedite the implementation of the Settlement Agreement, Named Plaintiffs,

26 II WDPR and Disney Online shall ask the Court to set the hearing on the final

27 II approval of the Agreement no more than 75 days after the first provision of the

28 II Notice.

33

- 29 -

CLA~~ ACTION SEITLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 31 of 95 Page ID #:6761

1 II

Counsel for Named Plaintiffs, WDPR and Disney Online shall distribute the

2 II Notice within 14 days after the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. In

3 II addition, Class Counsel shall file the motions contemplated in Sections VIII and IX

4 II above within 14 days after the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order.

5

6 II XI. CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS

7

Any member of the Settlement Classes who elects to object to this Settlement

8 Agreement and the proposed Preliminary Approval Order or otherwise to be heard

9 concerning this settlement, shall timely inform Class Counsel, in writing of his or

10 her intent to object or appear at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing by

11 following the procedures set forth in the Notice. The objection date shall be set at

12 least 35 days after the date on which Notice is distributed, and shall be after the date

13 that Class Counsel files the motions contemplated in Sections VIII and IX above.

14 XII. FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING

15

On the date set forth in the Notice, the Court shall conduct the Final

16 Approval and Fairness Hearing.

17

The Parties shall request that, if the Court approves the Settlement

18 Agreement at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing, it shall enter the Final

19 Approval Order substantially in the form proposed as Exhibit C to this Settlement

20 Agreement.

21 XIII. FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

22 The Final Approval Order shall: (a) dismiss the Second Amended Complaint

23 and Teresa Stockton's allegations in the First Amended Complaint with prejudice;

24 (b) approve the settlement, adjudging the terms of this Settlement Agreement to be

25 fair, reasonable and adequate, and direct consummation of its terms and provisions;

26
and (c) permanently enjoin all Class Members from presenting against Disney or its

27 present or former parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders. officers,

28

34

-30-

CLASS ACTION SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 32 of 95 Page ID #:6762

1 directors, employees, partners, agents, representatives, attorneys, insurers, and any
2 other successors and assignees, any individual or Settlement Class claims that are

3 released by Sections V or VI of this Settlement Agreement or which were or could 4 have been asserted in the Action. 5

6 XIV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

7 The Parties agree that only the Parties, or Class Counsel on behalf of a

8 member of the Settlement Class, may initiate a proceeding for violation or

9
enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and that before any Party or

10 Class Counsel initiates any claim, motion or other proceeding for violation or

11 enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, the complaining Party must first provide

12 the counterparty with (i) written notice of the matter in dispute to the counsel of

13 record in the Action for that counterparty and (ii) a reasonable opportunity to cure

14 any alleged event of default or omission. The Party receiving such written notice of

15
a matter in dispute must respond in writing within four weeks of receipt of the

16 notice providing either a statement of opposition to the claim or of its intent to cure.

17 In the event that this notice and cure procedure is unavailing, the Parties may apply

18 to the Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

19 XV. FORCE MAJEURE

20
Disney's obligations under this Settlement Agreement, including the

21 obligations under Section II.A of this Settlement Agreement, may be postponed if

22
the postponement is caused by or attributable to aforce majeure. Under this force

23 majeure provision, Disney's obligations under this Settlement Agreement may be

24 tolled, for the period of the force majeure's effect, if any inability to perform any

25 obligations under this Settlement Agreement is due to acts of God, war, government

26
laws or regulations, terrorism, disaster, strikes, civil disorder or an emergency

27
beyond Disney's control, that make it illegal or impossible for Disney to perform.

28

35

-31-

CLA::;::; AC'TION SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 33 of 95 Page ID #:6763

1 II XVI. APPLICABLE LAW

2

The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement shall be in all respects

3 interpreted, enforced and governed by and under federal law and, to the extent that

4 II resort must be had to state law, by the law of the State of California.

5 II XVII. FAILURE TO OBTAIN FINAL APPROVAL

6 II

In the event that this Settlement Agreement does not become final and

7 II effective in its current form, for whatever reason, this entire Settlement Agreement,

8 II including its exhibits, shall become null and void and of no force or effect. In that

9 II event, no Party shall make any arguments in the Action based on any other Party

10 II having made any agreement in any of the papers submitted in connection with the

11 settlement process, or any Preliminary Approval Order entered as part of the

12 settlement process.

13 XVill. CONFIDENTIALITY

14 II

All proprietary and confidential documents or information that previously

15 II have been provided to Class Counsel and/or the Named Plaintiffs as of the date this

16 II Settlement Agreement is executed shall be treated as, and shall forever remain,

17 II confidential. Those documents and information shall not be disclosed to anyone 18 ~ other than the Court or agreed-upon mediator or special master in connection with

19 II any proceedings to enforce any provision of this Settlement Agreement. If such

20 II disclosure is deemed necessary by Class Counsel, Class Counsel shall identify and

21 II disclose to Disney such documents and information deemed necessary to disclose at

22 II least 10 business days prior to filing such documents with the Court, mediator, or

23 II special master, and, if Disney so requests, shall seek permission to file said

24 documents with this Court, mediator, or special master under seal. All the files,

25 records, discovery, investigation, work papers and any other document, whether

26 electronic or written, that describes or contains any assessment of practices of

27 Disney or which describes a condition, act or event at the Disney Parks or which

28 relates to any of the websites owned or operated by Disney (with the exception of

-32-

CLASS ACTION SE1TLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

36

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 34 of 95 Page ID #:6764

1 II documents that were publicly filed with the Court) shall not be made available to or

2 II transferred to any other person and shall be kept and maintained by Class Counsel

3 II inviolate. Class Counsel warrant to Disney that they shall not produce their files, or

4 I any portion of such files (with the exception of documents that were publicly filed

5 II with the Court), to any other person unless compelled to do so by a formal legal

6 I process in which event Class Counsel shall promptly notify counsel of record for

7 II Disney of that event. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent Class Counsel from

8 II using any information obtained in the course of this case in connection with any

9 II action necessary to enforce or maintain the Settlement Agreement, or in connection

10 II with any claim of professional negligence brought against Class Counsel.

11 II

Within 60 days after the Effective Date, all proprietary and confidential

12 I documents or information provided to Class Counsel by Disney and designated as

13 I "Confidential" or a similar designation pursuant to the Confidentiality Agreement

14 II executed by the Parties and all copies of such documents or information shall be

15 I destroyed, except that Class Counsel may maintain copies of all documents filed

16 II with the Court. Certification of such destruction shall be provided to counsel of

17 II record for Disney.

18 II

Other than necessary disclosures made to the Court, including the public

19 II filing of this Settlement Agreement and the Class Notice attached as Exhibit A to

20 II this Settlement Agreement, the Parties' settlement negotiations and all related

21 II information shall be held strictly confidential by Class Counsel and the Named

22 II Plaintiffs, and shall not be disclosed to any third parties (including the media).

23 II Notwithstanding the provisions in this Section, Class Counsel and the Named

24 II Plaintiffs may communicate with members of the Classes for purposes of

25 II implementing, administering and enforcing the Settlement Agreement as provided

26 II in this Settlement Agreement, and Class Counsel may respond to inquiries they

27 II receive from Class Members.

28 II

37

-33 -

CLAS~ ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 35 of 95 Page ID #:6765

1 II XIX. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE MEDIA

2

The Parties and their counsel agree that they will not issue any press releases,

3 initiate any contact with the media, or have any communications with the media

4 about this Action or the fact, amount or terms of the settlement, except that Disney

5 may make statements to the media about the accessibility of the Disney Parks or

6 Parks Websites for its guests with disabilities, and the enhancements that it has

7 agreed to make for guests with visual impairments.

8 XX. MISCELLANEOUS

9

A. No Oral Modification

10 II

This Settlement Agreement may not be changed, altered, or modified,

11 I except in writing and signed by the Parties to this Settlement Agreement, and

12 II approved by the Court. This Settlement Agreement may not be discharged except

13 II by performance in accordance with its terms or by a writing signed by all of the

14 Parties to this Settlement Agreement.

15

B. Entire Agreement

16

This Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement between the

17 Parties relating to the settlement and transaction contemplated by this Settlement

18 Agreement, and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings,

19 representations, and statements, whether oral or written and whether by a Party or

20 such Party's legal counsel are merged into this Settlement Agreement. No rights

21 under this Settlement Agreement may be waived except in writing.

22

C. Successors in Interest

23

This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the

24 benefit of the Parties to this Settlement Agreement and their respective heirs,

25 trustees, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.

26

D. Execution in Counterparts

27

This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and

28 when each Party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart, each

-34-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

38

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 36 of 95 Page ID #:6766

1 II counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed

2 II counterparts, shall constitute one fully-signed Settlement Agreement, which shall

3 II be binding upon and effective as to all Parties.

4 STIPULATED AND AGREED TO
5 BY:
6 Dated: April 23, 2012
7

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

8

9

By: Is/ David H Raizman

David H. Raizman

10

11

Attorneys for Defendants Walt D1sney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.

12

and Disney Online

13 Dated: April 23, 2012 14

FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A.

15

By: Is/Andy Dogali

16

Andy Dogali

17

Attorneys For Named Plaintiffs

18

Cari Shtelds and Amber Boggs and the Settlement Classes

19

20 21 Dated: April23, 2012 22 23
24
25
26

EUGENEFELDMAN,ATTORNEY AT LAW,APC
By: Is/ Eugene Feldman Eugene Feldman
Attorneys For Named Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs and the Settlement Classes

27

LAO II 1096163. 10
28

39

- 35 -

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 37 of 95 Page ID #:6767

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 38 of 95 Page ID #:6768

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
AND FAIRNESS HEARING

This Notice has been approved by the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Be advised ofthe preliminary approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by Cari Shields and Amber Boggs (the "Named Plaintiffs") against Walt Disney Parks and Resotts U.S., Inc., and certain other Disney affiliates ("Disney"). The Named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all members of the Settlement Classes, as defined below, allege that, as individuals with visual impairments, they were denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney theme parks in California and Florida (the "Disney Parks") or the websites owned or operated by Disney. Disney denies the Named Plaintiffs' allegations and denies any fault or wrongdoing whatsoever.

Under the proposed settlement, which the CoUtt preliminarily

approved on

20 12, Disney will make certain changes to its

policies and practices (as set f01th in the Class Action Settlement

Agreement and Release) in exchange for the Settlement Classes releasing

claims regard ing the accessibility of the Disney Parks and websites

owned or operated by Disney as they exist at the time of this settlement,

or as they may be modified in accordance with the Settlement

Agreement. A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing on the proposed

settlement is scheduled for

20 12, at _ _ a.m., in the courtroom

of the Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District CoUJt for the

Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street, Courtroom 7, Los

Angeles, California 90012.

Please read this Notice carefully. It contains important information about your legal rights concerning the proposed settlement of this lawsuit.

1. Who are members of the Settlement Classes?

The Court has prelimjnarily approved the following four Settlement Classes.

1

41

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 39 of 95 Page ID #:6769

(1) The Website Class: All individuals with visual

impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is

defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have been or will be

unable to gain equal access to or enjoyment of one or more

of the websites owned or operated by Disney such as

www.disney.go.com,

www .disney land.com,

www.disneyworld.com, and www.disneycruise.com as a

result of their visual disability.

(2) The Effective Communication Class: All individuals with visual impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney Parks because of (i) the absence of maps in an alternative format, or (ii) the absence of menus in an alternative format, or (iii) the absence of schedules of events at the Disney Parks in an alternative format, or (iv) inadequate or inconsistent operation of the audio description service on the Handheld Device, or (v) Disney's refusal to provide a free or discounted pass to their sighted companions, or (vi) the failure to be read, in full, the menus, maps or schedules of events at the Disney Parks.

(3) The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is deftned in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney Parks because of (i) the fee charged for the use of a kennel for their service animal, or (ii) the absence of reasonablydesignated service animal relief areas, or (iii) the absence of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not allow service animals, or (iv) the lack of equal interaction with Disney employees who portray Disney characters because the individuals with visual impairments are accompanied by service animals.

(4) The Infi·astructure Class: All individuals with visual impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12 102, and (b) have been or will be

2

42

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 40 of 95 Page ID #:6770
denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney Parks because of (i) physical barriers to access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable modifications to Disney's policies and practices to permit such equal access or enjoyment. Among other things, the members of this class have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the parade viewing areas at the Disneyland Resort and the Walt Disney World Resort, and to public lockers or parking lots at the D isneyland Resort. 2. What are the benefi ts of the proposed settlement? Under the Settlement Agreement, Disney has agreed to enhance the services it currently offers to guests with visual impairments at the Disney Parks and on websites owned or operated by Disney. Those changes include: updating its guidelines regarding the manner in which costumed Disney characters interact with guests accompanied by service animals; providing certain Braille schedules, menus and maps; providing additional audio description and information about facilities and attractions on the handheld device already available to guests with visual disabilities; modifying policies and practices applicable to guests accompanied by service animals, including designating additional relief areas for service animals and modifying the options available to guests accompanied by service animals when service animals cannot ride on certain attractions; providing a limited number of free admission passes to be distributed by an agreed-upon charitable organization serving individuals with visual impairments; modifying guidelines regarding the reserved viewing areas for guests with disabilities at live parades; enhancing locker and parking facilities; and enhancing procedures and standards for making websites owned or operated by Disney accessible to users who access those websites using screen reader software utilities. 3. How could the settlement affect your legal rights? If Judge Gee approves the proposed settlement, members of the classes will release all claims for discrimination on the basis of visual disability as to any feature of the Disney Parks or websites owned or operated by Disney, or the way in which they were or are operated, as they existed at the time of the Court's final approval of settlement or as
3
43

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 41 of 95 Page ID #:6771
they may be modified under the terms of the settlement. More specifically, the Settlement Agreement provides as follows:
In consideration for the mutual promises and covenants set forth or referred to in this Settlement Agreement, Class Members who are not Named Plaintiffs, upon the entry of the Final Approval Order, will release the Released Parties 1 from any and all claims, counter-claims, liabilities, obligations, demands, and actions of any and every kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, that the Class Members may have against the Released Parties for discrimination and/or denial of equal access to or enjoyment of any goods, services, facilities, websites, privileges, advantages, or accommodations based upon a disability related to visual impairment under the common law or any state, local or federal statute, rule or regulation, arising from Disney's practices or procedures in connection with, or the condition of, the Disney Parks or websites owned or operated by Disney prior to the Effective Date2, or as those practices, procedures or conditions at the Disney Parks or of the websites owned or operated by Disney are subsequently modified to comply with the terms of this Settlement Agreement. This release includes but is not limited to any and all claims that have arisen or might have arisen that
The "Released Parties" are as defined in the Settlement Agreement, but include Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Disney Online, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online, their subsidiaries and affiliated companies, and in the case of all such entities, their respective past and present owners, representatives, successors and assigns. 2 The "Effective Date" is as defined in the Settlement Agreement, but may be summarized as the date when the Court's order approving the Settlement Agreement is no longer subject to appeal or challenge, or the last such appeal or challenge has been decided in favor of the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement.
4
44

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 42 of 95 Page ID #:6772
could have been asserted in the Action, including claims in violation of the Americans with Disabi lities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.), .the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.), the Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code §§ 54 et seq.), any other state, local or federal statute, rule, or regulation, or common law that governs, addresses
or affects the rights of individuals with disabilities to gain
equal or full access to or enjoyment of places of public accommodation or places open to the public. This release includes, but is not limited to, claims for class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief alleging a class-wide pattern and practice of disability-based discrimination in, or an unlawful disparate impact associated with, access to or enjoyment of the Disney Parks or the websites owned or operated by Disney. This release is intended to bind all Settlement Classes and Class Members and to preclude such Class Members from asserting or initiating future claims with respect to the issues in this Action or the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement. 4. What service payments are the Named Plaintiffs seeking for the work they performed for the Class'? The Named Plaintiffs have filed a motion asking the Court to award them service payments of $15,000 each. The Court will decide whether such payments are fai r and reasonable. You can see the complete motion for service payments at _ _ __ 5. What attorneys' fees and what r eimbursement of out of pocket costs ar e Class Counsel seeking? Class Counsel is applying to the Court to be paid attorneys' fees and costs in the aggregate amount of no more than $1,550,000. The Coutt will decide whether the fees and costs Class Counsel seeks are fair and reasonable. You can see Class Counsel's complete application for attorneys' fees and costs at _ __ __
5
45

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 43 of 95 Page ID #:6773

6. How can you comment on, or object to, the proposed s ettl emen t?
If you want to comment on, or object to, the settlement, you must mail your statement to Forizs & Dogali, P.A., 430 I Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33634 (1-813-289-0700). Your comment or objection must include at least your name, address, and telephone number, a reference to the lawsuit, and a discussion of the comment or objection, and must be postmarked no later than

7. When and where will the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing take place?

On

Judge Gee granted preliminary approval to the

proposed settlement. After considering the comments and/or objections

received from Class members, Judge Gee will next decide whether or not

to: (I) grant final approval of the settlement; (2) grant Class Counsel's

application for fees and costs; and (3) award service payments to the

Named Plaintiffs. A bearing will be held on

at _ _ __,

in CoUiiroom 7 of the United States District Court for the Central District

ofCalifornia, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

You may attend this hearing at your own expense, but are not

obligated to do so. If you choose to attend, you may request an

opportunity to speak or be heard, but the Couti is not required to allow

this. You may retain an attorney at your own expense to represent you,

but are not required to do so. lfyou intend to attend the faimess hearing,

you must send a written notice of intent to appear to Fol"izs & Dogali,

P.A., 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33634 (1-

813-289-0700). Your notice of intent to appear must include at least your

name, address, and telephone number, a reference to the lawsuit, and a

statement that you intend to appear at the heating, and must be

postmarked no later than

. If you wish to speak or be

heard at the hearing, you must also include this request in your notice of

intent to appear.

6

46

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 44 of 95 Page ID #:6774
8. How can you get more information? You can obtain a copy of the complete settlement agreement from
Class Counsel using the contact information listed below. You may also inspect the non-confidential pruts of the case file in this lawsuit by going to the website of the U.S. District Coutt for the Central District of California (www.cacd.uscourts.gov). Andy Dogali Forizs & Dogali. P.A. 430 I Anchor Plaza Parkway Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33634 (813) 289-0700 cl isney .settlement@forizs-dogal i.com
7
47

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 45 of 95 Page ID #:6775

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 46 of 95 Page ID #:6776

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 CARl SHIELDS, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., et al.,
13
Defendants. 14

15

16

17

Case No.: 10-cv-05810 DMG (FMOx)
Class Action
rPROPOSEDl ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASSES AND MANDATING NOTICE TO CLASS OF FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING
Judicial Officer: Hon. Dolly M. Gee

18

19 II

This matter is before the Court on the joint motions for preliminary approval

20 II of the settlement, leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and for conditional

21 II certification of the settlement classes (the "Motions") of plaintiffs Cari Shields and

22 II Amber Boggs (collectively, "Named Plaintiffs") and defendants Walt Disney Parks

23 II and Resorts U.S., Inc. and Disney Online (collectively, "Defendants"). The

24 II Motions seek, among other things, the Court's preliminary approval of the Class

25 II Action Settlement Agreement And Release (the "Settlement Agreement") entered

26 into between Named Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Defendants and Walt Disney

27 Parks and Resorts Online (collectively, "Disney"), on the other hand.

28

49

- 1-

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 47 of 95 Page ID #:6777

1

Having considered the Motions as presented in the supporting briefs and

2 papers and at oral argument, the absence of opposition to the Motions, and the

3 Court having found that the proposed resolution of this matter set forth in the

4 Settlement Agreement, taken as a whole, is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

5 reasonable to all concerned, and for other good cause shown, the Court hereby

6 Orders as follows:

7

1. Conditioned on the Court's final approval of the proposed settlement,

8 the following classes shall be certified as settlement classes under Rules 23(a) and

9 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

10

a. The Website Class: All individuals with visual impairments

11 who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have

12 been or will be unable to gain equal access to or enjoyment of one or more of the

13 websites owned or operated by Disney such as www.disney.go.com,

14 www.disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com, and www.disneycruise.com as a

15 result of their visual disability.

16

b. The Effective Communication Class: All individuals with

17 visual impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.

18 §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the

19 Disney Parks because of (i) the absence of maps in an alternative format, or (ii) the

20 absence of menus in an alternative format, or (iii) the absence of schedules of

21 events at the Disney Parks in an alternative format, or (iv) inadequate or

22 inconsistent operation of the audio description service on the Handheld Device, or

23 (v) Disney's refusal to provide a free or discounted pass to their sighted

24 companions, or (vi) the failure to be read, in full, the menus, maps or schedules of

25 events at the Disney Parks.

26

c. The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual

27 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

28 and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney

D

-2-

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

50

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 48 of 95 Page ID #:6778

1 Parks because of (i) the fee charged for the use of a kennel for their service animal,

2 or (ii) the absence of reasonably-designated service animal relief areas, or (iii) the

3 absence of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not allow

4 service animals, or (iv) the lack of equal interaction with Disney employees who

5 portray Disney characters because the individuals with visual impairments are

6 accompanied by service animals.

7

d. The Infrastructure Class: All individuals with visual

8 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

9 and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney

10 Parks because of (i) physical barriers to access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable

11 modifications to Disney's policies and practices to permit such equal access or

12 enjoyment. Among other things, the members of this class have been or will be

13 denied equal access to or enjoyment of the parade viewing areas at the Disneyland

14 Resort and the Walt Disney World Resort, and to public lockers or parking lots at

15 the Disneyland Resort.

16

2. The Proposed Second Amended Complaint, which is attached as

17 Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement, is hereby deemed filed as of the date of this

18 Order, and the date for Disney's response to that complaint shall be 20 days after

19 the Court's ruling at the final approval hearing set in Paragraph 5 below. If the

20 Court does not issue an order of final approval of the Settlement Agreement, the

21 Second Amended Complaint shall have no force and effect, and the lawsuit will

22 continue pursuant to the First Amended Complaint.

23

3. Conditioned on the Court's final approval of the proposed settlement,

24 Andy Dogali of Forizs & Dogali, PA, and Eugene Feldman, of Eugene Feldman,

25 Attorney at Law, APC, are appointed as Class Counsel of the conditionally-

26 certified classes under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

27

4. Conditioned on the Court's final approval of the proposed Settlement

28 Agreement, the Court hereby grants preliminary approval to the proposed

D

-3 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

51

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 49 of 95 Page ID #:6779

1 settlement and compromise contained in the Settlement Agreement as it finds that,

2 taken as a whole, the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

3 reasonable to all concerned.

4

5. A final hearing on the approval of the Settlement Agreement will be

5 held by this Court at

_ .m. on

, 2012.

6

6. No later than fourteen days after entry of this Order, Notice of the

7 Final Approval and Fairness Hearing (in the form appended to this Order as Exhibit

8 A), shall be provided in the following manner:

9

a. Class Counsel shall email or mail a copy of the Notice to each

10 individual known to Class Counsel to have a visual disability and to have expressed

11 any concerns similar to those which Named Plaintiffs have alleged in the Action.

12

b. Defendants will make reasonable efforts, and will bear the costs,

13 to publish the Notice in the next edition of any regularly-circulating, written

14 publication of the National Federation of the Blind, the American Council of the

15 Blind, The American Foundation for the Blind and the Los Angeles Radio Reader

16 Service.

17

7. All other proceedings in this matter are hereby stayed pending the

18 Court's ruling on final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 DATED: - - - - - -
21 22

HONORABLE DOLLY M. GEE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

23

24

25

26

27

28 [Signatures of submitting counsel on next page]

52

D

-4-

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 50 of 95 Page ID #:6780

1 Respectfully submitted by, 2
Respectfully submitted by,
3 4 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

5
Is/ David H Raizman

6 David H. Raizman

7

Attorneys for Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.,

8 Disney Online and Walt Disney Parks and

9 Resorts Online

10 FORIZS & DOGALI, P .A.

11 EUGENE FELDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC
12

13

Is/ Andy Dogali

Andy Dogali
14 Eugene Feldman

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cari Shields and
Amber Boggs and Class Plaintiffs
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 28
0

-5 -

53
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 51 of 95 Page ID #:6781

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 52 of 95 Page ID #:6782

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 CARl SHIELDS, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12 v.

13 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., et al.,
14
Defendants. 15

16

Case No.: 10-cv-05810 DMG (FMOx)
Class Action
rPROPOSEDl ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPI{OVALTO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
Judicial Officer: Ron. Dolly M. Gee

17

This matter is before the Court on the joint motions (the "Motions") of

18 plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs ("Named Plaintiffs") and defendants Walt

19 Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. ("WDPR") and Disney Online for, among

20 other things, final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement And Release

21 (the "Settlement Agreement") entered in the above-captioned action. The Motions

22 seek, among other things, final approval ofthe Settlement Agreement entered into

23 between Named Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and defendants WDPR, Disney Online

24 and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online (collectively, "Disney").

25

Having considered the Motions as presented in the supporting briefs and

26 papers and at oral argument, the Settlement Agreement, and any comments or

27 objections submitted by members of the conditionally-certified classes, and the

28

- 1-

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETILEMENT

55

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 53 of 95 Page ID #:6783

1 II Court having found that the proposed resolution of this matter set forth in the

2 II Settlement Agreement, taken as a whole, is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

3 II reasonable to all concerned, and for other good cause shown, the Court hereby

4 I Orders as follows:

5

1. The following classes shall be certified as settlement classes under

6 Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

7

a. The Website Class: All individuals with visual impairments

8 who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have

9 II been or will be unable to gain equal access to or enjoyment of one or more of the

10 II websites owned or operated by Disney such as www.disney.go.com,

11 II www.disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com, and www.disneycruise.com as a

12 II result of their visual disability.

13 II

b. The Effective Communication Class: All individuals with

14 I visual impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.

15 II §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the

16 II Disney Parks because of (i) the absence of maps in an alternative format, or (ii) the

17 absence of menus in an alternative format, or (iii) the absence of schedules of

18 events at the Disney Parks in an alternative format, or (iv) inadequate or

19 inconsistent operation of the audio description service on the Handheld Device, or

20 I (v) Disney's refusal to provide a free or discounted pass to their sighted

21 I companions, or (vi) the failure to be read, in full, the menus, maps or schedules of

22 I events at the Disney Parks.

23 II

c. The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual

24 II impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

25 II and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney

26 II Parks because of (i) the fee charged for the use of a kennel for their service animal,

27 II or (ii) the absence of reasonably-designated service animal relief areas, or (iii) the

28 II absence of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not allow

-2-

ORDER GRANTING FrNAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETILEMENT

56

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 54 of 95 Page ID #:6784

I service animals, or (iv) the lack of equal interaction with Disney employees who

2 portray Disney characters because the individuals with visual impairments are

3 II accompanied by service animals.

4 I

d. The Infrastructure Class: All individuals with visual

5 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

6 and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney

7 II Parks because of (i) physical barriers to access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable

8 II modifications to Disney's policies and practices to permit such equal access or

9 II enjoyment. Among other things, the members of this class have been or will be

10 II denied equal access to or enjoyment of the parade viewing areas at the Disneyland

11 II Resort and the Walt Disney World Resort, and to public lockers or parking lots at

12 II the Disneyland Resort.

13 II

2. Andy Dogali ofForizs and Dogali PA, and Eugene Feldman, of the

14 II Eugene Feldman, Attorney At Law, APC, are appointed as class counsel of the

15 certified classes under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

16

3. The Court hereby grants final approval to the Settlement Agreement (a

17 II true and conect copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Order) as it finds that,

18 II taken as a whole, the settlement and compromise contained in that Settlement

19 Agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable to all concerned.

20

4. Pursuant to Sections V and VI of the Settlement Agreement, Named

21 II Plaintiffs and all members of the Settlement Classes and each of their executors,

22 successors, heirs, assigns, administrators, agents and representatives (collectively

23 the "Releasing Parties") shall be forever barred from asserting all claims, known or

24 unknown, that the Releasing Parties may have against Disney and the "Released

25 Parties" (as that term is defined in Section V of the Settlement Agreement) for

26 II discrimination and/or denial of equal access to or enjoyment of any goods, services,

27 facilities, websites, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, based upon a

28 disability related to visual impairment, under the common law or any state, local or

-3-

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

57

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 55 of 95 Page ID #:6785

1 II federal statute, rule or regulation, arising from Disney's practices or procedures in

2 II connection with, or the condition of, the Disney Parks or websites owned or

3 II operated by Disney prior to the Effective Date (as that term is defined in Section

4 II I.A.1 0 of the Settlement Agreement), or as those practices, procedures or conditions

5 II at the Disney Parks or of the websites owned or operated by Disney are

6 II subsequently modified to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement

7 II approved by this Order. This Order is intended to bar members of the classes

8 II defined in Paragraph 1 above from asserting or initiating future claims that have

9 been released and that relate to the issues in this Action or the subject matter of the

10 Settlement Agreement.

11 II

5. PlaintiffTeresa Stockton's claims for relief in the First Amended

12 II Complaint shall be and hereby are dismissed with prejudice.

13 II

6. The Second Amended Complaint shall be and hereby is dismissed with

14 II prejudice. 15
16 II IT IS so ORDERED.
17 18 19 DATED: _____________ 20 21 22 23 24
25

THE HONORABLE DOLLY M. GEE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

26 II [Submitting counsel's signatures on next page] 27

28

-4-

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO
CLASS ACTION SEITLEMENT
58

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 56 of 95 Page ID #:6786

1 Respectfully submitted by,
2
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
3

4

Is/ David H Raizman

5

David H. Raizman Attorneys for Defendants

•.

6 Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.,

7

Disney Online and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online

8

9 FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A.

10 EUGENE FELDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC

11

12

Is/ Andv DoJ?ali Andy Dogali

13 Eugene Feldman
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cari Shields and
14 Amber Boggs and Class Plaintiffs

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

59

-5 -

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACT ION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 57 of 95 Page ID #:6787

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 58 of 95 Page ID #:6788

1 Eugene Feldman, Esq., SBN 118497

2

genefeldman@mindspring.com EUGENE FE'LDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC

3

555 Pier Avenue, Ste. 4 Hermosa Beach, California 90254

4

Tel: Fax:

(310) 372-4636 (310) 376-3531

5 Andy Dogali, Esg.

6

adogali@torizs-dog_(!li.com Adriiitteo Pro Hac Vice

7

FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A. 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300

8

Tampa, Florida 33634

Tel:

(813) 289-0700

9 Fax:

(813) 289-9435

10

Attorneys For Plaintiffs Cari Sh1elds, Amber Boggs and Class Plaintiffs

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

WESTERN DIVISION

15

16 CARl SHIELDS AMBER BOGGS and TERESA STOCKTON, on behalf
17 of themselves and all others similarly situated,
18 Plaintiffs,
19 v.
20 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND
21 RESORTS US, INC~DISNEY ONLINE_, INC. and uOES 1-10,
22 INCLUS1VE,

23

Defendants.

24

Case No. CV 10-5810-DMG (FMOx)
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF:
1. THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (42 U.S.C.
§ 2131, et seq.)
2. THE UNRUH ACT (Cal. Civil
Code § 51, et seq.)
3. THE CDPA (Cal. Civil Code
§ 54,1, et seq.)

25

26

27

28

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
61

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 59 of 95 Page ID #:6789

1

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

2

COME NOW the Plaintiffs, CARl SHIELDS and AMBER BOGGS, on their

3 own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated (Collectively known as

4 "PLAINTIFFS"), and sue the Defendants, WALT DISNEY PARKS AND

5 RESORTS U.S., INC., WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS ONLINE and

6 DISNEY ONLINE (Collectively known as "DEFENDANTS") and allege:

7

INTRODUCTION

8 1. This action arises out of discriminatory practices by DEFENDANTS

9

violating California statutes and common law, as well as federal law

10

designed to protect individuals with a disability.

n II 2.
12

These practices include, inter alia, the denial of access to places of public accommodation and the discriminatory treatment given to individuals

13

because oftheir physical disabilities.

14 II 3. As a result of these practices, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES were not able to

15

benefit from the full use and enjoyment of DEFENDANTS' recreation

16

facilities, theme parks, cruise line, hotels, restaurants and websites and were

17

discriminated against on account of physical disability, i.e. visual

18

impairment.

19

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20 II 4. 21

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (2009), as one of the causes of action arises under federal law. Supplemental

22

jurisdiction over the state law causes of action is proper in this Court

23

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 (2009), and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of

24

Civil Procedure.

2511 5.
26

Venue for this action is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 (2009) because DEFENDANTS maintain corporate managerial business

27

offices within the County of Los Angeles.

28 II 6. PLAINTIFFS bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all

-l-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

62

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 60 of 95 Page ID #:6790

I II

persons within the PLAINTIFF CLASSES defmed herein.

2 II 7. This action is brought by the PLAINTIFFS to enforce Title III of the

3 ~

Americans with Disabilities Act "ADA'', 42 U.S.C. §12131, et seq., the

4 ~

Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §51 , et seq., and the California

5

Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code §54 et seq. (CDPA).

6

PARTIES

7 PLAINTIFFS

8 8. PlaintiffAmber Boggs is an individual who, at all relevant times:

9

a. Was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California;

10

b. Had a physical disability that affects her neurological and/or special

11

sense organs and substantially limits major life activities, namely

12

visual impairment;

13

c. Was a person with a disability as that term is defmed in 42 U.S.C.

14

§12 102 and the California Government Code Section 12926;

15

d. Owned year-long passes to Disneyland and has regularly patronized

16

the theme park facilities, restaurants, shops and websites operated by

17

DEFENDANTS, and Disney Cruise Line, within the last two years;

18

e. Had visited Disneyland with her service animal;

19

f. Suffered discrimination by the DEFENDANTS;

20

g. Was a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES alleged in paragraph 18;

21

h. Intended to visit DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, restaurants,

22

and shops in California and/or Florida in the future as well as their

23

websites.

24 11 9. 25

Plaintiff Cari Shields is an individual who, at all relevant times: a. Was a resident of the County ofRiverside, State of California;

26

b. Had a physical disability that affects her neurological and/or special

27

sense organs and substantially limits major life activities, namely

28

visual impairment;

-2-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

63

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 61 of 95 Page ID #:6791

1

c. Was a person with a disability as that term is defmed in 42 U.S.C.

2

§12102 and the CaJifornia Government Code §12926;

3

d. Owned year-long passes to Disneyland and has regularly patronized

4

the theme park restaurants, and shops operated by DEFENDANTS in

5

both Florida and California, and Disney Cruise Line, within the last

6

two years;

7

e. Had visited Disneyland in California and Disney World in Florida with

8

her service animal including on or about November 1, 2009, when

9

Ms. Shields reserved seating for 6:45p.m. for the Character Dining at

10

the Crystal Palace with "Winnie Pooh and Friends" at Walt Disney

11

World Resort in Orlando, Florida, and was denied interaction with

12

costumed Disney characters as part of her dining experience. Upon

13

complaining to management and staff she was told by two cast

14

members that it is Disney policy that characters are not allowed to

15

interact with guests with service animals. She then went to guest

16

services in the Magic Kingdom where she was told by two more cast

17

members that it is DEFENDANTS' policy that characters are not

18

allowed to interact with guests with service animals.

19

g. Suffered discrimination by the Defendants.

20

h. Was a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES alleged in paragraph 18;

21

1. Intended to visit DEFENDANTS theme parks, cruise line, hotels,

22

restaurants, and shops in California and/or Florida in the future.

23 DEFENDANTS

24 10. Defendant WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS, U.S. INC.

25

("PARKS") is a Florida corporation which at all times herein mentioned:

26

a. Maintained its principal place of business in Orange County, Florida

27

and is authorized to conduct business in the State of California and is

28

conducting business in Los Angeles County in the City of Burbank.

-3-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

64

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 62 of 95 Page ID #:6792

1

b. Owns and operates and/or is the lessor or lessee of the Walt Disney

2

World Resort located in Orange and Osceola Counties in Florida. The

3

Walt Disney World Resort is comprised of theme parks, hotels,

4

restaurants, and shops, each of which are public accommodations.

5

PARKS also owns and operates and/or is the lessor or lessee of the

6

Disneyland/California Adventure in Anaheim, Orange County,

7

California. The Disneyland/California Adventure is similarly

8

comprised of theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, each of

9

which are public accommodations.

10

c. Discriminated against the PLAINTIFF CLASSES by, inter alia:

11

1. Maintaining a policy of refusing to allow costumed Disney

12

characters to interact with visually impaired patrons with service

13

animals at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops at

14

Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and Disneyland/California

15

Adventure in California;

16

2. Failing to provide Braille signage and/or large print within the

17

aforementioned theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, so

18

as to orient visually impaired patrons as to the location of rides,

19

restaurants and facilities;

20

3. Failing to provide schedules and menus in accessible alternative

21

formats such as Braille and/or large print; (2) Failure by Disney

22

employees to read in full, the menus upon request by visually

23

impaired patrons (3) Failing to provide Braille maps in a mobile

24

format; and (4) Failing to provide Braille maps in a reasonable

25

number of locations within the theme parks, hotels, restaurants,

26

and shops;

27

4. Providing auxiliary aids and services, specifically, audio

28

description devices which are designed to shut off automatically

-4-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

65

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 63 of 95 Page ID #:6793

1

after a given time interval but cannot be re-set by a visually

2

impaired user so as to render the device inaccessible;

3

5. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually

4

impaired patrons using service animals by: (1) failing to provide

5

reasonable designated areas within the theme parks, hotels,

6

restaurants, and s~ops for service animals to defecate and (2)

7

charging visually impaired patrons using service animals a

8

$20.00 fee for the use of kennel facilities; (3) locating the kennel

9

facilities outside of the theme parks; and (4) refusing to allow

10

service animals to be tied to any locations within the theme

11

parks while the visually impaired owner is using park rides;

12

6. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually

13

impaired patrons by simultaneously refusing to provide a Disney

14

employee to assist a visually impaired patron and also requiring

15

visually impaired patrons to pay full price for a ticket for an aide

16

or attendant to serve the function of assisting the patron in

17

navigating around the theme parks;

18

7. Maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric

19

Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area

20

designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other

21

disabilities such as visual impairments;.

22

8. Renting lockers to park visitors which are inaccessible to

23

persons with visual impairments because the lockers: 1) utilize

24

an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the

25

visually impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the

26

combination to open the rented locker;

27

9. Maintaining one or more websites including

28

www.disney.go.com that are not fully accessible for persons

- 5-

SECOND Alv1ENDED COMPLAJNT

66

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 64 of 95 Page ID #:6794

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 II 11. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with visual impairments utilizing screen reader software which prevents PLAINTIFF CLASSES from enjoying equal access to the DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through DEFENDANTS' websites; 10. Violating the following provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") at the Disneyland's parking structure and parking lot: 4.6.2, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.7.7, 4.29.2 and 4.29.5; all so as to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Defendant WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS ONLINE ("WDPRO") is a corporation which at all times herein mentioned: a. Maintained its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California and is authorized to conduct business in the State of California and is conducting business in Los Angeles County in the City of Burbank. b. Owns or operates various websites relating to the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, each of which is a public accommodation, at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, California and at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, and relating to the Disney Cruise Line, including www.disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com and www .disneycruise.com. c. Discriminated against the PLAINTIFF CLASSES by, inter alia, maintaining one or more websites, including www.disneyland.com, www.disnevworld.com and www.disneycruise.com that are not fully accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen reader software which prevents PLAINTIFF CLASSES from enjoying equal

-6-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

67

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 65 of 95 Page ID #:6795

1

access to the DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, hotels,

2 II

restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits

3 II

offered to the public through DEFENDANTS' websites;

4 II 12. Defendant DISNEY ONLINE ("DISNEY ONLINE") is a California

5

corporation which at all times:

6

a. Maintained its principal place of business in Orange County, Florida

7

and is authorized to conduct business in the State of California and is

8

conducting business in Los Angeles County in the City of Burbank.

9

b. Owns or operates websites as part of the DEFENDANTS' business

10

plan to sells goods, services, and tickets and reservations to its theme

11

parks, hotels, restaurants and shops through its websites.

12

c. Discriminated against the PLAINTIFF CLASS by, inter alia,

13

maintaining one or more websites including www.disney.go.com that

14

are not fully accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing

15

screen reader software which prevents PLAINTIFF CLASSES from

16

enjoying equal access to the DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line,

17 II

hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and

18 II

benefits offered to the public through DEFENDANTS' website.

19 II 13. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership,

20 II

associate or otherwise of DEFENDANTS Does 1-10, inclusive, are unknown

21 II

to the PLAINTIFFS who therefore sue these DEFENDANTS by such

22 II

fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474.

23 II

PLAINTIFFS will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the true

24

names and capacities of Does 1 through 10, inclusive, when they are

25

ascertained.

26 14. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based upon that information and

27 II

belief allege, that each of the DEFENDANTS named in this Complaint,

28 II

including Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for

- 7-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

68

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 66 of 95 Page ID #:6796

1

one or more of the events and happenings that proximately caused the

2

injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.

3115. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based upon that information and

4

belief allege, that each of the DEFENDANTS named in this Complaint,

51

including Does 1 through 10, inclusive, acted in concert with respect to the

6

acts and omissions alleged hereinafter and to all appearances,

7 I

DEFENDANTS and each of them represented a united body so that the

8

actions of one DEFENDANT were accomplished in concert with, and with

9

knowledge, ratification, authorization and approval of each of the other

10

DEFENDANTS.

11 II 16. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based upon that information and

12 II

belief allege, that each of the DEFENDANTS named in this complaint,

13 II

including Does I through I0, inclusive, is and at all times mentioned herein

14 II

was, the agent, servant and/or employee of each of the other DEFENDANTS

15

and that each DEFENDANT was acting within the course and scope of his,

16

her or its authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of each of the other

17

DEFENDANTS. Consequently, all of the DEFENDANTS are jointly and

18

severally liable to the PLAINTIFFS for the damages sustained as a proximate

19

result of their conduct.

20 II 17. At all times set forth herein, the acts and omissions of each DEFENDANT

21 II

caused, led and/or contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and

22

all of the other DEFENDANTS, legally causing PLAINTIFFS' injuries and

23

damages as set forth.

24

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

25

Definition of the Alleged Class

26 18. This action consists of the following PLAINTIFF CLASSES who are

27

residents ofthe United States:

28

a. The Website Class: All individuals with visual impairments

-8-

SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT

69

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 67 of 95 Page ID #:6797

1

who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

2

and (b) have been or will be unable to gain equal access to or

3

enjoyment of one or more of the websites owned or operated by

4

DEFENDANTS such as www.disney.go.com, www.disneyland.com,

5

www.disneyworld. com, and www.disneycruise. com as a result of their

6

visual disability.

7

b. The Effective Communication Class: All individuals with

8

visual impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defmed in

9

42 U.S.C. § 12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to

10

or enjoyment of the Disney Parks because of (i) the absence ofmaps in

11

an alternative format, or (ii) the absence of menus in an alternative

12

format, or (iii) the absence of schedules of events at the Disney Parks

13

in an alternative format, or (iv) inadequate or inconsistent operation of

14

the audio description service on the Handheld Device, or (v) Disney's

15

refusal to provide a free or discounted pass to their sighted

16

companions, or (vi) the failure to be read, in full, the menus, maps or

17

schedules of events at the Disney Parks.

18

(c) The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual

19

impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42.

20

U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or

21

enjoyment of the Disney Parks because of (i) the fee charged for the

22

use of a kennel for their service animal, or (ii) the absence of

23

reasonably-designated service animal relief areas, or (iii) the absence

24

of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not

25

allow service animals, or (iv) the lack of equal interaction with Disney

26

employees who portray Disney characters because the individuals with

27

visual impairments are accompanied by service animals.

28

- 9-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

70

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 68 of 95 Page ID #:6798

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 1119.
13 14
15
16
1711 20.
18
19
20 II
21 21. 22 23 24 25
26
27 28

(d) The Infrastructure Class: All individuals with visual impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney Parks because of (i) physical barriers to access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable modifications to Disney's policies and practices to permit such equal access or enjoyment. Among other things, the members of this class have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the parade viewing areas at the Disneyland . Resort and the Walt Disney World Resort, and to public lockers or parking lots at the Disneyland Resort.
Maintenance of the Action PLAINTIFFS bring this action mdividually and on behalf of themselves and as representatives of all similarly situated persons, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, and the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Class Action Allegations At all material times, PLAINTIFF SHIELDS was and is a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES described in paragraph 18. At all material times, PLAINTIFF BOGGS was and is a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES described in paragraph 18. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a Class Action as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, and the provisions ofRule 23 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedw-e in that: a. In 2008, the Social Security Administration estimated there were in
excess of 6.3 million persons visually impaired and over the age of 18 in the United States. According to the Disney Vacation Tips website, the daily attendance at Disneyland in Anaheim is 4,000. Additionally, according to the Themed Entertainment Association/Economic

- 10-

SECOND ALV1ENDED COMPLAINT
71

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 69 of 95 Page ID #:6799

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1211 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Research Associates Attraction Attendance Report 2008, the Magic Kingdom/Disney World Resort in Florida had over 17 million visitors in 2008 while Disneyland/California Adventure had over 14 million visitors in 2008. While the number of visitors with visual impairments cannot be precisely calculated, it is reasonable to estimate that thousands of visitors were visually impaired among the 14 million who visited Disneyland in Anaheim in 2008. As such, the class of qualified individuals who are visually impaired and have visited either Disneyland/California Adventure in California and/or Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, or have attempted to access DEFENDANTS' websites is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. b. Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES and will apply uniformly to each member of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. The Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Public Accommodations law requires that public accommodations, such as the ones operated by DEFENDANTS, be accessible to persons with disabilities, which is a question of law common to all members of the class. The failure of DEFENDANTS to provide accommodations and remove policies that discriminate against persons with disabilities presents a question of fact common to all members of the class. Furthermore, the primary relief that the class is seeking is equitable in nature, in that the class is asking for final injunctive relief asking that DEFENDANTS provide accommodations and discontinue discriminating policies in their theme parks, restaurants, hotels, and other facilities it operates. Furthermore, prosecutions of separate actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications

- 11 -

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
72

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 70 of 95 Page ID #:6800

1

with respect to individual members of the class which would establish

2

incompatible standards of conduct for the DEFENDANTS.

3

c. PLAINTIFFS' claims are typical of the claims of the class of persons

4

with disabilities that sustained and continue to sustain injuries arising

5

out of the DEFENDANTS ' conduct or omissions in violation of state

6

and federal law as complained of herein. PLAINTIFFS, like all other

7

members of the Class, claim that DEFENDANTS violated the ADA

8

and California Statutes by discriminating against persons with

9

disabilities and excluding the PLAINTIFFS, and other similarly

10

situated persons, from full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

11

programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of

12

DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, restaurants, hotels, websites

13

and other facilities they operates; and subj ecting PLAINTIFFS to

14

discrimination by denying, segregated or excluding visually impaired

15

guests from enjoying their facilities and other goods, servtces,

16

programs, privileges, advantages or accommodations to the

17

PLAINTIFFS, as well as other similarly situated persons.

18

d. PLAINTIFFS' claims will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

19

the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, and have retained counsel competent and

20

experienced in class action litigation. SHIELDS and BOGGS have no

21

interests antagonistic to, or in conflict with, those of the Plaintiff

22

Classes. Counsel for the Classes will vigorously assert the claims of

23

all Members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES.

24

e. Moreover, judicial economy will be served by the maintenance of this

25

lawsuit as a class action, in that it is likely to avoid the burden which

26

would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system by the filing of

27

thousands of similar suits by disabled people across the country.

28

f. Class action treatment of these claims will avoid the risk of

- 12-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 73

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 71 of 95 Page ID #:6801

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2611 22. 27 28

inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the PLAINTIFF CLASSES. There are no obstacles to effective and efficient management of this lawsuit as a class action. g. The parties opposing the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES as a whole; or h. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, in consideration of: 1. The interests of the members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES in
individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; n. The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES; m. The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and 1v. The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because: a. The questions of law and fact common to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES

- 13-

SECOND AMF.NDED COMPT .ATNT
74

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 72 of 95 Page ID #:6802

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9 10 11
1211 23. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24. 20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; b. A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair
and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES; c. PLAINTIFFS and the other members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES will not be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a Class Action; and d. There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and equitable relief for the common law and statutory violations and other improprieties which DEFENDANTS' actions have inflicted upon the PLAINTIFF CLASSES; and PLAINTIFFS contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed class members of each of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES which would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. The DEFENDANTS' own business records may be utilized for assistance in the preparation and issuance of the contemplated notices. To the extent that any further notices may be required, PLAINTIFFS would contemplate the use of additional media and/or mass mailings. Among the many questions of law and fact common to the class are: a. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities maintained a policy of refusing to allow costumed Disney characters to interact with visually impaired patrons with service animals at DEFENDANTS theme parks and properties at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and Disneyland/California Adventure in California; b. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities failed to provide Braille signage and/or large print within the theme parks so as to orient visually impaired patrons as to the location of rides, restaurants and facilities;

- 14-

SECOND Al\1ENDED COMPLAINT
75

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 73 of 95 Page ID #:6803

1

c. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities failed to provide

2

schedules and menus in accessible alternative formats such as Braille

3

and/or large print;

4

d. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities failed to read the menus,

5

in full, to visually impaired patrons upon request;

6

e. Whether the DEFENDANTS failed to provide Braille maps m a

7

portable format;

8

f. Whether DEFENDANTS failed to provide Braille maps at a

9

reasonable number of locations within the theme parks;

10

g. Whether the audio description devices are reasonably accessible to the

11

visually impaired;

12

h. Whether it was lawful for the DEFENDANTS to charge a $20 fee for

13

the use of kennel facilities at the park for service animals;

14

1. Whether the DEFENDANTS were legally required to have designated

15

areas within the theme parks for service animals to defecate or to be

16

tied up while visually impaired owners used the rides;

17

J. Whether DEFENDANTS are legally required to provide a free or

18

discounted ticket to the aid or companion of a visually impaired visitor

19

to the theme parks as a reasonable accommodation;

20

k. Whether DEFENDANTS and its entities maintained a policy at

21

parades, such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only wheelchair

22

users are allowed to use the area designated for handicapped guests

23

and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments;

24

1. Whether it was lawful for DEFENDANTS and its entities to rent

25

lockers for use to guests which are inaccessible to persons with visual

26

impairments because the lockers: 1) utilize an inaccessible touch

27

screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the visually impaired and 3)

28

provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open the rented

- 15-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
76

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 74 of 95 Page ID #:6804

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
2211 25. 23 24 25 26 27 28

locker; m. Whether DEFENDANTS maintain one or more websites including
www.disney.go.com, www.disneyland.corn, www.disneyworld.com and www.disneycruise.com that are not fully accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen reader software which prevent persons with visual impairments from enjoying equal access to the DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through DEFENDANTS' websites; n. Whether DEFENDANTS' parking structure and parking lot in Disneyland violates one or more of the following ADAAG provisions: 4.6.2, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.7.7, 4.29.2 and 4.29.5; o. Whether DEFENDANTS violated California Civil Code §51 et seq. in failing to provide full and equal access to disabled persons with visually impairments; p. Whether DEFENDANTS violated California Civil Code §54 et seq. in failing to provide full and equal access to disabled persons with visual impairments; and q. Whether DEFENDANTS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in failing to provide full and equal access to disabled persons with visual impairments. As to the issues raised in this case~ a .class action is superior to all other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all class members is impracticable. Class members reside anywhere in the country. It is essential that many legal and factual questions be adjudicated uniformly to all class members. Further, as the economic or other loss suffered by vast numbers of class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual actions make it difficult for the

- 16-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
77

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 75 of 95 Page ID #:6805

1

class members to individually redress the wrongs they have suffered.

2 26. Moreover, in the event disgorgement is ordered, a class action is the only

3 ~

mechanism that will permit the employment of a fluid fund recovery to

4 II

insure that equity is achieved. There will be relatively little difficulty in

5 II

managing this case as a class action.

6 II 27. Class action treatment is superior to other available methods for a fair and

7 11

efficient adjudication of the claims presented by this complaint and would

8 ~

reduce the financial, administrative and procedural burdens on the parties and

9

on the Court which individual action would otherwise impose.

10

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

11

Histor y & Purpose

12 II 28. In 1990, the United States Congress made fmdings regarding physically

13 II

disabled persons, fmding that laws were needed to more fully protect ''some

14 ~

43 million Americans [with] one or more physical or mental disabilities";

15 II

that "historically society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with

16 II

disabilities"; and that "such forms of discrimination against individuals with

17

disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem"; that "the

18

Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure

19

equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic

20 II

self sufficiency for such individuals"; and that "the continuing existence of

21 II

unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with

22 II

disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those

23

opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous...." 42 U.S.C.

24

§12101.

25

STATUTORY PROTECTION FOR DISABLED PERSONS

26

Public Accommodations

27 29. Title III of the ADA establishes the general rule that:

28 II

No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability

- 17-

SECOND Al\ilENDED COMPLAINT
78

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 76 of 95 Page ID #:6806

1 2 3
411 30.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 II 31. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in the full equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations by any person who owns, leases, or operates a place ofpublic accommodation. 42 U.S.C. §12182 (a). The ADA defmes "discrimination" to include: A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modification would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. §12182 (b)(2)(A)(ii). The regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Justice provide: Denial of participation. A public accommodation shall not subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation. 28 C.P.R. §36.202(a)
Participation in unequal benefit. A public accommodation shall not afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. 28 C.F .R. §36.202(b).
Separate benefit. A public accommodation shall not provide an

- 18-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
79

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 77 of 95 Page ID #:6807

1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 32. 10 11 12 13 ~ 33. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28

individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others. 28 C.F.R. §36.202(c). Furthermore, the regulations provide for service animals which state: Service animals. Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability. 28 C.F.R. §36.302(c). Additionally, 42 U.S.C.A.§12181 (6) defmes "private entity" as "any entity other than a public entity" and §12181 (7) defmes "public accommodation" in part: The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this sub-chapter, ifthe operations of such entities affect commerce: a. an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an
establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
b. a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
c a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition entertainment;
d a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place ofrecreation; e. a terminal, depot, or other station used for specific public

- 19 -

SECOND AMENDED COwiPLAINT
80

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 78 of 95 Page ID #:6808

1

transportation.

2 34. Further, 42 U.S.C.A. §12182 "Prohibition of discrimination by public

3

accommodations" states, in part, the following:

4

a. General rule. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis

5

of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

6

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of

7

public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to),

8

or operates a place ofpublic accommodation.

9

2. Specific prohibitions (in part):

10

(A) Discrimination-For purposes of subsection (a) of this

11

section, discrimination includes:

12

(ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in

13

policies, practices, or procedures, when such

14

modifications are necessary to afford such goods,

15

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

16

accommodations to individuals with disabilities,

17

unless the entity can demonstrate that making such

18

modifications would fundamentally alter the nature

19

of such goods, services, facilities, privileges,

20

advantages, or accommodations;

21

(iii) a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to

22

ensure that no individual with a disability is

23

excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise

24

treated differently than other individuals because of

25

the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless

26

the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps

27

would fundamentally alter the nature of the good,

28

service, facility, privilege, advantage, or

-20-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
81

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 79 of 95 Page ID #:6809

1

accommodation being offered or would result in an

2

undue burden.

3

THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

4 II 35. §51 of the California Civil Code, "The Unruh Civil Rights" Act provides

5

protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California,

6

including housing and public accommodations, because of age, ancestry,

7

color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.

811 36. Specifically, §51 (b) provides that:

9

All persons within the jurisdiction of this State are free and equal, and

10

no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,

11

disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are

12

entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,

13

privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind

14
1511 37.
16

whatsoever. Further, §51.5 (a) provides that:
No business establishment of any kind whatsoever shall discriminate

17

against, boycott or blacklist, or refuse to buy from, contract with, sell

18

to, or trade with any person in this state on account of any

19

characteristic listed or defmed in subdivision (b) or (e) of §51, or of

20

the person's partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers,

21

managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates,

22

suppliers, or customers, because the person is perceived to have one or

23

more of those characteristics, or because the person is associated with

24
2511 38.
26

a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics. Additionally, §51 (f) provides that:
A violation of the right of any individual under the Americans with

27

Disabilities Act shall also constitute a violation of this section.

28

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§54 THROUGH 55.2

- 21 -

SECOND Al\1ENDED COMPLATNT
82

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 80 of 95 Page ID #:6810

1 II 39. 2 3 4 II · 5 II 6 II 7 II 40. 8 II 9 II 10 II 11 II 12 II 13 II 14 II 15 II 16 II 17 II 18 II 19 II 20 II 41. 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 42.
28

California Civil Code §54 (a) states that: Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, public facilities, and other public places.
Further, California Civil Code §54.1 (a) (1) states: Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other
members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motor buses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation (whether private, public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided), telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement, or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons. Additionally, §54.1 (a) (3) states: "Full and equal access," for purposes of this section in its application to transportation, means access that meets the standards ofTitles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101 336) and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, except that, if the laws of this state prescribe higher standards, it shall mean access that meets those higher standards. Further, §54.1 (d) states: A violation of the right of an individual under the Americans with

-22-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
83

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 81 of 95 Page ID #:6811

1

Disabilities Act also constitutes a violation of this section, and nothing

2

in this section shall be construed to limit the access of any person in

3

violation ofthat act.

4 43. California Civil Code §54.2 states:

5

(a) Every individual with a disability has the right to be accompanied

6

by a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, especially trained for the

7

purpose, in any of the places specified in Section 54.1 without being

8

required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog,

9

signal dog, or service dog. However, the individual shall be liable for

10

any damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her dog.

11 44. Finally, California Civil Code §54.4 states:

12

A blind or otherwis~ visually impaired pedestrian shall have all of the

13

rights and privileges conferred by law upon other persons in any of the

14

places, accommodations, or conveyances specified in Sections 54 and

15

54.1, notwithstanding the fact that the person is not carrying a

16

predominantly white cane (with or without a red tip), or using a guide

17

dog.

18

GENERAL ALLEGATI ONS COMMON TO ALL CO UNTS

19 II 45. The DEFENDANTS collectively operate theme parks and a cruise line in

20

California and Florida which have millions of visitors annually. Furthetmore,

21

DEFENDANTS operate websites including www.disney.go.com,

22

www.disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com and www.disneycruise.com

23

for the purposes of assisting guests with purchasing tickets to the products

24

and services offered by DEFENDANTS, advertising the products and

25

services of DEFENDANTS, providing interactive content for children, and

26

providing other online services to promote DEFENDANTS. Due to

27

DEFENDANTS' failure to remove access barriers to the websites mentioned

28

above, persons with visual impairments are prevented from enjoying equal

- 23-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
84

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 82 of 95 Page ID #:6812

1

access to DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, hotels, restaurants and

2

stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public

3

through DEFENDANTS' websites.

4 46. PLAINTIFFS are visually impaired individuals who each own yearly passes

5

to Disneyland/California Adventure in Anaheim and visit it frequently.

6

Plaintiff SHIELDS has also visited the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.

7

PLAINTIFFS utilize guide dogs to assist them on a daily basis.

8 47. DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, hotels, restaurants and shops,

9

connected with its websites, are public accommodations and PLAINTIFFS

1 0

visit these facilities with the expectation of being treated with the rights and

11

dignities guaranteed them by California law. Due to their visual impairments

12

and physical disabilities, however, PLAINTIFFS have suffered consistent

13

discrimination at the hands of DEFENDANTS and their affiliated companies

14

and employees.

15 1 48. As a member of the Disney Service Animal Class, PLAINTIFF SHIELDS

16

was subjected to public humiliation and discrimination in being ignored at

17

the restaurant, when an essential element of the dining experience was the

18

interaction with the costumed Disney character. Two of these characters

19

articulated the restaurant policy of not interacting with patrons using service

20

animals. Whether this policy is driven by malice, ignorance or simply fear, it

21

is a violation ofCalifomia and federal law.

22 49. As members of the Service Animal Class, PLAINTIFFS have been denied

23

reasonable accommodations for their service animals because in order to use

24

the kennel at all they must pay a $20.00 fee. Furthermore, the kennel is

25

located outside of the theme parks so as to be extremely inconvenient when

26

using the rides. Moreover, the policy of requiring that the animal be with

27

someone at all times means that a visually impaired visitor has no where to

28

leave the service animal while using certain rides. Universal Studios, a

-24-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
85

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 83 of 95 Page ID #:6813

1 II

competing theme park, however, does not have such obstructions at its

2 II

respective theme parks. Finally, there are no reasonable designated areas for

3 II

the animal to relieve itself at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops.

4 II 50. As members of the Effective Communication Class, PLAINTIFFS have been

5 I

discriminated against due to the lack of Braille signage, in addition to a lack

6 II

of alternate communications for the visually impaired such as Braille and/or

7 II

large print with respect to schedules and menus at the theme parks, hotels,

8 II

restaurants, and shops. Additionally, PLAINTIFFS have been discriminated

9 II

against due to DEFENDANTS' and its entities' failure to read, in full, the

10

menus upon request by visually impaired patrons.

11 51. As members of the Effective Communication Class, PLAINTIFFS have been

12

deterred from fully utilizing DEFENDANTS' audio description device due to

13 II

a design defect. Once the device shuts off automatically, a visually impaired

14 II

user cannot re-set the device and must return to the guest services department

15

to have it re-set.

16 II 52. As members of the Effective Communication Class, PLAINTIFFS have

17 II

experienced discrimination based on the fact that only one permanent Braille

18

map is available at the theme parks in one location at Guest Relations. No

19

portable Braille maps are available at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants,

20

and shops.

21 I 53. As members of the Effective Communication Class, PLAINTIFFS have

22 II

experienced discrimination due to DEFENDANTS' failure to provide the

23 II

necessary accommodations for a visually impaired individual to be oriented

24 II

in the theme parks. The lack of reasonable accommodations, in combination

25 ~

with the DEFENDANTS' policy of not providing an employee to assist a

26 II

visually impaired person, forces a visually impaired person to bring and pay

27 I

full price for a companion to fully utilize the park facilities. Universal

28 II

Studios, a competing theme park, however, allows the visually impaired

-25-

SECONDAMENDED COMPLACNT
86

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 84 of 95 Page ID #:6814

1

guest in at no cost and requires the companion to pay pull price.

2 ~ 54. As members of the Park Infrastructure Class, PLAINTIFFS have experienced

3

discrimination due to DEFENDANTS maintaining a policy at parades, such

4

as the Main Street Elechic Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to

5

use the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other

6

disabilities such as visual impairments.

711 55. As members of the Park Infrastructure Class, PLAINTIFF have experienced

8

discrimination by DEFENDANTS renting lockers for use to guests wh ich are

9

inaccessible to persons with visual impairments because the lockers: 1)

10

utilize an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the visually

11

impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open

12

the rented locker.

13 II 56. As members of the Website Class, PLAINTIFFS have experienced

14

discrimination due to DEFENDANTS maintaining one or more websites

15

including

www.disney.go.com,

www.disneyland.com,

16

www.disneyworld.com and www.disneycruise.com that are not fully

17

accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen reader

18
I19 57.
20

software. As members of the Infrastructure Class, PLAINTIFFS have experienced discrimination in that, DEFENDANTS parking structure and parking lot at

21

Disneyland violate the following provisions of the ADAAG: 4.6.2, 4.1.2,

22

4.1.3, 4.7.7, 4.29.2 and 4.29.5; all so as to violate the Americans with

23

Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

24

FffiST CAUSE OF ACTION

25

For a Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

26

42 U.S.C. §12131, et. seq.

27

(by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants)

28 58. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth

-26-

SECONDAMENDED COMPLAINT
87

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 85 of 95 Page ID #:6815

1

herein, paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint.

2 ~ 59. DEFENDANTS have discriminated against PLAINTIFFS by denying them

3

full and equal access to the benefits, privileges and public accommodations

4

afforded to other patrons solely on account of disability. In addition, the

5

DEFENDANTS have violated the ADA by failing or refusing to provide

6

PLAINTIFFS with reasonable accommodations and other services related to

7

their disability.

8 60. PLAINTIFFS, upon information and belief, allege that DEFENDANTS, their

9

employees and agents have failed and continue to fail to:

10

a. Provide necessary accommodations, modifications and servtces to

11

provide equal access to the facilities within its theme parks, cmise line,

12

hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida and California so as to allow

13

the visually impaired to participate on an equal basis in activities,

14

rides, restaurants and programs;

15

b. Provide the necessary training and discipline to its employees as to the

16

legal obligation of a public accommodation to provide full and equal

17

service to persons with disabilities under the ADA and other relevant

18

state statutes, including California Civil Code 51 et seq. and Civil

19

Code Section 54 et seq.

20 61. PLAINTIFFS have been subjected to the denial, separate and unequal

21

opportunity to participate in the DEFENDANTS services, facilities,

22

privileges, advantages, or accommodations as a result of the DEFENDANTS

23

discriminatory policy of not allowing characters to interact with visually

24

impaired persons who have their service animal with them.

2511 62. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, PLAINTIFFS

26

have suffered and continue to suffer from the lack of character interaction

27

due to DEFENDANTS' failure to address the services, facilities, privileges,

28

advantages or accommodations that should be given to persons similarly

-27-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
88

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 86 of 95 Page ID #:6816

1

situated as SHIELDS and BOGGS.

2 63. Due to the continuous nature of DEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct,

3

which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies.

4

Moreover, as a result of DEFENDANTS' actions PLAINTIFFS are suffering

5

irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. PLAINTIFFS are

6

entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action. 42

7

U.S.C.A. § 12205, as prayed below.

8

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

9

For a Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act

10

California Civil Code §51 and 52 et seq.

11

(by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants)

1211 64. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth

13

herein, paragraphs 1 through 63 ofthis Complaint.

14 65. §51 of the California Civil Code, "The Unruh Civil Rights" Act provides

15

protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California,

16

including housing and public accommodations, because of age, ancestry,

17

color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.

1811 66. §52 of the California Civil Code provides that whoever denies, aids or incites

19

a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to §51 is liable

20
21 II 67.
22

for each and every offense. Through the acts and omissions described herein, DEFENDANTS have violated California Civil Code §51.

2311 68. Pursuant to California Civil Code §51 (f), a violation of the ADA also

24

constitutes a violation of California Civil Code §51 et seq.

2511 69. The DEFENDANTS are a "business establishment" within the meaning of

26

the California Code §51 et seq.

2711 70. DEFENDANTS have violated the law by denying PLAINTIFFS full and

28

equal access to its program comparable to access that it offers to others.

-28-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
89

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 87 of 95 Page ID #:6817

1 71. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, PLAINTIFFS

2

have suffered, and continue to suffer hardship and anxiety due to

3

DEFENDANTS' failure to address accommodations and access required for

4

PLAINTIFFS' disabilities.

5[[ 72. Due to the continuous nature of DEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct,

6

which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies.

7

Moreover, as a result of DEFENDANTS' actions PLAINTIFFS are suffering

8

irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. PLAINTIFFS are

9

entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action. California

10

Civil Code §52, as prayed below.

11

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

12

For a Violation of the California Public Accommodations Law

13

California Civil Code §54 et. seq.

14

(by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants)

15 II 73. 16
1711 74.
18

PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 72 ofthis Complaint. The DEFENDANTS operate theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops and advertise its good and services through websites which are public

19

accommodations open to the public in California and Florida.

20 75. Through the acts and omissions described herein above, DEFENDANTS are

21

violating California Civil Code §54.

22 76. Under California Civil Code §54 (c), a violation of the ADA also constitutes

23

a violation of California Civil Code §54 et seq.

24 ~ 77. PLAINTIFFS are persons with disabilities within the meaning of the

25
2611 78.
27

California Civil Code §54 (b)(1) and California Goverrunent Code§ 12926. The DEFENDANTS provide public services within the meaning of the California Civil Code §54 et seq.

28 II 79. By failing to provide accommodations and services to visually impaired

-29-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLATNT
90

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 88 of 95 Page ID #:6818

1 II

guests, as set forth at length elsewhere in this Complaint, DEFENDANTS are

2 II

violating California Civil Code §54, by denying visually impaired guests full

3 II

access to DEFENDANTS' programs, services, and activities.

4 II 80. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, PLAINTIFFS

5 II

have suffered, and continue to suffer hardship and anxiety as well as

6 II

deteriorating physical conditions, due to DEFENDANTS' failures to address

7 II

accommodations and services required for PLAINTIFFS' disabilities.

8 81. Due to the continuous nature of DEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct,

9

which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies.

10 II

Moreover, as a result of DEFENDANTS' actions, PLAINTIFFS are

11 II

suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

12 II

PLAINTIFFS are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in

13 II

filing this action. California Civil Code §55.

14 II 82. Each DEFENDANTS is charged by law and public policy as well as its own

15 II

code of business responsibility to refrain from discriminating against the

16 II

PLAINTIFF CLASSES on account of their physical disability. As a result of

17 II

the actions and conduct described herein, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have

18 II

no adequate remedy at law to redress their grievances and recover their

19 II

damages.

20 II PRAYERFORRELIEF

21 II PLAINTIFFS pray as follows:

22 I 1. For certification of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES pursuant to applicable law the

23 II

Rules ofthis Court.

2411 2.
25

For an injunction ordering DEFENDANTS, each of them, to comply with the statutes set forth herein;

26 II 3. For an order establishing the following equitable, injunctive and declaratory

27

relief:

28

a. That a judicial determination and declaration be made of the rights of

-30-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
91

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 89 of 95 Page ID #:6819

1

the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, and of the Court-approved remedial

2

measures that DEFENDANTS and each of them must take to prevent

3

discrimination of the visually impaired by all employees of

4

DEFENDANTS;

5

b. That DEFENDANTS be forever enjoined from engaging in the

6

practices described in this Complaint and from any practices that

7

deviate from any orders ofthis Court;

8

c. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide Braille signage

9

within their theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida and

10

California;

11

d. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide permanent

12

Braille maps at multiple locations and portable maps in alternative

13

formats such as Braille and/or large print within Disney theme parks,

14

hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida and California;

15

e. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide menus and

16

schedules in alternative formats such as Braille and/or large print

17

within Disney theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida

18

and California;

19

f. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS read the menus, in full,

20

upon request by visually impaired patrons.

21

g. That this Court mandate that each DEFENDANT provide reasonable

22

accommodations for service animals, designated places to defecate

23

within Disney theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida

24

and California, and places where the service animal can be tied within

25

the theme parks while visually impaired persons use rides.

26

h. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide a free or

27

reduced fare admission ticket to one person accompanying a paid

28

visually impaired ticket holder to act as a guide within Disney theme

- 31 -

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
92

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 90 of 95 Page ID #:6820

1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 3. 25 26 I I I 27 Ill
28 I I I

parks in Florida and California;

1. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS are enjoined from

maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric

Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area

designated for handicapped guests, and not guests with other

disabilities such as visual impairments;

J. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide reasonable

accommodations for visually impaired quests when renting lockers;

k. That this Court make a determination as to the impropriety of the fees

Defendants charge visually impaired visitors at Disney theme parks in

Florida and California for accommodations and auxiliary aids and

services including kennels;

1. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS maintain their websites

including

www. disney.go.com,

www.disneyland.com,

vvww.disneyworld.com and www.disneycruise.com to make them fully

accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen reader

software;

m. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide handicap-

accessible parking at Disneyland that is compliant with the following

provisions of the ADAAG: 4.6.2, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.7.7, 4.29.2 and 4.29.5;

to ensure that DEFENDANTS' parking facilities do not violate the

Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of

Regulations;

For reasonable attorneys' fees as may be determined by the Court for all

causes of action;

- 32-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
93

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 91 of 95 Page ID #:6821

1 4. For costs of suit; and

2 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

3

4 5 II Dated:

Respectfully submitted,

6

Eugene Feldman, Esq., SBN 118497
genefeldman~mindsi>_ring.com

7

EUGENE FELDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAWtAPC

8

555 P1er Avenue, Suite 4 Hermosa Beach, California 90254

9

Phone: Fax:

(310) 372-4636 (31 0) 376-3531

10

Andy Dogali, Esq.

11

Admitted Pro Hac Vice Fla. Bar No. 0615862

12

adogali~forizs-dogali.com
FORIZS"'& DOGALI, P.A.

13

4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33634

14

Phone: Fax:

(813) 289-0700 (813) 289-9435

15

ATTORNEYS FOR CARl SHIELDS,

16

AMBER BOGGS AND THE PLAINTIFF CLASSES

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 33 -

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
94

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 92 of 95 Page ID #:6822

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 93 of 95 Page ID #:6823

EXHIBIT E

SCHEDULE E-1

Disneyland Park
Main Street, U.S.A. Fantasyland I Mickey's Toontown I Tomorrowland Adventureland I Frontierland I New Orleans Square I Critter Country

ICarnation Cafe IRedd Rockett's Pizza Port [Blue Bayou Restaurant

!Refreshment Corner TVillage Haus Restaurant !Cafe Orleans

Disney California Adventure
Buena Vista Street I Hollywood Land I "a bug's land"
Condor Flats I Grizzly Peak I Paradise Pier Pacific Wharf I Cars Land

Award Wieners Wine Country Trattoria at the Golden Vine Winery Pacific Wharf Cafe

Studio Catering Co.
Ariel's Grotto
Flo's vs Cafe

Magic Kingdom
Main Street, U.S.A. Fantasyland I Tomorrowland Adventureland I Frontierland I Liberty Square

The Crystal Palace Cinderella's Royal Table Pecos Bill Tall Tale Inn and Cafe

Casey's Corner Cosmic Ray's Starlight Cafe Liberty Tree Tavern

Epcot
Future World World Showcase

Sunshine Seasons Akershus Royal Banquet Hall

Electric Umbrella -IBiergarten Restaurant

Disney's Hollywood Studios

Hollywood Boulevard I Sunset Boulevard I Pixar Place
Echo Lake .I Commissary Lan.e I Streets of America

!Rosie's All-American Cafe IBacklot Express

TThe Hollywood Brown Derby THollywood & Vine

Disney's Animal Kingdom

Oasis I Discovery Island I DinoLand U.S.A. I Camp Minnie-Mickey

[Pizzafari

IRestaurantosauras

Africa I Asia

·--- .. ... " .. .-. -·

,._ ..

•. . Tusker House Restaurant
, . ... -.. "'

. TYak and Yeti Restaurant .. .

-. ... ' ..~ "

...

.,

U1snev1anct t-'arl<
Tomorrowland Terrace
Redd Rocket Pizza Port
Plaza Inn

SCHEDULE E-2

I

I

I

I

I

T

Disney California Adventure

Taste Pilots

I

T

Pacific Wharf Cafe

I

I

Boardwalk Pizza and Pasta

I

I

Magic Kingdom
Cosmic Ray's Starlight Cafe

I

I

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 94 of 95 Page ID #:6824

Pecos Bill Tall Tale Inn and Cafe Pinocchio V illage Haus

I

I

I

T

Epcot

Sunshine Seasons

Electric Umbrella Liberty Inn Akershus Royal Banquet Hall
;w,;.;r:•'(' ':''',!'"':<·• >' }\:, •' ~-i~ •; ·/·' · ,'.'{; ·,!'·<'.;l/··;::;. ;ii~:p\,''il ·<'>§/ · Disney's Hollywood Studios

: ,-.:e:~:;:Y· ·>/{."'!>':;;..<' ,:.,?; \:· ..\}i,l?·•f:"Tif! ~>' -"· ·

"-~ _.'-~•" .

·.. ><;;· ·.· ~: • " ,,· ·:· '. · .·.". :l ,,. '·'·"'· ·":;~':',"i', 1- ;~>. <i . 7c : ·

,_.• ·').':.'~.vcc;:;;;,.,e· .,._ .h· ·• ;:•...

Backlot Express Rosie's All-American Cafe Pizza Planet
Disney's Animal Kingdom
Restaurantasaurus Pizzafari Flame Tree BBQ
. .. ;•,

I
I
, ..;'. . ...., .;;. ..:.1: ·.; -~.

I

T

I

I

•.. ~·..... I

. .·, ·•···....,

SCHEDULE E-3

Disneyland Park

Main Street, U.S.A.

Fantasyland I Mickey's Toontown I Tomorrowfand

Adventureland I Frontier1and I New Orleans Square I Critter Country

' · Disn.ey

Ca liforn ia

··:'~ ·~

,;

Adventure

Carnation Cafe Redd Rockett's Pizza Port Blue Bayou Restaurant
,.

Buena Vista Street I Hollywood Land I "a bug's land"

Condor Flats I Grizzly Peak I Paradise Pier

Pacific.,.Wharf 1Cars Land

... i

Magic Kingdom

"'

AI•.•. ,,

:; "·•.·

Award Wieners

Wine Country Trattoria at the Golden

Vine Winery

.. Pacific Wharf Cafe

..,

Main Street. U.S.A.

The Crystal Palace

Fantasy1and I Tomorrowfand

Cinderella's Royal Table

Adventureland I Frontierland I Liberty Square

Pecos Bill Tall Tale Inn and Cafe

·"".. ··~·._ ;:.\. '?··.':

.• ·,;- . .; ..•; ;.. ··? ; .;- ~:<·! .:.:·.p· •· .. ..., •• ,, /' ;': < ~- ''': <} ,,, .. '•'·

..

Epcot

FutureWor1d

!Sunshine Seasons

World Showcase ~··· .,;..:• .· ;',:," .,'{ft:' • ~!/...'.-;..,

,., ::; .. IAkershus Royal Banquet Hall

.,;;;,:• ~iX'" :;:·.;, ~;_.::;,;•Pi~ .S.c!':! · \.::: ...·· . ~·.

,. . .... :;.;. .

.~co~

Disney's Hollywood Studios

Hollywood Boulevard I Sunset Boulevard I Pixar Place Echo Lake 1 Commissary Lane 1Streets of America

IRosie's All-American Cafe IBacklot Express

.. ... .. ... •.. c· . ..·,, ·" '· "· .·...

"''·. ,., ,, ...

•:·

"

;, :·!.•

<; .,. f,'l' ...~ c, .7.. .''

.. /

~ ,.y . ..

·;

~· ~-~· . ,.,..,.>. ·.... ~ :c -•~..;;_ ., .., ••;, ·>''..•.,,, ,1;·· ''~·: ..i~·i,·.;>;~,. ::;;,.,,_:.;:.: .:)~. .~ ']· •?):

.c"• . /'

I

.,,-;;; -~r

-,;~~- c;;;"·;;";,x,'-..;.-. ~:,; _ ·j

'>" :;r ..:<"•''.~/,;, ,,, .; . ,,;.•· •;c:r:,;, i'•• ~''".h~'P·:;;;;:.;._~~-';_, ;; ·.··•

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 196-1 Filed 04/23/12 Page 95 of 95 Page ID #:6825

-- -

·-: --

Disney's Animal Kingdom

Oasis I Discovery Island I Dinoland U.SA I Camp Minnie-Mickey

Africa I Asia

.,,
IPizzafari !Tusker House Restaurant

.::.

,;

.~

'/C • .~':' · - ' : -

--

I

I

- ., ,'<~

-.
•''

~.'~ f
-~

~··

,_ .

•·

--~'

..

Disneyland Park
Tomorrow1and Terrace Redd Rocket Pizza Port Plaza Inn Cafe Orleans
Disney California Adventure
Taste Pilots Pacific Wharf Cafe Boardwalk Pizza and Pasta Ariel's Grotto
Magic Kingdom
Cosmic Ray's Starlight Cafe Pecos Bill Tall Tale Inn and Cafe Pinocchio Village Haus Colombia Harbour House

•!- ...
;,

Epcot

Sunshine Seasons Electric Umbrella Liberty Inn Akershus Royal Banquet Hall
,-:-

Disney's Hollywood Studios

Backlot Express Rosie's All-American Cafe Pizza Planet ABC Commissary
"
Disney's Animal Kingdom

. '". "· .': ,_

Restaurantasaurus Pizzafari Flame Tree BBQ Tusker House Restaurant

•. -,,

~ J

_·,,, .

SCHEDULE E-4

... '

,;,. }

,,

·/ f

..' , .. '

•f·

....

'

,. •..
~:

. ,

c ,.

~ 3·•"'• \;·.,. ... .

'·· '

·-· .. . -~

. ~

..

'

.., ~

.

,.

'; ..

..

~~

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 208 Filed 05/04/12 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:6892

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 CARI SHIELDS, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND

13 RESORTS U.S., INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

16

Case No.: 10-cv-05810 DMG (FMOx) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND MANDATING NOTICE TO CLASS OF FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING

17

18

19

This matter is before the Court on the joint m otions for preliminary approval

20 of the settlem ent, leave to file a Sec ond Amended Com plaint and for conditional

21 certification of the settlement classes (the “Motions”) of plaintiffs Cari Shields and

22 Amber Boggs (collectively, “Named Plaintiffs”) and defendants Walt Disney Parks

23 and Resorts U.S., Inc. and Disney Online (collectively, “Defendants”). The

24 Motions seek, am ong other thi ngs, the Cour t’s preliminary approval of the Class

25 Action Settlement Agreement And Release (t he “Settlement Agreemen t”) entered

26 into between Named Plaintiffs, on the on e hand, and Defendants and Walt Disney

27 Parks and Resorts Online (collectively, “Disney”), on the other hand.

28

- 1 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 208 Filed 05/04/12 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:6893

1

Having considered t he Motions as pr esented in the supporti ng briefs and

2 papers and at oral argument, the abse nce of opposition to the Motions, and the

3 Court having found that the proposed reso lution of this matter set forth in the

4 Settlement Agreement, taken as a whole, is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

5 reasonable to all concerned, and for ot her good cause shown, the Court hereby

6 Orders as follows:

7

1. Conditioned on the Court’s final a pproval of the proposed settlem ent,

8 the following classes shall be certified as settlement classes under Rules 23(a) and

9 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

10

a. The Website Class: All indi viduals with visual im pairments

11 who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have

12 been or will be unable to gain equal access to or enjoyment of one or m ore of the

13 websites owned or operated by Disn

ey such as www.disney.go.com ,

14 www.disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com, and www.disneycruise.com as a

15 result of their visual disability.

16

b. The Effective Comm unication Class: All individuals with

17 visual impairments who (a) have a disability , as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.

18 §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the

19 Disney Parks because of (i) th e absence of maps in an alte rnative format, or (ii) the

20 absence of menus in an alternative format , or (ii i) the absence of schedules of

21 events at the Dis ney Parks in an alte rnative format, or (iv) i nadequate or

22 inconsistent operation of the audio descri ption service on the Handheld Device, or

23 (v) Disney’s refusal to provide a free or discounted pa ss to the ir sighted

24 companions, or (vi) the failure to be read , in full, the menus, maps or schedules of

25 events at the Disney Parks.

26

c. The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual

27 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

28 and (b) have been o r will be denied equal access to or enjoym ent of the Disney

D

- 2 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 208 Filed 05/04/12 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:6894

1 Parks because of (i) the fee ch arged for the use of a kennel for their service ani mal,

2 or (ii) the absence of reasonably-designat ed service animal relief areas, or (iii) the

3 absence of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not allow

4 service animals, or ( iv) the lack of e qual interaction with Disney em ployees who

5 portray Disney charact ers because the i ndividuals with visual im pairments are

6 accompanied by service animals.

7

d. The Infrastructure Class:

All individuals with visual

8 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

9 and (b) have been o r will be denied equal access to or enjoym ent of the Disney

10 Parks because of (i) physical barriers to access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable

11 modifications to Disney’s pol icies and pr actices to perm it such equal access or

12 enjoyment. Am ong other things, the mem bers of this class have been or will be

13 denied equal access to or enjoyment of th e parade viewing areas at the Disneyland

14 Resort and the Walt Disney World Resort , a nd to public lockers or parking lots a t

15 the Disneyland Resort.

16

2. The Proposed Second Amended Comp laint, which is att ached as

17 Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement, sha ll be manually filed pursuant to General

18 Order 10-07 and Local Rule 3-2 within five da ys of the date of this Order, and th e

19 deadline for Disney’s response to that com plaint shall be 20 days after the Court’s

20 ruling at t he final approval hearing set forth in Paragraph 5 below. If the Court

21 does not issue an order of final approval of the Settlem ent Agreement, the Second

22 Amended Complaint shall have no force a nd effect, and the lawsuit will continu e

23 pursuant to the First Amended Complaint.

24

3. Conditioned on the Court’s final a pproval of the proposed settlem ent,

25 Andy Dogali of Fori zs & Dogali, PA, and Eugene Feldman, of Eugene Feldm an,

26 Attorney at Law, APC, are appointe d as Class Counsel of the condit ionally-

27 certified classes under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

28
D

- 3 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 208 Filed 05/04/12 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:6895

1

4. Conditioned on the Court’s final a pproval of the proposed Settlement

2 Agreement, the Court hereby grant s preliminary approval to the proposed

3 settlement and compromise contained in th e Settlement Agreement as it finds that,

4 taken as a whole, the proposed settlement is fundam entally fair, adequate, and

5 reasonable to all concerned.

6

5. A final hearing on the approval of the Settlem ent Agreement will be

7 held by this Court on August 3, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

8

6. No later than fourteen days afte r entry of this Order, Notice of the

9 Final Approval and Fairness Hearing (in the form appended to this Order as Exhibit

10 A), shall be provided in the following manner:

11

a. Class Counsel shall email or mail a copy of the N otice to each

12 individual known to Class Counsel to have a visual disability and to have expressed

13 any concerns similar to those which Named Plaintiffs have alleged in the Action.

14

b. Defendants will make reasonable efforts, and will bear the costs,

15 to publish the Notice in the next editi on of any regularly-circulating, written

16 publication of the National Fe deration of the Blind, the American Council of t he

17 Blind, The American Foundation for the Blind and the Los Angeles Radio Reader

18 Service, and, if appropriate, the Braille In stitute of America and the Junior Blind of

19 America.

20

7. All other proceedings and pretrial and trial deadlines in this matter are

21 hereby stayed pending the Court’s ruli ng on final approval of the Settlement

22 Agreement.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 DATED: May 4, 2012
25
26

________________________________ DOLLY M. GEE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

27

28
D

- 4 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

 
 ro COpy Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1

Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 46 Page ID #:6

1 EISENBERG RAIzMAN TIIDRSTON & WONG LLP
2 David H. Raizman (SBN 129407) Elena S. Min (SBN 235065)

3 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Eleventh Floor

4 Los Angeles, California 90024

Telephone: (310) 445-4400

5 Facsimile: (310) 445-4410

6 Email:

draizman@ertwllp.com

7

emin@ertwllp.com

8 Attorneys for Defendants
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., 9 Walt Disney Parks & Resorts Worldwide 10 and The Walt Disney Company

'-"<

" o~

I

r"' '~,
z::o
-1~.
c r-:;l,J ~;; ;-~ ~.')

c::>
>c::
<n

! ... t:"JO :~ ;~;;;::::;

I U1

" I

',) --1--1

" t"l"
r'-(;~

;b
:Jf:

P'l ....' ()

..V1o-1

r-: .'

~.~ c:,

~::..u..

a
U1 W

P1 0

11

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14

15
CARl SHIELDS and AMBER BOGGS, 16 on behalf ofthemselves and all others 17 similarly situated,

cVI 0
Case No.

5810

D.MG

'£Mx)

18 Plaintiffs,

19

vs.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF STATE

COURT ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C.

t\;VikJmf~ AND 1446 BY

1j

I,

20 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND

fLos Angeles Superior Court Case No.

21 RESORTS US, INC., WALT DISNEY J3C438241]

PARKS AND RESORTS

22 WORLDWIDE, INC., THE WALT

23 DISNEY COMPANY, DOES 1-100,

24 INCLUSIVE

251~________~D~e~fu=n=d=an=t=s~._________ 26 27 28

30940
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF STATE COURT
ACTION BY DEFENDANTS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 46 Page ID #:7

1

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO

2 PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

3

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

4 U.S., Inc., Walt Disney Parks & Resorts Worldwide and The Walt Disney Company

5 (collectively, "Defendants") hereby invoke this Court's jurisdiction and remove the

6 state cOUli action described below from the Superior Court of the State of California

7 for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District COUli for the Central

8 District of California.

9

1. This Notice of Removal is filed pursuant to, and this COUli has

10 jurisdiction by vitiue of, the provisions of28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1369, 1441(b) and

11 1446.

12

2. On May 21, 2010, plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs

13 ("Plaintiffs") commenced an action in the Superior Court of the State of California

14 for the County of Los Angeles entitled Cari Shields and Amber Boggs v. Walt

15 Disney Parks and Resorts Us, Inc., Walt Disney Parks & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,

16 The Walt Disney Company, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Los Angeles

17 Superior COUli Case No. BC488241 (the "State COUli Action").

18

3. Defendants were served in the State COUli Action on July 7, 2010,

19 including with a copy of the Summons, Complaint and related documents (the

20 "Complaint"). A true and C011'ect copy of the Complaint is attached as Exhibit A to

21 this Notice.

22

4. To Defendants' knowledge, the documents attached as Exhibit A to this

23 Notice are the only pleadings that have been served on, or filed by, Defendants to

24 date in the State COUli Action.

25

5. This is a civil action over which this COUli has original subject matter

26 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1369, and is one which may be

27 removed to this Court pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), in that

28 original jurisdiction is founded on a claim or right arising under a law of the United

2

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF STATE COURT

ACTION BY DEFENDANTS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 3 of 46 Page ID #:8

1 States, i.e., the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.) (the

2 "ADA"). (See Complaint ~~ 56-61.)

3

6. This Notice of Removal is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)

4 in that it is filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Complaint by any

5 defendant. The date on which Defendants were served was July 7, 2010.

6

7. The te11'itorial coverage ofthe United States District Court for the

7 Central District of California embraces the county and cOUli in which the State

8 Court Action is now pending. 28 U.S.C. § 84(c). Therefore, this action is properly

9 removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

10

8. This removal is authorized by each of the Defendants, the sole named

11 defendants in this action. Defendants are informed and believe, and on that basis

12 allege, that none of the Doe defendants in the State COUli Action have been named

13 or served. Therefore, it is unnecessary to obtain any other defendant's consent to or

14 joinder in this removal.

15

9. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendants will provide written

16 notice ofthe filing ofthis Notice of Removal to all other parties to this action and

17 will promptly file a copy of this Notice ofRemoval with the Clerk of the Superior

18 Court ofthe State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

19 //1 20 //1 21 /1/ 22 /1/ 23 //1

24 /1/

25 /1/

26 /1/ 27 //1 28 //1

3

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF STATE COURT

ACTION BY DEFENDANTS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 4 of 46 Page ID #:9

1

WHEREFORE,pursuantt028U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b) and 1446,

2 Defendants hereby remove this action from the Superior Court of the State of

3 California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the

4 Central District of California.

5

eJ

~

'"<>

o
~ilo

0 B
'f"i

g ~

~ ~
~

-Pi5-1>~<.E-2

'" :'"a !>~-:I --~0"-u-
~ ~ o ~"

~ ~ ~ N <'l toll

-<c.>:: 0 gg.0 ...l
,"''';"""j 0

6 7 Date: August 4, 2010 8 9 10
11
12
13
14 15 16 17 18

Respectfully submitted,
EISENBERG RAIZMAN THURSTON & WONG LLP David H. Raizman Elena S. Min
By: ~11ir=
ElenaS. Min
Attorneys for Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Walt Disney Parks & Resorts Worldwide and The Walt Disney Company

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF STATE COURT

ACTION BY DEFENDANTS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 5 of 46 Page ID #:10
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 6 of 46 Page ID #:11

·

.~J~~~

Eugene Feldman, Esq. SBN 118497

/" K"" h

2 3 4

EUGENE FELDMAN ATTORNEY ATLAW,APC

1:;).

555 Pier Avenue, Ste. 4

/'

¥ 11 I Hermosa Beach, Califomia 90254
Tel: 310-372-4636

I.h. OV /'>'

Fax: 3 1 0 - 3 7 6 - 3 5 3 1 1 ' \
A. Anderson B. Do~a1i, Esq.,

DIf\ v I

.~
0

S\lPI\\\1\1~1'V ,,Wil''.~tl~t~1A'N.G.~~o
C.01\\'I~X 2. 12010

'"

5 (Pro Hac Vice applications to be filed)

""ecuwe Q\liC<lrJ e

Brian A. Hohman, Esq.,

JOMAk\alKe:~ _

6 (Pro Hac Vice applications to be filed) FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A.

\l~
8y_ H\ENJ\

7 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300

Tampa, Florida 33634

8 Tel: 813-289-0700

Fax: 813-289-9435

9

Attomeys for Plaintiffs and Class Plaintiffs

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

II

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

12

~ 13

CARr SIDELDS and AMBER BOGGS, on behalf ofthemselves and all others

14 similarly situated,

15

Plaintiffs,

~

16

)

v.

)

17

)

18

)

WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS )

19 US, INC., WALT DISNEY PARKS & )

RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., THE )

20 WALT DISNEY COMPANY,

)

DOES 1-100,

)

21 INCLUSIVE,

)

)

22

Defendants.

)

)

23

24 r.,,. }

25 ~~

26 }1,.

1.
27 {J

Case No.
Class Action
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF:
1. VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (42 U.S.c. §12131, et seq.)
2. VIOLATIONS OF THE UNRUH ACT (Cal. Civil Code §51, et seq.)
3. VIOLATIONS OF THE CDPA (Cal. Civil Code §54.1, et seqJ

28

1

EXHIBIT A PAGE 5

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 7 of 46 Page ID #:12

• •

I

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

2
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, CARl SIDELDS and AMBERBOGGS, on their own behalfand 3
on behalf of all others similarly situated (Collectively known as "PLAINTIFFS"), and sue the 4
Defendants, THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, WALT DISNEY PARKS & RESORTS 5
WORLDWIDE, INC. and WALTDISNEYPARKS AND RESORTS US, INC. (Collectivelyknown 6
as "DEFENDANTS") and allege: 7
INTRODUCTION 8
1. This action arises out of discriminatory practices by DEFENDANTS violating California 9
statutes and common law, as well as federal law designed to protect individuals with a 10
disability. 11
2. These practices include, inter alia, the denial of access to places ofpublic accommodation 12
and the discriminatory treatment given to individuals because oftheir physical disabilities. 13
3. As a result ofthese practices, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES were not able to benefit from the 14
full use and enjoyment of DEFENDANTS' recreation facilities and theme parks and were IS
discriminated against on account ofphysical disability, i.e. visual impairment. 16

17
18
4.
19
20
21
22 5.
23
24 ~i
6./,
25 L
1
26 ; !
,j .
27 [)

JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §41O.1O. The action is brought pursuant to Califol11ia Code of Civil Procedure §382, California Civil Code §1781 el. seq. and theprocedural provisions ofRule 23 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons within the PLAINTIFF CLASSES defmed herein. This action is brought by the PLAINTIFFS to enforce the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act "ADA", 42 U.S.C. §12131, et seq., the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Califol11ia Civil Code §51, et seq., and the California Disabled Persons Act, Califol11ia Civil Code §54

28

2

EXHIBIT A PAGE 6

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 8 of 46 Page ID #:13

• •

1

et seq. (CDPA).

2 7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§395 and

3

395.5 because DEFENDANTS maintains corporate managerial business offices within the

4

COUllty of Los Angeles.

5

PAJRTIES

6 PLAINTIFFS

7 8. Plaintiff Amber Boggs is an individual who, at all relevant times herein mentioned:

8

a. Was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia;

9

b. Had a physical disability that affects herneurological and/or special sense organs and

10

substantially limits major life activities, namely visual impairment;

11

c. Was a person with a disability as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12l02 and the

12

California Government Code Section 12926;

13

d. Owns year long passes to Disneyland and has regularly patronized the park facilities

14

operated by DEFENDANTS within the last two years;

15

e. Has visited Disneyland with her service animal;

16

f. Suffered discrimination by the DEFENDANTS;

17

g. Was a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES alleged in paragraph 18 except

18

PLAINTIFF DISNEY CHARACTER CLASS;

19

h. Intends to visit DEFENDANTS' theme parks in California and/or Florida in the

20

future.

21 9. Plaintiff Cad Shields is an individual who, at all relevant times herein mentioned:

22

a. Was a resident of the County of Riverside, State of California;

23

b.

,..

;, 24

,:~
.I

25 (. c.

1

26 /

1.

27 tl

28

Had a physical disability that affects herneurological and/or special sense organs and substantially limits major life activities, namely visual impairment; Was a person with a disability as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12l02 and the California Government Code §12926;
3

EXHIBIT A PAGE 7

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 9 of 46 Page ID #:14

• •

1

d. Owns year-long passes to Disneyland and has regularly patronized the park facilities

2

operated by DEFENDANTS in both Florida and Califomia within the Jast two years;

3

e. Has visited Disneyland in California and Disney World in Florida with her service

4

animal including on or about November 1, 2009. Ms. Shields reserved seating for

5

6:45 p.m. for the Character Dining at the Crystal Palace with "Winnie Pooh and

6

Friends"at Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, Florida.

7

f. She was denied interaction with costumed Disney characters as part of her dining

8

experience. Upon complaining to management and staff she was told by two cast

9

members that it was Disney policy that characters were not allowed to interact with

10

guests with service animals because oftheir service animals. She then went to guest-

11

services in the Magic Kingdom to which she was told by two more cast members that

12

it was DEFENDANTS policy that characters were not allowed to interact with guests

13

with service animals because of their service animals.

14

g. Suffered discrimination by the Defendants;

15

h. Was a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES alleged in paragraph 18;

16

i. Intends to visit Defendants' theme parks in California and/or Florida in the future.

17 DEFENDANTS

18 10. Defendant WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS, U.S. INC. ("PARKS") is a Florida

19

corporation which at all times herein mentioned:

20

a. Maintained its principal place of business in Orange CO\U1ty, Florida and is

21

authorized to conduct business in the State of Califomia and is conducting business

22

in Los Angeles CO\U1ty in the City of Burbank.

23

b.

24 r_;.

I

2S 26

:J i
,I'
,I.

1.

27 0

PARKS owns and operates and/or is the lessor or lessee of the Walt Disney World Resort located in Orange and Osceola CO\U1ties in Florida. The Walt Disney World Resort is comprised oftheme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, each ofwhich are public accommodations. PARKS also owns and operates and/or isthelessoror lessee

28

4

EXHIBIT A PAGE 8

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 10 of 46 Page ID #:15

1

2

3

4

c.

5

d.

6

7

8

e.

9

10

11

f.

12

13
14

15

g.

16

17

18

h.

19

20

21

22

23

"' 24

c
,;

t)

25 '1" i.

26

l
j

j

27 ~l

28

• •
ofthe Disneyland/CaliforniaAdventure inAnaheim, Orange County, California. The Disneyland/California Adventure is similarly comprised of theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, each ofwhich are public acconunodations.
Discriminated against the PLAINTIFF CLASS by, inter alia:
Maintaining a policy ofrefusing to allow costumed Disney characters to interact with visually impaired patrons with service animals at the theme parks at Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and Disneyland in California. Failing to provide Braille signage and/or largeprintwithinthe aforementioned theme parks so as to orient visually impaired patrons as to the location ofrides, restaurants and facilities; (I) Failing to provide schedules and menus in accessible alternative formats such as Braille and/or large print; (2) Failing to provide Braille maps in a mobile format; and (3) Failing to provide Braille maps in a reasonable number of locations within the theme parks; Providing auxiliary aids and services, specifically, audio description devices which are designed to shut offautomatically after a given time interval but cannot be re"set by a visually impaired user so as to render the device inaccessible; Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually impaired patrons using service animals by: (1) failing to provide reasonable designated areas within the theme parks for service animals to defecate and (2) charging visually impaired patrons using service animals a$20.00 feefor the use ofkennel facilities; (3) locating the kennel facilities outside ofthe park; and (4) refusing to allow service animals to be tied to any locations within the park while the visually impaired owner is using park rides. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually impaired patrons by simultaneously refusing to provide a Disney employee to assist a visually impaired
5
EXHIBIT A PAGE 9

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 11 of 46 Page ID #:16

• •

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 11.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 ,S,

25

~)
"T,,.

26 /

27 n1.

28

patron and also requiring visually impaired patrons to pay full price for a ticket for an aide or attendant to serve the function of assisting the patron in navigating around the park. j. By maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments. k. Renting lockers to park visitors which are inaccessible to persons with visual irnpainnents because the lockers: 1) utilize an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendantto assist the visually impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open the rented locker. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY ("WDC") is a Delaware corporation which at all times herein mentioned: a. Maintained its principal place of business in the City of Burbank, County of Los Angeles, State of California; b. Along with Defendant PARKS and WORLDWIDE owns and operates andlor is the lessor or lessee of the Walt Disney World Resort located in Orange and Osceola Counties in Florida. The Walt Disney World Resort is comprised of theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, each ofwhich are public accommodations. WDC also owns and operates andlor is the lessor or lessee ofDisneylandlCalifornia Adventure in Anaheim, Orange County, California. DisneylandlCalifornia Adventure is similarlY comprised ofthemeparks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, each ofwhich are public accommodations. c. Discriminated against the PLAINTIFF CLASS by, infer alia: d. Maintaining a policy ofrefusingto allow costumed Disney characters to interact with visually impaired patrons with service animals at the theme parks atthe Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and DisneylandlCalifornia Adventure in California.
6

EXHIBIT A PAGE 10

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 12 of 46 Page ID #:17

1

e,

2

3

4

f.

5

6

7

8

g.

9

10

11

h.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1.

19

20

21

22

23

j.

C'
24 ~~

j "

25 l~

26

i,...
!

k.

.,j.

27 0

28

• •
Failing to provide Braille signage andlor large print within the aforementioned theme parks so as to orient visually impaired patrons as to the location ofrides, restaurants and facilities; (1) Failing to provide schedules and menus in accessible alternative formats such as Braille and/or large print; (2) Failing to provide Braille maps in a mobile format; and (3) Failing to provide Braille maps in a reasonable number of locations within the theme parks; Providing auxiliary aids and services, specifically, audio description devices which are designed to shut offautomatically after a given time interval but cannot be re-set by a visually impaired user so as to render the device inaccessible; Failing to provide reasonable accollllnodations to visually impaired patrons using service animals by: (1) failing to provide reasonable designated areas within the th~me parks for service animals to defecate and (2) charging visually impaired patrons using service animals a $20,00 fee for the use of kennel facilities and (3) locating the kennel facilities outside of the park; and (4) refusing to allow service animaIsto be tied to any locations within the park while the visually impaired owner is using park rides. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually impaired patrons by simultaneously refusing to provide a Disney employee to assist a visually impaired patron and also requiring visually impaired patrons to pay full price for a ticket for an aide or attendant to serve the function of assisting the patron in navigating around the park. By maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments. Renting lockers for use to guests which are inaccessible to persons with visual
7

EXHIBIT A PAGE 11

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 13 of 46 Page ID #:18

•

•

1

2

3

4 12.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 :~.

i

25 ?

26

1..
I

27 Ii

28

impainnents because the lockers: 1) utilize an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the visually impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open the rented locker. WALT DISNEY PARKS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC. ("WORLDWIDE") is a California corporation which at all times herein mentioned: a. Maintained its principal place of business in the City of Burbank, County of Los Angeles, State of California; b. Along with Defendants WDC and PARKS, WORLDWIDE owns and operates andlor is the lessor or lessee ofthe Walt Disney World Resort located in Orange and Osceola Counties in Florida. The Walt Disney World Resort is comprised oftheme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, each of which are public accommodations. WDC also owns and operates andlor is the lessor or lessee of the Disneyland Resort/California Adventure in Anaheim, California. The Disneyland Resort is similarly comprised oftheme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, each ofwhich are public accommodations c. Discriminated against the Plaintiff Classes by, inter alia: d. Maintaining a policy ofrefusing to allow costumed Disney characters to interact with visually impaired patrons with service animals at its theme parks at Disney World in Florida and Disney Land in California; e. Failing to provide Braille signage andlor iargeprint within the aforementioned theme parks so as to orient visually impaired patrons as to the location ofrides, restaurants and facilities; f. (1) Failing to provide schedules and menus in accessible alternative fonnats such as Braille andlor large print; (2) Failing to provide Braille maps in a mobile fonnat and (3) Failing to provide Braille maps at a variety of locations within the theme parks; g. Providing auxiliary aids and services, specifically, audio descriptiomevices which
8

EXHIBIT A PAGE 12

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 14 of 46 Page ID #:19

• •

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 13.

23

,-

24

~~
i .'

25

i.:
i

J.

26

J J

i

J.

27 i]

28

are designed to shut offautomatically after a given time interval but can not be re-set by a visually impaired user so as to render the device inaccessible; h. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually impaired patrons using service animals by: (1) failing to provide reasonable designated areas within the theme parks for service animals to defecate; (2) charging visually impaired patrons using service animals a $20.00 fee for the use ofkennel facilities and (3) locating the kennel facilities outside ofthe park; and (4) refusing to allow service animals to be tied to any locations within the park while the visually impaired owner is using park rides. i. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually impaired patrons by simultaneously refusing to provide a Disney employee to assist a visually impalred patron and also requiring visually impaired patrons to pay full price for a ticket for an aide or attendant to serve the function ofassisting the patron in navigating around the park. j. By maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments. k. Renting lockers for use to guests which are inaccessible to persons with visual impairments because the lockers: 1) utilize an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the visually impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open the rented locker. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, associate or otherwise of Defendants Does I-lOa, inclusive, are unknown to the PLAINTIFFS who therefore sue these DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. PLAINTIFFS will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 100, inclusive, when they are
9

EXHIBIT A PAGE 13

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 15 of 46 Page ID #:20

•

•

I 2 14. 3 4 5
6 15. 7
8 9 10
11 12 16. 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 17. 20 21 22 23
24 I,~
25 c:
1,
26 j 1.
27 0
28

ascertained. PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and based upon that infonnation and beliefallege, that each of the DEFENDANTS named in this Complaint, including Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for One or more ofthe events and happenings that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged. PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and based upon that information and belief allege, that each of the DEFENDANTS named in this Complaint, including Does 1 through 100, inclusive, acted in concert with respect to the acts and omissions alleged hereinafter and to all appearances, DEFENDANTS and each of them, represented a united body so that the actions of one DEFENDANT were accomplished in concert with, and with knowledge, ratification, authorization and approval of each ofthe other DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFFS are infonned and believe, and based upon that infonnation and belief allege, that each of the DEFENDANTS named in this complaint, including Does I through 100, inclusive, is and at all times mentioned herein was, the agent, servant and/or employee of each ofthe other DEFENDANTS and that each DEFENDANT was acting within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of each of the other DEFENDANTS. Consequently, all of the DEFENDANTS are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for the damages sustained as a proximate result oftheir conduct. At all times set forth herein, the acts and omissions of each Defendant caused, led and/or contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and all ofthe other DEFENDANTS, legally causing PLAINTIFFS' injuries and damages as set forth.
CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS Defmition of the Alleged Class
This action consists ofthe following PLAINTIFF CLASSES who are residents ofthe United States: a. PLAINTIFF DISNEY CHARACTER CLASS: All visually impaired individuals
10

EXHIBIT A PAGE 14

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 16 of 46 Page ID #:21

1

2

3

4

5

6

b.

7

8

9

10

11

12

c.

13

14

15

16

17

d.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 :i
,. I

25 ,~.J e.

26

J.,
I

1

27 (l

28

•

•

considered to have a physical disability, as thatterm is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102
and California Govermnent Code Section 12926, who were customers ofthe theme parks at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or WaltDisney World Resort in Florida and were denied interaction and equal treatment by Disney employees
dressed as Disney characters.

PLAINTIFF SIGNAGE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as thattenn is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102 and California

Govermnent Code Section 12926 who have not been provided signage, menus or
schedules in an alternative fonnat, such as Braille and/or large print, at
Disneyland/California Adventure in California or Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.

PLAINTIFF MAP CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have
a physical disability, as that tenn is defined in 42 U.s.C. §12102 and California

Govermnent Code Section 12926 who have not beenprovided maps inan alternative
format, such as Braille andlor large print, at Disneyland/California Adventure in
California or Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. PLAINTIFF KENNEL CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102 and California Govermnent Code Section 12926 who have either (l) paid a fee for the use of a kennel for bis/her service animal at DisneylandlCalifornia Adventure in California or Walt Disney World Resort in Florida; or (2) were deterred from visiting DisneylandlCalifornia Adventure in California or Walt Disney World Resort in Florida on account ofthe kennel fee for his/her service animal.

PLAINTIFF AUDIO DESCRIPTION DEVICE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42

11

EXHIBIT A PAGE 15

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 17 of 46 Page ID #:22

• •

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 1~

/

25

t~J

26 /

27 n1

28

U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who have nsed or attempted to use an audio description device at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or Walt Disney World Resort in FlOlida and been deprived ofthe full use and enjoyment ofthe device. f. PLAINTIFF COMPANION TICKET CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as thatterm is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who have paid for an additional ticket for a companion or aide to assist the visually impaired individual to utilize the accommodations at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. g. PLAINTIFF PARADE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who, have experienced discrimination due to DEFENDANTS' policy ofexcluding persons with disabilities, otherthan wheelchair users, from preferential locations to stand or sit dwing the parade at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. h. PLAINTIFF LOCKER CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who have been unable to utilize a locker at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
Maintenance of the Action PLAINTIFFS bring this action individually and on behalf of themselves and as representatives of all similarly situated persons, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, aod the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
12

EXHIBIT A PAGE 16

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 18 of 46 Page ID #:23

1

2

3 20.

4

5

6

7 21.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 ~;

./
25 ~i
1:

26

! !

1
27 (1

28

• •
Procedure. Class Action Requisites
At all material times, PLAINTIFF SHIELDS was and is a member of all PLA1NTIFF CLASSES described in paragraph 18. At all material times, PLAINTIFF BOGGS was and is a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES described in paragraph 18 except PLAINTIFF DISNEY CHARACTER CLASS. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance ofa Class Action as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, and the provisions ofRule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that: a. In 2008, the Social Security Administration estimated there were in excess of 6.3
million persons visually impaired and over the age of 18 in the United States. According to the Disney Vacation Tips website, the daily attendance at Disneyland in Anaheim is 4,000. Additionally, according to the Themed Entertainment AssociationfEconomic Research Associates Attraction Attendance Report 2008, the Magic KingdomlDisney World ResortinFloridahad over 17 million visitors in 2008 while Disneyland/California Adventure had over 14 million visitors in 2008. While the number of visitors with visual impairments cannot be precisely calculated, it is reasonable to estimate that thousands of visitors were visually impaired among the 14 million who visited Disneyland inAnaheimin 2008.As such, the classofqualified individuals who are visually impaired and have visited either Disneyland/California Adventure in California and/or Walt Disney World Resort in Florida is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. b. Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES and will apply uniformly to each memher ofthe PLAINTIFF CLASSES. There are questions oflaw and fact common to the class. The Unruh Civil Rights Act and Callfornia Public
13

EXHIBIT A PAGE 17

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 19 of 46 Page ID #:24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

c.

14

15

16

17
18

19

20

21

22

23

24 S

/

25

,'J ,:~

d.

j

26

i !

j

27 0

28

•

•

Accommodations law requires that public acconunodations, such as the ones operated by DEFENDANTS, be accessible to persons with disabilities, which is a question oflaw common to all members ofthe class. The failure ofDEFENDANTS to provide acconunodations and remove policies that discriminate against persons with disabilities presents a question of fact common to all members of the class. Furthermore, the primary reliefthat the class is seeking is equitable in nature, in that the class is asking for fmal iqjunctive relief asking tlmt Defendants provide accommodations and discontinue discriminating policies in their theme parks, restaurants, hotels, and other facilities it opemtes. Furthermore, prosecutions of separote actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the DEFENDANTS. The claims ofSHlELDS and BOGGS are typical ofthe claims ofthe class ofpersons with disabilities that sustained and continue to sustain injuries arising out of the DEFENDANTS' conduct or omissions in violation of state and federa1law as complained ofherein. PLAINTIFFS, like all other members ofthe Class, claim that DEFENDANTS have violated the ADA and California Statutes by discriminating against persons with disabilities and excluding the PLAINTIFFS, and other similarly situated persons, from full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of DEFENDANTS theme parks, restaurants, hotels, and otherfacilities it opemtes; and subjectingPLAINTIFFS to discrimination by denying, segregated or excluding visually impaired guests from enjoying their facilities and other goods, services, programs, privileges, advantages or accommodations to the PLAINTIFFS, as well as other similarly situated persons. SHIELDS and BOGGS will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class, and have retained counsel competent and experienced in class action litigation.

14

EXHIBIT A PAGE 18

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 20 of 46 Page ID #:25

1

2

3

e.

4

5

6

7

f.

8

9

10

11

12

g.

13

14

15

16

h.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 S ./
25 ?
26 } j
27 n
28

• •
PLAINTIFFS have no interests antagonistic to, or in conflict with, those ofthe Class. Counsel for the Classes will vigorously assert the claims of all Class Members. Moreover, judicial economy will be served by the maintenance ofthis lawsuit as a class action, in that it is likely to avoid the burden which would be otherwise placed upon thejudicial system by the filing ofthousands ofsimilar suits by disabled people across the country. Class Action treatment ofthese claims will avoid the risk ofinconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES which would establish incompatible standards ofconduct for the parties opposingthe PLAINTIFF CLASSES. There are no obstacles to effective and efficient management ofthis lawsuit as a class action. The parties opposing the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, thereby making appropriate final injunctive reliefor corresponding declaratory reliefwith respect to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES as a whole; or Conunon questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of: i. The interests of the members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES in individually
controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; ii. The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already
commenced by or against members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES; iii. The desirability or undesirability ofconcentrating the litigation ofthe claims
in the particular forum; and iv. The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management ofa class action.
15

EXHIBIT A PAGE 19

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 21 of 46 Page ID #:26

•

•

1 22. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a Class Action pursuant to

2

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 because:

3

a. The questions of law and fact common to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES predominate

4

over any questions affecting only individual members;

5

b. A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair and efficient

6

adjudication ofthe claims ofthe members ofthe PLAINTIFF CLASSES;

7

c. PLAINTIFFS and the other members ofthe PLAINTIFF CLASSES will not be able

8

to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a

9

Class Action;

10

d. There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and equitable relief

11

for the common law and statutory violations and otherimproprieties, and in obtaining

12

adequate compensation for the damages and injuries which DEFENDANTS' actions

13

have inflicted upon the PLAINTIFF CLASSES; and,

14

e. There is a community ofinterest in ensuring that the combined assets and available

15

insurance ofDEFENDANTS is sufficient to adequately compensate the members of

16

the PLAINTIFF CLASSES for the injuries sustained.

17 23. PLAINTIFFS contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed Class Members

18

of each of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES which would set forth the subject and nature ofthe

19

instant action. The DEFENDANTS' own business records may be utilized for assistance in

20

the preparation and issuance of the contemplated notices. To the extent that any further

21

notices may be required, PLAINTIFFS would contemplate the use ofadditional media and/or

22

mass mailings.

23 24.

24 S,.'

2S

':)
1:,

26 !,I.

27 D

Among the many questions oflaw and fact common to the class are: a. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities maintained a policy ofrefusing to allow
costumed Disney characters to interact with visually impaired patrons with service animals at DEFENDANTS theme parks and properties at the Walt Disney World

28

16

EXHIBIT A PAGE 20

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 22 of 46 Page ID #:27

2

b.

3

4

5

c,

6

7

d,

8

e,

9

10

f,

11

12

g,

13

14

h,

15

16

17

i.

18

19

20

j.

21

22

23

24 :.,i k.

25 26

':-:i
,t,.
J.
,

i
27 (j

28

•

•

Resort in Florida and Disneyland/California Adventure in California. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities failed to provide Braille signage and/or large print within the theme parks so as to orient visually impaired patrons as to the location of rides, restaurants and facilities; Wbether the DEFENDANTS and its entities failed to provide schedules and menus in accessible alternative formats such as Braille and/or large print; Wbether the DEFENDANTS failed to provide Braille maps in a portable format; Wbether DEFENDANTS failed to provide Braille maps at a reasonable number of locations within the theme parks; Whether the audio description devices are reasonably accessible to the visually impaired; Wbether it was lawful for the DEFENDANTS to charge a $20 fee for the use of kennel facilities at the park for service animals; Wbether the DEFENDANTS were legally required to have designated areas within the theme parks for service animals to defecate or to be tied up while visually impaired owners used the rides; Wbether DEFENDANTS are legally required to provide a free or discounted ticket to the aid or companion of a visually impaired visitor to the theme parks as a reasonable accommodation. Wbether DEFENDANTS and its entities maintained a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments. Wbether it was lawful for DEFENDANTS and its entities to rent lockers for use to guests which are inaccessible to persons with visual impairments because the lockers: 1) utilize an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the

17

EXHIBIT A PAGE 21

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 23 of 46 Page ID #:28

• •

1

visually impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open

2

the rented locker.

3

I. Whether DEFENDANTS violated California Civil Code §51 ef seq. in failing to

4

provide full and equal access to disabled persons with visually impairments.

5

m. Whether DEFENDANTS violated California Civil Code §54 ef seq. in failing to

6

provide full and equal access to disabled persons with visual impairments.

7

n. Whether DEFENDANTS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in failing to

8

provide full and equal access to disabled persons with visual impairments.

9 25. As to the issues raised in this case, a Class Action is superior to all other methods

10 for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all class members is

11 impracticable. Class members may be residents from anywhere in the country. It is essential that

12 many legal and factual questions be adjudicated uniformly to all class members. Further, as the

13 economic or other loss suffered by vast numbers of class members may be relatively small, the

14 expense and burden of individual actions make it difficult for the class members to individually

15 redress the wrongs they have suffered.

16 26. Moreover, in the event disgorgement is ordered, a class action is the only mechanism that

17

will permit the employment ofa fluid fund recovery to insure that equity is achieved. There

18

will be relatively little difficnlty in managing this case as a Class Action.

19 27. The Class Action is superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication

20

ofthe claims presented by this complaint and would reduce the financial, administrative and

21

procedural burdens on the parties and on the Court which individual action would otherwise

22

impose.

23
24 :~
/'
25 28'.
1 26 /
127 (l

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT History & Purpose
In 1990, the United States Congress made findings regarding physil'a1ly disabled persons, finding lhat laws were needed to more fully protect "some 43 million Americans [withlone

28

18

EXHIBIT A PAGE 22

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 24 of 46 Page ID #:29

• •

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 29.

13

14

15

16 30.

17

18

19

20

21

22 31.

23

24

-'[: I

/

'~J

25

.f.~

, ;
J

26 ;

t

27 f]

28

or mOre physical or mental disabilities"; that "historically society has tended to isolate and

segregate individuals with disabilities"; and that "such forms of discrimination against

individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem"; that "the

Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of

opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self sufficiency for such

individuals"; and that "the continuingexistence ofunfairand unnecessary discrimination and

prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and

to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous...." 42 U.S.C.

§12101.

STATUTORY PROTECTION FOR DISABLED PERSONS

Public Accommodations

Title III ofthe ADA establishes the general rule that: [nlo individual shall be discriminated

against on the basis ofdisability in the full equal enjoyment ofthe goods, services, facilities,

privileges, advantages or acconunodations by any person who owns, leases, or operates a

place ofpublic accommodation. 42 U.S.C. §12182 (a).

The ADA goes on to define "discrimination" to include: a failure to make reasonable

modifications in policies, practices orprocedures, when such modifications are necessary to

afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to

individuals with disabilities, unless the entitycan demonstrate that making suchmodification

would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges,

advantages or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. §12182 (b)(2)(A)(ii).

The regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Justice provide:

a

Denial ofparticipation. A public accommodation shall not subject an individual or

class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or

class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial

of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the

19

EXHIBIT A PAGE 23

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 25 of 46 Page ID #:30

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

J1

12

13

14

15

16

17 32.

18

19

20 33.

21

22

23

,-
24 :~ I I

25 ?

26

,j ..
I

1

27 U

28

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation. 28 C.F.R. §36.202(a) b. Participation in unequal benefit. A public accommodation shall not afford an individual or class ofindividuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. 28 C.F.R. §36.202(b). c. Separate benefit. A public accommodation shall not provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or otherarrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodationthat is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class ofindividuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage,
or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as tlmt provided to others.
28 C.F.R. §36.202(c). Service animals. Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use ofa service animal by an individual with a disability. 28 C.F.R. §36.302(c). Additionally, 42 U .S.C.A.§ 12181 (6) defines private entity as "any entity other than a public entity,." and §12181 (7) Public accommodation states, in part: the follo\vingprivate entities are considered public accommodations for purposes ofthis sub-chapter, ifthe operations of such entities affect commerce: a. a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink; b. a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition
entertainment;
20

EXHIBIT A PAGE 24

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 26 of 46 Page ID #:31

• •

1

c. a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;

2 34. Further, 42 U.s.C.A. §12182 (Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations)

3

states, in part, the following:

4

a. General rule-No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability

5

in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,

6

advantages, or accommodations ofany place ofpublic accommodation by any person

7

who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

8

i. Specific prohibitions (in part)-

9

(1) Discrimination-For purposes of subsection (a) of this section,

10

discrimination includes:

11

(a) a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies,

12

practices, or procedures, when such modifications are

13

necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges,

14

advantages, or accommodations to individuals with

15

disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making

16

such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of

17

such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

18

accommodations;

19

(b) a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that

20

no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services,

21

segregated or otherwise treated differently than other

22

individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and

23

services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such

24 ,5,
25 ,.~)
I 26 /
27 n1
28

steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.
21

EXHIBIT A PAGE 25

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 27 of 46 Page ID #:32

• •

THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

2 35. §51 of the California Civil Code, "The Unruh Civil Rights" Act provides protection from

3

discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public

4

accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion,

5

sex and sexual orientation.

6 36. Specifically, §51 (b) provides that all persons within thejurisdiction ofthis State are free and

7

equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability,

8

medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal

9

accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments

10

of every kind whatsoever.

11 37. Further, §51.5 provides that: (a) No business establishment of any kind whatsoever shall

12

discriminate against, boycott orblacklist, orrefuse to buy from, contract with, sell to, or trade

13

with any person in this state on accolmt ofany characteristic listed or defined in subdivision

14

(h) or (e) of §51, or of the person's partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers,

15

managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates, suppliers, or customers,

16

because the person is perceiVed to have one or more ofthose characteristics, or because the

17

person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those

18

characteristics.

19 38. Additionally, §51 (f) provides that a violation of the right of any individual under the

20

Americans with Disabilities Act shall also constitute a violation of this section.

21

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§54 THROUGH 55.2

22 39. California Civil Code §54 (a) states that: Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions

23

24 ~j

I

25

-j ,
,.l ..
1

26 40:

27 n1-

have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, public facilities, and other public places. Further, California Civil Code §54.1 (a) (I) states: Individuals with disabilities shall be

28

22

EXHIBIT A PAGE 26

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 28 of 46 Page ID #:33

• •

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 41.

11

12

13

14

15 42.

16

17

18 43.

19

20

21

22

23 44.

24 S,

25

!.-., L

26

1...'
J

27 n1

28

entitled to full and equal access, as othermemhers ofthe general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, and privileges ofall common carriers, airplanes, motor vehlcles, railroad trains, motorbuses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation (whether private, public, franchlsed, licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided), telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places ofpublic accommodation, amusement, Or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons. Additionally, §54.1 (a) (3) states that "Full and equal access," for purposes ofthis section in its application to transportation, means access that meets the standards ofTitles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (public Law 101.336) and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, except that, ifthe laws of this state prescribe hlgher standards, it shall mean access that meets those hlgher standards. Further, §54.1 (d) states that a violation of the right of an individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act also constitutes a violation ofthis section, and nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the access of any person in violation ofthat act. California Civil Code §54.2 states: (a) Every individual with a disability has the right to be accompanied by a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, especially trained for the purpose, in any ofthe places specified in Section 54.1 without being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, However, the individual shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by hls or her dog. Finally, California Civil Code §54,4 states: Ablind or otherwise visuallyimpaired pedestrian shall have all ofthe rights and privileges conferred by law upon other persons in any ofthe places, accommodations, or conveyances specified in Sections 54 and 54.1, notwithstanding the fact that the person is not carrying a predominantly white cane (with or without a red tip),
23

EXHIBIT A PAGE 27

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 29 of 46 Page ID #:34

•

•

or using a guide dog.

2

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

3 45. The DEFENDANTS collectively operate theme parks in California and Florida which have

4

millions ofvisitors annUally.

5 46. PLAINTIFFS are visually impaired individuals who each own yearly passes to Disneyland

6

in Anaheim. Plaintiff SHIELDS has also visited the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.

7

Both PLAINTIFFS utilize guide dogs to assist them on a daily basis.

8 47. DEFENDANTS theme parks are public accommodations and PLAINTIFFS visit these

9

facilities with the expectation of being treated with the rights and dignities guaranteed them

10

by California law. Due to their visual impairments and physical disabilities, however,

II

PLAINTIFFS have suffered consistent discrimination at the hands of DEFENDANTS and

12

its affiliated companies and employees.

13 48. As a member ofthe Disney Character Class, PLAINTIFF SHIELDS was subjected to public

14

humiliation and discrimination in being ignored at the restaurant, when an essential element

IS

ofthe dining experience was the interaction with the costumed Disney Character. Two of

16

these characters articulated the restaurant policy ofnot interacting with patrons using service

17

animals. Whether this policy is driven by malice, ignorance or simply fear, it is a violation

18

of California and federal law.

19 49. As members of the Kennel Class, both PLAINTIFFS have been denied reasonable

20

accommodations for their service animals because in order to use the kennel at all they must

21

pay a $20.00 fee. Furthermore, the kennel is located outside ofthe theme parks so as to be

22

extremely inconvenient when using the rides. Moreover, the policy of requiring that the

23

animal be with someone at all times means that a visually Impaired visitor has no where to

24 :5 leave the service animal while using certain rides. Universal Studios, a competing theme

l

25

r~
'-

park, however, do not have such obstructions at its respective theme parks. Finally, there are

26 27

11 no designated areas for the animal to relieve itself.
il

28

24

EXHIBIT A PAGE 28

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 30 of 46 Page ID #:35

• •

1 50.
2
3
4 51.
5 6 7 8 52.
9 10
11 53. 12
13
14 15
16
17 18 19 54. 20 21
22
23 55.
24 :"l § J
25 ,.~:r 1
26 / i L
27 0 28

As members ofthe Signage Class, both PLAINTIFFS have been discriminated against due to the lack of Braille signage, in addition to a lack of alternate communications for the visually impaired such as Braille andlor large print with respect to schedules and menus. As members oHhe Audio Description Device Class, both PLAINTIFFS have been deterred from fully utilizing tbis otherwise helpful technology due to a design defect. Once the device shuts offautomatically, a visually impaired user cannot re-set the device and must return to the guest services department to have it re-set. As members ofthe Map Class, PLAINTIFFS have experienced discrimination based on the
fact that only one permanent Braille map is available at the theme parks in one location at
Guest Relations. No portable Braille maps are available. As members ofthe CompanionTicket Class, PLAINTIFFS have experienced discrimination due to DEFENDANTS' failure to provide the necessary accommodations for a visually
impaired individual to be oriented in the theme parks. The lack of reasonable
accommodations, in combination with the DEFENDANTS' policy of not providing an employee to assist a visually impaired person, forces a visually impaired person to bring and pay full price for a companion to fully utilize the park facilities. Universal Studios, a
competingtheme park, however, allows the visually impaired guest in at no cost and requires
the companion to pay pull price. As to members of the Parade Class, PLAINTIFFS have experienced discrimination due to DEFENDANTS maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments. As to members of the Locker Class, PLAINTIFF have experienced discrimination by DEFENDANTS renting lockers for use to guests wbich are inaccessible to persons with visual impairments because the lockers: 1) utilize an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the visually impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the
25

EXHIBIT A PAGE 29

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 31 of 46 Page ID #:36

• •

1

combination to open the rented locker.

2

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

3

For a Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

4

42 U.S.C. §12131, et. seq.

5

(by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants)

6 56. The PLAINTIFF CLASSES re-a1lege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth

7

herein, paragraphs 1 through 55 ofthis Complaint.

8 57. DEFENDANTS have discriminated against PLAINTIFFS by denying them full and equal

9

access to the benefits, privileges and public accommodations afforded to other patrons solely

10

on account ofdisability. hI addition, the DEFENDANTS have violated the ADA by failing

11

or refusing to provide PLAINTIFFS with reasonable accommodations and other services

12

related to their disability.

13 58. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that DEFENDANTS and their

14

employees and agents have failed and continue to:

IS

a. Provide necessary accommodations, modifications and services to provide equal

16

access to the facilities within its theme parks in Florida and California so as to allow

17

the visually inlpaired to participate on an equal basis in activities, rides, restaurants

18

and programs;

19

b. Provide the necessary training and discipline to its employees as to the legal

20

obligation of a public accommodation to provide full and equal service to persons

21

with disabilities under the ADA and otherrelevant state statutes, including California

22

Civil Code 51 et seq. and Civil Code Section 54 ef seq.

23 59.
24 ~,~ t
25 ?
26 ,,,j."
27 ILI 28

PLAINTIFFS have been subjected to the denial, separate and unequal opportunity to participate in the DEFENDANTS services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations as a result of the DEFENDANTS discriminatory policy of not allowing characters to interact with visually inlpaired persons who have their service animal with
26

EXHIBIT A PAGE 30

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 32 of 46 Page ID #:37

• •

I

2 60.

3

4

5

6 61.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 62.

16

17 63.

18

19 64.

20

21

22

23 65.

24 :;

/

25 6<>;

1

26

i J

27 n1.

28

them. As a direct and proximate result ofthe aforementioned acts, PLAINTIFFS have suffered and continue to suffer from the lack of character interaction due to DEFENDANTS' failure to address the services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations that should be given to persons similarly situated as SHIELDS and BOGGS. Dueto the continuous nature of DEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct, which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of DEFENDANTS' actions PLAINTIFFS are sufferiug irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. PLAINTIFFS are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12205, as prayed below.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION For a Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
California Civil Code §51 and 52 et seq. (by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants) The PLAINTIFF CLASSES re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 55 ofthis Complaint. This claim is brought by the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, on behalfofthemselves and on behalf of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES thereof. §51 of the California Civil Code, "The Unruh Civil Rights" Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation. §52 of the California Civil Code provides that whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to §51 is liable for each and evelY offense. Through the acts and omissions described herein, DEFENDANTS have violated Califomia Civil Code §51.
27

EXHIBIT A PAGE 31

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 33 of 46 Page ID #:38

• •

I 67.

2

3 68.

4

5 69.

6

7 70.

8

9

10 71.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 72.

20

21 73.

22

23 74.

24

>,
"/ '

25 7$:

26 j1,.'

J.

27 f}

28

Pursuant to California Civil Code §51 (t), a violation ofthe ADA also constitutes a violation of California Civil Code §5! et seq. The DEFENDANTS are a "business establisbment" within the meaning of the California Code §51 et seq. DEFENDANTS have violated the law by denying PLAINTIFFS full and equal access to its program comparable to access that it offers to others. As a directand proximate result ofthe aforementioned acts, PLAINTIFFS have suffered, and continue to suffer hardship and anxiety due to DEFENDANTS' failures to address accommodations and access required for PLAINTIFFS' disabilities. Due to the continuous nature ofDEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct, which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of DEFENDANTS' actions PLAINTIFFS are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. PLAINTIFFS are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in ftIing this action. California Civil Code §52, as prayed below.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION For a Violation of the California Public Accommodations Law
California Civil Code §54 et. seq. (by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants) The PLAINTIFF CLASSES re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 5S ofthis Complaint. The DEFENDANTS operate theme parks which are public accommodations open to the public in California and Florida. Through the acts and omissions described herein above, DEFENDANTS are violating California Civil Code §54. Dnder California Civil Code §54 (c), a violation ofthe ADA also constitutes a violation of California Civil Code §54 et seq.
28

EXHIBIT A PAGE 32

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 34 of 46 Page ID #:39

1 76.

2

3 77.

4

5 78.

6

7

8

9 79.

10

11

12

13 80.

14

15

16

17

18 81.

19

20

21

22

23

24 S..

I

25

-"')
;~

1.
26 I " ; 1.
27 fJ

28

• •
PLAINTIFFS are persons with disabilities within the meaning of the California Civil Code §54 (b)(l) and California Government Code § 12926. The DEFENDANTS provide public services within the meaning ofthe California Civil Code §54 etseq. By failing to provide accommodations and services to visually impaired guests, as set forth at length elsewhere in this Complaint, DEFENDANTS are violating California Civil Code §54, by denying visually impaired guests full access to DEFENDANTS' programs, services, and activities. As a direct and proximate result ofthe aforementioned acts, PLAINTIFFS have suffered, and continue to suffer hardship and anxiety as well as deteriorating physical conditions, due to DEFENDANTS' failures to address accommodations and services required for PLAINTIFFS' disabilities. Due to the continuous nature of DEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct, which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of DEFENDANTS' actions, PLAINTIFFS are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. PLAINTIFFS are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in fLling this action. California Civil Code §55. DEFENDANTS and each ofthem are charged by law and public policy as well as their own code of business responsibility to refrain from discriminating against the PLAINTIFF CLASSES on account of their physical disability. As a result of the actions and condnct described herein, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have Il(j adequate remedy at law to redress their grievances and reCover their damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF The PLAINTIFF CLASSES pray as follows: 1. For an injunction ordering DEFENDANTS and each of them to comply with the
statutes set forth herein;
29

EXHIBIT A PAGE 33

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 35 of 46 Page ID #:40

1

2.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
24 :~
}
25 t"_}
1
26 I "
1
27 ~j

28

• •
Additionally, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES requestthe following equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief: a. That a judicial determination and declaration be made of the rights of the
PLAINTIFF CLASSES, and of the Court approved remedial measures that DEFENDANTS and each ofthem must take to prevent discrimination ofthe visually impaired by all employees ofDEFENDANTS respectively; b. That DEFENDANTS and each ofthem be forever enjoined from continuing to engage in the practices described in this Complaint and from any practices that deviate from any orders of this Court; c. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS and each of them, provide Braille signage withiu its theme parks in Florida and California; d. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS and each of them, provide permanent Braille maps at multiple locations and portable maps in alternative formats such as Braille andlor large print within Disney theme parks in Florida and California e. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS and each of them, provide menus and schedules in alternative fonnats such as Braille andlor large print within Disney theme parks in Florida and California; f. That this Court mandate that each DEFENDANT provide reasonable accommodations for service animals, including designated places to defecate within Disney theme parks in Florida and California, and places where the service animal can be tied within the park while visually impaired persons use rides. g. Thatthis Courtmandate thatDEFENDANTS and each ofthem provide a free or reduced fare admission ticket to one person accompanying a paid visually impaired ticket holder to act as a guide within Disney theme parks in Florida
30

EXHIBIT A PAGE 34

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 36 of 46 Page ID #:41

• •

I

and California;

2

h. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS are enjoined from maintaining

3

a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only

4

wheelchair users are allowed to use the area designated for handicapped

S

guests and not gnests with other disabilities such as visual impairments.

6

i. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide reasonable

7

acconunodations for visually impaired quests when renting lockers.

8

j. That this Court make a determination as to the legality ofthe fees Defendants

9

charge visually impaired visitors at Disney theme parks in Florida and

10

California for accommodations and auxiliary aids and services including:

11

kennels.

12

3. For reasonable attorneys' fees as may be determined by the Court for all causes of

13

action.

14

4. For costs of suit; and

15

5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper

16

17 18 Date: May ~ 2010

EUGENE FELDMAN ATTORNEY ATLAW,APC

19

20

By:~~

Eugene Feldman

21

Attorney for Plaintiffs

22

23

24 S,

!

2S

')
t..

1

26

, i
j

1.

27 (l

28

31

EXHIBIT A PAGE 35

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 37 of 46 Page ID #:42

• •

FOR
SBN: 118497

Eugene Feldman Attorney at Law) APe

e-mail: gcnefcldman@mindspring.c

555 Pier Avenue, Suite 4, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

TELEPHotU= NO.~ 310 372-4636

FAX NO.: 310 376-3531

COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF
STREET ADO\1E$$: 111 North Hill Street
LQ', MAlliNGADDI1ESS: 111 North Hill Street AU,gCI'''', 90012

ona

Auto Tort
o Aulo(22) o Uninsmed m()tons\ {46}

Contract
8 Breach of conlractlwarranty (06) Ru\e3.740 collections (09)

Olfler PlfPDJWO (Personal InJury/Property
8 DamageIWrongful Death) Tort
o Asbeslos (04) D o Proouclliability (24) o o Medical malpractice (45) o Other PVPD/VVD (23) o Non-PUPDM'D (Other) Tort
D D Business tort/unfair business practiCe (07)

Other collections (09)
Insurance coverage (18) Other contracl (37) Real Property Emlnenl domain/Inverse condemnatiOn (14) W(ongful eviction (33) Other real property (26)

[X] Civil rights (OS)
o Defamation (13) o F,.""(16)
B Intellectual property (19) prOfessionalnegHgence (25)

Unla.wful Detai.ner

o o D

Commercial {31} Residential (32) Orugs(38)

Fleview

D Other non·P/JPD/WO tort (35)

Assel forfeiture (05)

Petillon fe: arbitratlon award (ii}

Wri1 Of mandale (02)

Provisionally Complex Civil LHiga1ion

o(Cal. Rules of Court, rule!ll3.400-3.403) AntttruSVTfUOO regutatkm (OS)
00 Constructi",) defect (10)

o Mass tort (40) Securities ~ligalion (28)

D o

EnvironmentaVfoxic tort (30) Insurance coverage claims arising from the

above listed provisionally complex case

types (41)

oEnforcement of Judgment Enforcement of judgment (20)

MIscellaneous Civil Complaint
o RICO(27) o Other complaint (1'101 specffied above) (42)

oMiscellaneous ClvU Petition Partnership and corporate governance (21)
D Other petition (not specified above) (43)

2.

complex under rule 3.400 of the Callfornla Rules

It the case Is complex, mark the

re"urrIInO

management:

large number ofseparately represented parties

D d.

Large number of witnesses

0 Extensive moUon practice ra.lslng difficult or novel e.

CoordInation with related actions pending In one or more courts

c. 0

1.s.sues thatwIU be time-oonsumlng to resolve
Substantial amount of documentary evIdence

in other counties, states, or countries. or In a federal court

0 f.

Sub$tantial posljudgmenl judlclaf supervlslon

a.D 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply):

monetary b.[X] nonmonetary; declaratory or Injunctive relief c·Opunlllve

4. Number of causes of action (specify):

0 5. This case [Xl Is

Is not a class action suit.

6. If there are any known related cases, file and serva a notice of related case. (You may use form CM·015.)

Date: MaY. 12, 20lO

EIIGBNEiFBLDMAN ESO

-1.

(lYPEOllPR!NrNAMEj

~'~RteLOLF_PA~f~l_TY~ ORATTORNEYfORPARTY)

Pla'nt~ cov~r ~~!~~;;, •

must file this

sheet wIth the first paper filed In

or proceeding (except small cfalms cases or cases filed

under\he Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file ma.y resull

In sanbtIons. • File th)s cover sheet In addition to any cover sheet required by focal court ru(e.

• If thisf.1ase 1s complex under rule 3.400 at seq. of the CalifornIa Rules of Court. you must serve a copy ofthls cover sheet on all

other parties to the action or proceeding.

• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet wlll be used for statistical purposes on~. ~ I 012

F<JJ~=)r:~~1.M
CI,o...()II)\'Rev.July 1,'2:007}

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET PrODOC¢l Clli.A~l~~;:~~~~~,:.~~iX·~~
\I'"fIW.tOUf1info.cagov

EXHIBIT A PAGE 36

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 38 of 46 Page ID #:43

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET

eM-Ol0

To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papors. It you are f1llng a first paper (for example. a complain!) In a civil case, you must

complete and fHa, along with your first paper, the CIvil Case Cover Sheet contaIned on page 1. This information will be used to compile

statistIcs about the types and numbers of cases tiled. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check

one box for the case type that best describes the oase. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed In Item 1,

check the more specific one. If the case has mUltipla causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action.

To assist you In completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in Item 1 are provided below. A cover

sheet must be flied only with your Inltia! paper. Fallure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civl! case may subject a party,

its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3,220 of the California Aulas of Court. To Pa.rtiEtS in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A ncoilections casen under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money

owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arfslng from a transaction In

which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not Include an action seeking the following: (l) tort

damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, {4} recovery of personal property, or (6) a prejudgment writ of

attachment. The identlflcatlon of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that It wlJl be exempt from the general

time-'or~service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant Illes a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 coJ1ectJons

case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a Judgment in rule 3.740.

To Parties in COmplex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the eMI Cast' Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plalntrff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the approprfate boxes In Items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be seJVed with the
oomplalnt on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a Joinder In U1e plaintiffs designation, a wunter-deslgnation that the case Is not complex, Of, if the plainUff has made no deSignation, a designation that

U1e case is complex.
Auto Tort Atrto (22)-Personalln/urylProperty DamageIWrongfu\ Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the Cllse involves an uninsured motorist claim svbject to arbitration, Check this item Instoad ofAuto)
Other PlfPO/WO (PeraQnallnJury/ Property DamageNIrongful Death) Tort
Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Oealh
Product Uablfr1y (not asbestos or toxldenviTtmmentaJ) (24)
Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice-Physicians & surgeoos Other Professional HeaJlh Care Malprectice
Other PIIPOIWD (23) Premises Uability (e.g., sUp and fa~) Intentional Bodily Injury/PO/WO (e.g., assaull, vandalism) lnlenlionallnflk:lion of Emolional Oistress Negligent Infllclion of Emo!1onalDlstfess Other Pl/PD/WD
Non·PI/PDIWD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (06) Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) Inlenectua! Property {19) Professional Negngence (2S) legal Malpractice Olller Professional MalpracUoe (not medical or f8gaJ) Other Non·PIIPDJWD Tort (35)
Employment W(oogfut Tem;!natlon (36) Other Employment (15)
CM.oIOjRev.July 1,20011

CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Contract Breach 01 ConlfactNlarranty (06) Breach 01 RentaVLease Conlract (not unlawful delainer or wrongful eviction) ConlracVWatrMty BreaCh--8eUer Plaintiff (not fraud or negfigence) Negligent Breach of Contract{
Warranty Other Breach of ContractiVlwranly Collections (e.g., money owed, open book accounls) (09) Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff other Promissory Note/Collections
Case
Insurance Coverage (not provisIonally complex) (16) Auto SUbrogation Othiilr Coverage
other Contract (37) C<lntractuaJ Fraud Other Contract Dispute
Real Property Eminent Domainllnverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property (e.g" Quiet title) (26) Writ of PossessIon Of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet TItIo Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlorditenanr, Of
foreclosure)
Unlawful Detatner Commercial (3l) ResldenUal (32) O{(){lS (38) (If tho case involvt1$lII~aJ drugs, check this item; otherwise. report as Commercia/or Residential)
Judlelal RevIew Assel Forfeiture (OS) Petition Re: Arb1lfation Award (11) Writ 01 Mandate (02) Writ-Adminislratlve Mandanws Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matte( Writ--O!her limited Coun Case Revfew Other Judicial Review (39) Review of HeaHh OfficerOrdet Notice 01 AppeaJ-tabor Commissionet Appeals
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400--3.4(3)
AnlilrusVYrade Regulation (03) Consltuction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities LitlgaUon (28) Environmenlalffoxto Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims
(arising from provisiOnally Cl)TrfJlex
case type lisled above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment
Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract 01 JUcfgmenl {Out 01 County) Confession of Judgment (nondomesh'c relations) Sisler Slate Jucfgmenl Admlnistralive Agency Award (not unpflld taxes) Petition/Certilicalion 01 Entry of Jucfgmenton Unpaid Taxes o\heC~';!ofcement of Judgment
MIscellaneous Civil Complaint
RICO (27)
Other Complaint (nol specified sbove}(42) D~atory Relief Only InJuncUve Reflef Only (nonhsrBssmMI) Meehanics Uen Other CommerCial ComplaInt Case (non·torVnon·compfex) Other Civil Complaint (non-iOftlnon·oompfex)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition pa.r1nership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civll Harassmenl Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Eleciion Conlest Petition for Name Change Petition For Relief From Late Clalm Other Civil Petition
Pajp 2012

• •

EXHIBIT A PAGE 37

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 39 of 46 Page ID #:44

•
SHORT TIiL!:;
Shields v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts, Inc. et. al.

•
CASE NUMBER

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION

This form is required pursuant to LASe Local Rule 2.0 In all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Item I. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case:

JURYTRIAl? DYES ClASS ACTION? !Z]YES LIMITED CASE? DYES TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL

0 HOURSID DAYS

Item II. Select the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps -If you checked "Limited Case", skip to Item III, Pg. 4):

Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet Form, find the main civil case cover sheet heading for your case in

Ihe left margin below, and, to the right in Column A. the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected.

Step 2: Check 2!1l! Superior Court type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature of this case.

Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of aclion you have checked.

For any exception to the court location, see Los Angeles Superior Court Locat Rute 2.0.

Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below)

1. Class Actions must be filed In the County Courthouse, Central DislIict. 2. May be filed In Central (Other county, or no Bodily Injury/Property Damage).
3. location where cause of action arose. 4. location where bodily injury, death or damage occurred. 5. location where perfonnance requlred or defendant resides.

6. Location of prope~ or pannanently garaged vehle/a.
7. Location where pelilloner resides. 8. Location wherein defendanVrespondent functions wholly. 9. Location where one or more of the parties reside. 10. Location of Labor Commissioner Office,

Step 4: Fill in the information requested on Daoe 4 in Item III: complete Item IV. Sign the declaration.

A
Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Category No.

B
(Check only one)

C
Applicabl9 Reasons·
See Step 3 Above

Aulo (22)

0 A7100 Mo!orVeh!cle - PersonallnjurylProperty DamageIWrongful Death

1.,2.,4.

Uninsured Motorist (46)

0 A7110 PersonallnjurylProperty OamagelvVrongful Death - Uninsured Molorist 1.,2.,4.

Asbeslos (04) Product Uability (24)

0 A6070 Asbestos Property Damage 0 A7221 Asbestos - PersQnallnjurylWrongful Death
0 A72S0 Product Liability (n01 asbestos or tOxicfenvironmenlal)

2. 2.
1.,2.,3.,4.,8.

Medical MaJpraCl.lce (45)
Other Personal Injury Property Damage Wrongful Death
(23)

0 A7210 Medical Malpractice - PhysiCians & Surgeons 0 A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice
o A7250 Premises Liability (e.g., slip and falQ o A7230 Intentional Bod!1y Injwy/Property DamageMitongful Death (e.g.,
assault, vandalism, etc.)
o A7210 Intentional Infliction CJI Emotional DIstress
o A7220 Olher PersonallnJury/Property Damage!Wrongful Dealh

1.,2.,4. 1.,2.,4.
1.,2.,4.
1.. 2.. 4. 1.. 2.. 3. 1.,2.,4.

Bu.lne.. Tort (07)
" I
\fil RighlS (06)
defamation (13)
!
i. Fraud (16) f."

o A6029 Other CommerciallBuslnes$ Tort (not traudlbreach of contract)
III Moo5 CMI RightslO!scnmlnaUon
o A6010 DefamaUon (sfanderJlibeQ o A6013 Fraud (no contract)

1.,2.,3.
@>2.. 3.
1.,2.. 3. 1.,2.,3.

lACN 109 (Rev. 01107)
LASe Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM

ANI

ION

EXHIBIT A PAGE 38

LAse, rule 2.0 Page 1 of4

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 40 of 46 Page ID #:45

•
SHORTTlnj::
Shields v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts, Inc. et. al.

•
ICASE NUMBER

A
Civil Case Cover Sheet Category No.

B
Type of Action
(Check only one)

professional Negligence
(25)
OIl,er (35)

0 AS017 legal Malpractice 0 AS050 other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal)
0 AS025 Other Non-PersonallnjUiy/Property Damage tort

I
C
Applicable Reasons -See Step 3 Above
1.,2.,3. 1.,2.,3.
2,,3.

Wrongful Teffilinatlon (36)
Other Employment (15)
Breach of ContracV Warranty (06)
(nol insufance)
CC\led.lons (09)
Insurance COverage (18)
Other Contract (37)
Eminent
DomainJInverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction
(33)
OI.he( Real Propertj (26)
Unlawful Delalner~ C.?~mmerclal (31)
'j Un1.awful Detainer-
~sldeoU'1 (32)
,.<
U~awful Oelainer~jDrugs (38)
As~tForfellure (05)
Petillon fa Mittation (11)

0 A6037 Wrongful Termination

1.,2.,3.

0 A602. Other Employment Complaint Case 0 A6109 Labor Commissioner Appears
0 AS004 Breach of RenlaULease Contract (not UnlaYJful Defainer or VKongful eviction) 0 A600a ContractM'arranty Breach -Seller Plalnllff" (no fraud/negligence) 0 AS019 Negligent Breach of ContracllWarranty (no fraud) 0 AS02S Other Breach of ContracUWarranty (not fraud or negligence)
0 ASOO2 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff 0 A6012 Other Promissory NoteiCoHecUons Case
0 AS015 Insurance Coverage (not complex)
0 AS009 Contractual Fraud 0 AS031 Tortious Interference 0 AS027 Other Contract Dispute(not breachflnsuranoolfraud/negligence}

1.,2.,3. 10.
2.,5. 2" 5. 1" 2., 5, 1" 2.,5.
2.,5.,S. 2,,5.
1.,2.. 5.• 8.
1.,2.,3.,5. 1.,2.,3.,5. 1.. 2.,3.,8.

0 A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation

Number of parceJs~~

2.

0 AS023 Wrongful Evict/OIl Case
0 AS01S Mortgage Fmedosure 0 A6032 Quiet Title 0 AS060 Other Real Property (nol eminent domain, lan<Uord!tenanl, foreclosure)
0 A6021 Unlawful Delainer..commercial (not drugs or wrongful evictIon)
0 A6020 Unlawful Delalner-Resldential (not dl'l(JS or wrongful eviction)
0 AS022 Unlawful Delainer-Drugs 0 A610S Asset Forfeiture Case 0 ASl15 PetiUon to CompeVConfinnNacate Arbitration

2.,6.
2.. 6. 2,,6. 2.,6. 2.,6. 2.,6.
2 .. 6. 2.,6. 2.,5,

LACIV 109 (Rev. 01/07) LASe Approved 03·04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM

AND

DN

EXHIBIT A PAGE 39

LAse, rule 2.0
Page 2 of 4

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 41 of 46 Page ID #:46

•
SHORTTn1.E:
Shields v. Walt Disney Parka & Resorts, Inc. et. al.

•
ICASE NUMBER

A
Civil Case COVOt Shwt
Category No.

>< .!!
Q.
Eo c
() 0 ~.~
tco·.S_
.2 ..J
I

Wril of Mandate
(02)
Other Judiclal Review (39)
AnUtrusVTrade Regulation (03)
Construction Defect (10)
Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)
Securities litigation (28)
ToxicTort Envlronmenlal (30) Insurance Coverage Claims from Complex
Case (41)

Enforcement of Judgment
(20)

RICO (27)
Other ComplaInts (Nol Spedfied Above)
(42)
Partnership Corporalion Govemance(21)
,:".1I
O"Jther Petitions (NolSpedfted Above)
I
~ (43)
nJ.

B
Type of Action (Check only one)
o A6151 Writ· AdminIstrative Mandamus o A6152 Writ ~ Mandamus on lImiled Court Case Matter o A6153 Writ - other Limited Court Case Review
o A6150 Other Writ IJudidaJ Review
OA6003 AnUlrusVfrade Regulation
o A6007 Construction defect o A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort o A6035 Securities Utlgatlon Case
o A6036 Toxic Tort/Environmental
o A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)
o A6141 Sister Stale Judgment o A6160 Abstract of Judgment o A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations) o A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaId taxes) o A6114 Petit!onlCertificale for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax o A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case
o A6033 Racl<.eteering (RICO) Case
o A60JO Declaratory Relief Only o A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domeslidharassment) o A6011 Other Commerdal Complaint Case (non-tortlnon-romplex) o A6000 Other CMI Complaint (non~tortfnon-complex) o A6113 PartnershIp and Corporate Governance Case
o A6121 eMI Harassment o A6123 Workplace Harassment o A6124 ElderlDependenl Adult Abuse Case o A6190 Election Contest o A6110 Petition forChange of Name o A6170 Petition for ReUef from Late Claim law o A6100 Other eMI Petition

LACIV 109 (Rev. 01107) LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM

AND

)N

EXHIBIT A PAGE 40

C
AppUcable Reasons • See Stop 3 Above
2,,8, 2. 2.
2.,8.
1.,2.,8.
1.,2.,3.
1.,2.. 8.
1.,2.,8. 1.,2.,3.,8.
1.,2.,5.,8.
2.,9. 2.,6. 2.,9. 2 .. 8. 2.. 8. 2.,6.,9. 1.,2.,6.
1.,2., B. 2 .. 8. 1.. 2.. 8. 1.,2.,8. 2.. 8.
2.. 3.. 9. 2.,3.,9 . 2.,3.. 9. 2. 2 .• 7. 2 .. 3.. 4.. 8. 2.. 9.
LIISC, nule 2.0 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 42 of 46 Page ID #:47

•
SHORT TITlE:
Shield~ v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts, Inc. et. al.

•
CASE NUMBER

Item III. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other circumstance indicated In Item II., Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected.

REASON: CHECK THE NUMBER UNDER COLUMN C WHICH APPLIES IN THIS CASE

01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08. 09.010.

CITY:
Los Angeles

STATE:
CA

ZIP CODE:
90012

ADDRESS:
111 N. Hill St.

Item IV. Declaration ofAssignment: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Is

true and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly filed for assignment to the Stanley Mosk

courthouse in the

Central

District of the Los Angeles Superior Court (Code Civ. Proe., § 392 et seq.. and LASC Local Rule 2.0,

subds. (b). (e) and (d».

Dated: May 14 r 2010

PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE:
1. Original Complaint or Petition. 2. If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet form CM-01O. 4. Complete Addendum to Civil Case Cover Sheet form LACIV 109 (Rev. 01107), LASC Approved 03-04. 5. Payment in full of the filing fee. unless fees have been waiVed. 6. Signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, JC form FL-935, if the plaintiff or petitioner Is a minor
under 18 years of age, or ff required by Court. 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum
must be served along with the summons and complaint. or other initiating pleading in the case.
-i:,:
~.JI i ..
,j .
" 1
U

LACIV 109 tRev. 01107)
LASe Approved 03-Q4

CIVIALNCDASSE' .C-O-V-E-R-S-H-E-ET. ADDEN. D\IUM
EXHIBIT A PAGE 41

LAse. rule 2,0 Page 4 014

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 43 of 46 Page ID #:48

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL/FAX/FEDERAL EXPRESS I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a patty to the within action. My business address is 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Eleventh Floor, Los Angeles, California 90024.
On August 4, 2010, I served the foregoing document, described as NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF STATE COURT ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b) AND 1446 BY DEFENDANTS, on each interested party in this action, as follows:

Persons Served
Eugene Feldman, Esq. EUGENE FELDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW,APC 555 Pier Avenue, Suite 4 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 A. Anderson B. Dogali, Esq. Brian A. Hohman, Esq. FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A. 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33634

Parties Represented Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs
Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs

!2J (BY MAIL) I placed a true copy ofthe foregoing document in a sealed
envelope addressed to each interested party as set forth above. I placed each such envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at EISENBERG RAIZMAN THuRSTON & WONG LLP in Los Angeles, California. I am readily familiar with EISENBERG RAIZMAN THuRSTON & WONG LLP's practice for collection and processing of cOlTespondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited in the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business.
!2J (FEDERAL ONLY) I declare that I am employed in the office of a
member of the bar ofthis Comt at whose direction the service was made.
I declare under penalty of peljury that the foregoing is true and COlTect.
Executed on August 4, 2010, at Los Angeles, California.
--)1wtvt(~

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF STATE COURT

42

ACTION BY DEFENDANTS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 44 of 46 Page ID #:49
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTlUCT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
This case has been assigned to District Judge Dolly Gee and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is John E. McDermott. The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
CV10- 5810 DMG (JEMx) 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 discovClY related motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar ofthe Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

A oopy of this notloe must be served with the summons and oomplalnl on all defendents (if a removal aotlon Is flied, a copy of thIs not/ce must be served on all plalnllffs).

Subsequent doouments must be filed at the following location:

[Xl Western Division
312 N. Spring St., Rm. G-S Los Angeles, CA 90012

Ll Southern Division 411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516

Ll Eastern Division 3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134 Riverside, CA 92501

Failure to file at the proper locaUon will result In your documents being returned 10 you.

CV-18 (03106)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

CO;~T, Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 45 of 46 Page ID #:50

UNITED S.ES DISTRICT

CENTRAL DISTR.OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL COVER SHEET

I (a) PLAINTIrFS (Check box if you are representing yourself D) CARl SHIELDS and AMBER BOGGS, on behalfofthemselves and all others
similarly situated

DEFENDANTS WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., WALT DISNEY PARKS
& RESORTS WORLDWIDE, THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, DOES I through 100, Inclusive

"(j (:~b) Attorneys (Finn Name, Address and Telephone Number. If you are representing ~ yourself, provide same,)
[__._~-=-__~"':.'::S:}lgene Feldman Attorney at Law, APC, Eugene Feldman, ~sq.

Attorneys (If Known)
Eisenberg Raizman Thurston & Wong LLP David H. Raizman, Esq. and Elena S. Min, Esq.

({.''~·"~~·'----·.):l~:lePphieorneA:v(e3n1u0e),

Suite 4, Hennosa 372-4-636

Beach,

CA

90254

10880 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 445-4400

\"'ii~B~~\~HS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in" one box only.)

III, CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES - For Diversity Cases Only

Gp:dJ iJ Govomm,ntPlaintiff

F,d,ral Question (U.S.

(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant.) PTF DEF

Govemment Not a Party)

Citizen of This State

01 01 Incorporated or Principal Place

of Business in this State

PTF DEF 04 04

02 U.S. Govenunent Defendant D 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizen of Another State of Parties in Item Ill)

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

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country OJ OJ Foreign Nation

06 06

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

o I Original

fi2 Removed from D 3 Remanded from 04 Reinstated or

Proceeding

State Court

Appellate Court· Reopened

0 5 Transferred from another district (specifY):

D 6 Multi- 07 Appeal to District

District

Judge from

Litigation

Magistrate Judge

v. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: DYes iiNo (Check 'Yes' only ifdemanded in complaint.)

ri CLASS ACTION under F,R.C.P, 23: Yes 0 No

o MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and \';Tite a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.) Plaintiffs allege discriminatory practices in public accommodations in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.3.c. sec 12\01, et seq.)
VII, NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only.)

0400 State Reapportionment 0410 Antitrust 04JO Banks and Banking 0450 Commerce/ICC
Rates/etc, 0460 Deportation 0470 Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations 0480 Consumer Credit 0490 Cable/Sat TV 0810 Selective Service 0850 Securities/Commodities! Exchange 0875 Customer Challenge 12 USC J410 0890 Other Statutory Actions 0891 Agricultural Act 0892 Economic Stabilization Acl
o 89J Environmental Matters
0894 Energy Allocation Act 0895 Freedom of Info. Act 0900 Appeal of Fee Determi-
nation Under Equal Access to Justice 0950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

Negotiable Instrument Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment Medicare Act Recovery of Defaulted Student Loan (Excl. Veterans) Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran's Benefits Stockholders' Suits
Tort Product Liability All Other Real Property

Assault, Libel & Slander Fed. Employers' Liability Marine Marine Product Liability Motor Vehicle Motor Vehicle Product Liability Other Personal Injury Personal InjuryMed Malpractice Personal InjuryProduct Liability Asbestos Personal
Product
Other Immigration Actions

Voting Employment Housingl Accommodations Welfare American with Disabilities Employment American with Disabilities Other Other Civil Rights

Vacate Sentence Habeas Corpus General Death Penalty Mandamus/

LaborlMgmt. Relations LaborlMgmt. Reporting & Disclosure Act Railway Labor Act Other Labor

Drug Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 88 I Liquor Laws R.R & Truck Airline Regs Occupational Safety IHealth Other

~("'~_·-"V'_'_~.~t__'P - 5 8 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Cas, Number: ______________

...'<-'

1 0

AFTER COMPLETING THE FRONT SIDE OF FORM CV·71, COMPLETE THE INFORMA TlON REQUESTED BELOW.

CY·71 (05/08)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page I of2

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 1 Filed 08/05/10 Page 46 of 46 Page ID #:51
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

VIII(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? £iNa 0 Yes I[yes, list case number(s): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _- -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~--_---
VlII(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that afe related to the present case? riNo 0 Yes Ifyes, list case number(s); _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-

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

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

(a) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State ifother than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides. 0 Check here !fthe government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff. If this box is checked, go to item (b).

County in thisDistrict:. Amber Boggs: Los Angeles Cari Shields: Riverside

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

(b) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country> in which EACH named defendant resides. 0 Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. Ifthis box is checked, go to item (c).

County in this District:·
Walt Disney Parks "and Resorts U.S., Inc.: Orange Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide: Los Angeles
The Walt D}sney Company: Los Angeles

California County outside of this District; State. ifother than California; or Foreign Country
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.: Fiorida The Walt Disney Company: Delaware

(c) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State ifother than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose.
Note']n land condemnation cases, use the location offhe tract of land involved

County in this District:·

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

Orange

Florida

01; Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino. Riverside. Ventura, Santa Barbara. or San Luis Obispo Counties Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved
X. SIGNATURE OF ATIORNEY (OR PRO PER): __...J'lC.~<._'_"eL/0.A="'"".~...j!..._'_'=·.>..<'________ Date August 4, 2010
Notice to CounscUParties: TheCV-71 (JS·44) Civil Cover Sheet and the infonuation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law. This fonn, approved by the JudiciaJ Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed but is used by the Clerk ofthe Court for the purpose ofstatistics, venue fmd initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheel)
Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:
Nature o(Sult Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action

861

HIA

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

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

progrnm. (42 V.S.C. 1935FF(b))

862

BL

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

(30 V.S.C. 923)

863

DlWC

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

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

863

DlWW

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

Act, as amended. (42 V.S.C. 405(g))

864

SSID

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

Act, as amended.

865

RSI

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

V.S.C. (g))

CV·71 (05108)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 2 of2

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(/10 Page 1 of 41 Page ID #:145

1 Eugene Feldman, Esq. SBN 118497 genefeldmanialmindsIJring.com
2 EUGENE FELDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC 555 Pier Avenue, Ste. 4
3 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Tel: 310-372-4636
4 Fax: 310-376-3531
5 A. Anderson B. Dogali, Esq., adogali@forizs-dogali.com
6 Pro-Hac Vice Brian A. Hohman, Esq.
7 bhohman@forizs-dogali.com Pro Hac VIce
8 FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A. 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300
9 Tampa,.1 Florida 33634 Tel: 1\13-289-0700
10 Fax: 813-289-9435

'"

~

FilED
U.S. DISTRICT

COURT

SEP 102010
L--:~",-_DfS_TRI_C_T I OF_CA.-JLDI?'i,FPOURTNI'A,

11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Class Plaintiffs

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

WESTERN DIVISION

14 CARl SHlELD~ AMBER BOGGS

) Case No. 2010-cv-05810 D~t1 (.)

and TERESA S lOCKTON on 15 behalf of themselves and afl others

Class Action

16 similarly situated,

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR

17

Plaintiffs,

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR

18

VIOLATIONS OF:

19 v. 20

1. THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (42 U.S.C. §12131, et seq.)

21 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS US, INC;.>, and DISNEY
22 ONLINE! INC., DOJ:<'s 1-10, INCLUS VB,
23

2. THE UNRUH ACT (Cal. Civil Code §51, et seq.)
3. THE CDPA (Cal. Civil Code §54.1, et seq.)

24

Defendants.

25

26

27

\ 28

1

\

\

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 2 of 41 Page ID #:146

1
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

2
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, CARl SHIELDS, AMBERBOGGS and TERESA

3
STOCKTON, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated

4
(Collectively known as "PLAINTIFFS"), and sue the Defendants, WALT DISNEY

5
PARKS AND RESORTS US, INC. and DISNEY ONLINE, INC. (Collectively

6
known as "DEFENDANTS") and allege:

7
INTRODUCTION

8 l.
9

This action arises out ofdiscriminatory practices by DEFENDANTS violating California statutes and common law, as well as federal law designed to protect

10
individuals with a disability.

These practices include, inter alia, the denial of access to places of public

accommodation and the discriminatory treatment given to individuals because

oftheir physical disabilities.

As a result of these practices, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES were not able to

benefit from the full use and enjoyment of DEFENDANTS' theme parks,

hotels, restaurants and website and were discriminated against on account of

physical disability, i.e. visual impairment.

.JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (2009), as one ofthe causes ofaction arises under federal law. Supplementaljurisdiction over the state law causes of action is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 (2009), and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Venue for this action is proper in this Court pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §1391 (2009) because DEFENDANTS maintain corporate managerial business offices within the County of Los Angeles.

2

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10( /10 Page 3 of 41 Page ID #:147

1 6. 2

PLAINTIFFS CARl SHIELDS, AMBER BOGGS and TERESA STOCKTON bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons within the

3

PLAINTIFF CLASSES defined herein.

4 7.
5

This action is brought by the PLAINTIFFS to enforce Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act "ADA", 42 U.S.C. §12131, et seq., the Unruh

6

Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §51, et seq., and the California

7

Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code §54 et seq. (CDPA).

8

PARTIES

9 PLAINTIFFS 10 8. PLAlNTIFF AMBER BOGGS is an individual who, at all relevant times:

11

a. Was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California;

12

b. Had a physical disability that affects her neurological and/or special

13

sense organs and substantially limits major life activities, namely visual

14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
22
23 24 25 26 9.

impairment; c. Was a person with a disability as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.
§12102 and the California Government Code Section 12926; d. Owns year-long passes to Disneyland and has regularly patronized the
theme park facilities, restaurants, shops and websites operated by DEFENDANTS within the last two years; e. Has visited Disneyland with her service animal; f. Suffered discrimination by the DEFENDANTS;
g. Was a member of all PLAlNTIFF CLASSES alleged in paragraph 18
except PLAINTIFF DISNEY CHARACTER CLASS; h. Intends to visit DEFENDANTS' theme parks, restaurants, and shops in
California and/or Florida in the future as well as their websites. PLAINTIFF CARl SHIELDS is an individual who, at all relevant times:

27

28

3

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10( /10 Page 4 of 41 Page ID #:148

1 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 10. 27 28

a. Was a resident ofthe County of Riverside, State of California; b. Had a physical disability that affects her neurological and/or special
sense organs and substantially limits major life activities, namely visual impairment; c. Was a person with a disability as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102 and the California Government Code §12926; d. Owns year-long passes to Disneyland and has regularly patronized the theme park restaurants, shops and websites operated by DEFENDANTS in both Florida and California within the last two years; e. Has visited Disneyland in California and the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida with her service animal including on or about November 1, 2009. Ms. Shields reserved seating for 6:45 p.m. for the Character Dining at the Crystal Palace with "Winnie Pooh and Friends"at the Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, Florida. £. Was denied interaction with costumed Disney characters as part of her dining experience. Upon complaining to management and staffshe was told by two cast members that it is Disney policy that characters are not allowed to interact with guests with service animals. She then went to guest services in the Magic Kingdom where she was told by two more cast members that it is DEFENDANTS' policy that characters are not allowed to interact with guests with service animals. g. Suffered discrimination by the DEFENDANTS. h. Was a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES alleged in paragraph 18; 1. Intends to visit DEFENDANTS theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in California and/or Florida in the future as well as their website. PLAINTIFF TERESA STOCKTON is an individual who, at all relevant times:
4

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 5 of 41 Page ID #:149

1

a. Was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California;

2

b. Had a physical disability that affects her neurological and/or special

3

sense organs and substantially limits major life activities, namely visual

4

impairment;

5

c. Was a person with a disability as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.

6

§12102 and the California Government Code Section 12926;

7

d. Owned year long passes to the Walt Disney World Resort and has

8

regularly patronized the theme park, hotels, restaurants, shops and

9

websites operated by DEFENDANTS within the last two years;

10

e. Has visited the Walt Disney World Resort with her service animal;

11

f. Suffered discrimination by the DEFENDANTS;

12

g. Was a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES;

13

h. Intends to visit DEFENDANTS' theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and

14

shops in California and/or Florida in the future as well as theirwebsites.

15 DEFENDANTS 16 11. DEFENDANT WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS, U.S. INC.

17

("PARKS") is a Florida corporation which at all times herein mentioned:

18

a. Maintained its principal place ofbusiness in Orange County, Florida and

19

is authorized to conduct business in the State of California and is

20

conducting business in Los Angeles County in the City of Burbank.

21

b. Owns and operates and/or is the lessor or lessee of the Walt Disney

22

World Resort located in Orange and Osceola Counties in Florida. The

23

Walt Disney World Resort is comprised of theme parks, hotels,

24

restaurants, and shops, each of which are public accommodations.

25

PARKS also owns and operates and/or is the lessor or lessee of the

26

Disneyland/California Adventure in Anaheim, Orange County,

27

28

5

Case 2:10-cv-05810-D(MG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(/10 Page 6 of 41 Page ID #:150

1

California. The Disneyland/California Adventure is similarly comprised

2

oftheme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, each ofwhich are public

3

accommodations.

4

c. Discriminated against the PLAINTIFF CLASSES by, inter alia:

5

1. Maintaining a policy of refusing to allow costumed Disney

6

characters to interact with visually impaired patrons with service

7

animals at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops at the

8

Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and Disneyland/California

9

Adventure in California;

10

2. Failing to provide Braille signage and/or large print within the

11

aforementioned theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, so as

12

to orient visually impaired patrons as to the location of rides,

13

restaurants and facilities;

14

3. Failing to provide schedules and menus in accessible alternative

IS

formats such as Braille and/or large print;

16

4. Failure to read in full, the menus upon request by visually

17

impaired patrons;

18

5. Failing to provide Braille maps in a mobile format;

19

6. Failing to provide Braille maps in a reasonable number of

20

locations within the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops;

21

7. Providing auxiliary aids and services, specifically, audio

22

description devices which are designed to shut off automatically

23

after a given time interval but cannot be re-set by a visually

24

impaired user so as to render the device inaccessible;

25

8. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually

26

impaired patrons using service animals by:

27

28

6

Case 2:10-cv-05810-D(MG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 7 of 41 Page ID #:151

1

(a) failing to provide reasonable designated areas within

2

the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops for service

3

animals to defecate;

4

(b) charging visually impaired patrons usmg servIce

5

animals a $20.00 fee for the use of kennel facilities;

6

(c) locating the kennel facilities outside ofthe theme parks;

7

and

8

(d) refusing to allow service animals to be tied to any

9

locations within the theme parks while the visually

10

impaired owner is using park rides;

11

9. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually

12

impaired patrons by simultaneously refusing to provide a Disney

13

employee to assist a visually impaired patron and also requiring

14

visually impaired patrons to pay full price for a ticket for an aide

15

or attendant to serve the function of assisting the patron in

16

navigating around the theme parks;

17

10. Maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric

18

Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area

19

designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other

20

disabilities such as visual impairments;

21

11. Renting lockers to park visitors which are inaccessible to persons

22

with visual impairments because the lockers: 1) utilize an

23

inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the

24

visually impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the

25

combination to open the rented locker;

26

12. Maintaining one or more websites including www.disney.go.com

27

28

7

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 8 of 41 Page ID #:152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11
12 13 12. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

that are not fully accessible for persons with visual impainnents utilizing screen reader software which prevents visually impaired patrons from enj oying equal access to the DEFENDANTS' theme parks, hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through DEFENDANTS' websites; 13. Violating the following provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") at the Disneyland parking structure and parking lot: 4.6.2, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.7.7,4.29.2 and 4.29.5; all so as to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Defendant DISNEY ONLINE, INC. ("DISNEY ONLINE") is a California corporation which at all times: a. Maintained its principal place ofbusiness in Orange County, Florida and is authorized to conduct business in the State of California and is conducting business in Los Angeles County in the City of Burbank. b. DISNEY ONLINE, INC., in concert with and owned by DEFENDANTS, operates the websites for DEFENDANTS as part ofthe DEFENDANTS business plan to sells goods, services, and tickets and reservations to its theme parks, hotels, restaurants and shops through its websites. c. Discriminated against the PLAINTIFF CLASS by, inter alia: 1. Maintaining one or more websites including www.disney.go.com that are not fully accessible for persons with visual impainnents utilizing screen reader software which prevents PLAINTIFF
8

Case 2:10-cv-05810-D(MG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(,/10 Page 9 of 41 Page ID #:153

1 2 3 4
5 13.
6 7
8

CLASS from enjoying equal access to the DEFENDANTS' theme parks, hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through DEFENDANTS' websites. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, associate or otherwise of DEFENDANTS Does 1-10, inclusive, are unknown to the PLAINTIFFS who therefore sue these DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474.

9

PLAINTIFFS will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the true names

10

and capacities of Does 1 through 10, inclusive, when they are ascertained.

11 14.
12 13

PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based upon that information and belief allege, that each of the DEFENDANTS named in this Complaint, including Does 1through 10, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one

14

or more ofthe events and happenings that proximately caused the injuries and

15

damages hereinafter alleged.

16 15. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based upon that information and

17

belief allege, that each of the DEFENDANTS named in this Complaint,

18

including Does 1through 10, inclusive, acted in concert with respect to the acts

19

and omissions alleged hereinafter and to all appearances, DEFENDANTS and

20 21 22
23 16.

each of them represented a united body so that the actions of one DEFENDANT were accomplished in concert with, and with knowledge, ratification, authorization and approval of each of the other DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based upon that information and

24

belief allege, that each of the DEFENDANTS named in this complaint,

25

including Does 1 through 10, inclusive, is and at all times mentioned herein

26

was, the agent, servant and/or employee of each ofthe other DEFENDANTS

27

28

9

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(/10 Page 10 of 41 Page ID #:154

1 2 3 4 5 6 17. 7 8 9
10 11
12 18.
13
14 15 16 17
18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and that each DEFENDANT was acting within the course and scope ofhis, her or its authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of each of the other DEFENDANTS. Consequently, all of the DEFENDANTS are jointly and severally liable to the PLAINTIFFS for the damages sustained as a proximate result of their conduct. At all times set forth herein, the acts and omissions of each DEFENDANT caused, led and/or contributed to the various acts and omissions ofeach and all of the other DEFENDANTS, legally causing PLAINTIFFS' injuries and damages as set forth.
CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS Definition of the Alleged Class
This action consists ofthe following PLAINTIFF CLASSES who are residents of the United States: a. PLAINTIFF DISNEY CHARACTER CLASS: All visually impaired
individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who were customers ofthe theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and were denied interaction and equal treatment by Disney employees dressed as Disney characters. b. PLAINTIFF SIGNAGE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who have not been provided signage, menus or schedules in an alternative format, such as Braille and/or large print and were not read, in full, the menus, at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in
10

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(/10 Page 11 of 41 Page ID #:155

1

Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney

2

World Resort in Florida.

3

c. PLAINTIFF MAP CLASS: All visually impaired individuals

4

considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42

5

U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who

6

have not been provided maps in an alternative format, such as Braille

7

and/or large print, at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in

8

Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney

9

World Resort in Florida.

10

d. PLAINTIFF KENNEL CLASS: All visually impaired individuals

11

considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42

12

U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who

l3

have either (l) paid a fee for the use of a kennel for hislher service

14

animal at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt

15

Disney World Resort in Florida; (2) been deterred from visiting

16

Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney

17

World Resort in Florida on account ofthe kennel fee for hislher service

18

animal; (3) been deterred from visiting. Disneyland/California

19

Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and

20

its theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops on account ofthere being

21

no reasonable designated areas for service animals to defecate; or (4)

22

been deterred from visiting. Disneyland/California Adventure in

23

California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and its theme

24

parks by refusing to allow service animals to be tied to any locations

25

within the theme parks while the visually impaired owner is using park

26

rides.

27

28

11

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 12 of 41 Page ID #:156

1

e. PLAINTIFF AUDIO DESCRIPTION DEVICE CLASS: All visually

2

impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that

3

term is defmed in 42 U.S.C. §12l02 and California Government Code

4

Section 12926 who have used or attempted to use an audio description

5

device at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt

6

Disney World Resort in Florida and been deprived of the full use and

7

enjoyment of the device.

8

f. PLAINTIFF COMPANION TICKET CLASS: All visually impaired

9

individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is

10

defined in 42 U.S.C. §12l02 and California Government Code Section

11

12926 who have paid for an additional ticket for a companion or aide to

12

assist the visually impaired individual to utilize the accommodations at

13

Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney

14

World Resort in Florida.

15

g. PLAINTIFF PARADE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals

16

considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42

17

U.S.c. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who,

18

have experienced discrimination due to DEFENDANTS' policy of

19

excluding persons with disabilities, other than wheelchair users, from

20

preferential locations to stand or sit during the parade at

21

Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney

22

World Resort in Florida.

23

h. PLAINTIFF LOCKER CLASS: All visually impaired individuals

24

considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defmed in 42

25

U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who

26

have been unable to utilize a locker at Disneyland/California Adventure

27

28

12

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(/10 Page 13 of 41 Page ID #:157

1 2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 19. 25 26 27 28

in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. 1. PLAINTIFF WEBSITE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals
considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who have been unable to access one or more ofthe websites maintained by DEFENDANTS such as www.disney.go.com and were denied equal access to DEFENDANTS' theme parks, hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through DEFENDANTS' websites. J. PLAINTIFF PARKING CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who were customers of the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and were denied equal treatment due to DEFENDANTS' failure to comply with accessible parking provisions of the ADAAG, Americans with Disabilities Act and/or Title 24 of the CaliforniaCode ofRegulations. Additionally, DEFENDANTS' parking structure and parking lot at Disneyland are violating the following provisions ofthe ADAAG: 4.6.2, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.7.7, 4.29.2 and 4.29.5; all so as to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
Maintenance of the Action PLAINTIFFS bring this action individually and on behalf of themselves and as representatives ofall similarly situated persons, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, and the provisions of Rule 23 ofthe Federal
13

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(/10 Page 14 of 41 Page ID #:158

1 2 3 20. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21.
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Rules of Civil Procedure. Class Action Allegations
At all material times, PLAINTIFF SHIELDS was and is a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES described in paragraph 18. At all material times, PLAINTIFF BOGGS was and is a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES described in paragraph 18 except PLAINTIFF DISNEY CHARACTER CLASS andPLAINTIFF KENNEL CLASS. At all material times, PLAINTIFF STOCKTON was and is a member ofall PLAINTIFF CLASSES described in paragraph 18. This class action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a class action as set forth in California Code ofCivil Procedure Section 382, and the provisions of Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that: a. In 2008, the Social Security Administration estimated there were in
excess of 6.3 million persons visually impaired and over the age of 18 in the United States. According to the Disney Vacation Tips website, the daily attendance at Disneyland in Anaheim is 4,000. Additionally, according to the Themed Entertainment Association/Economic Research Associates Attraction Attendance Report 2008, the Magic KingdomlDisney World Resort in Florida had over 17 million visitors in 2008 while Disneyland/California Adventure had over 14 million visitors in 2008. While the number of visitors with visual impairments cannot be precisely calculated, it is reasonable to estimate that thousands of visitors were visually impaired among the 14 million who visited Disneyland in Anaheim in 2008. As such, the class of qualified individuals who are visually impaired and have visited either Disneyland/California Adventure in California and/or the Walt Disney
14

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 15 of 41 Page ID #:159

1

World Resort in Florida is so numerous that joinder of all members is

2

impracticable.

3

b. Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief

4

issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the PLAINTIFF

5

CLASSES and will apply uniformly to each member ofthe PLAINTIFF

6

CLASSES. There are questions oflaw and fact common to the classes.

7

The Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Public Accommodations law

8

requires that public accommodations, such as the ones operated by

9

DEFENDANTS, be accessible to persons with disabilities, which is a

10

question of law common to all members of the class. The failure of

11

DEFENDANTS to provide accommodations and remove policies that

12

discriminate against persons with disabilities presents a question offact

13

common to all members ofthe class. Furthermore, the primary reliefthat

14

the class is seeking is equitable in nature, in that the class is asking for

15

final injunctive relief asking that DEFENDANTS provide

16

accommodations and discontinue discriminating policies in their theme

17

parks, restaurants, hotels, and other facilities it operates. Furthermore,

18

prosecutions ofseparate actions would create the risk ofinconsistent or

19

varying adjudications with respect to individual members ofthe classes

20

which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the

21

DEFENDANTS.

22

c. The claims of PLAINTIFFS SHIELDS, BOGGS and STOCKTON are

23

typical of the claims of the classes of persons with disabilities that

24

sustained and continue to sustain injuries arising out of the

25

DEFENDANTS' conduct or omissions in violation of state and federal

26

law as complained of herein. PLAINTIFFS SHIELDS, BOGGS and

27

28

15

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 16 of 41 Page ID #:160

1

STOCKTON, like all other members of the classes, claim that

2

DEFENDANTS violated the ADA and California Statutes by

3

discriminating against persons with disabilities and excluding the

4

PLAINTIFFS SHIELDS, BOGGS, STOCKTON and other similarly

5

situated persons, from full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

6

programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of

7

DEFENDANTS' theme parks, restaurants, hotels, websites and other

8

facilities they operate; and subjecting PLAINTIFFS SHIELDS, BOGGS,

9

STOCKTON and others similarly situated to discrimination by denying,

10

segregated or excluding visually impaired guests from enjoying their

11

facilities and other goods, services, programs, privileges, advantages or

12

accommodations to the PLAINTIFFS SHIELDS, BOGGS, and

13

STOCKTON, as well as other similarly situated persons.

14

d. PLAINTIFFS SHIELDS, BOGGS and STOCKTON will fairly and

15

adequately protect the interests ofthe PLAINTIFF CLASSES, and have

16

retained counsel competent and experienced in class action litigation.

17

PLAINTIFFS SHIELDS, BOGGS and STOCKTON have no interests

18

antagonistic to, or in conflict with, those ofthe classes. Counsel for the

19

classes will vigorously assert the claims of all class members.

20

e. Moreover, judicial economy will be served by the maintenance of this

21

lawsuit as a class action, in that it is likely to avoid the burden which

22

would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system by the filing of

23

thousands of similar suits by disabled people across the country.

24

f. Class action treatment ofthese claims will avoid the risk ofinconsistent

25

or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the

26

PLAINTIFF CLASSES which would establish incompatible standards

27

28

16

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 17 of 41 Page ID #:161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22. 25 26 27 28

of conduct for the parties opposing the PLAINTIFF CLASSES. There are no obstacles to effective and efficient management ofthis lawsuit as a class action. g. The parties opposing the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory reliefwith respect to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES as a whole; or h. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, in consideration of: 1. The interests of the members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES in
individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; 11. The extent and nature ofany litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES; 111. The desirability or undesirability ofconcentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and IV. The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 because: a. The questions of law and fact common to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES
17

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 18 of 41 Page ID #:162

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14 15 16 17 23. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24. 25 26 27 28

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; b. A class action is superior to any other available method for the fair and
efficient adjudication ofthe claims ofthe members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES; c. PLAINTIFFS and the other members ofthe PLAINTIFF CLASSES will not be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a class action; d. There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and equitable relief for the common law and statutory violations and other improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages and injuries which DEFENDANTS' actions have inflicted upon the PLAINTIFF CLASSES; and e. There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets and available insurance of DEFENDANTS is sufficient to adequately compensate the members ofthe PLAINTIFF CLASSES for the injuries sustained. PLAINTIFFS contemplate the eventual issuance ofnotice to the proposed class members of each of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES which would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. The DEFENDANTS' own business records may be utilized for assistance in the preparation and issuance of the contemplated notices. To the extent that any further notices may be required, PLAINTIFFS would contemplate the use of additional media and/or mass mailings. Among the many questions oflaw and fact common to the class are: a. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities maintained a policy of refusing to allow costumed Disney characters to interact with visually
18

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 19 of 41 Page ID #:163

1

impaired patrons with service animals at DEFENDANTS' theme parks

2

and properties at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and

3

Disneyland/California Adventure in California;

4

b. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities failed to provide Braille

5

signage and/or large print within the theme parks so as to orient visually

6

impaired patrons as to the location of rides, restaurants and facilities;

7

c. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities failed to provide schedules

8

and menus in accessible alternative formats such as Braille and/or large

9

print;

10

d. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities failed to read the menus, in

11

full, to visually impaired patrons upon request;

12

e. Whether the DEFENDANTS failed to provide Braille maps in a portable

13

format;

14

f. Whether the DEFENDANTS failed to provide Braille maps at a

15

reasonable number of locations within the theme parks;

16

g. Whether the audio description devices are reasonably accessible to the

17

visually impaired;

18

h. Whether it was lawful for the DEFENDANTS to charge a $20 fee for

19

the use of kennel facilities at the park for service animals;

20

1. Whether the DEFENDANTS were legally required to have designated

21

areas within the theme parks for service animals to defecate or to be tied

22

up while visually impaired owners used the rides;

23

J. Whether DEFENDANTS are legally required to provide a free or

24

discounted ticket to the aid or companion of a visually impaired visitor

25

to the theme parks as a reasonable accommodation;

26

k. Whether DEFENDANTS and its entities maintained a policy at parades,

27

28

19

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 20 of 41 Page ID #:164

1

such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only wheelchair users are

2

allowed to use the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests

3

with other disabilities such as visual impairments;

4

1. Whether it was lawful for DEFENDANTS and its entities to rent lockers

5

for use to guests which are inaccessible to persons with visual

6

impairments because the lockers: 1) utilize an inaccessible touch screen;

7

2) have no attendant to assist the visually impaired and 3) provide only

8

a printed receipt with the combination to open the rented locker;

9

m. Whether DEFENDANTS maintain one or more websites including

10

www.disney.go.com that are not fully accessible for persons with visual

11

impairments utilizing screen reader software which prevent persons with

12

visual impairments from enjoying equal access to the DEFENDANTS'

13

theme parks, hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods,

14

services and benefits offered to the public through DEFENDANTS'

15

websites;

16

n. Whether DEFENDANTS' parking structure and parking lot in

17

Disneyland violates one or more ofthe following ADAAG provisions:

18

4.6.2,4.1.2,4.1.3,4.7.7,4.29.2 and 4.29.5;

19

o. Whether DEFENDANTS violated California Civil Code §51 et seq. in

20

failing to provide full and equal access to disabled persons with visually

21

impairments;

22

p. Whether DEFENDANTS violated California Civil Code §54 et seq. in

23

failing to provide full and equal access to disabled persons with visual

24

impairments; and

25

q. Whether DEFENDANTS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act

26

in failing to provide full and equal access to disabled persons with visual

27

28

20

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/I10 Page 21 of 41 Page ID #:165

1 2 25.
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 26.
11
12
13
14 27. 15 16 17 18 19 20 28. 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28

impairments. As to the issues raised in this case, a class action is superior to all other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication ofthis controversy, since joinder of all class members is impracticable. Class members reside anywhere in the country. It is essential that many legal and factual questions be adjudicated uniformly to all class members. Further, as the economic or other loss suffered by vast numbers of class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual actions make it difficult for the class members to individually redress the wrongs they have suffered. Moreover, in the event disgorgement is ordered, a class action is the only mechanism that will permit the employment of a fluid fund recovery to insure that equity is achieved. There will be relatively little difficulty in managing this case as a class action. Class action treatment is superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of the claims presented by this complaint and would reduce the financial, administrative and procedural burdens on the parties and on the Court which individual action would otherwise impose.
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT History & Purpose
In 1990, the United States Congress made findings regarding physically disabled persons, finding that laws were needed to more fully protect "some 43 million Americans [with] one or more physical or mental disabilities"; that "historically society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities"; and that "such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem"; that "the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure
21

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 22 of 41 Page ID #:166

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 29. 10
11
12 13 14 15 30. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3l. 25 26 27 28

equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self sufficiency for such individuals"; and that "the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous...." 42 U.S.C. §1210l.
STATUTORY PROTECTION FOR DISABLED PERSONS Public Accommodations
Title III of the ADA establishes the general rule that: No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations by any person who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. §12182 (a).
The ADA defines "discrimination" to include: A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modification would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. §12182 (b)(2)(A)(ii).
The regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Justice provide:
Denial ofparticipation. A public accommodation shall not subject
22

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 23 of 41 Page ID #:167

1

an individual or class ofindividuals on the basis of a disability or

2

disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through

3

contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the

4

opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit

5

from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

6

accommodations of a place of public accommodation. 28 C.F.R.

7

§36.202(a)

8

9

Participation in unequal benefit. A public accommodation shall

10

not afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a

11

disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or

12

through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, with the

13

opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service,

14

facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal

15

to that afforded to other individuals. 28 C.F.R. §36.202(b).

16

17

Separate benefit. A public accommodation shall not provide an

18

individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or

19

disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through

20

contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service,

21

facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different

22

or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such

23

action is necessary to provide the individual or class of

24

individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or

25

accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that

26

provided to others. 28 C.F.R. §36.202(c).

27

28

23

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 24 of 41 Page ID #:168

1 32. 2 3 4 5 33. 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 34. 23 24 25 26 27 28

Furthermore, the regulations provide for service animals which state: Service animals. Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability. 28 C.F.R. §36.302(c).
Additionally, 42 U.S.C.A.§12181 (6) defines "private entity" as "any entity other than a public entity" and §12181 (7) defines "public accommodation" in part as:
The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this sub-chapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce: a. an inn, hotel, motel, or other place oflodging, except for an
establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor; b. a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink; c a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition entertainment; d a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation. Further, 42 U.S.C.A. §12182 "Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations" states, in part, the following: a. General rule. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis ofdisability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
24

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 25 of 41 Page ID #:169

1

accommodations ofany place ofpublic accommodation by

2

any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a

3

place of public accommodation.

4

2. Specific prohibitions (in part):

5

(A) Discrimination-For purposes ofsubsection (a)

6

of this section, discrimination includes:

7

(ii) a failure to make reasonable

8

modifications in policies, practices, or

9

procedures, when such modifications

10

are necessary to afford such goods,

11

services, facilities, privileges,

12

advantages, or accommodations to

13

individuals with disabilities, unless the

14

entity can demonstrate that making

15

such modifications would

16

fundamentally alter the nature of such

17

goods, services, facilities, privileges,

18

advantages, or accommodations;

19

(iii) a failure to take such steps as may be

20

necessary to ensure that no individual

21

with a disability is excluded, denied

22

servIces, segregated or otherwise

23

treated differently than other

24

individuals because of the absence of

25

auxiliary aids and services, unless the

26

entity can demonstrate that taking such

27

28

25

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 26 of 41 Page ID #:170

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. 8 9 10 11 36. 12
13
14 15 16 17 18 37. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden. THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT §51 of the California Civil Code, "The Unruh Civil Rights" Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because ofage, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, §51 (b) provides: All persons within the jurisdiction ofthis State are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. Further, §51.5 (a) provides: No business establishment of any kind whatsoever shall discriminate against, boycott or blacklist, or refuse to buy from, contract with, sell to, or trade with any person in this state on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of §51, or ofthe person's partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers, managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates, suppliers, or customers, because the person is perceived to have one or more of those characteristics, or
26

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 27 of 41 Page ID #:171

1 2 3 38. 4 5 6 7 8 39. 9 10
11
12
13
14 40. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

because the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics. Additionally, §51 (t) provides that: A violation of the right of any individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act shall also constitute a violation of this section. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§54 THROUGH 55.2 California Civil Code §54 (a) states: Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, public facilities, and other public places. Further, California Civil Code §54.1 (a) (1) states: Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motor buses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation (whether private, public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided), telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places ofpublic accommodation, amusement, or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal
27

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 28 of 41 Page ID #:172

1 2 41.
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 42. 11 12
13
14 15 43. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 44. 24 25 26 27 28

regulation, and applicable alike to all persons. Additionally, §54.1 (a) (3) states:
"Full and equal access" for purposes of this section in its application to transportation, means access that meets the standards of Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (public Law 101-336) and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, except that, if the laws of this state prescribe higher standards, it shall mean access that meets those higher standards. Further, §54.1 (d) states: A violation ofthe right ofan individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act also constitutes a violation of this section, and nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the access of any person in violation of that act. California Civil Code §54.2 states: (a) Every individual with a disability has the right to be accompanied by a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, especially trained for the purpose, in any of the places specified in §54.1 without being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog, signal dog, or service dog. However, the individual shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her dog. Finally, California Civil Code §54.4 states: A blind or otherwise visually impaired pedestrian shall have all of the rights and privileges conferred by law upon other persons in any ofthe places, accommodations, or conveyances specified
28

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(/10 Page 29 of 41 Page ID #:173

1 2
3
4 5 45. 6 7 8 9
10 11
12
13
14
15 16 46. 17 18 19 20 21 47. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in §§ 54 and 54.1, notwithstanding the fact that the person is not carrying a predominantly white cane (with or without a red tip), or using a guide dog. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS The DEFENDANTS collectively operate theme parks in California and Florida which have millions ofvisitors annually. Furthermore, DEFENDANTS operate a websites including www.disney.go.com for the purposes of: assisting guests with purchasing tickets to the products and services offered by DEFENDANTS; advertising the products and services of DEFENDANTS; providing interactive content for children; and providing other online services to promote DEFENDANTS. Due to DEFENDANTS' failure to remove access barriers to www.disney.go.com. persons with visual impairments are prevented from enjoying equal access to DEFENDANTS' theme parks, hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through DEFENDANTS' websites. PLAINTIFFS BOGGS and SHIELDS are visually impaired individuals who each own yearly passes to Disneyland/California Adventure in Anaheim and visit it frequently. Plaintiffs SHIELDS and STOCKTON have also visited the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. All PLAINTIFFS utilize guide dogs to assist them on a daily basis. DEFENDANTS' theme parks, hotels, restaurants and shops, connected with its websites, are public accommodations and PLAINTIFFS visit these facilities with the expectation of being treated with the rights and dignities guaranteed them by California law. Due to their visual impairments and physical disabilities, however, PLAINTIFFS have suffered consistent discrimination at the hands of DEFENDANTS and their affiliated companies and employees.
29

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 30 of 41 Page ID #:174

1 48. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 49.
11
12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 50. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

As a member of the PLAINTIFF DISNEY CHARACTER CLASS, PLAINTIFF SHIELDS was subjectedto public humiliation and discrimination in being ignored at the restaurant, when an essential element of the dining experience was the interaction with the costumed Disney Character. Two of these characters articulated the restaurant policy ofnot interacting with patrons using service animals. Additionally, PLAINTIFF STOCKTON was subjected to public humiliation and discrimination in being ignored at the theme parks and restaurants by the Disney Characters. Whether this policy is driven by malice, ignorance or simply fear, it is a violation ofCalifornia and federal law. As members of the PLAINTIFF KENNEL CLASS, both PLAINTIFFS have been denied reasonable accommodations for their service animals because in order to use the kennel at all they must pay a $20.00 fee. Furthermore, the kennel is located outside ofthe theme parks so as to be extremely inconvenient when using the rides. Moreover, the policy ofrequiring that the animal be with someone at all times means that a visually impaired visitor has no where to leave the service animal while using certain rides. Universal Studios, a competing theme park, however, do not have such obstructions at its respective theme parks. Finally, there are no reasonable designated areas for the animal to relieve itself at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops. As members ofthe PLAINTIFF SIGNAGE CLASS, PLAINTIFFS have been discriminated against due to the lack of Braille signage, in addition to a lack of alternate communications for the visually impaired such as Braille and/or large print with respect to schedules and menus at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops. Additionally, PLAINTIFFS have been discriminated against due to DEFENDANTS and its entities failure to read, in full, the menus upon request by visually impaired patrons.
30

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 31 of 41 Page ID #:175

1 51. 2 3 4 5 6 52. 7 8 9 10 53.
11
12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19 54. 20 21 22 23 24 55. 25 26 27 28

As members of the PLAINTIFF AUDIO DESCRIPTION DEVICE CLASS, both PLAINTIFFS have been deterred from fully utilizing this otherwise helpful technology due to a design defect. Once the device shuts off automatically, a visually impaired user cannotre-set the device and must return to the guest services department to have it re-set. As members ofthe PLAINTIFF MAP CLASS, PLAINTIFFS have experienced discrimination based on the fact that only one permanent Braille map is available at the theme parks in one location at Guest Relations. No portable Braille maps are available at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops. As members of the PLAINTIFF COMPANlON TICKET CLASS, PLAINTIFFS have experienced discrimination due to DEFENDANTS' failure to provide the necessary accommodations for a visually impaired individual to be oriented in the theme parks. The lack ofreasonable accommodations, in combination with the DEFENDANTS' policy ofnot providing an employee to assist a visually impaired person, forces a visually impaired person to bring and pay full price for a companion to fully utilize the park facilities. Universal Studios, a competing theme park, however, allows the visually impaired guest in at no cost and requires the companion to pay pull price. As to members of the PLAINTIFF PARADE CLASS, PLAINTIFFS have experienced discrimination due to DEFENDANTS maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments. As to members of the PLAINTIFF LOCKER CLASS, PLAINTIFF have experienced discrimination by DEFENDANTS renting lockers for use to guests which are inaccessible to persons with visual impairments because the
31

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 32 of 41 Page ID #:176

1 2
3
4 56. 5 6 7 8 57.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 58. 18 19 59. 20 21 22 23 24 25 60. 26 27 28

lockers: 1) utilize an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the visually impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open the rented locker. As to members of the PLAINTIFF WEBSITE CLASS, PLAINTIFFS have experienced discrimination due to DEFENDANTS maintaining one or more websites including www.disney.go.com that are not fully accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen reader software. As to members of the PLAINTIFF PARKING CLASS, PLAINTIFFS have experienced discrimination due to DEFENDANTS' parking structure and parking lot at Disneyland violating the following provisions of the ADAAG: 4.6.2,4.1.2,4.1.3,4.7.7,4.29.2 and 4.29.5; all so as to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION For a Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
42 U.S.C. §12131, et. seq. (by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants) The PLAINTIFF CLASSES re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint. DEFENDANTS have discriminated against PLAINTIFFS by denying them full and equal access to the benefits, privileges and public accommodations afforded to other patrons solely on account of disability. In addition, the DEFENDANTS have violated the ADA by failing or refusing to provide PLAINTIFFS with reasonable accommodations and other services related to their disability. PLAINTIFFS, upon information and belief, allege that DEFENDANTS, their employees and agents have failed and continue to fail to:
32

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 33 of 41 Page ID #:177

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11 6l. 12
13
14 15 16 62. 17 18 19 20 21 63. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a. Provide necessary accommodations, modifications and servIces to provide equal access to the facilities within its theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida and California so as to allow the visually impaired to participate on an equal basis in activities, rides, restaurants and programs;
b. Provide the necessary training and discipline to its employees as to the legal obligation of a public accommodation to provide full and equal service to persons with disabilities under the ADA and other relevant state statutes, including California Civil Code § 51 et seq. and Civil Code Section § 54 et seq.
PLAINTIFFS have been subjected to the denial, separate and unequal opportunity to participate in the DEFENDANTS' services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations as a result ofthe DEFENDANTS' discriminatory policy of not allowing characters to interact with visually impaired persons who have their service animal with them. As a direct and proximate result ofthe aforementioned acts, PLAINTIFFS have suffered and continue to suffer from the lack of character interaction due to DEFENDANTS' failure to address the services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations that should be given to persons similarly situated as PLAINTIFFS SHIELDS, BOGGS and STOCKTON. Due to the continuous nature of DEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct, which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result of DEFENDANTS' actions PLAINTIFFS are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. PLAINTIFFS are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12205, as prayed below.
33

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10I//10 Page 34 of 41 Page ID #:178

1 2 3 4 5 64. 6 7 65. 8 9 10 66.
11
12
13
14 67. 15 16 17 68. 18 19 69. 20 21 70. 22 23 71. 24 25 72. 26 27 28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION For a Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
California Civil Code §51 and 52 et seq. (by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants) The PLAINTIFF CLASSES re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint. This claim is brought by the PLAINTIFFS SHIELDS, BOGGS and STOCKTON, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES thereof. §51 of the California Civil Code, "The Unruh Civil Rights" Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because ofage, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation. §52 ofthe California Civil Code provides that whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to §51 is liable for each and every offense. Through the acts and omissions described herein, DEFENDANTS have violated California Civil Code §51. Pursuant to California Civil Code §51 (t), a violation of the ADA also constitutes a violation of California Civil Code §51 et seq. The DEFENDANTS are a "business establishment" within the meaning ofthe California Code §51 et seq. DEFENDANTS have violated the law by denying PLAINTIFFS full and equal access to its program comparable to access that it offers to others. As a direct and proximate result ofthe aforementioned acts, PLAINTIFFS have suffered, and continue to suffer hardship and anxiety due to DEFENDANTS'
34

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 35 of 41 Page ID #:179

1 2 3 73. 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11
12 13 74. 14 15 75. 16 17 18 76. 19 20 77. 21 22 78. 23 24 79. 25 26 80. 27 28

failure to address accommodations and access required for PLAINTIFFS' disabilities. Due to the continuous nature of DEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct, which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive reliefs are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result ofDEFENDANTS ' actions PLAINTIFFS are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. PLAINTIFFS are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action. California Civil Code §52, as prayed below.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Fora Violation of the California Public Accommodations Law
California Civil Code §54 et. seq. (by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants) The PLAINTIFF CLASSES re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint. The DEFENDANTS operate theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops that are public accommodations open to the public in California and Florida and advertise their goods and services through their websites. Through the acts and omissions described herein above, DEFENDANTS are violating California Civil Code §54. Under California Civil Code §54 (c), a violation ofthe ADA also constitutes a violation of California Civil Code §54 et seq. PLAINTIFFS are persons with disabilities within the meaning ofthe California Civil Code §54 (b)(1) and California Government Code § 12926. The DEFENDANTS provide public services within the meaning of the California Civil Code §54 et seq. By failing to provide accommodations and services to visually impaired guests,
35

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/10 Page 36 of 41 Page ID #:180

1 2
3
4 8l. 5 6 7 8 82. 9 10
11
12
13
14 83. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28

as set forth at length elsewhere in this Complaint, DEFENDANTS are violating California Civil Code §54, by denying visually impaired guests full access to DEFENDANTS' programs, services, and activities. As a direct and proximate result ofthe aforementioned acts, PLAINTIFFS have suffered, and continue to suffer hardship and anxiety as well as deteriorating physical conditions, due to DEFENDANTS' failures to address accommodations and services required for PLAINTIFFS' disabilities. Due to the continuous nature of DEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct, which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. Moreover, as a result ofDEFENDANTS ' actions, PLAINTIFFS are suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. PLAINTIFFS are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action. California Civil Code §55. Each DEFENDANT is charged by law and public policy as well as its own code of business responsibility to refrain from discriminating against the PLAINTIFF CLASSES on account oftheir physical disability. As a result of the actions and conduct described herein, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have no adequate remedy at law to redress their grievances and recover their damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF The PLAINTIFF CLASSES pray as follows: 1. For an injunction ordering DEFENDANTS, each of them, to comply
with the statutes set forth herein; 2. For an order establishing the following equitable, injunctive and
declaratory relief: a. That a judicial determination and declaration be made of the
rights ofthe PLAINTIFF CLASSES, and ofthe Court-approved
36

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(,/10 Page 37 of 41 Page ID #:181

1

remedial measures that DEFENDANTS and each of them must

2

take to prevent discrimination of the visually impaired by all

3

employees ofDEFENDANTS;

4

b. That DEFENDANTS be forever enjoined from engaging in the

5

practices described in this Complaint and from any practices that

6

deviate from any orders of this Court;

7

c. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide Braille

8

signage within their theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in

9

Florida and California;

10

d. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide permanent

11

Braille maps at multiple locations and portable maps in

12

alternative formats such as Braille and/or large print within

13

Disney theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida and

14

California;

15

e. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide menus and

16

schedules in alternative formats such as Braille and/or large print

17

within Disney theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in

18

Florida and California;

19

f. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS read the menus, in

20

full, upon request by visually impaired patrons;

21

g. That this Court mandate that each DEFENDANT provide

22

reasonable accommodations for service animals, designated

23

places to defecate within Disney theme parks, hotels, restaurants,

24

and shops in Florida and California, and places where the service

25

animal can be tied within the theme parks while visually impaired

26

persons use rides;

27

28

37

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(/10 Page 38 of 41 Page ID #:182

1

h. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide a free or

2

reduced fare admission ticket to one person accompanying a paid

3

visually impaired ticket holder to act as a guide within Disney

4

theme parks in Florida and California;

5

1. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS are enjoined from

6

maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric

7

Parade, that only wheelchair users are allowed to use the area

8

designated for handicapped guests, and not guests with other

9

disabilities such as visual impairments;

10

J. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide reasonable

11

accommodations for visually impaired quests when renting

12

lockers;

13

k. That this Court make a determination as to the impropriety ofthe

14

fees DEFENDANTS charge visually impaired visitors at Disney

15

theme parks in Florida and California for accommodations and

16

auxiliary aids and services including kennels;

17

1. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS maintain their

18

websites including www.disney.go.com to make them fully

19

accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen

20

reader software;

21

m. That this Court mandate DEFENDANTS provide handicap-

22

accessible parking at their Disneyland parking structure and

23

parking lot that is compliant with the following provisions ofthe

24

ADAAG: 4.6.2, 4.1.2,4.1.3,4.7.7,4.29.2 and 4.29.5; to ensure

25

that DEFENDANTS' parking facilities do not violate the

26

Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California

27

28

38

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM(G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10/(10 Page 39 of 41 Page ID #:183

1

Code of Regulations;

2

3. For reasonable attorneys' fees as may be detennined by the Court for all

3

causes of action;

4

4. For costs of suit; and

5

5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

6

proper.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing First

8
Amended Class Action Complaint was furnished by Plaintiffs via e-mail and First

9
Class Mail to David H. Raizman, Esq., Eisenberg, Raizman, Thurston and Wong,

10
LLP, 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Los Angeles, California 90024,

11
Attorneys for Defendants, draizman@ertwllp.com, this 10 day of September, 2010.

12
Respectfully submitted,

13

14

~F~SBN 11849'1

15

~enefeldman~lll~ri~com

UGENE FE D , A TORNEY AT

16

LAW,APC

555 Pier Avenue, Suite 4

17

Hennosa Beac~ California 90254

Phone: (31O) 3 12 4636

18

Fax: (310) 376 3531

19

A. ANDERSON B. DOGALI

Pro Hac Vice Application Pending

20

Fla. Bar NO.:0615862

a~~orizIm·com

21

B

.HO

Pro Hac Vice Application Pending

22

Fla. Bar No.: 764671

bhohman~forizs-d0f.ali.com

23

FORIZ8 DOGAL, P.A.

4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300

24

Tampa, FL 33634

Phone: (813) 289-0700

25

Fax: (813) 289-9435

26

27

28

39

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(/10 Page 40 of 41 Page ID #:184

1

ATTORNEYS FOR CARl SHIELDS

AMBER BOGGSTTERESA STOCKTON

2

AND THE PUTA IVE CLASS

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

40

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DM( G-FMO Document 16 Filed 09/10(/10 Page 41 of 41 Page ID #:185
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My address is 555 Pier Avenue, Suite 4, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.
On September 10,2010 I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF on the following interested party:

Mr. David H. Raizman, Esq.
Eisenberg Raizman Thurston & Wong LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd. 11th floor Los Angeles, CA 90024-4101

Attorney for Defendants: Walt Disney Parks & Resorts, USA, Inc. Disney Online, Inc.

A. Anderson B. Dogali, Esq. Brian A. Hohman, Esq. Forizs & Dogali, P.A. 4301 Anchor Plaza Pkwy., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33634

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

Carl Shields and Amber Boggs

By Mail I placed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in a sealed envelope addressed
to each interested party above. I placed each envelope with postage fully prepaid for collection and mailing at Eugene Feldman Attorney at Law APC in Hermosa Beach, California. I am familiar with Eugene Feldman Attorney at Law APC's practices for collection and mailing such correspondence with the US mail on the same day in he ordinary course of business.
I declare under penalty of peljury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 10, 20 I 0 at Hermosa Beach, California.

Eugene Feldman

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 115 Filed 04/15/11 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:5148

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 10-5810-DMG (JEMx)

Date April 15, 2011

Title

Cari Shields, et al. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

John E. McDermott, United States Magistrate Judge

S. Anthony Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE RECUSAL

This Court voluntarily recuses itself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because of personal knowledge of evidentiary facts apparently at issue in the proceeding. 28 U.S.C.§ 455(b)(1).

cc: Parties

:

Initials of Preparer

sa

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 123 Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:5293

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 CARI SHIELDS, et al.,

)

)

11

Plaintiffs,

)

)

12

v.

)

)

13 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS )

US, INC., et al.,

)

14

)

)

15

Defendants.

)

)

16

)

No. CV 10-5810 DMG (FMOx) ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS

17

Having reviewed the parties’ papers with respect to (1) defendants’ Motion for Protective

18 Order and (2) plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Pr oduction of Documents and Privilege Log (“Motion

19 to Compel”) and accompanying Joint Stipulation (“Joint Stip.”), both filed on March 22, 2011, the

20 court concludes that plaintiffs’ Motion to Co mpel and defendants’ Motion for Protective Order

21 (collectively, “Motions”) should be denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule

22 37.

23

The court’s review of the papers indicates thatthe parties have not complied with the letter

24 or spirit of Local Rule 37 and that the par ties do not appear to be making good faith efforts to

25 resolve their discovery disputes.1 For example, plaintiffs’ counseldid not provide defense counsel

26

27

1 To ensure that the parties strictly comply with their discovery obligations and the specific

requirements of Local Rule 37, the court has, as part of this Order, set forth the requirements the

28 parties must comply with before the court will entertain any future discovery motions.

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 123 Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:5294

1 with the letter required by Local Rule 37-1, “identify[ing] each issue and/or discovery request in

2 dispute, . . . stat[ing] briefly with respect to each such issue/request [p laintiffs’] position (and

3 provid[ing] any legal authority which [plaintiffs] believe[] is dispositive of the di spute as to that 4 issue/request), and specify[ing] the termsof the discovery order to be sought.2” Rather than send

5 the letter required by Local Rule 37-1, plaintiffs sent their porti on of the Joint Stip. to def ense

6 counsel. (See Joint Stip. at 3-5, 6-7 &19-21). That is insufficientand improper. Once a party has

7 put in the time and effort required to prepare his or her portion of the Join t Stipulation, there is

8 little, if any, incentive for any party (especially the party who prepared t he Joint Stipulation) to

9 attempt to comprom ise or work out any of t he discovery requests. Finally, although defense

10 counsel, unlike plaintiffs’ counsel, sent a letter requesting a meet and confer with regard to the 11 protective order, the letter failed to “specify the terms of the discovery order to be sought.”3 See

12 Local Rule 37-1; (Declaration of David H. Raimz an in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Protective

13 Order (“Raizman Decl.”), Exh. 4 at 3-4).

14

Under the circumstances, the court will denyhte two Motions without prejudice to, interalia,

15 allow the parties to conduct proper meet and confer sessions addressing the disputed discovery

16

17

18

2 Notwithstanding plaintiffs’ failure to prepar e and send a Local Rule 37-1 meet and confer

letter, plaintiffs inexplicably set a meet and confer at a time thatwas previously set by the parties

19 to discuss other matters. The m eet and confer was set with only one business day and four

calendar days’ notice. (See Joint Stip. at 19) (“Plaintiffs’ counsel unilaterally insisted on a meet 20 and confer only one intervening business day ahead . .. as to these discovery issues[;] he added

21

to a meet and confer session that had alr eady been set for that day on” another matter); Declaration of David H. Raizman in Support of Defendants’ Portion of Joint Stip., Exh. I). Even

22 assuming plaintiffs had sent a properLocal Rule 37 letter to initiate the meet and confer process, plaintiffs’ unilateral setting of the meet and confer was plainly insufficient. See Local Rule 37-1.

23 3 There seems to be a dispute as to whetherhte parties are required toparticipate in meet and
24 confers and otherwise comply with Local Rule 37. Plaintiffs assert that they are not required to

25

meet and confer because the parties, through their Joint Scheduling Conference Report, exempted themselves from comply ing with Local Rule 37. (See Joint Stip. at 3-5). Plaintiffs’

26 assertion is frivolous. Absent a court order from the judge with t he responsibility to deal with disputed issues (i.e., the Magistrate Judge to whom discovrey matters have been referred), parties

27 do not have the authority to exem pt themselves from the Local Rules. Thus, for example,

plaintiffs’ counsel was requiredto confer with defense counsel wiht in 10 days of being served with 28 defense counsel’s letter. See Local Rule 37-1.

2

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 123 Filed 05/09/11 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:5295

1 matters and, if necessary, file the appropriate discovery motion(s).4 Although the court will deny

2 the Motions without prejudice, the parties are hereby put on notice that failure to comply strictly

3 with any of the Local Rules or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in the denial of their

4 discovery motions with prejudice.

5

This Order is not intended for publ ication. Nor is it intended to be included in or

6 submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.

7

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

8

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to CompePl roduction of Documents and Privilege Log(Document No.

9 55) is denied without prejudice.

10

2. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Document No. 56) is denied without

11 prejudice.

12

3. Plaintiffs’ Request for Hearing Before Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin(Document

13 No. 120) is denied as moot.

14

4. The parties shall comply strictly with Local Rule 37 in the event that any party believes

15 that it may be necessary to file a discovery motion. The moving party’s counsel shall initiate the

16 meet and confer process required by Local Rule 37 by preparing and serving the letter required

17 by Local Rule 37-1. The opposing party’s counsel or, for that matter, any party that receives a

18 letter pursuant to Local Rule 37-1 must make himself or herself available for a meet and confer

19 (as specified in Local Rule 37) wihtin ten (10) calendar (not business)days of the date of the letter.

20 All meet and confer letters must be served by fax and e-mail on the day the letter is dated. The

21 Joint Stipulation must include copies of all meet and confer letters as well as a declaration that

22 sets forth, in detail, the entire meet and confer process (i.e., when and where it took place, how

23 long it lasted and the position of each attorneywith respect to each disputed discovery request).

24

25

4 The court notes that once a party sends its por tion of the Joint Stipulation to the opposing

26 party, it cannot later change its portion in response to the other side’s portion. SeeLocal Rule 372.2 (“After the opposing party’s papers are added to the stipulation bythe moving party’s counsel,

27 the stipulation shall be providedto opposing counsel, who shall signit (electronically or otherwise)

and return it to counsel for the moving party, no later than the end of the next business day, so 28 that it can be filed with the notice of motion.”).

3

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 123 Filed 05/09/11 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:5296

1 In addition, the meet and confers must be transcribed by a court reporter. If the transcript(s) of

2 the meet and confer(s) do(es) not demonstrate a good faith effort by the parties to resolve each

3 issue and discovery request in dispute, themotion will be denied and/or sanctions will be imposed

4 for failure to participate in the meet and confer process in good faith. The costs of the court

5 reporter shall be divided equally between the parties. The court will not consider any future

6 discovery motions in this matter unless the transcript of the meet and confer is included as part

7 of the joint stipulation papers.

8

5. As part of the meet and confer process, the moving party is required to “specify the

9 terms of the discovery order to be sought.” Local Rule 37-1. Local Rule 37-2.1 implements this

10 requirement by requiring, as part of the Joint Stipulation, that each party “state how it proposed

11 to resolve the dispute over that issue at the conference of counsel.” This must be included in all

12 Joint Stipulations. To the ext ent that a certain number of di scovery requests involve the same

13 issue(s), the parties may group those requests under one section heading and set for th their

14 position with respect to those requests.

15

6. Any objections to discovery requests based on the work-product protection, attorney-

16 client privilege or any other applicable privilege under state or federal law that are served after the

17 filing date of this Order shall include “suffici ent information to enable the court to determine

18 whether each element of the asserted objection is satisfei d.” Fears v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc,.2000

19 WL 1679418, at *4 (D. Kan. 2000) (italics in original); seePeat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. West,

20 748 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1199, 105 S.Ct. 983

21 (1985) (a party’s failure to satisfy burden when tr ial court is asked to rule upon existence of a

22 privilege is not excused even when the document is later shown to be one that would have been

23 privileged had a timely showing been made). For any document that is withheld and/or redacted

24 on the basis of the attorney-clientprivilege and/or work-product proet ction, the party producing the

25 document shall provide a privilege log at the ti me the document(s) is(are) produced or within a

26 reasonable time thereafter provided the parties reach an agreement on a new date pursuant to

27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 29 and the new daet does not interfere with any ofthe case-related deadlines (e.g.,

28 discovery cutoff, motion cutoff). The privilege log shall comply with Form No. 11:A as set forth in

4

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 123 Filed 05/09/11 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:5297

1 the California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial(The Rutter Group 2011). Any

2 document that contains both protected and responsive information shall be redacted to eliminate

3 any reference to attorney-client matters and/or the work-product protection.

4

7. “In feder al question cases, the law of privilege is gover ned by the principles of the

5 common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason

6 and experience.” Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 367 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1992) (per

7 curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Heathman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 503

8 F.2d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir. 1974) (“[I]nfederal question cases the clear weight of authority and logic

9 supports reference to federal law on t he issue of the exist ence and scope of an asserted

10 privilege.”); Fitzgerald v. Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 635 (N.D. Cal. 2003); seealso 6 Moore’s Federal

11 Practice § 26.47[4], at 26-334 (3d ed. 2010) (“[I]n fedearl question cases in which state law claims

12 are also raised, any asserted pr ivileges relating to evidence rele vant to both state and federal

13 claims are governed by federal common law.”) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, the parties

14 may not rely on state privilege orprivacy law to withhold information orto instruct a deponent not

15 to answer; only information that is covered by a federal privilege or the work-product protection

16 may be withheld.

17

8. If a party seeks to file a document under seal, the party should seek leave to file only

18 the specific documents that the party believes are covered bythe applicable protective order. To

19 the extent that any party believes that portions of a proposeddocument should be sealed because

20 the document quotes extensively from protected documents, the party should either separate out

21 the arguments that quote extensively from those documents and seek to seal those portions as

22 a supplemental memorandum or sim ply cite to t he specific portion(s) of the documents in the

23 document that the party wants the court to review.

24

9. The parties should note the following in the event that they decide to seek a protective

25 order in this case:

26

A. Any proposed protective order must contain a statement ofgood cause. “For

27

good cause to exist, the party seeking prot ection bears the burden of showing specific

28

prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips ex rel. Byrd v. Gen.

5

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 123 Filed 05/09/11 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:5298

1

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

2

Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A party asserting good cause bears

3

the burden, for each particular document it s eeks to protect, of showing that spec ific

4

prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.”); Makar-Wellb on v. Sony

5

Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protectiv e orders

6

require good cause showing). The proposed protective order must set forth the specific

7

prejudice or harm that will resu lt to each party if the pr oposed protective order is not

8

granted as to the categories of documents or information the parties seek to protect. The

9

statement of good cause should be preced ed by a heading entitled, “GOOD CAUSE

10

STATEMENT.”

11

B. The proposed protective order must be narrowly tailored and cannot be

12

overbroad. The documents, i nformation, items or materi als that are subject to the

13

protective order shall be described in a meaningful fashion (e.g., “blueprints,” “personnel

14

records,” “customer lists,” or “market surveys”). It is not sufficient to use conclusory terms

15

such as “trade secrets.”5 Statements that any producingparty or person may designate as

16

confidential or highly confidential any documents that a party “would normally maintain in

17

confidence” are insufficient.

18

C. The proposed protective order must contain language relating to Local Rule

19

79-5, which governs the f iling of documents under seal. The court will not approve a

20

protective order that requires the court or its employees to provide any protection for

21

confidential material beyond that required by Local Rule 79-5.

22

D. Any disputes relating to the prot ective order such as designation of

23

confidential documents must be done pursuant to Local Rule 37. In making or opposing

24

any motion relating to the designat ion of c onfidential information, the party seeking to

25

maintain a document as confidential shall bearthe burden of showingspecific prejudice or

26

27

5 In proposing or agreeing to the protection of “trade secrets,” the definition for that term in

California Civil Code § 3426.1 should be incorporated intothe protective order,either by reference

28 or by quotation.

6

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 123 Filed 05/09/11 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:5299

1

harm will result if no protective order is granted. See Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11.

2

E. Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as

3

confidential and/or kept and maintained pursuant to the terms of a protective order

4

becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including

5

the press, unless good cause is shown to t he district judge in advance of the trial to

6

proceed otherwise. The court will not enter a protective or der that extends beyond the

7

commencement of trial.

8

F. The court will not approve a proposed protective order that requires the court

9

and its employees to sign a written agreement beofre viewing confidentialdocuments in this

10

case.

11

G. The court will not return any documents fr om its files to the filing party fo r

12

disposition.

13

10. In responding to document requests and interrogatories, each party shall provide a

14 certification, under penalty of perjury, that: (1) states thatall relevant, non-privileged information

15 under its custody and/or control hasbeen provided; (2) describes in detail the efforts made by the

16 responding party to obtain and produce the reques ted information; and (3) states whether any

17 further responsive information is available.

18

11. With respect to the conduct of depositions, the parties should note the following. Any

19 objection to a deposition question must be stat ed concisely and in a nonargumentative and

20 nonsuggestive manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). Counsel should state objections on the record

21 and then permit the witness to answer the question. See Eggleston v. Chicago J ourneymen

22 Plumbers, 657 F.2d 890, 902 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denie,d455 U.S. 1017, 102 S.Ct. 1710 (1982). 23 Counsel must refrain from instructing a deponent not to answer questions during a deposition.6

24 Under Rule 30(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an attorney “may instruct a deponent

25 not to answer only when necessary to preserve aprivilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the

26

27 6 An attorney may not instruct a witness not to answer a question on the ground that it has
28 been asked and answered, is vague and ambiguous, or is irrelevant.

7

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 123 Filed 05/09/11 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:5300

1 court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) 7 provides the

2 “exclusive grounds for instructing a deponent not to anwser.” Shapiro v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co,.

3 1997 WL 601430, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 1997); Detoy v. City and County of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D.

4 362, 367 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (“Counsel shall refrain for m instructing a witness not to answer, except

5 as provided in Rule 30[(c)(2).]”).

6

12. The court will not recognize any agreem ent between counsel relating to discovery

7 unless the agreement complies with Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8

13. The failure of any party or attorney to comply with the requirements of this Order, the

9 Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedur e may result in the denial of their discovery

10 motions with prejudice or sanctions being imposed.

11 Dated this 9th day of May, 2011.

12

13

/s/

Fernando M. Olguin

14

United States Magistrate Judge

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 7 Effective December 1, 2007, as par t of the general restyling of the Federal Rules of Civil
28 Procedure, Rule 30(d)(1) was integrated into Rule 30(c)(2).

8

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:6493

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 CARI SHIELDS, et al.,

)

)

12

Plaintiffs,

)

)

13

v.

)

)

14 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS )

US, INC., et al.,

)

15

)

)

16

Defendants.

)

)

17

)

NO. CV 10-5810 DMG (FMOx) ORDER Re: DISCOVERY MOTIONS

18

The court has reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to defendants’

19 Motions: (1) for Protective Order; (2) to Re -Open Plaintiffs’ Depositions; and (3) for Leave to

20 Exceed Deposition Limit (collectively, “Motions”) and accompanying Joint Stipulation (“Joint Stip.”),

21 each filed on July 6, 2011, and conc ludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve these

22 Motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684

23 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001, as amended Mar. 27, 2001).

24

BACKGROUND

25

On August 5, 2010, defendants removed the instant action from the Los Angeles County

26 Superior Court. (See Notice of Removal of State CourtAction Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b)

27 and 1446 by Defendants at 1-2 & Exh. A at 1). On September 10, 2010, plaintiffs filed a First

28 Amended Complaint (“FAC”), the operative complain t in the action. The FAC alleges that

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:6494

1 defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., the

2 Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq., and the California Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”), Cal.

3 Civ. Code § 54.1, et seq., through discriminatory practices against visually impaired individuals.

4 (See FAC at 1-2 & 5-9). Plaintiffs allege that they were not able to benefit from the full use and

5 enjoyment of defendants’ theme parks, hotels, restaurants and website and were discriminated

6 against on account of their disability, i.e., visual impairment. (Id. at 2).

7

On March 22, 2011, defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order, which the court denied

8 without prejudice on May 9, 2011, for failure to comply with LocalRule 37. (Court’s Order of May

9 9, 2011, at 1-3). The court ordered the parties to “comply strictly with Local Rule 37 in the event

10 that any party believes that it may be necessary to file a discovery motion.” (Id. at 3).

11

On June 20, 2011, defendants filed “M otions: (1) for Protective Order; (2) to Re-Open

12 Plaintiffs’ Depositions; (3) for Leave to Exceed Deposition Limit; and (4) for Visual Examinations

13 of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs Pursuantto Rule 35(B),” (collectively, “June 20, 2011

14 Motions”). On June 24, 2011, the court denied the June 20, 2011 Motions as untimely. (Court’s

15 Order of June 24, 2011, at 2).

16

On June 29, 2011, the district judge issued an Amended Scheduling Order, extending the

17 discovery cut-off to August 30, 2011. Also on June 29, 2011, the district judge issued an Order

18 Re Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Court’s Order Re: ClassCertification”), certifying the

19 following classes: (1) all visually impaired indvi iduals considered to have a physical disability, as

20 that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (“visually impaired individuals”), who have not been or

21 upon visiting in the fu ture will not be provided si gnage, menus or schedules in an alternative

22 format, such as Braille and/or large print, or who were not read, in full, the menus at the theme

23 parks, hotels, restaurants and shops at the theme parks (“signage cal ss”); (2) all visually impaired

24 individuals who have been deterred from visitingdefendants’ theme parks, hotels, restaurants and

25 shops on account of there being no reasonable desgi nated areas for service animals to defecate

26 (“kennel class”); (3) all visually impaired indi viduals who have paid for, or who will upon future

27 visits be required to pay for, an additional ticket for a companion or aide to assist the visually

28 impaired individual in utilizing the accommodationsat the theme parks (“companion ticket class”);

2

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:6495

1 (4) all visually impaired individuals who have experienced discrimination, or who will upon future

2 visits experience discrimination, due to defendants’ policy of excluding persons with disabilities,

3 other than wheelchair users, from preferential locations to stand or sit during the parades at the

4 theme parks (“parade class”); and (5) all visually impaired individuals who have been or who will

5 in the future be unable to access one or more otfhe websites maintained by defendants and were

6 or will be denied equal access to deef ndants’ theme parks, hotels, restaurants and stores, as well

7 as the numerous goods, services and benefits the webistes offer (“website class”). (Court’s Order

8 Re: Class Certification at 43-44).

9

DISCUSSION

10

As an initial matter, it appears that the parties have again failed to comply with Local Rule

11 37. Under Local Rule 37-1, as part of the meet and confer process, the moving party is required

12 to “specify the terms of the discovery order to be sought.” Local Rule 37-2.1 implements this

13 requirement by requiring, as part of the Joint Stipulation, that each party “state how it proposed

14 to resolve the dispute over th[e] issue at the conference of counsel.” Despite the Court’s Order

15 of May 9, 2011, which directed the parties to comply with Local Rule 37-2.1, (see Court’s Order

16 of May 9, 2011, at 4), the parties did not include the Local Rule 37-2.1 statement in defendants’

17 portion of the Joint Stip. with respect to the first and second Motions, and in plaintiffs’ portion of

18 the Joint Stip. with respect to the second Motion. (See, generally, Joint Stip. at 1-35).

19

In addition, the parties discussed the issue of whether to re-open plaintiffs’ depositions at

20 a meet and confer session held on May 5, 2011, (Declaration of David H. Raizman in Support of

21 Defendants’ Motions (“Raizman Decl.”) at ¶ 3), but they did not submit a declaration with the Joint

22 Stip. regarding this meet and c onfer. (See Court’s Order of May 9, 2011, at 3) (“The Joint

23 Stipulation must include . . . a declaration that se ts forth, in det ail, the entire meet and confer

24 process (i.e., when and where it took place, how long it lasted and the position of each attorney

25 with respect to each disputed discovery request).”).

26

Finally, the parties filed the same Joint Stip. – seven days after the district judge issued an

27 order certifying five different classes – that ht e court denied on June 24, 2011,as untimely. (See

28 Motions at 2; compare Joint Stip. at 1-35 with Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendants’ Motions:

3

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:6496

1 (1) for Protective Order; (2) toRe-Open Plaintiffs’ Depositions; (3) for Leave to Exceed Deposition

2 Limit; and (4) for Visual Examinations of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs Pursuant to Rule

3 35(B), filed on June 20, 2011, at 1-35). Although defendants, in light of the class certification,

4 narrowed their requested relief in the Motion forProtective Order and Motion for Leave to Exceed

5 Deposition Limit, they did not renew the meet and confer proc ess. The parties should have

6 submitted a new joint stipulation that accurately discusses the issues that remain in dispute.

7 Although the court was forced to sift through the Joint Stip., proposed orders and supplemental

8 memoranda to decipher what issues are still in di spute, the court will, in this instanc e only,

9 overlook the above-referenced deficiencies and address the Motions on their merits. However,

10 the parties are advised that all future discoverymotions that fail to comply strictly with the

11 Local Rules and/or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be rejected.

12 I. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER.

13

Following the meet and confer process, the parties narrowed the dispute to whether and

14 how plaintiffs can contact visually impaired ni dividuals who had written to defendants to complain

15 about some aspect of their experei nce at the Disneyland Resort inCalifornia and the Walt Disney

16 World Resort in Florida (“theme parks”). (See Joint Stip. at 2 & 4-5). However, since the class

17 certification, defendants “narrowed” their protective order requestonly to “those third party guests

18 who are not members of any certified class.” (Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum in Support

19 of Motion for Protective Order (“Defs.’ Supp.Mem. Re: Protective Order”) at 1; see Motion at 2).

20 Defendants seek a protective or der under which they would first send the third party visually

21 impaired guests who complained about non-class issues (“complainants”) an opt-out letter that

22 gives the complainants 14 days to opt-out of being contacted by plaintiffs. (See [Proposed]

23 Protective Order at ¶¶ 2-4 & Exh. A).

24

As an initial matter, defendants’ narrowing of their protective order request to “only those

25 third party guests who are not members of any ceirfited class[,]” (Defs.’ Supp. Mem. Re: Protective

26 Order at 2), is vague and unworkable. Given the classes that were certified, (see Court’s Order

27 Re: Class Certification at 43-44), it is simply t oo difficult to determine at this time whether any

28 third-party complainant would or would not be a member of the certified class. Also, even

4

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:6497

1 assuming one could determine whether a person is or is not a member of one of the certified

2 classes, it is likely that a particular complaint made by a visually impaired third party about an

3 issue that was arguably not certifei d is reasonably calculated to leadto the discovery of admissible

4 evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

5

In any event, the court sees no need to requirethe opt-out letter requested by defendants

6 under the circumstances here. Defendants a ssert that the unredacted guest correspondence

7 contains highly sensitive information under established privacy law and the ADA, and they urge

8 the court to follow the California Supreme Court’s decision in Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v.

9 Superior Court (Pioneer), 40 Cal.4th 360, 370-75 (2007). (Joint Stip. at 2-3 & 5-8). T his is a

10 federal question case, and defendants may not rely on state privilege or privacy law to withhold

11 information in a federal question case. See Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364,

12 367 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1992) (percuriam) (“In federal question cases, the law of privilege is governed

13 by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted bythe courts of the United States

14 in the light of reason and experience.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Heathman

15 v. U.S. Dist. Court, 503 F.2d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir. 1974) (“[I]n federal question cases t he clear

16 weight of authority and logic supports reference to federal law on the issue of the existence and

17 scope of an asserted pr ivilege.”); Fitzgerald v. Cassil , 216 F.R.D. 632, 635 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

18 (explaining that in cases involving bot h state and federal claims, “the federal law of privilege

19 applies to both the state and federal claims[]”); see also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 26.47[4],

20 at 26-334 (3d ed. 2011) (“[I]nfederal question cases in which staet law claims are also raised, any

21 asserted privileges relating to evidence relevantto both state and federalclaims are governed by

22 federal law.”) (internal citations omitted).

23

Moreover, defendants’ assertion of a privacy interest in requiring an opt-out procedure fails

24 to acknowledge Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) which provides that a party “may obtain

25 discovery regarding . . . the idenity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.”

26 See also 8 Wright & Miller, Feder al Practice and Procedure § 2013, at 282-83 (3d ed. 2010)

27 (“[D]iscovery of the names and addresses of witnesses . . . ordinarily . . . should be regarded as

28

5

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:6498

1 a matter of right.”) (cases cited therein). Th is Rule would have little effect if defendants were

2 permitted to prevent plaintiffs from using the contact information to contact potential witnesses.

3

Even assuming state privacy lawapplied, the court has no diffci ulty concluding that an opt-

4 out letter is not required. As an initial matter, defendants did not attempt to apply the analytical

5 framework for assessing claims of invasion of priavcy under California’s Constitution as articulated

6 in Hill v. NCAA, 7 Cal.4th 1 (1994). (See, generally, Joint Stip. at 5-8). Unless a party satisfies

7 the Hill criteria, there is no need for a court to c onduct a balanc ing of in terests to determine

8 whether and if any limitations on communications with the third-party witnesses are necessary.

9 See Pioneer, 40 Cal.4th at 371 (“Assuming thata claimant has met the . . .Hill criteria for invasion

10 of a privacy interest, that interest must be measured against other competing or countervailing

11 interests in a ‘balancing test.’”) (citatoi ns omitted) (italics in original); seealso id. at 373 (“Pioneer’s

12 failure to demonstrate that itscustomers entertained a reasonable expectation of privacy . . . could

13 end our inquiry as these elementsare essential to any breach ofprivacy cause of action underHill

14 before any balancing of interests is necessary.”) (italics in original).

15

In any event, it is clear that under Hill, there is no need to require an opt-out procedure in

16 this case. The Hill court set forth the two types of recognized privacy interests under California

17 law: “(1) interests in prec luding the disseminat ion or misuse of sensitive and confidential

18 information (‘informational privacy’); and (2) interests in making in timate personal decisions or

19 conducting personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference (‘autonomy privacy’).”

20 Hill, 7 Cal.4th at 35; see also Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & Hous. v. Superior Court, 99 Cal.App.4th 896,

21 903 (2002). The court looks

22

at the specific kind of privacy interest involved, the nature and seriousness

23

of the invasion, and any countervailing interests. If an obvious invasion of

24

interest fundamental to personal autonomy is involved, then the compelling

25

interest test applies. If the invasion isless central, or is in bona fide dispute,

26

then a general balancing test applies.

27

Before applying eit her test, the court must determine whether the

28

claim involves an insignificant or de minimis intrusion on a protected privacy

6

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:6499

1

interest. If the claim is an insignific ant or de minim is intrusion, then the

2

requesting party is not required to provide an explanation or justification for

3

the intrusion.

4 Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & Hous., 99 Cal.App.4th at 903 (citations omitted).

5

Defendants made no effort to establish that requiring an opt-out procedure is necessary to

6 protect a person’s “interests in making intima te personal decisions or conducting personal

7 activities without observation, intrusion, or interference[.]” Hill, 7 Cal.4th at 35; see also Dep’t of

8 Fair Emp’t & Hous., 99 Cal.App.4th at 903. Indeed, defendants made no effort to discuss “the

9 specific kind of privacy interest involved, the nature and seri ousness of the invasion, and any 10 countervailing interests.”1 Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & Hous,. 99 Cal.App.4th at 903; seealso Int’l Fed’n

11 of Prof’l & Technical Eng’rs v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 319, 339 (2007) (“Invasion of a privacy

12 interest is not a violation of the state constitutional right to privacy if the invasion is justified by a

13 competing interest.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

14

In any event, the information defendants seek toprotect constitutes, at most, informational

15 privacy. “Where informational privacy is involv ed, the primary objective is to regulate the

16 unnecessary collection and improper use of such information for dissemination.” Dep’t of Fair

17 Emp’t & Hous. , 99 Cal.App.4th at 904. Here, there is no evidence that plaintiffs seek to

18 disseminate or misuse the informatoi n requested. Indeed, plaintiffs sitpulated to a protective order

19 to limit the use of the information to this lawsuit. (SeeProtective Order of June 24, 2011, at 4-5).

20

With regard to the second element of Hill , the court is not persuaded t hat the third-party

21 disabled customers had a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is no evidence that the third

22 parties, by filing complaints regarding defendants’ accommodation of their disabilities, expected

23

24

25
26 1 Defendants contend that ht e two privacy interests at stake are: (1) the interest of defendants’ guests in protecting their identities and contact information from disclosure; and (2) these guests’
27 interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the fact of their disabilities and any further private information about the nature or severityof their disabilities. (JointStip. at 5). However, defendants
28 do not specify whether the interests constitute informational or autonomy privacy interests.

7

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:6500

1 that their information would remain private2. (See, generally, Joint Stip. at 2-3 & 5-8). “If anything,

2 these complainants might reasonably expect, and even hope, that their names and addresses

3 would be given to any . . . class action plaintiff.” Pioneer, 40 Cal.4th at 372. As plaintiffs state,

4 defendants “would suggest that the filing of a fo rmal complaint with a business conce rning its

5 inability and unwillingness to accommodate a disabled person as required by the ADA is not a

6 public disclosure of the information and is done with an expectation that the information will be

7 kept private. [Defendants] cite[] to no authority for that proposition.” (Joint Stip. at 9). At most,

8 the subject individuals have a lessened expectation of privacy where the intrusion is confined to

9 a specific setting or limited context such as the instant case, in which plaintiffs seek information

10 in the specific context ofa class action disability discrimination case. Se,ee.g., Dep’t of Fair Emp’t

11 & Hous., 99 Cal.App.4th at 904 (current and former apartment tenants have a lessened

12 expectation of privacy because intrusion is confined to a specific setting).

13

“Finally, it is . . . questionabel whether the information sought constitutes a serious invasion

14 of privacy. The invasion of privacy in this case is not ‘sufficientlyserious in [its] nature, scope, and

15 actual or potential impact to constitute an egr egious breach of the soci al norms underlying the

16 privacy right.’” Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & Hous., 99 Cal.App.4th at 904 (quoting Hill, 7 Cal.4th at 37)

17 (brackets in original); see Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. , 47 Cal.4th 272, 287 (2009) (Plaintiff’s

18 expectation of privacy in the legally protect ed privacy int erest must be reasonable, and the

19 intrusion must be “so serious in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact as to constitute an

20 egregious breach of the social norms.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Given

21

22

23 2 Indeed, it appears thatdefendants themselves do not treat thisinformation as private, as the
24 complaint letters and emails were forwarded upthe corporate chain and passed on – unredacted

25

– to people on a “for your information” basis, even though the recipients made no decision as to how the complaints were handled. (See Joint Stip. at 9-10; Declaration of Lee Wm. Atkinson at

26 ¶ 7 & Exh. 3). Defendants assert that they shared the guest complaints within their entities “for business reasons, including to allow Defendants’ employees[] to understand the experiences of

27 guests with disabilities and consider modificationsof practices and policies[,]” (Defs.’ Supp. Mem.

Re: Protective O rder at 4), but defendants fail to explain why the complainants’ identifying 28 information is necessary for such purposes. (See, generally, id. at 4-5).

8

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:6501

1 the protective order that was entered by the court, the likelihood of improper disclosure of the

2 subject information is virtually non-existent.

3

In short, it is clear that defendants have failed to meet the Hill criteria for establishing that

4 an opt-out letter is requiredin this case. However, assuming defendants had met the Hilcl riteria,

5 the court has balanced t he third parties’ privacy interests against the need for the information

6 sought by plaintiff classes. Gvi en that the third-party complainants have, at most, an insignificant

7 privacy interest in the complaints they submitted to defendants, see Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & Hous.,

8 99 Cal.App.4th at 903 (“If the claim is an insignificant or de minmi is intrusion, then the requesting

9 party is not required to provide an explanation or justification fo r the intrusion.”), the court is

10 persuaded that the Protective Order of June 24, 2011, is sufficient to protect whatever privacy

11 interests may exist, i.e., an opt-out letter or notic e is not required. See Sandres v. Corrections

12 Corp. of Am. , 2011 WL 475068, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2011 ) (explaining that “[t]hough personal

13 identifying information is entitled to some privacy por tection, disclosing it is not a serious invasion

14 of privacy[,]” and “[i]n class action cases, [c]ontact information regarding the identity of potential

15 class members is generally discoverable, so that the lead plaintiff may learn the names of other

16 persons who might assist in prosecuting the case[]”) (internal quotation marks and citat ion

17 omitted); Putnam v. Eli Lilly and Co,. 508 F.Supp.2d 812, 814 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“[T]he Court finds

18 that plaintiff’s needs here outweigh the concerns of defendant. Plaintiff has shown a legitimate

19 need for the r equested information . . . . The need is especially compelling here where the

20 information to be disclosed concerns not disinterested third parties, but rather potential plaintiffs

21 themselves. This information must be disclosed toenable plaintiff to proceed; a protective order

22 can strike the appropriate balance between t he need for the information and t he privacy

23 concerns.”).

24 II. MOTION TO RE-OPEN PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITIONS.

25

Defendants seek to re-open plaintiffs’ depositions to examine them regarding alleged newly

26 developed facts and newly asserted allegations and relie f. (Joint Stip. at 22). Specifically,

27 defendants contend that since plaintiffs’ depositions in late 2010 and early 2011, plaintiffs have

28 made additional visits to the theme parks, which have resulted in plaintiffs lodging additional

9

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:6502

1 complaints regarding their experiences at the theme parks. (Id. ). Defendants also assert that

2 plaintiffs expanded their allegations and request for relief since their depositions and since filing

3 the FAC. (Id.).

4

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii), a partymust obtain leave of court to depose a person

5 who has already been deposed in the case if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition. The

6 factors in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) that the court must consider are: (1) whether the discovery

7 sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,or can be obtained from some other source that

8 is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) whether the party seeking discovery

9 has had ample opportunity to obtainthe information by discovery inthe action; or (3) whether the

10 burden or expense of theproposed discovery outweighs its likely benefits, considering the needs

11 of the case, the amount in contro versy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issue s at

12 stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

13

A. Plaintiff Cari Shields.

14

Plaintiffs have agreed to re-open the deposition of Cari Shields (“Ms. Shields”) for the

15 limited purpose of deposing her c oncerning her subsequent trip to one of the theme parks on

16 March 17, 2011. (Joint Stip. at 24). Under the circumstances, the court will allow Ms. Shields’s

17 deposition to be re-opened f or the limited purpose of questioning her regarding all visits to the

18 theme parks from February 1, 2011, to the filing date of this Order. The deposition shall not

19 exceed three hours, exclusive of breaks and meal periods, and s hall be taken at the time and

20 place designated by plaintiffs’ counsel.

21

B. Plaintiffs Amber Boggs and Teresa Stockton.

22

Under the circumstances, the court will not allow a re-opening otfhe depositions of plaintiffs

23 Amber Boggs (“Ms. Boggs”) and Teresa Stockton (“Ms. Stockton”). See Dixon v. Certainteed

24 Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 690 (D. Kan. 1996) (“Absentsome showing of a need or good reason for

25 doing so, the court will generally not require a deponent to appear for a second deposition.”)

26 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Graebner v. James River Corp., 130 F.R.D. 440,

27 441 (N.D. Cal. 1989, as amendedApr. 10, 1990) (“[R]epeatdepositions are disfavored, except in

28 certain circumstances[,]” such as “long passage of time with new evidence, [or] new theories

10

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:6503

1 added to the complaint[.]”); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 30.05[1][c], at 30-34 (3d ed. 2011)

2 (“Courts generally disfavor second depositions, and absent a showing of need or good reason,

3 a court generally will not requirea deponent to appear for a second deposition.”). “Plaintiffs have

4 stipulated that they would not introduce into evidence or otherwise seek to rely upon any visits by

5 Ms. Boggs or Ms. Stockton to Disney properties since their original depositions.” (Joint Stip. at

6 24). Indeed, defendants initially “offered to forego [plaintiffs’] depositions,” in part based on this

7 stipulation. (See id. at 23).

8

Defendants’ contention that plaintiffs have asserted new allegations that are not contained

9 in the FAC since their original depositions, (seeJoint Stip. at 26-29), is unpersuasive. Questions

10 propounded in discovery requests, allegations in a mtoion for class certification and/or information

11 revealed during or after a mediation are insufficiento constitute new “claim allegations,” i.e,. they

12 are insufficient to expand the allegations in the operative pleading. A party can discover any

13 nonprivileged information that is relevant to the claimsor defenses of any other party. Fed. R. Civ.

14 P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information does not have tobe admissible so long as it appears calculated

15 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Sim ply because a discovery request is

16 relevant to a party’s claim or defense or is ca lculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

17 evidence does not mean t hat the claim or requested relief in the operative complaint has been

18 expanded. Also, this court cannot decide whet her the operative complaint should be amended

19 or whether plaint iffs should be barred from introducing evidence that, as defendants claim,

20 expands the claims in the operative complaint.

21

Here, the allegations were clearly set forth in the operative complaint at the time of the

22 original depositions, as the FAC was filed on September 10, 2010, (seeFAC at 1 & 5-9), and the

23 original depositions occurred in November and December 2010 and January 2011. (Joint Stip.

24 at 25). Defendants therefore had ample opportunity to obtain the information during the original

25 depositions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii) & 30(a)(2).

26 III. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED DEPOSITION LIMIT.

27

Defendants seek an order allowing them to take two additional depositions beyond the 10-

28 deposition limit provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A). (See Motions at 2-3; Defendants’

11

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:6504

1 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to Exceed Deposition Limit (“Defs.’

2 Supp. Mem. Re: Exceed Depo. Limit”) at 2-4). Defendants seek to depose Julie Johnson (“Ms.

3 Johnson”) and Chris Snyder (“Mr. Snyder”). (Defs’. Supp. Mem. Re: Exceed Depo. Limit at 2-4).

4 Under the circumstances, thecourt is persuaded that defendantshave shown good cause for the

5 two additional depositions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2) (a party seeking to take more than 10

6 depositions must first obtain leaveof the court, which shall be grantedto the extent consistent with

7 the principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2));Lloyd v. Valley Forge Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 906150, at *2

8 (W.D. Wash. 2007) (citing Bell v. Fowler , 99 F.3d 262, 271 (8th Cir. 1996) ) (A party may be

9 granted leave to exceed the 10-deposit ion limit if it makes “a particularized showing o f why the

10 discovery is necessary.”); (Joint Stip. at 18-19) (defendants stating that Ms. Johnson drove Ms.

11 Shields to the Disneyland Resort and may have been with Ms. Shields when she tried to access

12 the first row of the parade viewing area, and that Mr. Snyder visited the theme parks wit h Ms.

13 Shields and Ms. Boggs and discussed the parks’ allegedly poor accommodations for the blind);

14 (Defs.’ Supp. Mem. Re: Exceed Depo. Limit at 3-4)(defendants stating that Ms. Johnson observed

15 Ms. Shields’s attempt to access the first row of the disabled parade viewing area and therefore

16 has unique information relating to the parade class clami s, and that Mr. Snyder is a potential class

17 member and Disneyland Resort annual pass-holder).However, each deposition shall not exceed

18 four hours, exclusive of brea ks and meal periods, and shall be taken at the time and place

19 designated by plaintiffs’ counsel.

20

This Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or

21 submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.

22

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

23

1. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Document No. 140) is denied.

24

2. Defendants’ Motion to Re-Open Plaintiffs’ Depositions(Document No. 140) is granted

25 in part and denied in part. Defendants may take the deposition of Ms. Shields for the limited

26 purpose of questioning her regarding all visits todefendants’ theme parks from February 1, 2011,

27 to the filing date of this Order. Ms. Shields’s deposition shall not exceed three hours, exclusive

28 of breaks and meal periods, and shall be taken at the time and place designated by plaintiffs’

12

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:6505

1 counsel. Ms. Shields’s deposition shall be completed no later thaAnugust 25, 2011. Defendants’

2 Motion to Re-Open Plaintiffs’ Depositions is denied in all other respects. With respect to Ms.

3 Boggs and Ms. Stockton, plaintiffsmay not introduce into evidenceor otherwise seek to rely upon

4 any visits by Ms. Boggs or Ms. Stockton to Disnepyroperties since their original depositions. (See

5 Joint Stip. at 24).

6

3. Defendants’ Motion to Exceed Deposition Limit (Document No. 140) is granted as

7 limited by defendants in Defs.’ Supp. Mem. Re: Exceed Depo. Limit. Defendants may take two

8 additional depositions beyond the 10-deposition limit set forth in Fed.R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A). The

9 two additional depositions are limited to Julie Johnson and Chris Snyder. The depositions of Ms.

10 Johnson and Mr. Snyder shall be completed no later than August 30, 2011, and shall be limited

11 to no more than four hours for each deposition, exclusive of breaks and meal periods. Eac h

12 deposition shall be t aken at the time and place des ignated by plaintiffs’ counsel. Defendants’

13 Motion to Exceed Deposition Limit is denied in all other respects.

14

4. With respect to the conduct of the depositions, the parties should note the following.

15 Any objection to a deposition question must be stated concisely and in a nonargumentative and

16 nonsuggestive manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). Counsel should state objections on the record

17 and then permit the witness to answer the question.Eggleston v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers,

18 657 F.2d 890, 902 (7thCir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1017 (1982). Counsel must refrain from 19 instructing a deponent not to answer questions during a deposition.3 Under Rule 30(c)(2) of the

20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an attorney “may instruct a deponent not to answer only when

21 necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to pr esent a 22 motion under Rule 30(d)(3).” F ed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) 4 provides the “exclusive grounds for

23 instructing a deponent not answer.” Shapirov. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 1997 WL 601430, at *1

24 (N.D. Cal. 1997); Detoy v. City and County of San Francisco , 196 F.R.D. 362, 367 (N.D. Cal.

25

26

3 An attorney may not instruct a witness not to answer a q uestion on the ground that it has

been asked and answered, is vague and ambiguous or is irrelevant.

27

4 Effective December 1, 2007, as par t of the general restyling of the Federal Rules of Civil

28 Procedure, Rule 30(d)(1) was integrated into Rule 30(c)(2).

13

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 155 Filed 08/05/11 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:6506

1 2000) (“Counsel shall refrain from instructing a wint ess not to answer, except as provided in Rule

2 30[(c)(2).]”).

3 Dated this 5th day of August, 2011.

4

5

/s/

Fernando M. Olguin

6

United States Magistrate Judge

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 195 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:6721

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 CARI SHIELDS, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND

13 RESORTS U.S., INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

16

17

Case No.: 10-cv-05810 DMG (FMOx) Class Action [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASSES AND MANDATING NOTICE TO CLASS OF FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING Judicial Officer: Hon. Dolly M. Gee

18

19

This matter is before the Court on the joint m otions for preliminary approval

20 of the settlem ent, leave to file a Sec ond Amended Com plaint and for conditional 21 certification of the settlement classes (the “Motions”) of plaintiffs Cari Shields and

22 Amber Boggs (collectively, “Named Plaintiffs”) and defendants Walt Disney Parks

23 and Resorts U.S., Inc. and Disney Online (collectively, “Defendants”). The 24 Motions seek, am ong other thi ngs, the Cour t’s preliminary approval of the Class

25 Action Settlement Agreement And Release (t he “Settlement Agreemen t”) entered

26 into between Named Plaintiffs, on the on e hand, and Defendants and Walt Disney 27 Parks and Resorts Online (collectively, “Disney”), on the other hand.

28

- 1 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 195 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:6722

1

Having considered t he Motions as pr esented in the supporti ng briefs and

2 papers and at oral argument, the abse nce of opposition to the Motions, and the

3 Court having found that the proposed reso lution of this matter set forth in the

4 Settlement Agreement, taken as a whole, is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

5 reasonable to all concerned, and for ot her good cause shown, the Court hereby

6 Orders as follows:

7

1. Conditioned on the Court’s final a pproval of the proposed settlem ent,

8 the following classes shall be certified as settlement classes under Rules 23(a) and

9 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

10

a. The Website Class: All individuals with visual im pairments

11 who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have

12 been or will be unable to gain equal access to or enjoyment of one or m ore of the

13 websites owned or operated by Disn

ey such as www.disney.go.com ,

14 www.disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com, and www.disneycruise.com as a

15 result of their visual disability.

16

b. The Effective Co mmunication Class: All individuals with

17 visual impairments who (a) have a disability , as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.

18 §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the

19 Disney Parks because of (i) th e absence of maps in an alte rnative format, or (ii) the

20 absence of menus in an alternative format , or (ii i) the absence of schedules of

21 events at the Dis ney Parks in an alte rnative format, or (iv) i nadequate or

22 inconsistent operation of the audio descri ption service on the Handheld Device, or

23 (v) Disney’s refusal to provide a free or discounted pa ss to the ir sighted

24 companions, or (vi) the failure to be read , in full, the menus, maps or schedules of

25 events at the Disney Parks.

26

c. The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual

27 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

28 and (b) have been o r will be denied equal access to or enjoym ent of the Disney

D

- 2 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 195 Filed 04/23/12 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:6723

1 Parks because of (i) the fee ch arged for the use of a kennel for their service ani mal,

2 or (ii) the absence of reasonably-designat ed service animal relief areas, or (iii) the

3 absence of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not allow

4 service animals, or ( iv) the lack of e qual interaction with Disney em ployees who

5 portray Disney charact ers because the i ndividuals with visual im pairments are

6 accompanied by service animals.

7

d. The Infrastructure Class : All individuals with visual

8 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

9 and (b) have been o r will be denied equal access to or enjoym ent of the Disney

10 Parks because of (i) physical barriers to access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable

11 modifications to Disney’s pol icies and pr actices to perm it such equal access or

12 enjoyment. Am ong other things, the mem bers of this class have been or will be

13 denied equal access to or enjoyment of th e parade viewing areas at the Disneyland

14 Resort and the Walt Disney World Resort , a nd to public lockers or parking lots a t

15 the Disneyland Resort.

16

2. The Proposed Second Amended Comp laint, which is att ached as

17 Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement, is hereby deemed filed as of the date of this

18 Order, and the date for Disney’s response to that complaint shall be 20 days after

19 the Court’s ruli ng at the final approval h earing set in Paragraph 5 below. If the

20 Court does not issue an order of final a pproval of the Settlement Agreement, the

21 Second Amended Com plaint shall have no force and effect, and the lawsuit will

22 continue pursuant to the First Amended Complaint.

23

3. Conditioned on the Court’s final a pproval of the proposed settlem ent,

24 Andy Dogali of Fori zs & Dogali, PA, and Eugene Feldman, of Eugene Feldm an,

25 Attorney at Law, APC, are appointe d as Class Counsel of the condit ionally-

26 certified classes under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

27

4. Conditioned on the Court’s final a pproval of the proposed Settlement

28 Agreement, the Court hereby grant s preliminary approval to the proposed

D

- 3 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 195 Filed 04/23/12 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:6724

1 settlement and compromise contained in th e Settlement Agreement as it finds that,

2 taken as a whole, the proposed settlement is fundam entally fair, adequate, and

3 reasonable to all concerned.

4

5. A final hearing on the approval of the Settlem ent Agreement will be

5 held by this Court at _________ _.m. on ___________, 2012.

6

6. No later than fourteen days afte r entry of this Order, Notice of the

7 Final Approval and Fairness Hearing (in the form appended to this Order as Exhibit

8 A), shall be provided in the following manner:

9

a. Class Counsel shall email or mail a copy of the N otice to each

10 individual known to Class Counsel to have a visual disability and to have expressed

11 any concerns similar to those which Named Plaintiffs have alleged in the Action.

12

b. Defendants will make reasonable efforts, and will bear the costs,

13 to publish the Notice in the next editi on of any regularly-circulating, written

14 publication of the National Fe deration of the Blind, the American Council of t he

15 Blind, The American Foundation for the Blind and the Los Angeles Radio Reader

16 Service.

17

7. All other proceedings in this matter are hereby stayed pending the

18 Court’s ruling on final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 DATED: __________________ 21
22

________________________________ HONORABLE DOLLY M. GEE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

23

24

25

26

27

28 [Signatures of submitting counsel on next page]

D

- 4 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 195 Filed 04/23/12 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:6725

1 Respectfully submitted by, 2
Respectfully submitted by, 3 4 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

5 /s/ David H. Raizman

6 David H. Raizman

7

Attorneys for Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.,

8 Disney Online and Walt Disney Parks and

9 Resorts Online

10 FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A.

11 EUGENE FELDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC 12

13

/s/ Andy Dogali

Andy Dogali 14 Eugene Feldman

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cari Shields and

Amber Boggs and Class Plaintiffs 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
D

- 5 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 208 Filed 05/04/12 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:6892

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 CARI SHIELDS, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND

13 RESORTS U.S., INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

16

Case No.: 10-cv-05810 DMG (FMOx) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND MANDATING NOTICE TO CLASS OF FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING

17

18

19

This matter is before the Court on the joint m otions for preliminary approval

20 of the settlem ent, leave to file a Sec ond Amended Com plaint and for conditional

21 certification of the settlement classes (the “Motions”) of plaintiffs Cari Shields and

22 Amber Boggs (collectively, “Named Plaintiffs”) and defendants Walt Disney Parks

23 and Resorts U.S., Inc. and Disney Online (collectively, “Defendants”). The

24 Motions seek, am ong other thi ngs, the Cour t’s preliminary approval of the Class

25 Action Settlement Agreement And Release (t he “Settlement Agreemen t”) entered

26 into between Named Plaintiffs, on the on e hand, and Defendants and Walt Disney

27 Parks and Resorts Online (collectively, “Disney”), on the other hand.

28

- 1 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 208 Filed 05/04/12 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:6893

1

Having considered t he Motions as pr esented in the supporti ng briefs and

2 papers and at oral argument, the abse nce of opposition to the Motions, and the

3 Court having found that the proposed reso lution of this matter set forth in the

4 Settlement Agreement, taken as a whole, is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

5 reasonable to all concerned, and for ot her good cause shown, the Court hereby

6 Orders as follows:

7

1. Conditioned on the Court’s final a pproval of the proposed settlem ent,

8 the following classes shall be certified as settlement classes under Rules 23(a) and

9 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

10

a. The Website Class: All indi viduals with visual im pairments

11 who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have

12 been or will be unable to gain equal access to or enjoyment of one or m ore of the

13 websites owned or operated by Disn

ey such as www.disney.go.com ,

14 www.disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com, and www.disneycruise.com as a

15 result of their visual disability.

16

b. The Effective Comm unication Class: All individuals with

17 visual impairments who (a) have a disability , as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.

18 §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the

19 Disney Parks because of (i) th e absence of maps in an alte rnative format, or (ii) the

20 absence of menus in an alternative format , or (ii i) the absence of schedules of

21 events at the Dis ney Parks in an alte rnative format, or (iv) i nadequate or

22 inconsistent operation of the audio descri ption service on the Handheld Device, or

23 (v) Disney’s refusal to provide a free or discounted pa ss to the ir sighted

24 companions, or (vi) the failure to be read , in full, the menus, maps or schedules of

25 events at the Disney Parks.

26

c. The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual

27 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

28 and (b) have been o r will be denied equal access to or enjoym ent of the Disney

D

- 2 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 208 Filed 05/04/12 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:6894

1 Parks because of (i) the fee ch arged for the use of a kennel for their service ani mal,

2 or (ii) the absence of reasonably-designat ed service animal relief areas, or (iii) the

3 absence of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not allow

4 service animals, or ( iv) the lack of e qual interaction with Disney em ployees who

5 portray Disney charact ers because the i ndividuals with visual im pairments are

6 accompanied by service animals.

7

d. The Infrastructure Class:

All individuals with visual

8 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

9 and (b) have been o r will be denied equal access to or enjoym ent of the Disney

10 Parks because of (i) physical barriers to access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable

11 modifications to Disney’s pol icies and pr actices to perm it such equal access or

12 enjoyment. Am ong other things, the mem bers of this class have been or will be

13 denied equal access to or enjoyment of th e parade viewing areas at the Disneyland

14 Resort and the Walt Disney World Resort , a nd to public lockers or parking lots a t

15 the Disneyland Resort.

16

2. The Proposed Second Amended Comp laint, which is att ached as

17 Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement, sha ll be manually filed pursuant to General

18 Order 10-07 and Local Rule 3-2 within five da ys of the date of this Order, and th e

19 deadline for Disney’s response to that com plaint shall be 20 days after the Court’s

20 ruling at t he final approval hearing set forth in Paragraph 5 below. If the Court

21 does not issue an order of final approval of the Settlem ent Agreement, the Second

22 Amended Complaint shall have no force a nd effect, and the lawsuit will continu e

23 pursuant to the First Amended Complaint.

24

3. Conditioned on the Court’s final a pproval of the proposed settlem ent,

25 Andy Dogali of Fori zs & Dogali, PA, and Eugene Feldman, of Eugene Feldm an,

26 Attorney at Law, APC, are appointe d as Class Counsel of the condit ionally-

27 certified classes under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

28
D

- 3 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 208 Filed 05/04/12 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:6895

1

4. Conditioned on the Court’s final a pproval of the proposed Settlement

2 Agreement, the Court hereby grant s preliminary approval to the proposed

3 settlement and compromise contained in th e Settlement Agreement as it finds that,

4 taken as a whole, the proposed settlement is fundam entally fair, adequate, and

5 reasonable to all concerned.

6

5. A final hearing on the approval of the Settlem ent Agreement will be

7 held by this Court on August 3, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

8

6. No later than fourteen days afte r entry of this Order, Notice of the

9 Final Approval and Fairness Hearing (in the form appended to this Order as Exhibit

10 A), shall be provided in the following manner:

11

a. Class Counsel shall email or mail a copy of the N otice to each

12 individual known to Class Counsel to have a visual disability and to have expressed

13 any concerns similar to those which Named Plaintiffs have alleged in the Action.

14

b. Defendants will make reasonable efforts, and will bear the costs,

15 to publish the Notice in the next editi on of any regularly-circulating, written

16 publication of the National Fe deration of the Blind, the American Council of t he

17 Blind, The American Foundation for the Blind and the Los Angeles Radio Reader

18 Service, and, if appropriate, the Braille In stitute of America and the Junior Blind of

19 America.

20

7. All other proceedings and pretrial and trial deadlines in this matter are

21 hereby stayed pending the Court’s ruli ng on final approval of the Settlement

22 Agreement.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 DATED: May 4, 2012
25
26

________________________________ DOLLY M. GEE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

27

28
D

- 4 -

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:6897

Eugene Feidman, Esq., SBN I18497

2

geric Cc Id rnan (aJmi nds pring. co nr t~Ucrr:N E FT:L.DMAN A"l'T'ORNTY AT LAW. APC

]

555 Pier Avenue, Stc. 4 II crmosa Ileac h. C:a Ii f'orn i<r 90254

·

4

Tel Fax

(310) 372-4036 (310)376-353I

5 Andy Dogali, Esq.

adogali(2tlforizs-dogal i.com

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

7

FORIZS & DOGAU, P.J\. 430 I Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300

8

Tampa, Florida 33634

Tel:

(813) 289-0700

9 Fax:

(813) 289-9435

10

A,ttor\1eys For Plaintiffs

, . . .,

Can Shrclcls, Amber Boggs and Class PlamtrUs

II

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

WESTERN DIVISION

15

I 6 CARl SHIELDS, AMBER BOGGS and TERESA STOCKTON, on behalf
17 ofthemselves and all others similarly situated,
18 Plaintiff:<;,
19
v.
20 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND
21 RESORTS US, INC., DISNEY ONLINE, INC. and DOES l-10,
22 INCLUSIVE,

Case No. CV 10-581 0-DMG (FMOx) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELU:F FOR VIOLATIONS OF: I. THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT (42 U.S.C. § 2131, et seq.) 2. THE UNRUH ACT (Cal. Civil Code§ 51, et seq.)

23

Defendants.

3. THE CDPA (Cal. Civil Code

§ 54,1, et seq.)

24

25

26

27

28

SlcCONlJ AMENlJUJ COMI'Li\INl

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:6898

1

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

2

COME NOW the Plaintiff\ CART SHiiC.:LDS and AMBER BOGGS, on their

3 own behalf' and on behalf of' all others similarly situated (Collectively known as

4 "PLAIN.TIFFS"), and sue the Defendants. WALT DISNEY !'ARKS AND

5 RESORTS U.S, INC, WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS ONLINE and

(J DISNEY ONLINE (Collectively known as "DEFENDANTS") and allege:

7

INTRODUCTION

8 L This action anscs out of discriminatory practices by DEFENDANTS

9

violating California statutes and common law, as well as federal law

I 0

designed to protect individuals with a disability.

11 2. These practices include, inter alia, the denial of access to places of public

12

accommodation and the discriminatory treatment given to individuals

13

because of their physical disabilities.

14 3. As a result of these practices, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES were not able to

15

benefit from the full usc and enjoyment of DEFENDANTS' recreation

16

f~1eilitics, theme parks, cruise line, hotels, restaurants and websitcs and were

l 7

discriminated against on account of physical disability, i.e. visual

I 8

impairment.

19

.JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20 4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2009), as

21

one of the causes of action arises under federal law. Supplemental

22

jurisdiction over the state law causes of action is proper in this Court

23

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (2009), and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of

24

Civil Procedure.

25 5. Venue fen this action is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391

26

(2009) because DEFENDANTS maintain corporate managerial business

27

oi'Jiccs within the County of Los Angeles.

28 (J

PLAINTIFFS bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf ol' all

-l -

SECOND i\iVIENDLD COMPL,i\!Nl

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:6899

persons within the PLAINTIFF CLASSES defined herein.

2 7. This action is brought by the PLAINTIFFS to enforce Title III of the

3

Americans with Disabilities Act "ADA", 42 U.S.C. 01213 I, el seq, the

4

Umuh Civil Rights Act. Cali Cornia Civil Code ~5 I. el seq. and the C:alif(Jrnia

5

Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code §54 el seq. (CDPA).

6

PARTIES

7 PLAINTIFFS

8 8. Plaintiff Amber Boggs is an individual who, at all relevant times:

9

a. Was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California;

10

b. Had a physical disability that affects her neurological and/or special

l l

sense organs and substantially limits major life activities, namely

12

visual impainm;nt;

13

c. Was a person with a disability as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.

14

§12102 and the California Government Code Section 12926;

15

d. Owned year-long passes to Disneyland and has regularly patronized

16

the theme park facilities, restaurants, shops and websitcs operated by

17

DEFENDANTS, and Disney Cruise Line, within the last two years;

18

C. Had visited Disneyland with her service animal;

1 9

f. Suffered discrimination by the DEFENDANTS;

20

g. Was a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES alleged in paragraph 18;

21

h. Intended to visit DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, restaurants,

22

and shops in California and/or Florida in the h.tture as well as their

23

websitcs.

24 9. Plaintiff Cari Shields is an individual who, at all relevant times:

25

a. Was a resident of the County of Riverside, State of California;

26

b. Had a physical disability that affects her neurological and/or special

27

sense organs and substantially limits major li!C activities, namely

28

visual impairment;

SECOND 1\MENDIJJ COMPL.i\INT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:6900

C. Was a person with a disability as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.

2

§12102 and the California Government Code §12926;

3

d. Owned yem-long passes to Disneyland and has regularly patronized

4

the theme p;1rk J·cstaurants, and shops operated by DI·:FEND!\NT"S in

s

I
both Flo1·ida and Cali Cornia, and Disney Cruise Line, within the last

6

two years;

7

c. Had visited Disneyland in California and Disney World in Florida with

8

her service animal including on or about November l, 2009, when

9

Ms. Shields reserved seating for 6:45 p.m. for the Character Dining at

10

the Crystal Palace with "Winnie Pooh and Friends" at Walt Disney

1 1

World Resort in Orlando, Florida, and was denied interaction with

12

costumed Disney characters as part of her dining experience. Upon

13

complaining to management and staff she was told by two cast

14

members that it is Disney policy that characters are not allowed to

15

interact with guests with service animals. She then went to guest

16

services in the Magic Kingdom where she was told by two more cast

17

members that it is DEFENDANTS' policy that characters are not

18

allowed to interact with guests with service animals.

19

g. Suffered discrimination by the Defendants.

20

h. Was a member of all PLAINTrFF CLASSES alleged in paragraph 18;

21

l. Intended to visit DEFENDANTS theme parks, cruise line, hotels,

22

restaurants, and shops in California and/or Florida in the fi.1ture.

23 DEFENDANTS

24 10. Defendant WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS, U.S. INC.

25

("!'ARKS") is a Florida corporation which at all times herein mentioned:

26

a. Maintained its principal place of· business in Orange County, Florida

27

and is authorized to conduct business in the State of" California and is

28

conducting business in Los Angeles County in the City of Burbank.

-3-

SECOND AiVII:NDLLJ COiVIl'L.AINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:6901

b. Owns and operates and/or is the lessor or lessee of the Walt Disney

2

World Resort located in Orange and Osceola Counties in Florida. The

3

'Nail Disney World Resort IS comprised or· thcrnc parks, hotels,

4

rcsl<ltll"anls, and shops, each or· which arc public accommodations.

5

PARKS also owns and operates ami/or is the lessor or lessee of' the

6

Disneyland/Cal iCornia Adventure 1n Anaheim, Orange County,

7

California. T'hc Disneyland/California Adventure is similarly

8

comprised of theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, each of

9

which arc public accommodations.

10

c. Discriminated against the PLAINTIFF CLASSES by, inter alia:

l 1

I. Maintaining a policy of refusing to allow costumed Disney

12

characters to interact with visually impaired patrons with service

13

animals at the theme parks, hotels, rcstamants, and shops at

14

Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and Disneyland/California

15

Adventure in California;

16

2. Failing to provide Braille signagc and/or large print within the

17

aforementioned theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops, so

18

as to orient visually impaired patrons as to the location of rides,

19

restaurants and h1cilitics;

20

3. Failing to provide schedules and menus in accessible alternative

21

formats such as Braille and/or large print; (2) Failure by Disney

22

employees to read in full, the menus upon request by visually

23

impaired patrons (3) Failing to provide Braille maps in a mobile

24

format; and (4) Failing to provide Braille maps in a reasonable

25

number of locations within the theme parks, hotels, restaurants,

26

and shops;

27

4. l)roviding auxiliary aids and services, specifically, audio

28

description devices which arc designed to shut olT automatically

··-·-·-··---
.. 4 ..

SLcCOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:6902
after a given time interval but cannot be re-set by a visually

2

impaired user so as to render the device inaccessible;

3

5. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually

4

impaired patmns using service anim;ils by: (I) L1iling to pmvidc

5

reasonable designated areas within the theme parks, hotels,

6

restaurants, and shops for service animals to defecate and (2)

7

charging visually impaired patrons using service animals a

8

$20.00 fcc for the usc of kennel facilities; (3) locating the kennel

9

l~1cilitics outside of the theme parks; and (4) refusing to allow

10

service animals to be tied to any locations within the theme

II

parks while the visually impaired owner is using park rides;

12

6. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to visually

13

impaired patrons by simultaneously refusing to provide a Disney

14

employee to assist a visually impaired patron and also requiring

15

visually impaired patrons to pay full price for a ticket for an aide

16

or attendant to serve the Jimction of assisting the patron in

17

navigating around the theme parks;

18

7. Maintaining a policy at parades, such as the Main Street Electric

19

Parade, that only wheelchair users arc allowed to usc the area

20

designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other

21

disabilities such as visual impairments;.

22

8. Renting lockers to park visitors which are inaccessible to

23

persons with visual impairments because the lockers: 1) utilize

24

an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the

25

visually impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the

26

cornhination to open the rented locker;

27

9. Maintaining one or more wcbsites including

28

www,iclisn<eY~gQ.com that are not fully accessible for persons

-5 -

SFCOND i\iVILNDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:6903
with visual impairments utilizing screen reader software which

2

prevents PLAINTIFF CLASSES from enjoying equal access to

3

the DEFE·:NDANTS' theme parks. cruise line, hotels, restaurants

4

and stores and the 11umcrous .g. .oods, services and benefits

5

offered to the public through DE:Fl~NDANTS' wcbsitcs;

6

l 0. Violating the following provisions of the Americans with

7

Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") at the

R

Disneyland's parking structure and parking lot: 4.6.2, 4.1.2,

9

4.1.3, 4.7.7, 4.29.2 ancl4.29.5; all so as to violate the Americans

lO

with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of

l l

Regulations.

12 ll. Defendant WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS ONLINE

13

("WDPRO") is a corporation which at all times herein mentioned:

14

a. Maintained its principal place of business in Los Angeles County,

15

California and is authorized to conduct business in the State of

16

California and is conducting business in Los Angeles County in the

17

City of Burbank.

lR

b. Owns or operates various websitcs relating to the theme parks, hotels,

19

restaurants, and shops, each of which is a public accommodation, at

20

the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, California and at the Walt Disney

21

World Resort in Florida, and relating to the Disney Cruise Line,

22

including www.disncyland.com, www.disneyworlcl.com and

23

www.clisneycmise.com.

24

c. Discriminated against the PLAINTIFF CLASSES by, inter alia,

25

maintaining one or more websites, including www.disneyland.com,

26

www .d isngyy,;gxJci_C:.Clll_l and y,;wyy_~IL'illC:Y.t:.nl.i.;;.c;,c;gm that are not fully

27

accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen reader

28

software which prevents PLAINTIFF CLASSES fi·om enjoying equal

SECOND AMI::NDELJ COiYII'L!\lNT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:6904
access to the DL:I L·:N DANTS' theme parks, cruise line, hotels,

2

restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits

3

offered to the public thmugh DEFF:NDANTS' wcbsitcs;

4 12. Dcfcnd<mt DISNEY ONLINI; ("DISNL~Y ONLINE") is a Calif'ornia

5

corporation which at all ti mcs:

6

a. Maintained its principal place of business in Orange County, Florida

7

and is authorized to conduct business in the State of California and is

8

conducting business in Los Angeles County in the City of Burbank.

9

b. Owns or operates wcbsites as part of the DEFENDANTS' business

10

plan to sells goods, services, and tickets and reservations to its theme

1 1

parks, hotels, rcstaumnts and shops through its wcbsites.

12

c. Discriminated against the PLAINTIFF CLASS by, inter alia,

13

maintaining one or more wcbsitcs including www.disney.go.com that

14

arc not fully accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing

15

screen reader software which prevents PLAINTIFF CLASSES from

16

enjoying equal access to the DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line,

17

hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and

18

benefits offered to the public through DEFENDANTS' website.

19 13. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership,

20

associate or otherwise of DEFENDANTS Docs 1-10, inclusive, are unknown

21

to the PLAINTIFFS who therefore sue these DEFENDANTS by such

22

fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474.

23

PLAINTIFFS will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the true

24

names and capacities of Does 1 through 10, inclusive, when they arc

25

ascertained.

26 14. PLAlN'fiFFS arc informed and believe, and based upon that information and

27

belief allege, that each of the DEF·T~NDAN'I'S named in this Complaint,

28

including Docs l through I0, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for

-7

SI:COND AiV!ENDLJJ COi'vli'LAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 9 of 34 Page ID #:6905

I

one or more of the events and happenings that proximately caused the

2

injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.

3 15. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe. and based upon that information and

4

belief' allege. that each of' the IH·:FT:ND;\NT'S named in this Complaint,

5

including Docs l through 10, inclusive, acted in concert with respect to the

6

acts and omtsstons alleged hereinafter and to all appearances,

7

DEFENDANTS and each of them represented a united body so that the

8

actions of one DEFENDANT were accomplished in concert with, and with

9

knowledge, ratification, authorization and approval of each of the other

l 0

DEFENDANTS.

II 16. PLAINTIFFS arc informed and believe, and based upon that information and

12

belief allege, that each of the DFFF:NDANTS named in this complaint,

13

including Docs 1 through I0, inclusive, is and at all times mentioned herein

14

was, the agent, servant and/or employee of each of the other DEFENDANTS

15

and that each DEFENDANT was acting within the course and scope of his,

16

her or its authority as the agent, servant and/or employee of each of the other

17

DEFENDANTS. Consequently, all of the DEFENDANTS arc jointly and

18

severally liable to the PLAINTIFFS for the damages sustained as a proximate

19

result of their conduct.

20 17. At all times set forth herein, the acts and omissions of each DEFENDANT

21

caused, led and/or contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and

22

all of the other DEFENDANTS, legally causing PLAINTIFFS' injuries and

23

damages as set forth.

24

Cl,ASS REPRESL<:NTATION ALLI~GATIONS

25

Definition of the Alleged Class

26 18. This action consists or the ['ollowing PLAINTIFF CLASSl·:S who arc

27

residents oC the United States:

28

a. The Website Class: All individuals with visual impairments

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 10 of 34 Page ID #:6906

1

s who (a) have a disability, as that term is dclincd in 42 U.S.C. 12102,

2

and (b) have been or will be unable to gain equal access to or

3

enjoyment ol' one or· more of the websitcs owned or operated by

4

D F~ FL N DANTS such as 1-\/\-\f_\\IC\is_tlc;yg(J,c,cltll, VLIY\-VJliS[]<CJr!anc!c;cJtll.

5

\-\fWW.disncyworld.com, and www.disncycruisc:,c;cJrll as a result of their

6

visual disability.

7

b. The Effective Communication Class: All individuals with

8

visual impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in

9

42 U.S.C. § 12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to

10

or enjoyment of the Disney Parks because of (i) the absence of maps in

1 1

an alternative format, or (ii) the absence of menus in an alternative

12

format, or (iii) the absence of schedules of events at the Disney Parks

13

in an alternative tormat, or (iv) inadequate or inconsistent operation of

14

the audio description service on the Handheld Device, or (v) Disney's

15

refusal to provide a free or discounted pass to their sighted

16

companions, or (vi) the failure to be read, in full, the menus, maps or

17

schedules of events at the Disney Parks.

18

(c) The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual

19

impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42

20

U.S.C. § 12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or

21

enjoyment of the Disney Parks because of (i) the fee charged for the

22

usc of a kennel for their service animal, or (ii) the absence of

23

reasonably-designated service animal relief areas, or (iii) the absence

24

of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not

25

allow service animals, or (iv) the lack of equal interaction with Disney

26

ernployees who portray Disney characters because the individuals with

27

visual impairments arc accompanied by service animals.

28

-9-

··-···--······-···---------~---··-~-·--
SECOND i\/VIENDLoD COMI'Li\INl

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 11 of 34 Page ID #:6907

(d) The Infiastructurc Class: All individuals with visual

2

impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42

3

U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or

4

enjoyment or· the Disney Parks because of (i) physical bcliTiet·s to

5

access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable modifications to Disney's policies

6

and practices to permit such equal access or enjoyment. Among other

7

things, the members of this class have been or will be denied equal

8

access to or enjoyment of the parade viewing areas at the Disneyland

9

Resort and the Walt Disney World Resort, and to public lockers or

10

parking lots at the Disneyland Resort.

I I

Maintenance of the Action

12 19. PLAINTIFFS bring this action individually and on behalf of themselves and

13

as representatives of all similarly situated persons, pursuant to California

14

Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, and the provisions of Rule 23 of the

15

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

16

Class Action Allegations

17 20. At all material times, PLAINTIFF SHIELDS was and is a member of all

18

PLAINTIFF CLASSES described in paragraph 18. At all material times,

19

PLAINTIFF BOGGS was and is a member of all PLAINTIFF CLASSES

20

described in paragraph 18.

21 21. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a

22

Class Action as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382,

23

and the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that:

24

a. ln 2008, the Social Security Administration estimated there were in

25

excess of 6.3 million persons visually impaired and over the age of' 18

26

in the United States. According to the Disney Vacation Tips website,

27

the daily attendance at Disneyland in Anaheim is 4,000. Additionally,

28

according to the Therncd Entertainment Association/Economic

- l () -

SECOND i\IV!L'NDED COMI'Li\!Nl

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 12 of 34 Page ID #:6908

Research Associates Attraction Attendance Report 200R, the Magic

2

Kingdom/Disney World Resort in Florida had over 17 million visitors

3

in 200R whi lc Disneyland/California Adventure hac.\ over 14 million

4

visitors in 200R. While the number of' visitors with visual impairments

5

cannot be precisely calculated, it is reasonable to estimate that

6

thousands of visitors were visually impaired among the 14 million who

7

visited Disneyland in Anaheim in 200R. As such, the class of qualiticcl

R

individuals who arc visually impaired and have visited either

9

Disneyland/California Adventure in California and/or Wall Disney

10

World Resort in Florida, or have attempted to access DEFENDANTS'

I I

wcbsitcs is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

12

b. Nearly all Elctual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief'

13

issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the PLAINTIFF

14

CLASSES and will apply uniformly to each member of the

15

PLAINTIFF CLASSES. There arc questions of law and fact common

16

to the class. The Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Public

17

Accommodations law requires that public accommodations, such as

IR

the ones operated by DEFENDANTS, be accessible to persons with

19

disabilities, which is a question of law common to all members of' the

20

class. The failure of DEFENDANTS to provide accommodations and

21

remove policies that discriminate against persons with disabilities

22

presents a question of fact common to all members of the class.

23

Furthermore, the primary relief that the class is seeking is equitable in

24

nature, in that the class is asking for final injunctive relief asking that

25

DEFENDANTS provide accommodations and discontinue

26

discriminating policies in their theme parks, restaurants, hotels, and

27

other facilities it operates. Furthermore, prosecutions of separate

n

actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications

- II -

SECOND AMENDED COMl'Li\INl

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 13 of 34 Page ID #:6909

1

with respect to individual members of the class which would establish

2

incompatible standards of conduct for the DEFENDANTS.

]

c. PLAINTIFFS' claims arc typical of the claims or the class of persons

4

with disabilities lhal sustained and continue to sustain in_1urics arisi11g

5

out of the DEF·l~NDANTS' conduct or omissions in violation ol' stale

6

and federal law as cornplaincd of herein. PLAINTIFFS, like all other

7

members of the Class, claim that DEFENDANTS violated the ADA

8

and California Statutes by discriminating against persons with

9

disabilities and excluding the PLAINTIFFS, and other similarly

10

situated persons, from full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

1 1

programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of

12

DEFENDAN'T'S' theme parks, cruise line, restaurants, hotels, websites

l]

and other facilities they operates; and subjecting PLAINTIFFS to

14

discrimination by denying, segregated or excluding visually impaired

15

guests from enjoying their facilities and other goods, scrvtccs,

16

programs, privileges, advantages or accommodations to the

17

PLAINTIFFS, as well as other similarly situated persons.

18

d. PLAINTIFFS' claims will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

19

the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, and have retained counsel competent and

20

expcricncccl in class action litigation. SHIELDS and BOGGS have no

21

interests antagonistic to, or in cont1ict with, those of the Plaintiff

22

Classes. Counsel for the Classes will vigorously assert the claims of

23

all Members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES.

24

e. Moreover, judicial economy will be served by the maintenance of this

25

lawsuit as a class action, in that it is likely to avoid the burden which

26

would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system by the fll ing of·

27

thousands of similar suits by disabled people across the country.

28

Class action treatment of these claims will avoid the risk of

. !2 .

SI'.COND AMENDED COMPLAIN I

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 14 of 34 Page ID #:6910

1

inconsistent or varymg adjudications with respect to individual

2

members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES which would establish

]

incornpatiblc standards of conduct fclr the parties opposmg the

4

PLAINTIFF CLASSES. There arc no obstacles to cflcctivc and

5

cfllcicntmanagcmcnt or this lawsuit as a class action.

6

g. The parties opposing the PLAfNTf FF CLASSES have acted or refused

7

to act on grounds generally applicable to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES,

8

thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding

9

declaratory relief with respect to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES as a

10

whole; or

1 1

h. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the members of the

12

PLAINT!FF CLASSES and predominate over any questions affCeting

13

only individual members, and a class action is superior to other

14

available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the

15

controversy, in consideration of:

16

1. The interests of the members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES in

17

individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate

18

actions;

19

11. T'he extent and nature of any litigation conccrmng the

20

controversy already commenced by or against members of the

21

PLAINTIFF CLASSES;

22

111. The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation

23

of the claims in the particular forum; and

24

IV. The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a

25

class action.

26 22. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a class action

27

pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because:

28

a. 'fhe questions of law and fact common to the PLAINTIFF CLASSES

- l3 -

SECOND AMI'NDEIJ COM I' LAIN I

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 15 of 34 Page ID #:6911

1

predominate over any questions aflccting only individual rncrnbcrs;

2

b. A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair

3

and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the

4

PLAlN'flFF CLASSES;

5

C. PLAINT'IFFS and the other members of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES

()

will not be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless

7

the action is maintained as a Class Action; and

8

d. There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and

9

equitable relief for the common law and statutory violations and other

10

improprieties which DEFENDANTS' actions have inf1ictcd upon the

1 1

PLAINTIFF CLASSES; and

12 23. PLAINTIFFS contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed

13

class members of each of the PLAINTIFF CLASSES which would set forth

14

the subject and nature of the instant action. The DEFENDANTS' own

15

business records may be utilized for assistance in the preparation and

16

issuance of the contemplated notices. To the extent that any further notices

17

may be required, PLAINTIFFS would contemplate the use of additional

18

media and/or mass mailings.

19 24. Among the many qLtcstions of law and h1ct common to the class arc:

20

a. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities maintained a policy of

21

refusing to allow costumed Disney characters to interact with visually

22

impaired patrons with service animals at DEFENDANTS theme parks

23

and properties at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and

24

Disneyland/California Adventure in California;

25

b. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities failed to provide Braille

26

srgnagc and/or large print within the theme parks so as to orient

27

visually impaired patrons as to the location of rides, restaurants and

28

facilities;

-------·----

.. 14 -

SECOND AMEND !CD COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 16 of 34 Page ID #:6912

I

c. Whether the DEFENDANTS and its entities failed to provide

2

schedules and menus in accessible alternative formats such as Braille

~
_)

and/ot· large print;

4

d. Whether the DEFENDANT'S and its entities Etilccl to read the menus.. II

5

in fi.ill, to visually impaired patrons upon request;

6

c. Whether the DEFENDANTS failed to provide 13raillc maps 111 a

7

portable format;

8

f. Whether DEFENDANTS failed to provide Braille maps at a

9

reasonable number of locations within the theme parks;

10

g. Whether the audio description devices arc reasonably accessible to the

l l

visually impaired;

12

h. Whether it was lawful for the DEFENDANTS to charge a $20 fcc for

13

the usc of kennel facilities at the park for service animals;

14

1. Whether the DEFENDANTS were legally required to have designated

15

areas within the theme parks for service animals to defecate or to be

16

tied up while visually impaired owners used the rides;

17

J. Whether DEFENDANTS are legally required to provide a free or

18

cliscountecl ticket to the aiel or companion of a visually impaired visitor

19

to the theme parks as a reasonable accommodation;

20

k. Whether DEFENDANTS and its entities maintained a policy at

21

parades, such as the Main Street Electric Parade, that only wheelchair

22

users arc allowed to use the area designated for handicapped guests

23

and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments;

24

l. Whether it was lawful for DEFENDANTS and its entities to rent

25

lockers for usc to guests which arc inaccessible to persons with visual

26

impairments because the lockers: I) utilize an inaccessible touch

27

screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the visually impaired and 3)

28

provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open the rented

- - - - -------------~--·--·-·--·--·---·----·

- IS -

SECOND 1\iVIENIJLD COfvll'LA!Nl

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 17 of 34 Page ID #:6913

l

locker'

2

m. Whether DEFENDANTS maintain one or more websites including

3

~~\I~YSiL0Jl(;\f,g(Jc;g m, v_v~v w~cli0J1(;yllt!l~[(;()IJ}, 1:\fv\f\Y ~\i::;l_Lcy_~~lllsi. co11l

4

and v\fv\fvy.cli:)l1cycruisc.com that nrc not lully accessible f(Jr persons

5

with visual impairments utilizing screen reader software which prevent

6

persons with visual impairments fi-cm1 enjoying equal access to the

7

DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, hotels, restaurants and

8

stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the

9

public through DEFENDANTS' websites;

10

n. Whether DEFENDANTS' parking structure and parking lot in

l l

Disneyland violates one or more of the f(Jllowing ADAAG provisions:

12

4.6.2, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.7.7, 4.29.2 and 4.29.5;

13

o. Whether DEFENDANTS violated California Civil Code §51 et seq. in

14

failing to provide full and equal access to disabled persons with

15

visually impairments;

16

p. Whether DEFENDANTS violated California Civil Code §54 et seq. in

17

failing to provide full and equal access to disabled persons with visual

18

impairments; and

19

q. Whether DEFENDANTS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act

20

in failing to provide full and equal access to disabled persons with

21

visual impairments.

22 25. As to the issues raised in this case, a class action ts superior to all other

23

methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since

24

joinder of all class members is impracticable. Class members reside

25

anywhere in the country. lt is essential that many legal and factual questions

26

be adjudicated uniformly to all class members. Further, as the economic or

27

other loss suffered by vast numbers ol· class members may be relatively

28

small, the expense and burden of individual actions make it difficult for the

- 16 -

SLCOND !\MENDED COMI'LJ\!Nl

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 18 of 34 Page ID #:6914

class members to individually redress the wrongs they have suffered.

2 26. Moreover, in the event disgorgement is ordered, a class action is the m1ly

3

mechanism that will permit the employment of a fluid fund recovery lo

4

insure that equity is achieved. There will be relatively little difllculty tn

5

managing this case as a class action.

6 27. Class action treatment is superior to other available methods for a fair and

7

efficient adjudication of the claims presented by this complaint and would

8

reduce the financial, administrative and procedural burdens on the parties and

9

on the Court which individual action would otherwise impose.

I 0

THE AMERICANS WITH DfSABlLrrms ACT

II

History & Purpose

12 28. In 1990, the United States Congress made findings regarding physically

13

disabled persons, finding that laws were needed to more fully protect "some

14

43 million Americans [with] one or more physical or mental disabilities";

15

that "historically society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with

16

disabilities"; and that "such forms of discrimination against individuals with

I 7

disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem"; that "the

18

Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities arc to assure

I 9

equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic

20

self sufficiency for such individuals"; and that "the continuing existence of

21

unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with

22

disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those

23

opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous .... " 42 U.S.C.

24

§!2101.

25

STATUTORY PROTECTION FOR DISABLED PERSONS

26

Public Accommodations

27 29. Title Ill of the ADA establishes the general rule that:

28

No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability

- 17 -

Sl:COND AMloNDED COMI'Li\lN l

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 19 of 34 Page ID #:6915

in the full equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,

2

advantages or accommodations by any person who owns, leases, or

3

operates a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (a).

4 .lO. The ADA dclincs "discrirnination" to incluclc:

5

A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or

(J

proccdmcs, when such modifications arc necessary to afford such

7

goods, services, hlcilitics, privileges, advantages, or accommodations

8

to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that

9

making such modification would fundamentally alter the nature of

10

such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or

1 I

accommodations. 42 U.S. C. § 12182 (b)(2)(A)(ii).

12 3 I. The regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Justice

13

provide:

14

Denial of participation. A public accommodation shall not subject an

15

individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or

16

disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual,

17

licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the

18

individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services,

19

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of

20

public accommodation. 28 C.P.R. §36.202(a)

21

Participation in unequal benefit. A public accommodation shall not

22

afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability

23

or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through

24

contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, with the opportunity to

25

participate in or benefit ti·om a good, service, [~lcility, privilege,

26

advantage, or accornrnodation that is not equal to that afforded to other

27

individuals. 28 C.F'.R. §36.202(b).

28 Separate benefit. A public accommodation shall not provide an

' 18 ..

SECOND Alvl LoNllLD COivll'Li\IN I

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 20 of 34 Page ID #:6916

individual or class of individuals, on the. basis or a disability 01

2

disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through eont1~actual,

3

licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service, fi1cility,

4

privilege, advantage. or accommodation that is diflerent or sepimlte

5

fl·om that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary

6

to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service,

7

J~1cility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity

8

that is as effective as that provided to others. 28 C.F.R. §36.202(e).

9 32. Furthermore, the regulations provide for service animals which state:

10

Service animals. Generally, a public accommodation shall modify

I l

policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal

12

by an inclividLtal with a disability. 28 C.F.R. §36.302(c).

13 33. Additionally, 42 U.S.C.A.§ 12181 (6) defines "private entity" as "any entity

14

other than a public entity" and § 12181 (7) defines "public accommodation"

15

in part:

16

The following private entities are considered public accommodations

17

for purposes of this sub-chapter, if the operations of such entities affect

18

commerce:

19

a. an mn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an

20

establishment located within a building that contains not more

21

than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by

22

the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such

23

proprietor;

24

b. a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;

25

c a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other

26

place of exhibition entertainment;

27

d a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;

28

c. a terminal, depot, or other station used for specific public

-----·-·----·----·--

- 19 -

SECOND /\MENDED C:OIVIPL/\!Nl

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 21 of 34 Page ID #:6917

tnmsportation.

2 34. · Further, 42 U.S.C.A. §12182 "Prohibition of discrimination by public

3

accommodations" states, in part, the following:

4

a.

Cicncral rule. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis c.

5

of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

6

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place or

7

public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to),

8

or operates a place of public accommodation.

9

2. Specific prohibitions (in part):

10

(!\.) Discrimination-For purposes of subsection (a) of this

1 l

section, discrimination includes:

12

(ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in

13

policies, practices, or procedures, when such

14

modifications are necessary to atTord such goods,

15

servtces, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

16

accommodations to individuals with disabilities, ·

17

unless the entity can demonstrate that making such

18

modifications would fundamentally alter the nature

19

of such goods, services, facilities, privileges,

20

advantages, or accommodations;

21

(iii) a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to

22

ensure that no individual with a disability is

23

excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise

24

treated differently than other individuals because of

25

the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless

26

the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps

27

would fundamentally alter the nature of the good,

28

SCrV!CC, facility, privilege, advantage, or

- 20 -

··-··--·--·------
SECOND AJY!LNDLD COM I' LA! NT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 22 of 34 Page ID #:6918

accommodation being offered or would result in an

2

undue burden.

3

THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS i\CT

4 35. ~51 of' the Calil'ornia Civil C'odc, "'T'hc Unruh Civil Rights" Act provides

5

protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California,

6

including housing and public accommodations, because of age, ancestry,

7

color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.

8 36. Specifically, §51 (b) provides that:

9

All persons within the jurisdiction of this State arc free and equal, and

10

no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,

l l

disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation arc

12

cnti tlcd to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, f~lcilities,

13

privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind

14

whatsoever.

15 37. Further, §51.5 (a) provides that:

16

No business establishment of any kind whatsoever shall discriminate

17

against, boycott or blacklist, or refuse to buy from, contract with, sell

18

to, or trade with any person in this state on account of any

19

characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (c) of §51, or of

20

the person's partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers,

21

managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates,

22

suppliers, or customers, because the person is perceived to have one or

23

more of those characteristics, or because the person is associated with

24

a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.

25 38. Additionally, §51 (f) provides that:

26

A violation of the right of any individual undct· the Americans with

27

Disabilities Act shall also constitute a violation of this section.

28

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§54 THROUGH 55.2

- 21 -

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 23 of 34 Page ID #:6919

39. Calif"urnia Civil Code §54 (a) stales that:

2

Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right

3

as the general public to the full and fi·cc usc of the streets, highways,

4

sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical l"acilitics, including

5

hospitals, clinics, and physicians' ortlccs, public f~1cilitics, and other

6

public places.

7 40. Further, California Civil Code §54.1 (a)(!) states:

8

Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other

9

members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages,

10

f~1cilitics, medical f~1cilitics, including hospitals, clinics, and

11

physicians' offices, and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes,

12

motor vehicles, railroad trains, motor buses, streetcars, boats, or any

13

other public conveyances or modes of transportation (whether private,

14

public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided),

15

telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging

16

places, places of public accommodation, amusement, or resort, and

17

other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the

18

conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal

19

regulation, and applicable alike to all persons.

20 41. Additionally, §54. J (a) (3) states:

21

"Full and equal access," for purposes of this section in its application

22

to transportation, means access that meets the standards of Titles IT and

23

III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 10 l

24

336) and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, except that, if

25

the laws of this state prescribe higher standards, it shall mean access

26

that meets those higher standards.

27 42. Further, §54.1 (d) states:

28

A violation of the right of an individual under the Americans with

- 22 -

SECOND AMENDED CCJMI'LAIN"I

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 24 of 34 Page ID #:6920

1

Disabilities Act also constitutes a violation of this section, and nothing

2

in this section shall be construed to limit the access of any person in

]

violation of' that act.

4 4.\. California Civil Code 054.2 states:

5

(a) Every individual with a disability has the right to be accompanied

6

by a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, especially trained for the

7

purpose, in any of the places specified in Section 54. I without being

8

required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog,

9

signal clog, or service dog. However, the individual shall be liable for

10

any damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her clog.

I I 44. Finally, California Civil Code §54.4 stales:

12

A blind or otherwise visually impaired pedestrian shall have all of the

13

rights and privileges conferred by law upon other persons in any of the

14

places, accommodations, or conveyances specified in Sections 54 and

15

54.1, notwithstanding the f~1ct that the person is not carrying a

16

predominantly white cane (with or without a red tip), or using a guide

17

dog.

18

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

19 45. The DEFENDANTS collectively operate theme parks and a cruise line m

20

California and Florida which have millions of visitors annually. Furthermore,

21

DEFENDANTS operate websites including www.clisncy.go.com,

22

www.disncylancl.com, www.dislleyw_qrl<icom and www.disncycruise.com

23

for the purposes of assisting guests with purchasing tickets to the products

24

and services offered by DEFENDANTS, advertising the products and

25

services of DEFENDANTS, providing interactive content for children, and

26

providing other online services to promote DL<J~'ENDANTS. Due to

27

DEFI·:NDANTS' failure to remove access barriers to the websitcs mentioned

28

above, persons with visual impairments arc prevented from enjoying equal

---------------·-·-----

- 23 -

SECOND i\MENDlJ) COMPLi\INT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 25 of 34 Page ID #:6921

access to DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, hotels, restaurants and

2

stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public

3

through DFFENDAN'fS' wcbsitcs.

4 46. PL/\INTfFFS <lrc visually imp<lircd individu<ils who each own ycmly passes

)

to Disncyland/Calil(mJia i\dvcnturc in i\nahcim and visit it f'rcqucnily.

(l

Plaintiff SHIELDS has also visited the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.

7

PLAINTIFFS utilize guide clogs to assist them on a daily basis.

8 47. DEFENDANTS' theme parks, cruise line, hotels, restaurants and shops,

9

connected with its websitcs, arc public accommodations and PLAINTIFFS

I 0

visit these h1cilitics with the expectation of being treated with the rights and

II

dignities guaranteed them by California law. Due to their visual impairments

12

and physical disabilities, however, PL/\INTIFFS have suffered consistent

13

discrimination at the hands of DEFENDANTS and their affiliated companies

14

and employees.

15 48. As a member of the Disney Service Animal Class, PLAINTIFF SHIELDS

I (l

was subjected to public humiliation and discrimination in being ignored at

17

the restaurant, when an essential element of the dining experience was the

18

interaction with the costumed Disney character. Two of these characters

19

articulated the restaurant policy of not interacting with patrons using service

20

animals. Whether this policy is driven by malice, ignorance or simply fear, it

21

is a violation of California and federal law.

22 49. As members of the Service Animal Class, PLAINTIFFS have been denied

23

reasonable accommodations for their service animals because in order to use

24

the kennel at all they must pay a $20.00 fee. Furthermore, the kennel is

25

located outside of the theme parks so as to be extremely inconvenient when

26

using the rides. Moreover, the policy or· requiring that the animal be with

27

someone at all limes means that a visually impaired visitor has no where to

28

leave the scrv1ce animal while using certain rides. Universal Studios, a

··~·---··~·~··~····· · - - - - · · · · · · - · · · · · - - · - - - · - · · · · - · · · · · ·
. 24 .

SloCOND 1\lv!ENDELJ COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 26 of 34 Page ID #:6922

competing theme park, however, does not have such obstructions at its

2

respective theme parks. Finally, there are no reasonable designated areas for

3

the animal to relieve itself at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops.

4 50. As mernhers of the Effective Communication Class, PI.AINTIFFS hnvc been

5

discriminated against due to the lack of Braille signagc, in addition to a lack

6

or· alternate communications for the visually impaired such as Braille and/or

7

large print with respect to schedules and menus at the theme parks, hotels,

8

restaurants, and shops. Additionally, PLAINTIFFS have been discriminated

9

against due to DEFENDANTS' and its entities' failure to read, in full, the

10

menus upon request by visually impaired patrons.

I I S l. As members of the Effective Communication Class, PLAINTIFFS have been

12

deterred Ji·om fully utilizing DEFENDANTS' audio description device due to

13

a design defect. Once the device shuts off automatically, a visually impaired

14

user cannot re-set the device and must return to the guest services department

15

to have it re-set.

16 52. As members of the Effective Communication Class, PLAINTIFFS have

17

experienced discrimination based on the fact that only one permanent Braille

18

map is available at the theme parks in one location at Guest Relations. No

19

portable Braille maps are available at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants,

20

and shops.

21 53. As members of the EtTective Communication Class, PLAfNTIFFS have

22

experienced discrimination clue to DEFENDANTS' failure to provide the

23

necessary accommodations for a visually impaired individual to be oriented

24

in the theme parks. The lack of reasonable accommodations, in combination

25

with the DEFENDANTS' policy of not providing an employee to assist a

26

visually impaired person, forces a visually impaired person to bring and pay

27

Cull price Cor a cornpanion to fully utilize the park l21cilitics. Universal

28

Studios, a competing theme park, however, allows the visually impaired

-----------~··-----··--·-·-·"'---····-

..

·-·---~----·-···-··---~-

- 25 -

SECOND AMENDED C:OMl'LAINl

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 27 of 34 Page ID #:6923

guest in at no cost and requires the companion to pay pull price.

2 54. As members of the Park Infrastructure Class, PLAINTIFFS have experienced

3

discrimination clue to DEFENDANTS maintaining a policy at parades, such

4

as the Main Stt·ccl Electric Pmade, that only wheclclwir users arc allowed to

5

usc the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests with othct·

6

disabilities such as visual impairments.

7 55. As members of the Park Infrastructure Class, PLAINTIFF have experienced

8

discrimination by DEFENDANTS renting lockers for use to guests which arc

9

inaccessible to persons with visual impairments because the lockers: I)

I 0

utilize an inaccessible touch screen; 2) have no attendant to assist the visually

II

impaired and 3) provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open

12

the rented locker.

13 56. As members of the Website Class, PLAINTIFFS have experienced

14

discrimination clue to DEFENDANTS maintaining one or more websites

15

including

wwwcdisney.go.com,

www.clisneyland.com,

16

www.disneyworlcl.com and www.disneycruise.com that are not fully

17

accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen reader

I 8

software.

19 57. As members of the Infi"astructurc Class, PLAINTIFFS have experienced

20

discrimination in that, DEFENDANTS parking structure and parking lot at

21

Disneyland violate the following provisions of the ADAAG: 4.6.2, 4.1.2,

22

4.1.3, 4.7.7, 4.29.2 and 4.29.5; all so as to violate the Americans with

23

Disabilities Act and Title 24 ofthe California Code of Regulations.

24

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

25

For· a Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

26

42 U.S.C. §12131, ct. seq.

27

(by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants)

28 58. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth

.. 26 ..

SECOND AMENDED COM!'Li\INT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 28 of 34 Page ID #:6924

herein, paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint.

2 59. DEFENDANTS have discriminated against PLAINTIFFS by denying them

3

full and equal access to the benefits, privileges and public accommodations

4

af"f<:mkcl to other patrons solely on account or· disability. In mlclition. the

5

DEF-T:NDANTS have violated the ADA by li1iling or refusing to provide

6

PLAINTIFT"S with reasonable accommodations and other services related to

7

their disability.

8 60. PLAINTIFFS, upon information and belief~ allege that DEFENDANTS, their

9

employees and agents have failed and continue to fail to:

10

a. Provide necessary accommodations, modifications and scrv1ccs to

1 1

provide equal access to the facilities within its theme parks, cruise line,

12

hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida and Cali Cornia so as to allow

13

the visually impaired to participate on an equal basis in activities,

14

rides, restaurants and programs;

15

b. Provide the necessary training and discipline to its employees as to the

16

legal obligation of a public accommodation to provide full and equal

17

service to persons with disabilities under the ADA and other relevant

18

state statutes, including California Civil Code 51 et seq. and Civil

19

Code Section 54 et seq.

20 61. PLAINTIFFS have been subjected to the denial, separate and unequal

21

opportunity to participate in the DEFENDANTS services, f~1cilities,

22

privileges, advantages, or accommodations as a result of the DEFENDANTS

23

discriminatory policy of not allowing characters to interact with visually

24

impaired persons who have their service animal with them.

25 62. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, PLAINT"IFFS

26

have su!Tered and continue to suffer Crorn the lack or· character intemction

27

clue to DEFENDANTS' failure to address the services, facilities, privileges,

28

advantages or accommodations that should be given to persons similarly

- 27-

SECOND AIVILNDLD COIVII'LA!Nl

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 29 of 34 Page ID #:6925

l

situated as SHIELDS and BOGGS.

2 63. Due to the continuous nature of DEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct,

3

which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive reliefs arc appropriate remedies.

4

Moreover, as a t·est.ilt ofDEFI~NDANTS' actions PI.AINTIFFS me sulfcring

5

irreparable harm, ancl thus immediate relief is appropriate. PLAINTIFFS arc

6

entitlecl to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action. 42

7

U.S.C.A. § 12205, as prayed below.

8

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

9

For a Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act

I 0

California Civil Code §51 and 52 et seq.

ll

(by All Plaintiff~ and Against All Defendants)

12 64. PLAINTIF;FS rc-allcgc and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth

13

herein, paragraphs 1 through 63 of this Complaint.

14 65. §51 of the California Civil Code, "The Unruh Civil Rights" Act provides

15

protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California,

16

including housing and public accommodations, because of age, ancestry,

17

color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.

18 66. §52 of the Calift)rnia Civil Code provides that whoever denies, aids or incites

19

a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to §51 is liable

20

f(x each and every offense.

21 67. Through the acts and omissions described herein, DEFENDANTS have

22

violated California Civil Code §51.

23 68. Pursuant to California Civil Code §51 (t), a violation of the ADA also

24

constitutes a violation of California Civil Code §51 e/ seq.

25 69. The DEFENDANTS arc a "business establishment" within the meaning of

26

the Calili:Jrnia Code 051 el seq.

27 70. DEFENDAN-rS have violated the law by denying PL/\INTIFF-'S full and

28

equal access to its program comparable to access that it offers to others.

' 28 '

--------·-····---
SI'.C:ONI! i\il;lENUEU COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 30 of 34 Page ID #:6926

1 71. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, PLAINTIFFS

2

have · suffered, and continue to suffer hardship and anxiety clue to

3

f) EFENDA NTS' fai Iurc to address accommodations and access rcq uireel lr1r

4

PLAlNTII:rs disabilities.

5 72. Due to the continuous nature of DEFENDANT'S' discriminatot·y conduct,

6

which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive reliefs arc appropriate t·crncdics.

7

Moreover, as a result of DEFENDANTS' actions PLAINTIFFS arc suffering

8

irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate. PLAINTlFFS arc

9

entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in filing this action. Calii(Jrnia

10

Civil Code §52, as prayed below.

11

TlURD CAUSE OF ACTION

12

For a Violation of the California Public Accommodations Law

13

California Civil Code §54 et. seq.

14

(by All Plaintiffs and Against All Defendants)

15 73. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth

16

herein, paragraphs I through 72 of this Complaint.

17 74. The DEFENDANTS operate theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops and

18

advertise its good and services through wcbsitcs which arc public

19

accommodations open to the public in California and Florida.

20 75. Through the acts and omissions described herein above, DEFENDANTS arc

21

violating California Civil Code §54.

22 76. Under California Civil Code §54 (c), a violation of the ADA also constitutes

23

a violation of California Civil Code §54 et seq.

24 77. PLAINTIFFS are persons with disabilities within the meaning of the

25

California Civil Code §54 (b)(l) and California Government Code§ 12926.

26 78. The DEFENDANTS provide public ser·viccs within the meaning ol' the

27

California Civil Code §54 cl seq.

28 79. By failing to provide accommodations and services to visually impaired

~ 29 ~

SECOND i\iVIFNilLD COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 31 of 34 Page ID #:6927

guests, as set forth at length elsewhere in this Complaint, DEFENDANTS arc

2

violating California Civil Code 054, by denying visually impaired guests full

3

access to DEFENDANTS' pmgrams, services, and activities.

4 SO. As a direct and proximate result or· the af(JI'CillCiltioncd acts, PI.AINTIITS

5

have sufTct·cci, and continue to suffer hardship and anxiety as well as

6

deteriorating physical conditions, due to DEFENDANTS' f~1ilurcs to address

7

accommodations and services required for PLAINTIFFS' disabilities.

8 81. Due to the continuous nature of DEFENDANTS' discriminatory conduct,

9

which is ongoing, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies.

l 0

Moreover, as a result of DEFENDANTS' actions, PLAINTIFFS are

l l

suffering irreparable harm, and thus immediate relief is appropriate.

12

PLAINTIFFS are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in

13

filing this action. California Civil Code §55.

14 82. Each DEFENDANTS is charged by law and public policy as well as its own

15

code of business responsibility to refrain from discriminating against the

16

PLAINTIFF CLASSES on account of their physical disability. As a result of

17

the actions and conduct described herein, the PLAINTIFF CLASSES have

18

no adequate remedy at law to redress their grievances and recover their

19

damages.

20 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

21 PLAINTIFFS pray as follows:

22 !. For certification ofthe PLAINTIFF CLASSES pursuant to applicable law the

23

Rules of this Court.

24 2. For an injunction ordering DEFENDANTS, each of them, to comply with the

25

statutes set tclrth herein;

26 3. For an orclct· establishing the following equitable, injunctive and clcclaratory

27

relief:

28

a. That a j uclicial determination and declaration be made of the rights of

----------·-·----··----·-----
- 30 -

SECOND AMENDED COMI'Li\IN'I

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 32 of 34 Page ID #:6928

1

the PLAINTIFF CLASSES, and of the Comi-approved remedial

2

measures that DEFENDANTS and each of them must take to prevent

3

or discrimination of the visually impaired by all employees

4

DEF'ENDANTS;

5

b. T'hat DF:FENDAN·rs be forever cn_Joinccl fiom engaging in the

6

practices described in this Complaint and from any practices that

7

deviate ti·om any orders ofthis Court;

8

C. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide Braille signage

9

within their theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida and

10

California;

I I

d. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide permanent

12

Braille maps at multiple locations and portable maps m alternative

13

formats such as Braille and/or large print within Disney theme parks,

14

hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida and California;

15

e. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide menus and

16

schedules in alternative formats such as Braille and/or large print

17

within Disney theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida

18

and California;

19

r That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS read the menus, in full,

20

upon request by visually impaired patrons.

21

g. That this Court mandate that each DEFENDANT provide reasonable

22

accommodations for service animals, designated places to defecate

23

within Disney theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Florida

24

and California, and places where the service animal can be tied within

25

the theme parks while visually impaired persons usc rides.

26

h. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide a free or

27

reduced f~trc admission ticket to one person accompanying a p<tid

28

visually impaired ticket holder to act as a guide within Disney theme

- 3l -

SECOND AMENDI·:U COMI'Li\INT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 33 of 34 Page ID #:6929

2
j
4 5
7 8 9
10 11 12 l:l 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3. 25 26 II I 27 I I I 28 I I I

parks in Florida and California;

1. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS are enjoined from

maintaining a policy at parades. such as the Main Street Electric

Parade, that only wheelchair users arc allowed to usc the area

designated for handicapped guests, and not guests with other

disabilities such as visual impairments;

.I. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide reasonable

accommodations for visually impaired quests when renting lockers;

k. That this Court make a determination as to the impropriety of the fees

Defendants charge visually impaired visitors at Disney theme parks in

Florida and California for accommodations and auxiliary aids and

services including kennels;

I. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS maintain their wcbsitcs

including

www.disncy.go.com,

www.disneyland.com,

www.disncyworld.com and yvww,_c;iisneycruisc.com to make them fully

accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen reader

software·' m. That this Court mandate that DEFENDANTS provide handicap-

accessible parking at Disneyland that is compliant with the following

provisions of the ADAAG: 4.6.2, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.7.7, 4.29.2 and4.29.5;

to ensure that DEFENDANTS' parking h1cilities do not violate the

Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of

Regulations;

For reasonable attorneys' fees as may be determined by the Court for all

causes of action;

- 32 -

SECOND AfviENlll-:1) COMPLAINT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 209 Filed 05/08/12 Page 34 of 34 Page ID #:6930

Ill
· 2 II I

3 4. 4 5. 5 6 7

For costs of suit; and For such other and further relief' as the Court may deem just and pmpcr.
Respectfully submitted,

8

9 10

~~~~-8497

1 I

genefclcln_1a_ n(Z,_}t_ninc_1_ spring._con_1 EUGENE FELDMAN ATTORNEY AT

LAW, APC

12

555 Pier Avenue, Suite 4

Hermosa Beach, California 90254

13

Phone:

(31 0) 372-4636

Fax:

(31 0) 376-3531

14

Andy Dogali, Esq.

15

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Fla. Bar No. 0615862

16

adogali@forizs-dogali.com

FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A.

17

4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300

Tampa, FL 33634

18

Phone:

(813) 289-0700

Fax:

(813) 289-9435

19

ATTORNEYS FOR CARI SHIELDS,

20

AMBER BOGGS AND THE

PLAINTlFF CLASSES 21

22

23

24 25

26

27

28

- 3.l -

SI:CCJND AMENDED COMPLAINT

 
 Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

279 F.R.D. 529 United States District Court,
C.D. California.
Cari SHIELDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS US, INC., et al., Defendants.
No. CV 10–05810 DMG (JEMx). | June 29, 2011.
Synopsis Background: Blind and partially sighted persons brought putative class action for declaratory and injunctive relief against resorts owner-operator and purported owner-operator of websites associated with entertainment facilities in state court, alleging violations of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California’s Unruh Act, and California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA). Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
Holdings: The District Court, Dolly M. Gee, J., held that:
[1] plaintiffs did not meet numerosity prerequisite to class certification with respect to proposed subclasses for ADA claims against resorts owner-operator pertaining to interaction with costumed resort employees, locker use at resorts, and equal parking access;
[2] plaintiff satisfied numerosity prerequisite for ADA claims against purported websites owner-operator;
[3] plaintiffs satisfied commonality prerequisite to class certification for proposed subclasses that met numerosity prerequisite;
[4] plaintiffs did not satisfy typicality prerequisite to class certification for proposed subclass pertaining to resorts’ audio description devices;
[5] named plaintiffs and putative class counsel adequately represented putative classes; and
[6] certification of proposed subclasses satisfying prerequisites to class certification was warranted.
Motion granted in part and denied in part.

Attorneys and Law Firms
*538 A. Anderson B. Dogali, Lee Wm. Atkinson, Forizs & Dogali PA, Tampa, FL, Eugene Feldman, Eugene Feldman Law Offices, Hermosa Beach, CA, for Plaintiffs.
David H. Raizman, James M. Altieri, Yehonatan Cohen, Elena S. Min, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Los Angeles, CA, James M. Altieri, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
DOLLY M. GEE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Court held a hearing on April 15, 2011. Having duly considered the respective positions of the parties, as presented in their briefs and at oral argument, the Court now renders its decision. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 21, 2010, Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber

Boggs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. (“Disney Parks”), Walt Disney Parks & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., the Walt Disney Company, and Does 1 through 100. Plaintiffs assert violations under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., California’s Unruh Act, Cal. Civ.Code § 51, and the California Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”), Cal. Civ.Code § 54.1. Defendants removed the action to this Court on August 5, 2010 on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.1

1

Defendants also invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1369 as a basis for

removal. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 1, 5.) Section 1369

does not apply, however, because the instant action

1

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

does not “arise[ ] from a single accident, where at least 75 natural persons have died in the accident at a discrete location.” 28 U.S.C. § 1369(a).
Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint on September 10, 2010 [Doc. # 16]. The First Amended Complaint also *539 asserts violations of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA. It adds Teresa Stockton as a plaintiff and names as defendants only Disney Parks, Disney Online, Inc. (“Disney Online”), and Does 1 through 10.
On February 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Class Certification [Doc. # 41]. Defendants filed their Opposition on March 28, 2011 [Doc. # 73]. Plaintiffs filed their Reply on April 4, 2011 [Doc. # 80].

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties Plaintiffs are visually impaired individuals.2 (Compl. ¶¶ 8(b), 9(b), 10(b).) Plaintiff Cari Shields is an annual pass holder for the Disneyland Resort in California, which consists of Disneyland and California Adventure, and has visited Disneyland Resort numerous times during the past two years. (Shields Depo. at 54:10–22; Mot., Ex. D at Resp. # 8;.) Shields also has visited the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida—which consists of the Magic Kingdom, Epcot, the Animal Kingdom, and Hollywood Studios—twice during the past two years. (Shields Depo. at 50:17–20, 57:1–13; Mot., Ex. D at Resp. # 8; Jones Depo. ¶ 8.) Shields utilizes the services of a service animal to help guide her. (Mot., Ex. D at Resp. # 4.) Shields intends to visit the Walt Disney World Resort in the future. (Shields Depo. at 50:24–51:1.)

2

The Court recognizes that some persons prefer the term

“blind and partially sighted.” (See, e.g., Cohen Decl.,

Ex. 27 at 510 (“The preferred term for Visual [sic]

Impaired is ‘Blind and the partially sighted.’ ”). But

see, e.g., id. at 528 (“My husband and I are both

visually Impaired/legally blind ....”); id., Ex. 28 at 547

(using the term “visually impaired and blind”); id., Ex.

29 at 564 (“I am visual [sic] impaired ....”).) For

brevity, the Court adopts Plaintiffs’ use of the term

“visually impaired” to refer to blind and/or partially

sighted individuals.

Plaintiff Amber Boggs is an annual pass holder at the Disneyland Resort. (Boggs Depo. at 112:20–113:17.) Like Shields, Boggs utilizes a service animal to assist her. (Id. at 56:1–18; Mot., Ex. E at Resp. # 4.) Boggs has been to the Disneyland Resort several times in the last two years. (Mot., Ex. E at Resp. # 8.) Boggs intends to visit the Disneyland Resort in the future and possibly the Walt Disney World Resort. (Boggs Depo. at 69:8–15.)

Plaintiff Teresa Stockton has visited the Walt Disney World Resort two times in the last two years. (Mot., Ex. F at Resp. # 8.) Stockton also uses a service animal to assist her. (Id. at Resp. # 4; Stockton Depo. at 68:2–5.) Stockton intends to visit the Disneyland Resort in the future. (Stockton Depo. at 159:8–12.)

Defendant Disney Parks owns and operates the theme parks at the Disneyland Resort in California and the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. (Jones Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant Disney Online owns and operates certain websites associated with The Walt Disney Company.3 (Davis Depo. at 63:9–21.) Disneyland and the Walt Disney World Resort provide entertainment to millions of guests annually through a vast array of rides, parades, shows, interactive facilities, and meet-and-greet opportunities with costumed characters bringing Disney’s motion picture heritage to life. (Jones Decl., Ex. 3.) “Parades” and “shows” cover a wide range of forms and formats; parades and shows feature lively music, water and lighting effects, characters, and other entertainers who perform a wide range of routines, songs, and dances. (Id.) Parades also feature floats proceeding along designated routes through the parks; shows are at stationary locations indoors and outdoors. (Id.) Rides take many forms: boats, cars, planes, teacups, through *540 fictional settings, from slow-moving to thrilling. (Id.)

3

The parties dispute whether Disney Online owns and/or

operates the websites at issue here. Defendants contend

that an entity named Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

Online owns and operates the sites www.disneyland.

com,

www.waltdisneyworld.com,

and

www.disneyparks.com. (See Opp’n at 8, 40; Davis

Depo. at 33:2–8.) Plaintiffs do not refer to these

specific sites in their First Amended Complaint. Rather,

they allege that Defendants “maintain one or more

websites including www.disney.go.com that are not

fully accessible for persons with visual impairments.”

(1st Am.Compl. ¶ 11(c)(12).) There is evidence that

Disney Online operates the disney.go.com webpage.

(See Davis Depo. at 63:13–14.) Because the record as

to this issue is not sufficiently developed, the Court

cannot and need not resolve the disputed issue at this

time.

2

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

B. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Plaintiffs allege that Defendants discriminate against visually impaired individuals and fail to provide reasonable accommodations by
(1) maintaining a policy of refusing to allow costumed Disney characters to interact with visually impaired patrons with service animals at their theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops;
(2) failing to provide signage in Braille and/or large print so as to orient visually impaired patrons as to the location of rides, restaurants and facilities;
(3) failing to provide schedules and menus in accessible alternative formats such as Braille and/or large print;
(4) failing to read the menus in full upon request by visually impaired patrons;
(5) failing to provide Braille maps in a mobile format;
(6) failing to provide Braille maps in a reasonable number of locations within the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops;
(7) providing audio description devices which are designed to shut off automatically after a given time interval but cannot be re-set by a visually impaired user, thus rendering the device inaccessible;
(8) failing to provide reasonable designated areas within the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops for service animals to defecate;
(9) charging visually impaired patrons using service animals a $20 fee for the use of kennel facilities;
(10) locating the kennel facilities outside of the theme parks;
(11) refusing to allow service animals to be tied to any locations within the theme parks while the visually impaired owner is using park rides;
(12) simultaneously refusing to provide a Disney employee to assist a visually impaired patron and also requiring visually impaired patrons to pay full price for a ticket for an aide or attendant to serve the

function of assisting the patron in navigating around the theme parks;
(13) maintaining a policy at parades that only wheelchair users may use the area designated for handicapped guests and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments;
(14) renting lockers to park visitors that are inaccessible to persons with visual impairments because they utilize an inaccessible touch screen, have no attendant to assist the visually impaired, and provide only a printed receipt with the combination to open the rented locker; and
(15) maintaining one or more websites that are not fully accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen reader software.
(1st Am.Compl. ¶ 11(c).) Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id. at 36–39.)
C. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Classes Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), Plaintiffs move to certify the following 10 classes:
(1) DISNEY CHARACTER CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who were or will become customers of the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and who were or will in the future be denied interaction and equal treatment by Disney employees dressed as Disney characters.
(2) SIGNAGE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who have not been or upon visiting in the future will not be provided signage, menus or schedules in an alternative *541 format, such as Braille and/or large print and were not read, in full, the menus, at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
(3) MAP CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and California Government Code Section 12926 who have not been
3

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

or who upon visiting in the future will not be provided maps in an alternative format, such as Braille and/or large print, at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
(4) KENNEL CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who have either (1) paid a fee for the use of a kennel for his/her service animal at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida; (2) been deterred from visiting Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida on account of the kennel fee for his/her service animal; (3) been deterred from visiting Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and its theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops on account of there being no reasonable designated areas for service animals to defecate; or (4) been deterred from visiting Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and its theme parks by refusing to allow service animals to be tied to any locations within the theme parks while the visually impaired owner is using park rides, or who will suffer such deterrence from, or treatment upon, visiting the Resorts in the future.
(5) AUDIO DESCRIPTION DEVICE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who have used or attempted to use, or who will upon future visits use or attempt to use, an audio description device at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and been deprived of the full use and enjoyment of the device.
(6) COMPANION TICKET CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who have paid for, or who will upon future visits be required to pay for, an additional ticket for a companion or aide to assist the visually impaired individual to utilize the accommodations at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
(7) PARADE CLASS: All visually impaired

individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who have experienced discrimination, or who will upon future visits experience discrimination, due to Defendants’ policy of excluding persons with disabilities, other than wheelchair users, from preferential locations to stand or sit during the parades and shows at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
(8) LOCKER CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who have been or who will upon future visits be unable to utilize a locker at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
*542 (9) WEBSITE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who have been or who will in the future be unable to access one or more of the websites maintained by Defendants such as www.disney.go.com and were or will be denied equal access to Defendants’ theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through DEFENDANTS’ websites.
(10) PARKING CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and California Government Code Section 12926, who were or will in the future be customers of the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops at Disneyland/California Adventure in California and were or will be denied equal treatment due to Defendants’ failure to comply with accessible parking provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guide (“ADAAG”), Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Additionally, Defendants’ parking structure and parking lot at Disneyland are violating the following provisions of the ADAAG: 4.6.2, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.7.7, 4.29.2 and 4.29.5; all so as to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
(Mot. at 4–7.)
4

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

III.
LEGAL STANDARD
[1] [2] Rule 23 provides district courts with broad discretion in making a class certification determination. Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 941 (9th Cir.2001); see also Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 345, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979) (recognizing that district courts “have broad power and discretion vested in them by Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23”). Nonetheless, a court must exercise its discretion “within the framework of Rule 23.” Navellier, 262 F.3d at 941. A district court may certify a class only if the following prerequisites are met:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). These prerequisites “ensure[ ] that the named plaintiffs are appropriate representatives of the class whose claims they wish to litigate.” Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2550, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011).
[3] If the Rule 23(a) requirements are satisfied, a class action may be maintained pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” The party seeking certification bears the burden of demonstrating that it meets the Rule 23(b) requirements. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 944 n. 9 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.2001)). The Rule 23 analysis must be rigorous to ensure that its prerequisites have been satisfied, and such analysis will often require looking beyond the pleadings to issues overlapping with the merits of the underlying claims. Dukes, ––– U.S. at ––––, 131 S.Ct. at 2551.

IV.
DISCUSSION
A. The Contingent Nature Of Some Putative Class Members Does Not Bar Certification [4] In the Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs expand the putative class definitions *543 from those in their First Amended Complaint to include unknown, future victims of Defendants’ alleged misconduct. (See Notice of Mot. at 4 n. 1; Mot. at 8.) Defendants challenge the “inclusion of hypothetical future claimants ... under principles of Article III standing [and] ripeness.” (Opp’n at 14.) Defendants’ argument is without merit. “The inclusion of future class members in a class is not itself unusual or objectionable. When the future persons referenced become members of the class, their claims will necessarily be ripe.” Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1118 (9th Cir.2010) (citations to Probe v. State Teachers’ Ret. Sys., 780 F.2d 776, 780 (9th Cir.1986), and LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1321–26 (9th Cir.1985), omitted). Thus, to the extent Defendants’ current conduct and/or policies adversely affect visually impaired individuals who have visited or who plan to visit Disney theme parks, there is no reason why their alleged conduct and/or policies would not continue to affect visually impaired persons in the future.
B. Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims Must Be Limited To The Disneyland Resort Plaintiffs seek to certify ten nationwide classes for claims under both federal and state law. Although neither party has raised the issue, the Court has serious doubts whether Plaintiffs can enforce California statutes—the Unruh Act and the CDPA—with respect to Defendants’ operations in Florida. Normally, in such situations, courts certify a subclass for claims arising under state law. See, e.g., Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 582 F.Supp.2d 1185, 1209 (N.D.Cal.2007) (certifying a nationwide class for claims under the ADA and a subclass of individuals in California for claims under the Unruh Act and the CDPA).
Plaintiffs have not moved to certify a subclass and the Court declines to do so sua sponte. Accordingly, the Court considers Plaintiffs’ proposed classes in the context of their ADA claims only. For any nationwide class that the Court certifies, if it becomes apparent that the ADA
5

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

cannot afford complete relief, the Court may revisit certification of subclasses for Plaintiffs’ state law claims with respect to Defendants’ operations at the Disneyland Resort in California.

C. The Rule 23 Factors

1. Numerosity [5] [6] A putative class may be certified only if it “is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1). “ ‘[I]mpracticability’ does not mean ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of the class.” Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 913–14 (9th Cir.1964) (quoting Adver. Specialty Nat’l Ass’n v. FTC, 238 F.2d 108, 119 (1st Cir.1956)). The numerosity requirement imposes no absolute limitations; rather, it “requires examination of the specific facts of each case.” Gen. Tel. Co. of the Nw. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 330, 100 S.Ct. 1698, 64 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980). Thus, while the Supreme Court has noted that putative classes of 15 are too small to meet the numerosity requirement, id. at 330 & n. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1698, district courts in this Circuit have found that classes with as few as 39 members met the numerosity requirement, see Patrick v. Marshall, 460 F.Supp. 23, 26 (N.D.Cal.1978); see also Jordan v. L.A. County, 669 F.2d 1311, 1320 (9th Cir.) (noting, in dicta, that the court “would be inclined to find the numerosity requirement ... satisfied solely on the basis of [39] ascertained class members”), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810, 103 S.Ct. 35, 74 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982).

Plaintiffs estimate that the number of visually impaired individuals who visit a Disney theme park each year exceeds 100,000 and may even exceed 1 million. Plaintiffs reach this calculation in two different ways. First, they cite data showing that 25.1 million people living in the United States, or approximately 8%, are visually impaired.4 (Mot., Exs. J, L at 36.) Plaintiffs estimate that in 2009 more than 47 million patrons visited the *544 Walt Disney World Resort and more than 21 million patrons visited the Disneyland Resort.5 (Mot., Ex. I at 14.) Thus, Plaintiffs estimate that 8% of Defendants’ annual patrons—3.8 million persons at the Walt Disney

World Resort and 1.7 million persons at the Disneyland Resort—are visually impaired. (Mot. at 15.)

4

The estimate of 25.1 million visually impaired persons

is based on a 2008 National Health Interview Survey

conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (“HHS”) that includes respondents

who “have any trouble seeing, even when wearing

glasses or contact lenses” as well as those who are

“blind or unable to see at all.” (Mot., Ex. L at 37.)

5

Plaintiffs base their attendance estimates on a market

research report because Defendants have not provided

actual attendance data. (See Mot. at 14 n. 6.)

Plaintiffs also estimate the number of visually impaired Disney patrons using an alternative methodology. Citing a draft version of a 2010 article for Disney Files magazine (Mot., Ex. R), Plaintiffs estimate that there are currently 60 million Americans claiming to have a long-term disability. Plaintiffs thus estimate that 41% of disabled persons (25.1 million out of 60 million) are visually impaired. Because Greg Hale, the “worldwide vice president of safety and accessibility for Disney World Parks and Resorts,” stated publicly that the number of disabled patrons who visit Disney World is “well into the thousands every day” (Mot., Ex. K), Plaintiffs estimate that at least 410 daily visitors to the Walt Disney World Resort (41% of 1,000) are visually impaired. Based on this estimate, Plaintiffs calculate that approximately 180 visually impaired visitors attend the Disneyland Resort each day given that the overall attendance at the Disneyland Resort is approximately 44% of the overall attendance at the Walt Disney World Resort.6 (Mot. at 15.) These daily estimates correspond to annual estimates of 150,000 and 66,000 visually impaired visitors, respectively, at the Florida and California resorts.

6

The Court calculates slightly different numbers than

Plaintiffs due to apparent rounding errors. To avoid

confusion, the Court uses the numbers stated by

Plaintiffs in their Motion.

Defendants deride Plaintiffs’ reliance on census data and statistics as “ambiguous or speculative.” (Opp’n at 28 (quoting Celano v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 544, 549 (N.D.Cal.2007).)) To the contrary, courts routinely rely on census data and statistics to determine numerosity. See Target, 582 F.Supp.2d at 1199 (“Plaintiffs have submitted evidence, based on U.S. Census data, that there are likely thousands of potential class members in the nationwide class based on the large number of people who are legally blind and use screen access software.... Courts ... have repeatedly certified ADA classes like the one proposed here based on similar evidentiary showings.”); Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 220 F.R.D. 604, 608 n. 8 (N.D.Cal.2004) ( “[C]ensus data is frequently relied on by courts in determining the size of proposed classes.” (brackets omitted) (quoting 1 Robert Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, § 3:3 (4th ed. 2002))).
6

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

Nonetheless, the Court shares Defendants’ skepticism of Plaintiffs’ methodology in kind if not in degree.
Plaintiffs implicitly rely on two doubtful postulates. First, Plaintiffs assume that the proportion of the general population with visual impairments is the same as the proportion of Disney visitors with visual impairments. Similarly, Plaintiffs assume that the proportion of disabled individuals with visual impairments is the same in the general population as at the Disney resorts. These assumptions may not be true.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs draw upon a draft version of an article from Disney Files magazine in estimating that 41% of disabled persons are visually impaired. The magazine cites no basis for its statistic that 60 million Americans claim a long-term disability. The e-mail accompanying the draft version indicates that it was being circulated “to ensure that we have our facts straight.” (Mot., Ex. R at 1.) Thus, its accuracy is questionable.
Equally problematic, Plaintiffs are comparing apples to oranges in reaching a ratio of 41%. Plaintiffs are comparing persons who “have any trouble seeing,” whether short-term or long-term, with persons who have long-term disabilities. These two statistics likely originate from two different data sources. To the extent Plaintiffs are attempting to reach an estimate based on Defendants’ own data, the Disney presentation that Plaintiffs discuss (Mot. at 14, Ex. S), which is itself based on different underlying data sources, estimates that of about 50 million Americans with disabilities, 3.5 to 4.5 million (7–9%) have visual disabilities.
*545 [7] Nonetheless, even this lower estimate suggests that at least 25,000 annual visitors to the Walt Disney World Resort and at least 11,000 annual visitors to the Disneyland Resort have visual disabilities. Thus, in examining the putative class of visually impaired persons who were or will become patrons of the Disney resorts in California or Florida, the Court concludes that it is far too numerous to practicably join all members.
The Court’s conclusion that joinder would be impossible or impracticable is bolstered by the fact that individual members of the putative class “are unknown and cannot be readily identified.” Park v. Ralph’s Grocery Co., 254 F.R.D. 112, 120 (C.D.Cal.2008) (citing Moeller, 220 F.R.D. at 608). It would be impossible to join all potential class members where there is no centralized source—such as a common employer—with records of the constituent members.
Defendants also assail Plaintiffs’ calculations by pointing

out that from May 1, 2005 through December 9, 2010, Defendants have received a total of only 58 visitor complaints regarding any of the issues raised in the putative class definitions from guests identifying themselves as visually impaired.7 (Opp’n at 26; Cohen Decl. ¶¶ 3–4, Ex. 25.) The Court agrees that this evidence is entitled to some weight. Within the overarching group of visually impaired Disney visitors or potential visitors, the Court must determine whether each putative class is sufficiently numerous to support certification, cf. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1190 (9th Cir.2001) (“Plaintiffs ... bear the burden of establishing appropriate subclasses and demonstrating that each subclass meets the Rule 23 requirements.” (quoting In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 168 F.R.D. 203, 221 (S.D.Ohio 1996))), and the visitor complaint data are the only evidence from which to draw conclusions about the size of many of the classes.

7

Defendants identify this evidence as “visitor

complaints” from “visually impaired guests and guests

with service animals.” (Cohen Decl. ¶ ¶ 2–3.) This

description is somewhat misleading as the documents

contain not only complaints but also comments and

positive feedback. In addition, several of the comments

appear to be from individuals who did not actually visit

a Disney park. For convenience, the Court refers to

these documents as “visitor complaints” or

“complaints.”

Nonetheless, the low number of complaints over the period in question does not uniformly suggest a lack of numerosity. Certainly not every deterred potential patron or aggrieved guest—sighted or otherwise—will lodge a complaint. It is likely that only a very small percentage of such guests actually take the time to do so, and it is impossible to pinpoint this percentage based on the current record. Even if it were relatively large, such as 10 to 20%, it would in most instances reflect a class sizeable enough to satisfy Rule 23’s numerosity requirement.

a. Individual Classes
Although Plaintiffs establish that there are sufficiently numerous visually impaired Disney visitors or potential visitors as to support certification, they do not seek to certify such an overarching class. Rather, Plaintiffs have narrowly defined each of their 10 proposed classes to include a subset of Disney visitors or potential visitors with a specific grievance. Thus, while one of Defendants’ recurring arguments against the certification of each individual class is that few or no visitor complaints reflect
7

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

Plaintiffs’ precise grievances, the issue that they raise is really one of numerosity. Given how narrowly Plaintiffs draw their class definitions, such that their class-specific grievances inhere in their proposed class definitions, it is virtually a foregone conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims are typical of each of these classes.
[8] For some classes, the lack of complaints is dispositive. With respect to the proposed Disney Character, Locker, and Parking classes, there is no evidence that these issues affect any individuals other than Plaintiffs and Rick Boggs, Plaintiff Amber Boggs’ husband. (See Cohen Decl. ¶¶ 9, 15, 17.) Plaintiffs’ personal experiences are insufficient evidence for the Court to find that their complaints are widespread among a certifiable class. Cf. Dukes, ––– U.S. at ––––, 131 S.Ct. at 2555 (“[O]ne named plaintiff’s experience of discrimination [i]s insufficient to infer that ‘discriminatory treatment *546 is typical of [the defendant’s] practices.’ ” (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 158, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982))); Falcon, 457 U.S. at 159 n. 15, 102 S.Ct. 2364 (“The mere fact that an aggrieved private plaintiff is a member of an identifiable class of persons of the same race or national origin is insufficient to establish his standing to litigate on their behalf all possible claims of discrimination against a common employer.”). Other than the visitor complaints, Plaintiffs provide no evidence establishing numerosity in these classes, as is their burden in seeking certification. See Dukes, ––– U.S. at ––––, 131 S.Ct. at 2551 (“A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties ....”).
Plaintiffs assert that the Court “may make common sense assumptions to support the finding of numerosity.” (Mot. at 12 (citing Moeller, 220 F.R.D. at 608; Neiberger v. Hawkins, 208 F.R.D. 301, 313 (D.Colo.2002); Alexander A. ex rel. Barr v. Novello, 210 F.R.D. 27, 33 (E.D.N.Y.2002); Nat’l Org. on Disability v. Tartaglione, No. CIV. A. 01–1923, 2001 WL 1258089, at *1 (E.D.Pa.2001); Colo. Cross–Disability Coal. v. Taco Bell Corp., 184 F.R.D. 354, 358 (D.Colo.1999)).) To an extent, this is true. Thus, the Court recognizes that the number of visitor complaints to address a particular topic represents only a fraction of the number of potential class members affected by that issue. Nonetheless, where evidence of numerosity is entirely lacking, the Court cannot substitute its imagination—no matter how commonsensical—in place of facts.
The cases cited by Plaintiffs do not support certification based solely on a court’s intuitions. In Moeller, the court

relied on census data that 151,000 persons in California use wheelchairs and evidence that the defendant’s restaurants had more than 50 million transactions in 2002 to conclude that “the only way that this class is not numerous is if virtually none of Defendant’s fifty million transactions involved persons who use wheelchairs or scooters.” 220 F.R.D. at 608. Thus, the court applied common sense only to draw statistical inferences in light of evidence in the record.
Similarly, Plaintiffs’ other authority also involved situations where a court made reasonable assumptions based on evidence in the record. See Neiberger, 208 F.R.D. at 314 (relying on data that a Colorado mental health institute admitted between 650 and 700 patients per year and that the average daily census showed a population of 300 patients to conclude that the proposed class—all present and future persons committed to the institute—was sufficiently numerous); Tartaglione, 2001 WL 1258089, at *2 (relying on apparently uncontested allegations that the class contained approximately 184,500 members); Colo. Cross–Disability Coal., 184 F.R.D. at 358 (relying on both survey results and census data and demonstrating the existence of at least 27 class members).
Therefore, the proposed Disney Character, Locker, and Parking classes cannot be certified. The Court now turns to the remaining classes to determine whether they satisfy the Rule 23 numerosity requirement.
b. Signage Class
[9] At least twelve visitor complaints related to the putative Signage Class. (Cohen Decl. ¶ 10.) Thus, the Court can reasonably infer that there are putative class members other than the named Plaintiffs and their immediate families. Given that the number of visitor complaints is almost certainly a small fraction of the number of visually impaired individuals who have been or will be affected by Defendants’ signage policies, the Court finds that this class is sufficiently numerous so as to make joinder impracticable.
c. Map Class
[10] Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of visually impaired individuals who have not been or who will not be provided with maps in alternative formats accessible to
8

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

visually impaired individuals. None of Defendants’ visitor complaints identify a lack of Braille or large-type maps as a particular problem, although several suggest that adding a GPS element into audio devices would be helpful in lieu of or in addition to existing maps. (See Cohen Decl., Ex. 28 at 550 (asking Defendants *547 to “[p]rovide [the] blind and partially sighted with GPS accessible devices that map each theme park and the WDW complex”); id. at 552 (“GPS within the Parks could be very helpful ....”); id. at 556 (“I saw people of all sorts using the Braille Maps for reference, but imagine adding that information to the audio description so a visually impaired visitor would know when they are near a Braille sign too ....”).)

[11] Thus, there is no evidence that the proposed Map Class would extend to visually impaired individuals other than the named Plaintiffs. As Defendants’ expert witness opined, only “a limited number of legally blind people use maps, even when presented in an alternative format such as Braille or large print,” in part because such maps “must be so large to cover the same information contained in a print map that they are unwieldy and difficult to use.” (Pomerantz Decl. ¶ 13.) Because the proposed Map Class fails to meet the numerosity requirement, the Court cannot certify this class.8

8

Moreover, Plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of

the putative Map Class because they have little or no

experience with Braille or large-type maps. (See

Shields Depo. at 41:21–24; Boggs Depo. at 86:5–6,

99:18–100:15, 105:12–106:1; Stockton Depo. at

55:2–57:24; 85:2–4, 86:23–87:8.) Plaintiffs do not

identify any alternative formats for portable

maps—aside from Braille, large type, and audio

description devices—that they would use themselves

such that they could adequately represent the proposed

Map Class. Accordingly, the Court cannot certify the

Map Class.

d. Kennel Class
[12] The proposed kennel class members are persons who either have paid a kennel fee or have been deterred from visiting a Disney park because of (1) the kennel fee for service animals; (2) a lack of reasonable designated areas for service animals to defecate; or (3) Defendants’ alleged policy forbidding service animals from being tied to any locations within the theme parks while the visually impaired owners use park rides. Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants to “provide reasonable accommodations for service animals, designated places to defecate within Disney theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops ..., and

places where the service animal can be tied ... while the visually impaired person uses rides.” (Compl. at 37.) Plaintiffs further request that the Court “make a determination as to the propriety of the fees [Defendants] charge visually impaired visitors at Disney theme parks ... for accommodations and auxiliary aids and services including kennels.” (Id. at 38.)
There is no evidence that Plaintiffs’ allegations about the kennel fee are shared by sufficiently numerous visually impaired individuals so as to make joinder impracticable. Among visitor complaints made to Defendants between May 1, 2005 and December 9, 2010, only one (other than a complaint made by Plaintiff Shields) addresses the propriety of the kennel fee. (See Cohen Decl., Ex. 29 at 585 (“[A] fifteen-dollar fee gets the dog a cage to lie down in while we’re in the park enjoying ourselves .... [T]here are no discounts either for service animals or for annual passport holders. This strikes us as somewhat inflexible ....”).)
Similarly, Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to Defendants’ alleged tying policy—i.e., forbidding service animals from being tied to any locations within the theme parks while visually impaired owners use park rides—are also not shared by enough other persons as to warrant certification of the proposed kennel class. No patron complaint directly mentions such a policy or requests the ability to tie a service animal to a location near a ride. Nor are visually impaired patrons likely to have such a grievance—the ADA regulations specifically prohibit the practice of leaving a service animal unattended. See 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c)(4) (“A service animal shall be under the control of its handler.”). In this respect, the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim overlap with their Rule 23’s requirements of numerosity and typicality.
Complaints from several Disney park-goers bemoan the inconvenience of the kennel’s location at the park entrance and some suggest providing kennel or cage areas near individual rides (as is apparently the practice at some parks). (See Cohen Decl., Ex. 29 at 549, 578, 584–85, 587, 593.) While these complaints may arise from the same general *548 grievance underlying Plaintiffs’ goal of modifying Defendants’ alleged tie-up policy—that the visually impaired need a place to leave their service animals so that they may enjoy certain rides that prohibit service animals—Plaintiffs’ claim and the park-goer complaints are substantively different. Even if the Court were to reformulate Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition sua sponte to include all visually impaired individuals needing to temporarily secure their service animals at rides, such a proposed class would not be entitled to relief. “A public accommodation is not responsible for the
9

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

care or supervision of a service animal.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c)(5).
[13] The final component of Plaintiffs’ proposed kennel class is visually impaired individuals who have been deterred from visiting a Disney park due to a lack of reasonable designated areas for service animals to defecate. It appears that other visually impaired individuals share Plaintiffs’ concern. Several complaints express concern that Disney parks do not provide acceptable locations for their service animals to defecate. (See Cohen Decl., Ex. 29 at 549, 579–80, 581.)
Accordingly, the Court finds that certification of the proposed Kennel Class is appropriate. Modification of the proposed class definition will be necessary, however, to ensure that it meets both numerosity and typicality requirements. Thus, the Court excludes from certification Plaintiffs’ proposed definitions involving the kennel fees and the alleged policy prohibiting animals from being tied-up near rides.
e. Audio Description Device Class
[14] Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of visually impaired individuals who have or will be deprived of the full use and enjoyment of Defendants’ audio description device. At least seven visitor complaints and 18 comments from visually impaired testers relate to the putative Audio Description Device Class. (Cohen Decl. ¶¶ 18–19, Exs. 34–35.) Thus, the Court can reasonably infer that the putative Audio Description Device Class members satisfy the numerosity requirement.

[16] Plaintiffs’ proposed Parade Class would encompass visually disabled persons “who have experienced discrimination, or who will upon future visits experience discrimination, due to Defendants’ policy of excluding persons with disabilities, other than wheelchair users, from preferential locations to stand or sit during the parades and shows.” (1st Am.Compl. ¶ 18(g).) Plaintiffs seek to enjoin this alleged policy. (Id. at 38.)
There is evidence that visually impaired guests have complained about being denied seating in areas for the disabled at parades and shows. (See Cohen Decl., Ex. 31 at 645–46, 649–50, 653, 658–59, 676–77, 683–84.) This evidence suggests that there are sufficiently numerous visually impaired guests who have allegedly experienced discrimination at parades and shows as to make joinder impracticable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs satisfy the numerosity requirement for the proposed Parade Class.
h. Website Class
[17] The Court also finds that Plaintiffs make a sufficient showing of numerosity as to the proposed Website Class. There is evidence that roughly 1.5 million visually impaired persons have regular access to the Internet (Mot., Ex. Q at 7) and that the Disney Parks websites had an aggregate of 2.96 million unique hits during December 2010 (Davis Depo. at 43:4–23). In addition, Plaintiffs cite evidence that persons with disabilities do more planning and booking of accommodations via the Internet than persons in the general population. (Mot., Ex. S at 14.) Thus, the Court concludes that this *549 potential class is sufficiently numerous as to make joinder impracticable.

f. Companion Ticket Class
[15] Several complaints by visitors to Disney parks reflect Plaintiffs’ concern that Defendants do not offer free or reduced admission to companions of the visually impaired. (See Cohen Decl., Ex. 30 at 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 628, 629, 630, 631, 633.) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have borne their burden of demonstrating numerosity with respect to the proposed Companion Ticket Class.
g. Parade Class

2. Commonality [18] [19] The commonality requirement is satisfied if “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). “Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered the same injury.’ ” Dukes, ––– U.S. at ––––, 131 S.Ct. at 2551 (quoting Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157, 102 S.Ct. 2364). In determining that a common question of law exists, it is insufficient to find that all putative class members have suffered a violation of the same provision of law. Id. Rather, the putative class members’ claims “must depend upon a common contention” that is “of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id.
10

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

[20] Nonetheless, in conducting the commonality inquiry, one significant issue shared by the class may suffice to warrant certification. Id. at ––––, 131 S.Ct. at 2562 (quoting id. at –––– n. 9, 131 S.Ct. at 2556 n. 9 (Ginsberg, J., dissenting)); see also Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.1998) (“All questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy the rule. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient ....”).

[21] Defendants do not argue that the proposed classes lack commonality other than to state that “Plaintiffs’ inability to identify an ascertainable classes [sic] or appropriate classwide remedies ... defeat a Rule 23(a)(2) showing of commonality.”9 (Opp’n at 27 n. 17.) Relying entirely on district court cases, Defendants assert that Rule 23(a) contains an implicit requirement that a class be “ascertainable” in the sense of “precise” or “sufficiently definite.” (Id. at 13 (quoting Whiteway v. FedEx Kinko’s Office & Print Servs., Inc., No. C 05–2320 SBA, 2006 WL 2642528, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 14, 2006), and O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 404, 416 (C.D.Cal.2000)).)

9

Defendants also make a cursory commonality argument

with respect to the proposed Companion Ticket class.

(Opp’n at 38 n. 26.) The Court addresses this argument

infra.

Even if such a requirement exists when certification is sought under Rule 23(b)(2), the Court discerns no difficulty ascertaining the proposed classes here. The group of “all visually impaired individuals” (see Opp’n at 25) is no more indefinite than, for instance, “all African–American Boeing employees,” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 954 (9th Cir.2003) (affirming commonality finding), or “all persons who ... have engaged, or may engage, in acts of private, consensual homosexual conduct,” Soc’y for Individual Rights, Inc. v. Hampton, 63 F.R.D. 399, 401 (N.D.Cal.1973) (certifying class under Rule 23(b) (2))—notwithstanding that it may be difficult or impossible to locate specific persons within this category. Nor is it material to the commonality inquiry that putative class members may have a variety of underlying causes contributing to their vision impairments. (See Opp’n at 5 & n. 3.) To the extent variances within the class as to severity of vision impairment give rise to a multiplicity of remedies necessary to remedy the alleged ADA violations, the Court addresses this issue within the context of Rule 23(b)(2).

a. Signage Class
[22] Plaintiffs identify the following common issues of law and fact for members of the putative Signage Class: (1) whether Defendants failed to provide Braille and/or large print signage and/or schedules within the Resorts so as to orient visually impaired patrons as to the locations of rides, restaurants and facilities as well as the times for shows; (2) whether Defendants failed to provide menus in accessible alternative formats such as Braille and/or large print; (3) whether Defendants’ employees failed to read menus, in full, to visually impaired guests upon request; (4) whether Defendants’ failed to train employees to read menus in full to visually impaired guests when there is a lack of a Braille and/or large print menus at the Resorts; and (5) whether these facts, if true, violated the ADA, CDPA, and/or Unruh Act. (Mot. at 27.) The Court finds that these *550 common issues of fact and law meet the Rule 23(a)(2) requirement.
b. Kennel Class
[23] With respect to the proposed Kennel Class, there are common issues of law and fact: (1) whether Defendants failed to designate reasonable areas for visually impaired guests’ service animals to defecate within the Resorts; (2) whether Defendants were legally required to do so; (3) whether any such failure deterred visually impaired guests from visiting the Resorts; and (4) whether any such failure violated the ADA, CDPA, and/or Unruh Act. (Id. at 31.) These common issues also satisfy Rule 23(a)(2).
c. Audio Description Device Class
[24] As for the proposed Audio Description Device Class, the Court finds that there are common issues of law and fact: (1) whether Defendants’ audio description device has a design defect that shuts off the device automatically such that a visually impaired user cannot reset it without returning the device to the guest services department; (2) whether any such defect renders the devices inaccessible to the visually impaired; and (3) whether the alleged inaccessibility violates the ADA, CDPA, and/or Unruh Act. (See 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 51; Mot. at 33.) Thus, this proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a)(2).
d. Companion Ticket Class 11

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

[25] Plaintiffs maintain that the following issues of law and fact exist with regard to the proposed Companion Ticket Class: (1) whether Defendants are legally required to provide a free or discounted ticket to the aide or companion of a visually impaired guest to the Resorts as a reasonable accommodation; (2) whether Defendants are legally required to provide a Disney employee to act as a companion or aide to visually impaired guests at the Resorts; and (3) whether Defendants’ practice of requiring visually impaired guests to purchase an additional ticket, at full price, for a companion or aide to assist them utilize the accommodations at the Resorts violates the ADA, CDPA and/or Unruh Act. (Mot. at 35–36.) These issues satisfy the commonality requirement.
e. Parade Class
[26] There is an issue of law and fact common to members of the proposed Parade Class: whether Defendants maintained a policy at parades and shows allowing only wheelchair users and not guests with other disabilities such as visual impairments to use the areas designated for handicapped guests; and whether such a policy violates the ADA, CDPA and/or Unruh Act. Thus, the proposed Parade Class also satisfies Rule 23(a)(2). (Id. at 37.)
f. Website Class
[27] Lastly, the putative Website Class also involves questions of law and fact common to all class members: whether Defendants maintain one or more websites that are not fully accessible for persons with visual impairments utilizing screen reader software which prevents visually impaired persons from enjoying equal access to the Defendants’ theme parks, hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through such websites; and whether any such inaccessibility violates the ADA, CDPA, and/or Unruh Act. (Id. at 42–43.) These common issues of law and fact satisfy Rule 23(a)(2).
3. Typicality [28] [29] [30] Typicality requires a showing that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3). The purpose of this requirement “is to assure that the

interest of the named representative aligns with the interests of the class.” Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.1992)). “The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Id. (quoting Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508). The typicality standard under Rule 23(a)(3) is “permissive”: “representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably *551 coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Staton, 327 F.3d at 957 (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020).
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ alleged experiences are atypical because Disney has received numerous awards from disability organizations, its employees have had many positive experiences with putative class members, and Plaintiffs admit to having had positive interactions with Disney characters while accompanied by their service animals. (Opp’n at 6.) These types of arguments primarily address the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, which the Court does not consider other than where they necessarily overlap with class certification considerations. Thus, these arguments largely miss the mark. The issue under Rule 23(a)(3) is not whether there has been a uniform failure to provide reasonable accommodation at all. Rather, it is whether the inaccessibilities experienced and accommodations sought by Plaintiffs are typical of those experienced and sought by putative class members generally.
a. Signage Class
[31] Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs have atypical claims because their “apparent preference for certain formats of printed materials simply does not reflect the spectrum or particularity of the needs, preferences, and requests of the absent class members, which ... vary widely.” (Opp’n at 31.) It is not clear how Plaintiffs’ claims are atypical. Plaintiffs seek signage, schedules and menus in “alternative formats such as Braille and/or large print.” (1st Am.Compl. at 37 (emphasis added).) Plaintiffs stress in their Reply that they are seeking relief in the form of alternative formats for menus, schedules, and maps. (Reply at 3.)
The fact that each Plaintiff has at least some degree of proficiency in Braille does not make her claims atypical. For example, with regard to menus, all three Plaintiffs
12

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

testified at their depositions that they sometimes prefer to have menus read to them by waitstaff. (Shields Depo. at 150:7–20; Boggs Depo. at 46:15–20, 47:9–15; Stockton Depo. at 152:3–12.) Although Plaintiff Shields has never had a server refuse to read her a menu (Shields Depo. at 146:7–9), Plaintiffs Boggs and Stockton have had such experiences. (Boggs Depo. at 266:23–267:1; Stockton Depo. at 154:19–155:11.)
That Plaintiffs sometimes prefer the server to read from specific parts of the menu or focus on specific types of menu items and sometimes prefer to have the entire menu read does not make their claims atypical. The concern is that the waitstaff refuse to read the parts of the menu that Plaintiffs request to have read to them-not that the waitstaff refuse to read the menus in a particular way. In this respect, Plaintiffs Boggs and Stockton have claims regarding the menu that are typical to visually impaired guests who have lodged complaints. (Compare, e.g., Boggs Depo. at 266:25–267:1 (describing situation where waiter “said he didn’t have time to read the whole menu”), with Cohen Decl., Ex. 27 at 540–41 (“Not many people are willing to go through a menu with you, because they are in too much of a hurry to get you in and out of there to make room for the next customers.”).) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the proposed Signage Class.
b. Kennel Class
[32] The Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the proposed Kennel class. Like their fellow putative class members, Plaintiffs are visually impaired individuals who have been deterred from visiting the Disney theme parks because they claim there are no reasonable designated areas for service animals to defecate.
Defendants’ assertions that they “do designate areas within their theme parks for service animal relief” and that they allow relief “in any open area” (Opp’n at 34) are beside the point. Although these assertions, if true, may be relevant to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, they are immaterial to the typicality of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants’ contention that “absent class members have commended [Disney] on its accessibility for guests with service animals, including several compliments about cast members assisting guests in finding the service animal relief areas” (id. (citation and parenthesis omitted)), actually supports a typicality finding. The fact that *552 guests have required assistance in finding the service animal relief areas suggests that the relief areas may not

be in reasonable locations.
In any event, visually impaired Disney guests who have no discontent about the location of the service animal relief areas are unlikely to be deterred from visiting the Disney theme parks on account thereof. Thus, by definition, the putative class does not include such individuals. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Shields and Stockton have claims that are typical of the proposed Kennel Class.
c. Audio Description Device Class
[33] Defendants challenge certification of the audio description device class on typicality grounds. (Opp’n at 36–37.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ audio description device has a design defect such that, once it shuts off automatically, “a visually impaired user cannot re-set the device and must return to the guest services department to have it re-set.”10 (1st Am.Compl. ¶ 51.) 10 None of the relief that Plaintiffs demand in their First
Amended Complaint would remedy this alleged defect or even relates to Defendants’ audio description device. (See 1st Am.Compl. at 36–39.)
The Court agrees with Defendants that the current record does not reflect that Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of visually impaired individuals who have used or have attempted to use Defendants’ audio description device “and [have] been deprived of the full use and enjoyment of the device.” (Compl.¶ 12.) As discussed above, several complaints identified the lack of a GPS-based element in the audio description devices as an issue. Other complaints cited, inter alia, the high cost of the security deposit (Cohen Decl., Ex. 34 at 717), reported that the device did not work at all (id. at 715, 718–19, 721; id., Ex. 35 at 754), requested the availability of audio descriptions in foreign languages (id., Ex. 34 at 722), requested a fuller audio description of particular attractions or restaurants/menus (id. at 723–24; id., Ex. 35 at 727, 732), fulminated against the device’s short cord (id., Ex. 34 at 726), expressed a need for a pause or an on/off button (id., Ex. 35 at 728, 729, 735, 757), asked for a means of attaching the device to one’s waist or rendering it hands-free (id. at 727, 729, 730, 732, 734, 735, 757, 758), commented that the device’s audio is sometimes drowned out by ambient noise (id. at 737, 744, 539), or criticized employees’ knowledge of the devices (id., Ex. 34 at 715, 718–19, 721, 724; id., Ex. 35 at 754). Only one complaint regarding the audio description device even mentioned an issue with being unable to reset the device unassisted after it had shut off. (See id., Ex. 34
13

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

at 724.)
Although one could argue that each one of these complaints arguably reflects an individual who has “been deprived of the full use and enjoyment of the device” (Mot. at 6) and therefore fall within the class definition, that is simply another way of arguing that such individuals have suffered an ADA violation. The Supreme Court made clear in Dukes that it is not enough that putative class members “have all suffered a violation of the same provision of law.” Dukes, ––– U.S. at ––––, 131 S.Ct. at 2551. Thus, this Court found commonality among members of Plaintiffs’ proposed Audio Description Device Class based on Plaintiffs’ claim that the device has a design defect that shuts it off automatically and prevents a visually impaired user from resetting the device except by returning it to the guest services department. (See Compl. ¶ 51.) This claim, however, is not typical of other visually impaired individuals who have allegedly been deprived of the full use and enjoyment of the audio description device. Consequently, on the current record, the Court cannot certify this class.
d. Companion Ticket Class
[34] Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of visually impaired individuals “who will upon future visits be required to pay for, an additional ticket for a companion or aide to assist the visually impaired individual to utilize the accommodations” at Disney parks. (1st Am.Compl. ¶ 18(f).) Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violate the ADA, CDPA, and/or Unruh Act by “not providing an employee to assist a visually impaired person,” which “forces a visually impaired person to bring and pay full price for a companion to fully utilize the park facilities.” (Id. ¶ 53.) Although it is not *553 clear, Plaintiffs apparently also maintain that Defendants violate the law by failing to “provide a free or discounted ticket to the aid or companion of a visually impaired visitor to the theme parks as a reasonable accommodation.” (Id. ¶ 24(j) (setting forth legal issues common to the class).)
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs Shields and Boggs’ claims are not typical of other potential class members because “some guests have asked for companion admission” whereas “others have asked for discounted admission for themselves or for their companion.”11 (Opp’n at 37.) Defendants are splitting hairs. The central question presented by this class is whether visually impaired individuals who bring a companion to help them fully benefit from the Disney experience are required to pay the full cost of two admissions or whether some sort

of financial accommodation is or should be offered. Whether such an accommodation takes the form of a free admission or merely a discounted ticket and whether it applies to the visually impaired individual, the companion, or both, is not material to the underlying claim. It is a question pertaining only to the appropriate remedy. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the proposed Companion Ticket Class. 11 Defendants submit—and, as discussed below, the Court
agrees—that Plaintiff Stockton is an inadequate representative for this class.
e. Parade Class
[35] Plaintiffs have claims that are typical of other putative Parade Class members. Plaintiffs claim that, due to Defendants’ alleged policy, they were denied seating in or access to preferential locations for viewing parades and shows because they were not in wheelchairs. Other visually disabled visitors to the Disney theme parks have expressed similar complaints. (See, e.g., Cohen Decl., Ex. 31 at 645 (complaining that a female employee stated that “the front was reserved for individuals in wheelchairs and no one else” and that the complainant’s visually impaired daughter “was not considered disabled unless she was in a wheelchair”); id. at 653 (describing situation where guest and his blind wife sat in the disabled section but “were rudely told by a cast member to move to the upper section of the stadium” because the disabled section was “reserved for wheelchair clients”); id. at 658–59 (opining that Disney “bends over backwards if you use a wheelchair, but there is a lack of services provided to people who are visually impaired” based on experience where she and her husband had a “problem obtaining a special pass” that would have allowed them “to be seated in the front and center of the shows”).) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Parade Class.
f. Website Class
[36] In the final remaining proposed class, Plaintiffs move to certify a group of visually impaired individuals “who have been or who will in the future be unable to access one or more of the websites maintained by Defendants such as www.disney.go.com and were or will be denied equal access to Defendants’ theme parks, hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services
14

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

and benefits offered to the public through Defendants’ websites.” (1st Am.Compl. ¶ 18(i).)
Defendants challenge the typicality of Plaintiffs’ claims, maintaining that Defendants’ only contribution to the Disney theme parks’ websites—www. disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com, and www.disneyparks.com—is that Disney Online provided Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online the option to use its “chrome” (navigation bar) and “footer” (links at the bottom of the page). (Opp’n at 40.) Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have atypical claims because they have not had problems with these specific features of the websites.
Plaintiffs, however, are not challenging these specific features. To the extent Defendants claim that they are not responsible for any other web content related to Disney theme parks, their argument is more accurately characterized as one of lack of standing. See Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir.2003) (“[I]f none of the named plaintiffs purporting *554 to represent a class establishes the requisite of a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class.” (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974))). As discussed above (see supra note 3), the current record is insufficient to resolve a challenge to Plaintiffs’ standing as to Defendant Disney Online. Thus, the Court defers ruling on this issue until presented with a properly supported motion.
In fact, Plaintiffs’ alleged problems with the website are typical of the complaints that Defendants have received. Plaintiff Shields uses screen reading software and has been unable at times to access Disney websites. (Shields Depo. at 33:7–15, 35:21–36:10.) Plaintiff Boggs has used six different types of screen reading software and has had problems accessing a variety of information on the Disney websites. (Boggs Depo. at 49:8–23, 88:24–89:25, 177:8–16, 178:2–6, 178:18–23, 180:1–6.) Plaintiff Stockton also uses a screen reading device on her computer and has had problems accessing information on the Disney websites. (Stockton Depo. at 35:4–7, 77:12–79:25.) Defendants received similar complaints regarding their website. (See Cohen Decl., Ex. 32 at 690 (describing “many issues with the reservations website”); id. at 694 (inquiring whether “things have changed especially with the waltdisneyworld.com so that I can make reservations on my own, and not have problems accessing anything on the website”); id. at 702 (commenting on how Disney’s “website isn’t accessible to the visually impaired”); id. at 705 (“[T]he calendar is unusable now for those of us who are blind and use screen readers. It consists of unlabeled flash content.”).)

As Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the Disney websites are typical of the claims by the proposed class, Plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(a) (3).
4. Adequate Representation [37] Rule 23(a)(4) permits certification of a class action if “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4). “Class representation is inadequate if the named plaintiff fails to prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the entire class or has an insurmountable conflict of interest with other class members.” Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 589 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020); see also Dukes, ––– U.S. at –––– n. 5, 131 S.Ct. at 2551 n. 5 (explaining that while the adequacy of representation inquiry tends to merge with questions of typicality and commonality, it is distinct insofar as it “raises concerns about the competency of class counsel and conflicts of interest”).
[38] The Court finds that, in general, the named plaintiffs and class counsel adequately represent the putative classes and will continue to do so. Throughout this litigation, the named plaintiffs have demonstrated their willingness and ability to vigorously prosecute the claims at issue. For instance, they have (1) met with counsel before this suit was filed; (2) reviewed and executed contingency fee agreements; (3) reviewed and provided comments to their attorneys on the original complaint before it was filed; (4) worked with their families to retrieve documents and provide them to counsel to use in responding to requests for production; (5) agreed to allow their personal information to be used to support the class allegations; (6) participated in numerous telephone conferences and correspondence with their attorneys regarding case status, interrogatories, requests for production, depositions, and in preparation for settlement negotiations should they occur; and (7) prepared, reviewed, revised and executed responses to interrogatories. (Dogali Decl. ¶ 25.)
In addition, the named plaintiffs’ interests generally align with each of the classes that they wish to represent and they have no interests that are antagonistic to other potential class members. (Id. ¶ 24.) The putative class counsel also have no antagonistic interests and have adequate qualifications and experience to act as class counsel. They have experience in class actions and complex litigation, including civil rights and ADA litigation. (See id. ¶¶ 8–21; Feldman Decl. ¶¶ 3–8.)
*555 [39] Defendants assert that Plaintiffs Boggs and
15

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

Shields are inadequate representatives for any of the 10 classes because they have a conflict. (Opp’n at 31 n. 21.) Specifically, Defendants represent that Plaintiffs Boggs and Shields have threatened claims against a related Disney company, Disney Cruise Line, in connection with a cruise they took in January 2011. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs Boggs and Shields sought modification and aid (including re-designation of service animal relief areas, written materials in alternative formats, and other accommodations) and expressed displeasure with Disney Cruise Line’s response, thus raising the prospect of future claims. (Raizman Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 14.)
It is unclear how Plaintiffs’ threatened (or actual) litigation against a separate legal entity would present a conflict in the present litigation. If anything, their willingness to bring claims similar to those in this lawsuit against another company demonstrates Plaintiffs’ commitment to these issues. Thus, this evidence underscores Plaintiffs’ adequacy as class representatives.
[40] Defendants also claim that the putative class counsel has at least the appearance of “undue entanglement” with Plaintiffs Boggs and Shields because Mr. Feldman represents these plaintiffs not only in connection with the nascent Disney Cruise Line dispute, but has represented Plaintiff Boggs or her husband in at least three other actions. (Opp’n at 31 n. 21.) Defendants cite evidence of three such lawsuits. The first, which the parties settled, involved allegations that a college denied Plaintiff Boggs the right to apply based on her disability. (Boggs Depo. at 16:3–18:7.) The second suit is a class action suit against Southern California Gas Company over allegations that it does not provide bills in an alternate format. (Id. at 20:7–22:11.) In the third matter, Plaintiff Boggs retained counsel in regard to complaints she had about the manner in which Disney Cruise Lines treated her while she was planning a cruise, although she had no intent to sue Disney Cruise Lines over this issue. (Id. at 306:20–310:11.)
In Defendants’ view, these facts “raise questions about the appearance of putative class counsel’s competing loyalties to Ms. Boggs and Ms. Shields, on the one hand, and the remainder of the class, on the other.” (Opp’n at 31 n. 21.) It is unclear how Plaintiff’s claims against a utility company, former claims against a college, and potential claims against a cruise line have anything to do with the instant litigation. Absent evidence that Plaintiffs’ counsel have abdicated their duties to class members in favor of named Plaintiffs in any of these prior cases, the Court is not inclined to speculate as to the existence of any conflict of interest.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs do not have conflicts of interest with any of the proposed classes and are represented by qualified and competent counsel. Thus, Plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(a)(4). Defendants proffer several class-specific reasons why Plaintiffs do not adequately represent the proposed classes. The Court addresses these arguments below.
a. Signage Class
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs are inadequate representatives of the Signage Class, in essence, because their claims are atypical of other putative class members. (Opp’n at 31–32.) The Court has considered and rejected this argument above in the context of typicality. Defendants point out that Plaintiff Shields has never had a server refuse to read her a menu. (See Shields Depo. at 146:7–9.) Although this is true, there is no reason that Plaintiff Shields cannot adequately represent this class based on her experiences involving an alleged lack of signage and schedules in alternative formats. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the proposed Signage Class.
b. Kennel Class
Plaintiff Boggs does not seek to represent the proposed Kennel Class. (See 1st Am.Compl. ¶ 20.) Defendants’ arguments as to why Plaintiffs Shields and Stockton are inadequate representatives of this class relate to those aspects of the class which the Court declines to certify because they lack numerosity and/or typicality. In fact, both Plaintiff Shields and Plaintiff Stockton complain about *556 the lack of reasonable places for their service animals to defecate. (Shields Depo. at 106:2–18 (finding only a “little teeny tiny area” that was “most away from the public as possible” to relieve her service animal and being told by an employee that she needed “to take him to the kennels in the front of the park” even though her dog “can’t wait to go to the bathroom there”); Mot., Ex. F at Resp. # 16 (“[T]he lack of reasonable places for my service animal to defecate has impacted me by having to ask my sighted husband to locate a place for my service animal to defecate.”).) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Shields and Stockton satisfy Rule 23(a)(4) with respect to the proposed Kennel Class.
16

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

c. Companion Ticket Class
[41] Defendants depict Plaintiffs as inadequate representatives of the putative Companion Ticket Class by pointing out that Plaintiffs have never “visited the theme parks with a paid, sighted companion or with anyone other than a friend or family member who assisted them, and who also enjoyed the amenities of the park.” (Opp’n at 37.) Defendants thus attempt to distinguish a claim that “a medically necessary companion should receive free admission” from a claim that friends and family of visually impaired persons should receive free admission. (Id. at 37–38.)
The distinction between paid and unpaid companions is neither made by Plaintiffs nor found in the regulations implementing the ADA. See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(2) (“A public accommodation shall not require an individual with a disability to bring another individual to interpret for him or her.”); id. § 36.303(c)(3) (“A public accommodation shall not rely on an adult accompanying an individual with a disability to interpret or facilitate communication, except ... (ii) Where the individual with a disability specifically requests that the accompanying adult interpret or facilitate communication, the accompanying adult agrees to provide such assistance, and reliance on that adult for such assistance is appropriate under the circumstances.”). Thus, the distinction is immaterial to the legal issue.
Each time that Plaintiff Shields asked if her sighted companion or caregiver could enter the Disney park for free, she was told no. (Shields Depo. at 206:11–22.) Plaintiff Boggs has also asked if a sighted companion could accompany her in a Disney park for free or, alternatively, if a Disney could provide an escort to guide her through the park, and both requests were refused. (Boggs Depo. at 278:2–279:8.) In fact, Plaintiff Boggs purchased an additional annual pass to accommodate companions and aides during her visits to the Disneyland Resort. (Boggs Depo. at 113:24–114:6; Mot., Ex. E at Resp. # 14.)
The Court disagrees with Defendants that Plaintiff Stockton is an inadequate representative. She was required to purchase a ticket for her husband when he accompanied her to the Disney World Resort (Mot., Ex. F at Resp. # 19) and thus meets the class definition. The fact that she never thought to ask whether a sighted person could accompany her into a Disney park for free does not preclude her from being an adequate class representative as her interest and injury are the same as those of all affected class members. (Stockton Depo. at 103:20–104:4.) Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that each of the Plaintiffs will adequately

represent the proposed Companion Ticket Class.
d. Parade Class
[42] The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff Shields is not an adequate representative of the proposed Parade Class. Nothing in the record suggests that Plaintiff Shields has ever been denied access to disabled seating areas at parades or shows based on her having a visual disability rather than one requiring a wheelchair. Plaintiff Shields has only twice attempted to sit in a wheelchair area at a parade. (Shields Depo. at 189:23–190:13.) On one occasion she was accommodated and on another she was not as the area was already full. (Id. at 190:18–19, 191:11–13.) The only time that Plaintiff Shields describes being denied access to disabled seating at a show, the denial was because she did not have the appropriate pass—not due to her lack of a wheelchair. (See id. at 214:7–13.)
*557 [43] Plaintiffs Boggs and Stockton, in contrast, are adequate representatives of this proposed class. Plaintiff Boggs reports attempting to gain access to disabled seating at a parade and being denied access because the area “was designated for wheelchairs only.” (Boggs Depo. at 136:25–137:1.) Plaintiff Stockton once tried to gain access to a particular viewing area at a parade and was turned away because it was for wheelchairs. (Stockton Depo. at 134:13–17.)
With respect to shows, however, neither Plaintiff Boggs nor Plaintiff Stockton provides evidence that she has been excluded from a disabled seating area because she was not in a wheelchair. Thus, although these plaintiffs satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements with respect to parades, they, like Plaintiff Shields, cannot serve as representatives of a class involving shows. Therefore, the Court finds certification of the Parade Class inappropriate as to shows.
e. Website Class
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ ability to acquire via other means the services and information that Plaintiffs sought on Defendants’ websites makes Plaintiffs inadequate representatives of the proposed Website Class. (Opp’n at 40.) This argument goes to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims rather than to their adequacy as representatives and the Court need not address it here. See
17

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F.Supp.2d 946, 956 (N.D.Cal.2006) (refusing to consider in online retailer’s motion to dismiss its “affirmative defense” that it “need not modify its website, so long as it provides the information contained therein in some other format, such as by telephone”).
Plaintiffs Shields, Boggs, and Stockton have each attempted to access one or more of Defendants’ websites, and the goods, services and benefits that those websites offer, but have been unable to do so. (Shields Depo. at 35:21–36:10; Boggs Depo. at 177:8–178:17, 181:15–182:12, 183:1–17; Stockton Depo. at 77:12–79:25.) Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs will adequately represent the putative Website Class.
5. Rule 23(b)(2) Requirements [44] Classes may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). Class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is possible only when declaratory or injunctive relief is sought. Rule 23(b)(2) certification is available for monetary relief, if at all, only when such relief is incidental to the injunctive or declaratory relief. Dukes, ––– U.S. at ––––, 131 S.Ct. at 2557. Civil rights actions against parties charged with unlawful, class-based discrimination are “prime examples” of Rule 23(b)(2) cases. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997); see also Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir.1998) (explaining that Rule 23(b)(2) “was adopted in order to permit the prosecution of civil rights actions”).
[45] [46] [47] In determining whether certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2), a court must “look at whether class members seek uniform relief from a practice applicable to all of them.” Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1125. “The fact that some class members may have suffered no injury or different injuries from the challenged practice does not prevent the class from meeting the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).” Id. (citing Walters, 145 F.3d at 1047). Claims for individualized relief, in contrast, do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(2). This subsection “applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. It does not authorize class certification when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant.” Dukes, ––– U.S. at ––––, 131

S.Ct. at 2557.
As Plaintiffs point out, this case is a civil rights action where each of the proposed classes complain of classwide discrimination by Defendants for allegedly failing to accommodate visually impaired guests at their parks, restaurants, resorts and websites. (Mot. at 20.) The relief sought by each of the proposed classes is exclusively declaratory *558 and injunctive. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is thus presumptively appropriate for each of the proposed classes.
Defendants dispute that certification under subsection (b)(2) is appropriate. They contend that, as a general matter, “[t]he essence of the [ADA] ... is that such claims must be raised, evaluated, and ultimately resolved individually, case-by-case.” (Opp’n at 1; accord Opp’n at 16–18.) To the contrary, courts regularly certify classes under Rule 23(b)(2) in actions pursuant to Title III of the ADA. See, e.g., Park, 254 F.R.D. at 123 (certifying class seeking structural modifications at more than 90 separate supermarket locations); Target, 582 F.Supp.2d at 1209 (certifying class of “all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Target.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores”).
[48] Thus, the Court disagrees with Defendants that certification of ADA and related state law claims is per se inappropriate under subsection (b)(2). Rather, the propriety of certification must be determined on a class-by-class basis. Defendants nonetheless maintain that each of Plaintiffs’ proposed classes fail to meet the Rule 23(b)(2) standard because they would require disparate remedies among various class members. (See Opp’n at 16–24.) The Court turns to consider this argument in the context of each of the remaining classes.
a. Signage Class
[49] Defendants assert that the proposed Signage Class fails to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) because its members have a wide variety of needs and preferences for aid or modification to their existing facilities and policies. (Opp’n at 19–20.) Defendants cite evidence that fewer than 10% of the legally blind in the United States read Braille and that, of those who do, many may prefer different means of receiving particular communications. (Raizman Decl., Ex. 20; Pomerantz Decl. ¶ 12.)
The variety of communication preferences among the visually impaired is not fatal to certification. An
18

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

injunction applicable to all class members could include multiple remedial measures to remedy the violation of a common right. See Walters, 145 F.3d at 1049 (recognizing “that the individual elements [of an injunction] are intended to work together in order to remedy the demonstrated constitutional violations”). A reasonable accommodation might entail, by way of example only, the provision of signage, menus, and schedules in large type and Braille, the availability of similar information via a GPS-based audio description device, a pre-recorded telephonic synopsis of the menu, and a requirement that employees read menus in full upon request. At this stage of the proceedings, however, there is no need to conduct a mini-trial as to which potential remedies constitute reasonable accommodations. It suffices to say that the necessity of providing multiple ameliorative measures within a single injunction does not preclude certification of the Signage Class.
Here, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief that would apply to the entire class to address alleged practices by Defendants that apply to all class members. Accordingly, certification under Rule 23(b) (2) is appropriate.
b. Kennel Class
[50] The proposed Kennel Class, as modified by the Court, is also appropriate for certification under subsection (b)(2). Plaintiffs seek an injunction to remedy Defendants’ alleged failure to provide reasonable areas for service animals to defecate, an alleged practice that applies to all putative class members. The provision of additional or better-placed areas for service animals to relieve themselves is relief that will apply to all class members. Thus, the requirements of subsection (b)(2) are met.

Members of the putative Companion Ticket Class seek an injunction to remedy Defendants’ alleged refusal to provide free or discounted tickets to sighted companions or aids who accompany visually impaired visitors to the Disney theme parks. Because this practice applies to all class members, as would the relief sought, certification is appropriate.
d. Parade Class
[52] With respect to the proposed Parade Class, Defendants argue that certification is foreclosed due to class members’ “widely variable visual capacities.” (Opp’n at 21.) Thus, Defendants conjecture that “some putative members of the Parade Class will have no need for or interest in front row seating for a parade or show, while others may definitely benefit from a front row.” (Id.)
To the contrary, this class would seek an injunction to remedy Defendants’ purported policy of excluding visually impaired individuals—other than those in wheelchairs—from preferential areas reserved for individuals in wheelchairs. Thus, the desired injunction would apply uniformly to class members and would remedy an alleged policy that affects all class members. Defendants’ argument that not all class members would benefit from an injunction addresses typicality rather than the requirements of subsection (b)(2). Yet, such an argument fails because visually impaired persons who do not need access to preferential seating areas are not discriminated against and thus do not fall within the class definition.
The Court finds that the Rule 23(b)(2) requirements are met by the proposed Parade Class.

c. Companion Ticket Class
[51] It is unclear whether Defendants maintain that the proposed Companion Ticket Class does not satisfy Rule 23(b)(2). (Compare Opp’n at 19 (“Each of Plaintiffs’ putative classes fails to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2).”), with Opp’n at 24 (“[N]ine of the ten putative classes in Plaintiffs’ Complaint [excluding the Companion Ticket Class] simply do not qualify for class treatment under *559 Rule 23(b)(2).”).) In any event, the Court finds that it does.

e. Website Class
Lastly, in opposition to certification of the Website Class, Defendants assert that “there is no accepted accessibility standard” and points out that the Department of Justice “is yet to determine which standards would apply to websites.” (Opp’n at 22.) These arguments, which concern typicality and commonality, are not relevant considerations under Rule 23(b)(2). Moreover, they are unpersuasive even in those contexts. The lack of a widely accepted standard for website accessibility does not preclude injunctive relief that would improve access to Defendants’ websites by the visually impaired. Indeed,
19

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

nearly three years ago—presumably when website accessibility standards were even less settled—Target certified a class of “[a]ll legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Target.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores.” 582 F.Supp.2d at 1191.
Target also attacks the proposed class on the basis that the class members’ claims are widely divergent, depending on the members’ different skill levels with the internet; the type of technology they use; and which parts of the website they attempted to access. These arguments are unavailing. Some degree of individuality is to be expected in all cases, but that specificity does not necessarily defeat typicality. In most cases involving access under the ADA, there will be individual variations among class members in terms of the nature of their disability, the types of aides used, and the individual nature of each class member’s encounters with the website and access to services and facilities.
Id. at 1201 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
[53] For Rule 23(b)(2) purposes, the relevant questions are whether class members seek uniform relief and whether the relief remedies a practice applicable to all class members. Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1125. The putative Website Class meets these requirements. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to certification of this class.
V.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED in part. The Court certifies the following classes:

a. SIGNAGE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is *560 defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102, who have not been or upon visiting in the future will not be provided signage, menus, or schedules in an alternative format, such as Braille and/or large print, or who were not read, in full, the menus,12 at the theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops in Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
12 Defendants point out that Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition phrased this class in the conjunctive, such that each class member must have experienced a situation where he or she was not read a menu in full. The Court assumes that this was a mistake and modifies the definition accordingly.
b. KENNEL CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102, who have been deterred from visiting Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and its theme parks, hotels, restaurants, and shops on account of there being no reasonable designated areas for service animals to defecate.
c. COMPANION TICKET CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102, who have paid for, or who will upon future visits be required to pay for, an additional ticket for a companion or aide to assist the visually impaired individual to utilize the accommodations at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
d. PARADE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102, who have experienced discrimination, or who will upon future visits experience discrimination, due to Defendants’ policy of excluding persons with disabilities, other than wheelchair users, from preferential locations to stand or sit during the parades at Disneyland/California Adventure in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
20

Shields v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 529 (2011)

e. WEBSITE CLASS: All visually impaired individuals considered to have a physical disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102, who have been or who will in the future be unable to access one or more of the websites maintained by Defendants such as www.disney.go.com and were or will be denied equal access to Defendants’ theme parks, hotels, restaurants and stores and the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through Defendants’ websites.
2. The Court certifies the class representatives as follows:
a. With respect to the Signage Class, the Court certifies Plaintiff Shields, Plaintiff Boggs, and Plaintiff Stockton as class representatives.
b. With respect to the Kennel Class, the Court certifies Plaintiff Shields and Plaintiff Stockton as class representatives.
c. With respect to the Companion Ticket Class, the Court certifies Plaintiff Shields, Plaintiff Boggs, and Plaintiff Stockton as class representatives.

d. With respect to the Parade Class, the Court certifies Plaintiff Boggs and Plaintiff Stockton as class representatives.
e. With respect to the Website Class, the Court certifies Plaintiff Shields, Plaintiff Boggs, and Plaintiff Stockton as class representatives.
3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ other proposed classes.
4. The Court declines to certify any classes pursuant to Plaintiffs’ state law claims at this time. If it becomes apparent that the ADA cannot afford complete relief, the Court may revisit certification of subclasses for Plaintiffs’ state law claims with respect to Defendants’ operations at the Disneyland Resort.
*561 5. The dates and deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling and Case Management Order, filed on December 6, 2010 [Doc. # 36], are hereby VACATED. The Court will issue an Amended Schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 231 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:7384

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 10-05810 DMG (JEMx)

Date July 10, 2012

Title Cari Shields, et al. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., et al. Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS BY NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND; NOTICE TO TERESA STOCKTON REGARDING JOINT MOTION FOR AN ORDER SUPPLEMENTING THE RECORD OF THE MAY 4, 2012 HEARING [Doc. # 224]

The Court is in receipt of a letter dated July 6, 2012 from the National Federation of the Blind (“NFB”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, in which the NFB objects to the parties’ proposed class action settlement. The parties shall file a joint response to the NFB’s objections by no later than July 20, 2012.

On July 27, 2012 at 9:30 a.m., the Court will hear the parties’ joint motion for an Order supplementing the record [Doc. # 224] . T he parties seek to supplement the record so as to clarify certain statements that counsel made during the May 4, 201 2 hearing on t he parties’ motion for preliminary settlement approval. If, in light of these clarifications, Teresa Stockton seeks to withdraw the voluntary dismissal of her claims with prejudice, she shall file notice to that effect on or before July 20, 2012 and appear at the July 27, 2012 he aring. If Stockton intends to appear at the hearing telephonically, she shall notify the Court’s deputy clerk at (213) 894-5452 at least three days before the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 231 Filed 07/10/12 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:7385
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 231 Filed 07/10/12 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:7386

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 231 Filed 07/10/12 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:7387

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 231 Filed 07/10/12 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:7388

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 231 Filed 07/10/12 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:7389

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 231 Filed 07/10/12 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:7390

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:7393

1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

David H. Raizman (SBN 129407) david.raizman@dbr.com James M. Altieri (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) james.altieri((Udbr.com DRINKER BiDDLE & REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, California 90067-1517 Telephone: (310) 203-4000 FacsImile: (310) 229-1285
Attorneys for Defendants Walt DIsney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Disney Onlme and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARI SHIELDS, AMBER BOGGS and TERESA STOCKTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., DISNEY ONLINE, AND WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS ONLINE, DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,

Case No. CV10-5810-DMG (FMOx)
Class Action
JOINT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS OF NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND AND AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND TO FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Defendants.

Date:

August 3,2012

Time:

9:30 a.m.

Courtroom: 7

Judicial Officer: Hon. Dolly M. Gee

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:7394

1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

Andy Dogali (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) adogali(cU,1orizs-dogali. com FORIZ~& DOGALI, P.A. 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33634 Telephone: (813) 289-0700 Fax: (813) 289-9435 Eugene Feldman (SBN 118497) genefeldman(cU,mindspring.com EUGENE FELDMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC 555 Pier Avenue, Suite 4 Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3800 Telephone: (310) 372-4636 FacsImile: (310) 372-4639 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cari ShIelds and Amber Boggs and Class Plaintiffs
JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:7395

1
2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
22
23
24
25 26 27
28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 II. THE COURT SHOULD REJECT THE OBJECTIONS AND GRANT
FINAL APPROYAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT ................ 3 A. Standard Of Review.............................................................................. 3 B. Future Claims........................................................................................ 3 C. State or Local Law Claims.................................................................... 5 D. Incidental Damages Claims................................................................... 7 III. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 10

LAO 11 1151626.2

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:7396

1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ..............................................................................................4

Anderson v. Nextel Retail Stores, LLC, 2010 WL 8591002 (C.D. Cal. April 12,2010) .....................................................6

In re AOL Time Warner Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 2010 WL 363113 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) .......................................................................2

Ass 'n for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 211 F.R.D. 457 (S.D. Fla. 2002) .................................................................. 2, 4, 6

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dep 't of Transp, 2010 WL 2228531 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2010) ........................................................ 5

City ofDetroit v. Grinnell Corp. 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974)..................................................................................3

Class Plaintiffs v. City ofSeattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ......................................................................... 3, 6

Crawford v. Gould, 56 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 5

Dixon v. Bowen, 673 F. Supp. 123 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) .......................................................................5

Matsushita Elec. Indus., Co. Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996) ..............................................................................................6

McClendon v. Georgia Dep 't 'of Cmty. Health, 261 F.3d 1252 (lIth Cir. 2001) ........................................................................... .4

Moeller v. Taco Bell, 220 F.R.D. 604 (N.D. Cal. 2004)..........................................................................8

Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 8,9

LAO II 1151626.2

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE

11

To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:7397

1
2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

Nat 'I Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exch., 660 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1981)......................................................................................6
Neffv. Metro Transit Authority, 179 F .R.D. 185 (W.D. Tex. 1998) ........................................................................5
Officers for Justice v. Civil Servo Comm 'n, 688 F .2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ................................................................................3
In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liability Litig., 176 F.R.D. 158 (E.D. Pa. 1997) ............................................................................4
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999) ......................................................................................... 8,9
Oswald v. McGarr, 620 F.2d 1190 (7th Cir. 1980) ..............................................................................6
Park v. Ralph's Grocery Co., 254 F.R.D. 112 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ..................................................................... 7, 8
Paterson v. Texas, 308 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................2
Petruzzi's, Inc. v. Darling-Delaware Co., Inc., 880 F. Supp. 292 (M.D. Pa. 1995) ..................................................................... 10
Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 4
Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2010) ..............................................................................5
Siddiqi v. Regents ofUniv. ofCal. , 2000 WL 33190435 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6,2000) ....................................................5
Smith v. Arthur Anderson LLP, 421 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................2
TBK Partners, Ltd. v. Western Union Corp., 675 F.2d 456 (2d Cir. 1982)..................................................................................6
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) ..........................................................................................7

LAOI/ 1151626.2

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE

111

To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:7398

1
2
3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

Williams v. City ofAntioch, 2010 WL 3632197 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2010) .......................................................8
Williams v. General Elec. Capital Auto Lease, Inc., 159 F.3d 266 (7th Cir.1998) .................................................................................4
STATUTES, RULES & REGULATIONS Cal. Civ. Code § 52 ....................................................................................................8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 ................................................................2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2) ............................................. passim Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(e)(5) .......................................................2

LAOl/ 1151626.2

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE

IV

To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:7399

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs, on their own behalf and on
behalf of the classes they represent (collectively "Plaintiffs"), and defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Disney Online and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online (collectively "Defendants" or "Disney") submit this memorandum in response to the nearly-identical objections of the National Federation of the Blind ("NFB") and the American Council of the Blind ("ACB") to the joint motion for final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement And Release (the "Settlement Agreement") in this action. [1]
Neither the NFB nor the ACB challenges the adequacy of the relief provided by the Settlement Agreement. Rather, they contend that "[t]he release provisions in this agreement are so overbroad that the Court should, on this basis alone, reject the agreement." (NFB Objection at 2.) But the Class Member Release merely grants Defendants the appropriate and necessary finality of the issues litigated and now resolved by the Settlement Agreement. It does not, as the obj ectors contend, preclude the prospect of unknown future claims unrelated to this case. Indeed, the release is specifically limited to "future claims with respect to the issues in this Action or the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement." (Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 196-1) § VI at 27.) Nor does it exclude claims or remedies that could reasonably remain outstanding upon negotiating any class action settlement agreement, much less one of the nature and scope achieved here. The objectors, though, would have it that immediately upon the Settlement Agreement's becoming effective, new
[1] Two weeks after the Court's July 6 deadline for postmarking objections, the NFB and ACB Objections are the sole objections receIved by any of the parties. No class member has submitted an objection, nor has tile United States Attorney General or any state or territorial attorney general, each of whom was given notice of the settIement pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

1

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:7400

1 actions could proceed against Defendants based upon the same factual and legal

2 predicates at issue here, so long as they are brought under the common or

3 statutory law of one or more of the other 49 states. That result is untenable - it

4 amounts to no settlement at all -- and is not supported by legal authority.

5

No more tenable would be the ability to assert claims for monetary

6 damages or other forms of relief under state laws. It is well-settled that when

7 the predominant relief sought by the class is injunctive in nature (and here it is

8 not only predominant, it is the only remedy sought), the minimum statutory

9 damage claims under state disability laws are considered incidental and do not

10 preclude Rule 23(b)(2) treatment. Here, there was no claim for monetary relief

11 at all; rather, broad injunctive relief was demanded and, through the Settlement

12 Agreement, was accommodated. As such, Rule 23(b)(2) treatment is wholly

13 appropriate and, by definition, does not require a right to opt out.

14

The Release here is standard fare, seeking no more and no less than would

15 be expected and approved in any similar class action settlement, and the

16 objections should be rejectedY]

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

[2] Both NFB and ACB state that they are organizations whose members are
blind and thus likely Class Members. However, only class members have standing to object to a class settlement agreement. Fed. R. CIV. P. 23(e)(5). "Others lack tile reqUIsite Rroof of injury necessary to establish the 'irreducible mmimum' of standing.' Paterson v. Texas, 308 F.3d 448,451 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that the state ofTexas lacked standing, even in a representative capacity, to object to class action settlement because it nad not suffered an injury); Smith v. Arthur Anderson LLP, 421 F.3d 989, 998 (9th Cir. 2005). No Rule 23 certification process exists for approval of any person or organization to act as a "representative" of another person as objector. Ass 'n for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 211 F.R.D. 457,473-75 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (denying standing to objector membership organization whose members were class members and had standing to object). Tl:ius, at most, the Court can consider points raised QY NFB and ACB by aeeming these objectors as amici. See, e.g., In re AOL Time Warner Shareholder DerivatIve Litigation, 2010 WL 363113, *4, n.6 (S.D.N.Y. 2010}. But even then, if the settlement is approved, neither NFB nor ACB, as neither class member or intervenor, willnave a right to appeal. Because NFB and ACB are not class members and have no standing to object, any reference to them in this Memorandum as "objectors," or to their letter submissions as "objections," is
merely for convenience.

2

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE

To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:7401

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

II. THE COURT SHOULD REJECT THE OBJECTIONS AND GRANT

FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

A. Standard Of Review.

"The initial decision to approve or reject a class action settlement is

committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge." Officers for Justice v. Civil

Servo Comm 'n, 688 F.2d 615,625 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court's decision must be

made "in light of the strong judicial policy that favors settlements, particularly

where complex class action litigation is concerned." Class Plaintiffs V. City of

Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). "[V]oluntary conciliation and

settlement are the preferred means of dispute resolution." Officers for Justice, 688

F.2d at 625. A class action settlement should be approved when it is fundamentally

fair, reasonable and adequate. Id.

In undertaking such a review, the trial court should not "reach any ultimate

conclusions on the contested issues of fact or law which underlie the merits of the

dispute for it is the very uncertainty of outcome in litigation and avoidance of

wasteful and expensive litigation that induce consensual settlement." Id. "The

proposed settlement is not to be judged against a hypothetical or speculative

measure of what might have been achieved by the negotiators. Of course, the very

essence of a settlement is compromise...." Id. "Ultimately, the district court's

determination is nothing more than 'an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross

approximation and rough justice. '" Id. citing City ofDetroit V. Grinnell Corp., 495

F.2d 448,468 (2d Cir. 1974). Applying these standards to the facts and

circumstances surrounding this proposed settlement establishes beyond any doubt

that the parties have reached a settlement that is fair, reasonable and adequate.

B. Future Claims.

The objectors have mischaracterized the final sentence of the release to

"preclude[] class members from bringing any future claims for discrimination,"

(emphasis added). (NFB Objection at 2; ACB Objection at 2.) It does no such

3

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:7402

1
2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

thing:

This release is intended to bind all Settlement Classes and Class Members and to Rreclude such Class Members from asserting or initiating future claims with respect to the issues in this Action or the subject matter ofthis Settlement Agreement.

(Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 196-1) at 27 (emphasis added).) Thus, their concerns about giving up inchoate future claims unrelated to the issues here are entirely unfounded. Defendants have not sought, and have not received, anything approaching a "license to discriminate in the future." (NFB Objection at 2; ACB Objection at 2.) As the plain wording of the release makes clear, it simply precludes future claims premised on the same factual or legal predicates as the underlying claims in this case.
As such, the release of future claims is not only fair and reasonable, it is well-supported by legal precedent. See Reyn 's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741,749 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal ofa class action against credit card companies predicated on the same injuries claimed and settled in an earlier class action). Indeed, "federal class action settlements routinely include releases waiving future claims." Ass 'n For Disabled Americans, 211 F.R.D. at 471 n.10; see also McClendon v. Georgia Dep't ofCmty. Health, 261 F.3d 1252,1254 (11th Cir. 2001) (approving release of future claims in tobacco litigation); Williams v. General Elec. Capital Auto Lease, Inc., 159 F.3d 266,274 (7th Cir.1998) ("... nothing in the Supreme Court's Amchem decision suggested that the federal courts lacked the Article III power to settle future claims of class members. . .. It is not at all uncommon for settlements to include a global release of all claims past, present, and future, that the parties might have brought against each other."); In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liability Litig., 176 F.R.D. 158, 170-71 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (certifying class including "[a]ll persons and entities wherever located, who have or may in the future have any claim" against defendants).
Likewise, courts have routinely upheld releases by future class members. As

4

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE
To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:7403

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

the Ninth Circuit has observed, "The inclusion of future class members in a class is

not itself unusual or objectionable." Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1118 (9th

Cir. 2010); Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dep't of Transp,

2010 WL 2228531, *3 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2010) (certifying a settlement class

defined as "all persons with Mobility and/or Vision Disabilities who currently or in

the future will use or attempt to use any Pedestrian Facility or Park and Ride

Facility under Caltrans' Jurisdiction" (emphasis added)); Neffv. Metro Transit

Authority, 179 F.R.D. 185, 193 (W.D. Tex. 1998) (approving class action

settlement consisting of a class of current and future individuals with disabilities

"who are eligible now or may be eligible in the future for defendant's

transportation); Siddiqi v. Regents ofUniv. ofCa!., 2000 WL 33190435, *4 (N.D.

Cal. Sept. 6, 2000) (certifying a class of"[a]ll deaf and hard of hearing students

who since February 24, 1996 have enrolled or will enroll as a student...."

(emphasis added)); Crawford v. Gould, 56 F.3d 1162, 1163 (9th Cir. 1995)

(certifying class of current and future patients involuntarily committed to California

psychiatric hospitals).

Indeed, courts have reasoned that because relief obtained in a Rule 23(b)(2)

class action seeking primarily injunctive relief necessarily inures "to the class as a

whole" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)), "unknown future class members should be

properly considered and included as part of the class." Neff, 179 F.R.D. at 193. If

not included, future class members would present the prospect of "unnecessary

harm and repetitive litigation" because they would be free to challenge the actions

agreed to by the parties to apply to the class as a whole. Dixon v. Bowen, 673 F.

Supp. 123, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).

C. State or Local Law Claims.

The same rationale supports the release of state and local law claims that

were not specifically asserted in the action. Without a release, a class action

defendant would never find peace, remaining vulnerable to claims under every legal

5

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:7404

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

theory under federal, state or local law other than the ones exactly articulated in the

class action complaint. This is why any effective release secured in any litigation

always extends beyond the claims stated and covers claims "based on the identical

factual predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class action...." Class

Plaintiffs, 955 F.2d at 1287-89; Matsushita Elec. Indus., Co. Ltd. v. Epstein, 516

U.S. 367, 376-77 (1996); Oswald v. McGarr, 620 F.2d 1190, 1198 (7th Cir. 1980)

(settlement may include release of claims not before the court). Indeed, "federal

class action settlements containing a release of state law claims are both common

and presumptively valid." Ass 'n For Disabled Americans, 211 F.R.D. at 471

(approving ADA consent decree that likewise released all claims under state

disability access laws); see TBK Partners, Ltd. v. Western Union Corp., 675 F.2d

456, 460 (2d Cir. 1982) (approving 23(b)(2) shareholder class action settlement

also releasing state law appraisal claims).

Objectors' reliance upon Nat 'I Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile

Exch., 660 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1981) to suggest that under federal authority the scope of

a release is limited to the claims specifically pled in the complaint is unavailing. In

Nat 'I Super Spuds, the court certified a class of individuals who purchased potato

futures liquidated during a specified time. Id. at 11. The class did not include

holders of unliquidated contracts, and the complaint did not include claims on their

behalf. The settlement sought to release claims related to liquidated and

unliquidated contracts, and when holders of the unliquidated contracts objected, the

court did not approve the settlement. Id. at 16-19. But as later Second Circuit

decisions have explained, the "heart" of the court's concern in Super Spuds was

"the danger that class representatives not sharing a common interest with other

class members would sacrifice the interests of those class members at no cost to

themselves." Anderson v. Nextel Retail Stores, LLC, 2010 WL 8591002, *9 (C.D.

Cal. April 12, 2010) (citing TBK Partners Ltd v. W. Union Corp., 675 F.2d 456

(2nd Cir. 1982)). That concern is totally inapplicable here: the Settlement

6

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE
To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:7405

1 Agreement releases only claims of visual disability discrimination common to all

2 class members, regardless of the statute, regulation, common law or legal theory

3 under which such claims are made.

4

D. Incidental Damages Claims.

5

In addition to the more general complaint that the release might be read to

6 preclude future claims based upon unpled state statutory schemes (discussed

7 above), the objectors complain also that, under the release, "absent class members

8 would waive their rights to seek available forms of relief under state or local law,

9 including substantial monetary relief." More specifically, the objectors assert that

10 the release of class [sic] member's claims with no compensation or opportunity to

11 opt out is patently unfair." (NFB Objection at 4.) However, there is no opt-out

12 right in Rule 23(b)(2) class actions such as this, where injunctive relief

13 predominates over the monetary claims. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,

14 et al., 131 S. Ct. 2541,2558 (2011) (Because "the relief sought must perforce affect

15 the entire class at once," it is a "mandatory class[]: The Rule provides no

16 opportunity for ... (b)(2) class members to opt out, and does not even oblige the

17 District Court to afford them notice of the action.").

18

When the principal (here, the only) remedies are injunctive in nature, the

19 minimum statutory damages claims under state disability laws such as the Unruh

20 Act and the Disabled Persons Act are considered incidental to injunctive relief and

21 do not preclude Rule 23(b)(2) treatment. For example, in Park v. Ralph's Grocery

22 Co., 254 F.R.D. 112, 123 (C.D. Cal. 2008), a class of users of wheelchairs or

23 scooters for mobility alleged that they were unable to access parking lots, restrooms

24 and counters at Ralph's store locations. Id. at 115. Plaintiffs sought an injunction

25 "ordering Ralph's to adopt policies to ensure access for customers who use

26 wheelchairs or scooters, and use its centralized policies to bring all of its stores into

27 compliance," as well as "minimum statutory damages per offense." Id. at 117. The

28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

court certified the class as a Rule 23(b)(2) class, finding that the claims for

7

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE
To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:7406

1 "minimum statutory damages" were incidental to the claim for injunctive relief. Id.

2 at 118 ("where plaintiffs seek minimum statutory damages in addition to injunctive

3 relief to remove access barriers, courts have considered damages incidental to

4 injunctive relief and certified a class under Rule 23(b)(2)".) See also Moeller v.

5 Taco Bell, 220 F.R.D. 604,613 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (certifying Rule 23(b)(2) class in

6 disability access case) ("[Plaintiffs] are seeking only the statutory minimum of

7 damages under the Unruh Act and the CDPA. [footnote omitted] The Court cannot

8 say that Plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages predominate over its claims for

9 injunctive relief."); Williams v. City ofAntioch, 2010 WL 3632197, *10 (N.D. Cal.

10 Sept. 2, 2010) ("Plaintiffs' claims under Cal. Civ. Code § 52 for statutory minimum

11 damages for the class and compensatory damages for the five named Plaintiffs,

12 while significant in terms of monetary amount, do not preclude Rule 23(b)(2)

13 certification because the predominant form of relief Plaintiffs seek by this action, as

14 a whole, is injunctive relief to change Defendant's policies."). Therefore, in the

15 absence of any claims for monetary relief and in the face of sweeping injunctive

16 relief, it is easy to conclude that Rule 23(b)(2) treatment is appropriate here and, by

17 definition, does not require a right to opt out.

18

Objectors point to the Ninth Circuit's decision in Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d

19 937,955 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds in Dukes v. Walmart, Inc.,

20 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010), to support their contention that damages claims

21 should not be released without the right to opt out. But Molski expressly rejects

22 such a per se rule. Id. at 948-49 ("we disagree that [Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527

23 U.S. 815 (1999)] requires adoption of this per se rule, ..."). Instead, the Molski

24 court reasoned: "[T]he Supreme Court did not adopt a per se rule requiring due

25 process protections for absent class members when any monetary damages are

26 claimed ... Moreover, we have implicitly refuted Appellants' argument for the

27 adoption of a per se rule. In recent cases, we have indicated that certification of a

28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

mandatory class [i.e., with no opt-out right] may be appropriate even when

8

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND AS IN RESPONSE To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:7407

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

monetary damages are involved.") (emphasis added); see also id. at 947 ("we have

recognized that' [c]lass actions certified under Rule 23(b)(2) are not limited to

actions requesting only injunctive or declaratory relief, but may include cases that

also seek monetary damages''').

Rather than create a new rule that the right to opt out must be given when any

monetary damages are sought, the Molski court applied the existing rule concerning

the application of Rule 23(b)(2) -- i.e., that Rule 23(b)(2) applies when injunctive

relief is sought, but "does not extend to cases in which the appropriate final relief

relates exclusively or predominantly to money damages." Molski, 318 F.2d at 947

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) advisory committee's note (1966) (emphasis

added)). The Court further noted that in determining whether the monetary

damages claims in a particular case are sufficiently substantial to be deemed "non-

incidental" and thus not suitable for Rule 23(b)(2) treatment, courts do not apply a

bright-line test but rather have the discretion to consider the particular facts of each

case. Id. at 950 ("Rather than adopting a particular bright-line rule, we have

examined the specific facts and circumstances of each case.").

Ultimately, the Molski court withheld approval for the settlement in that case

because the damages claims were not incidental. Unlike here, the Molski court was

presented with a situation where actual and treble damages were at issue and 33

putative class members filed objections and requested to opt out of the class and

pursue individual damages. The settlement in that case was the product of minimal

discovery and a short period of negotiations between the parties, and was reached

prior to formal class certification, thus calling for greater scrutiny. Id. at 955-56.

Those facts and the resultant holding are readily distinguishable from the instant

case. In contrast to the Molski court's express reliance on the substantial damages

being sought against ARCa (Molski, 318 F.3d at 950-51), Plaintiffs here solely

seek injunctive relief. Therefore, the Court's holding in Molski is neither binding

nor even instructive in this case.

9

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE
To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:7408

1 2 3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24
25 26 27
28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

NFB's reliance on Petruzzi's, Inc. v. Darling-Delaware Co., Inc., 880 F. Supp. 292 (M.D. Pa. 1995) is also misplaced. In Petruzzi, a supermarket brought a class action against fat and bone companies for restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Id. at 293. The settlement there sought a release of all claims against one of the two remaining fat and bone companies, but provided benefits to some, but not all, class members. As a result, the release would have left many class members without a remedy. Id. at 300. Unlike the plaintiffs in Petruzzi, the injunctive relief in this case will benefit all current and future class members, who are not seeking monetary damages. As such, they are not being asked to release claims without significant benefits. III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Parties respectfully request the Court reject the objections and grant final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement.

Dated: July 20,2012

Respectfully submitted, DRINKERBIDDLE&REATHLLP
By: /s/ David H Raizman David H. Raizman
Attorneys for Defendants Walt DIsney Parks and Resorts U.S.,' Inc., Disney Onlme and Walt Disney ParKs and Resorts Online

rADDITIONAL COUNSEL SIGNATURE ON NEXT PAGE]

10

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE
To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 233 Filed 07/20/12 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:7409

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTOHNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

Dated:

July 20,2012

FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A.
EUGENE FELDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW,APC
By: /s/ Andy Dogali Andy Dogali
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cari ShIelds and Amber Boggs and Class Plaintiffs

11

JOINT MEMO OF Ps AND As IN RESPONSE
To NFB AND ACB OBJECTIONS

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 1 of 38 Page ID #:7660

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 [Additional counsel listed on next page]

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

WESTERN DIVISION

16
CARl SHIELDS, AMBER BOGGS 17 and TERESA STOCKTON, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly 18 situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20 v.

Case No. 10-cv-581 0 DMG (FMOx) Class Action CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

21

WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS US, INC., DISNEY

22

ONLINE, INC., DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE,

23

Defendants.

24

Judicial Officer: Hon Dolly M. Gee

25

26

27

28

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 2 of 38 Page ID #:7661

1 DAVID H. RAIZMAN, SBN 129407

david.raizman~dbr.com

2 JAMES M. AL IERI

·ames.altieri dbr.com

3

mttte Pro Hac Vice

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

4 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, California 90067-1517

5 Telephone: (31 0) 203-4000

Facstmile: (31 0) 229-1285

6

Attorneys for Defendants Walt Disney

7 Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. and Disney Online

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 3 of 38 Page ID #:7662

1

Cari Shields and Amber Boggs, on behalf of themselves and each of the

2 Class Members of each of the represented Settlement Classes, as defined below,

3 make and enter into this Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release

4 ("Settlement Agreement") with Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Walt

5 Disney Parks and Resorts Online, and Disney Online.

6 I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

7

A. Definitions

8

Capitalized terms used throughout this Settlement Agreement shall have the

9 following meanings:

10

1. "Action" shall mean the lawsuit entitled Cari Shields, et al. v.

11 Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. Case No. 1-CV-

12 5810 DMG (FMOx), which was previously removed to the United States District

13 Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") and is pending before the

14 Honorable Dolly M. Gee.

15

2. "Area," as used in Sections II.A.2.b.(i) and II.A.2.b.(iv) below

16 and in reference to areas within each of the Disney Parks, shall mean any one or

17 more of the following areas within the respective Disney Parks:

18

a. Disneyland - (i) Adventureland, Frontierland, New

19 Orleans Square and Critter Country, (ii) Main Street, U.S.A., and (iii) Fantasyland,

20 Mickey's Toontown and Tomorrowland;

21

b. DCA - (i) Buena Vista Street, Hollywood Land and "a

22 bug's land," (ii) Pacific Wharf and Cars Land, and (iii) Condor Flats, Grizzly Peak

23 and Paradise Pier;

24

c. Magic Kingdom - (i) Main Street, U.S.A., (ii)

25 Adventureland, Frontierland and Liberty Square, and (iii) Fantasyland and

26 Tomorrowland;

27

d. Epcot- (i) Future World, and (ii) World Showcase;

28

- 1-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 4 of 38 Page ID #:7663

1

e. Disney's Hollywood Studios

(i) Echo Lake,

2 Commissary Lane and Streets of America, and (ii) Hollywood Boulevard, Pixar

3 Place and Sunset Boulevard; and

4

f. Disney's Animal Kingdom- (i) Africa and Asia, and (ii)

5 Oasis, DinoLand U.S.A., Camp Minnie-Mickey and Discovery Island.

6

3. "Class Counsel" shall mean Forizs & Dogali, P.A., 4301 Anchor

7 Plaza Parkway, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33634, and Eugene Feldman Law

8 Offices, 555 Pier Avenue, Suite 4, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3800.

9

4. "Class Member" shall mean a member of one or more of the

10 Settlement Classes identified in Section I.D( 1)-(4).

1 1

5. "Disney" shall mean Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.

12 ("WDPR"), Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online ("WDPRO"), and Disney

13 Online.

14

6. "Disney Cruise Line" shall mean the business owned and

15 operated by Magical Cruise Company, Ltd. that offers, among other things, various

16 cruise ship excursions to members of the public.

17

7. "Disney Parks" shall mean the Disneyland and Disney

18 California Adventure theme parks (respectively, "Disneyland" and "DCA") located

19 at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, California, and the Magic Kingdom, Epcot,

20 Disney's Hollywood Studios, and Disney's Animal Kingdom theme parks located

21 at the Walt Disney World Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. "Park" refers to any

22 one of the Disney Parks.

23

8. "Disneyland Resort" shall mean Disneyland, DCA, and

24 adjacent, contiguous and related hotels, restaurants, stores, and other facilities and

25 accommodations.

26

9. "Disney Websites" shall mean the websites found at

27 www.disneyworld.com, www.disneyland.com, and www.disneycruise.com.

28

- 2-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 5 of 38 Page ID #:7664

1

10. "Effective Date" shall mean the first date upon which all of the

2 following have occurred: (a) entry by the Court of the Final Approval Order, and

3 (b) either: (i) the expiration, without an appeal or challenge, ofthe period to appeal

4 or challenge any portion of the Final Approval Order, or (ii) in the event of such an

5 appeal or challenge, the Parties have received actual notice that the Settlement

6 Agreement has received final approval after the final resolution of any appeal or

7 challenge.

8

11. "Final Approval" shall mean the Court's entry of the Final

9 Approval Order after having found this Settlement Agreement to be fair, adequate,

10 and reasonable.

11

12. "Final Approval and Fairness Hearing" shall mean the hearing

12 by the Court to (a) review this Settlement Agreement and determine whether the

13 Court should grant final approval to the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule

14 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) consider any timely objections

15 made pursuant to Section XI and all responses by the Parties; (c) consider the

16 request for attorneys' fees and expenses submitted by Class Counsel; and (d)

17 consider the Named Plaintiffs' requests for service payments.

18

13. "Final Approval Order" shall mean the document attached to

19 this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit C, or any order of similar effect constituting

20 the Court's final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

21

14. "Handheld Device" shall mean the Disney-designed device

22 currently available at the Disney Parks, which uses Disney's proprietary technology

23 and provides, among other things, an audio description of selected rides and

24 attractions and certain outdoor areas of the Disney Parks.

25

15. "Information Sheet" shall mean any one or more of the

26 following documents that are currently available at the Disney Parks: "Services for

27 Guests with Visual Disabilities," "Services for Guests with Service Animals," and

28

- 3-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 6 of 38 Page ID #:7665

1 the Information Sheet or guide that contains the schedule of parades and shows at

2 any Park (the "Schedule Information Sheet").

3

16. "Named Plaintiffs" shall mean Cari Shields and Amber Boggs.

4

17. "Next Generation," when used in reference to the Handheld

5 Device, shall mean the version of the Handheld Device that will replace the current

6 Handheld Device and will otTer enhanced capabilities to guests with visual

7 impairments.

8

18. "Notice" shall mean the document attached to this Settlement

9 Agreement as Exhibit A.

10

19. "Operating Guidelines" shall mean WDPR' s written guidelines

11 that pertain to the operation of various aspects of the Disney Parks.

12

20. "Parties" shall mean the Named Plaintiffs, defendants WDPR,

13 Disney Online and WDPRO.

14

21. "Plaintiffs" shall mean Named Plaintiffs and plaintiff Teresa

15 Stockton.

16

22. "Preliminary Approval Order" shall mean the document

17 attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit B, or any order of similar effect

18 constituting the Court's preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.

19

23. "Released Claims" shall mean the claims released by the Named

20 Plaintiffs and the Releasing Parties as specifically set forth in Sections V, VI, and

21 VII below.

22

24. "Restaurants" shall mean the dining establishments at the

23 Disney Parks that are identified on the "Dining" pages of the respective

24 www.disneyland.com or www.disneyworld.com websites as "quick-service" or

25 "table-service" restaurants but not including any kiosks, food carts or mobile food

26 vendors.

27

25. "Settlement Classes" shall mean the Classes identified m

28 Section I.D.(1 )-(4).

- 4-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 7 of 38 Page ID #:7666

1

26. "State Disability Statutes" shall mean any statute, law,

2 regulation or ordinance of state or local government that prohibits discrimination

3 against the disabled in public accommodations, places of resort or amusement and

4 other places open to the public.

5

27. "Walt Disney World Resort" shall mean the Magic Kingdom,

6 Epcot, Disney's Hollywood Studios and Disney's Animal Kingdom, and the

7 adjacent, contiguous and related hotels, restaurants, stores and other facilities and

8 accommodations.

9

28. "WCAG 2.0" shall mean Version 2.0 of the Web Content

10 Accessibility Guidelines published by the Worldwide Web Consortium.

11

B. Acknowledgment of Purpose and Scope of the Settlement

12

Agreement

13

The Parties have entered into this Settlement Agreement for the

14 following purposes:

15

• to resolve all disputes asserted in the Action or covered by this

16

Settlement Agreement to avoid further expenses and protracted

17

litigation;

18

• to agree on the reasonable and appropriate modifications and assistive

19

measures to enhance equal access for guests with visual impairments

20

at the Disney Parks;

21

• to agree on the reasonable and appropriate modifications and assistive

22

measures to enhance accessibility for individuals with visual

23

impairments who use the Disney Websites; and

24

• to reach a final resolution of all class claims and defenses asserted in

25

this Action or covered by this Settlement Agreement.

26

27

28

- 5-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 8 of 38 Page ID #:7667

1

C. Statement of Dispute

2

The Named Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of

3 California for the County of Los Angeles (Case Number BC438241) on May 21,

4 2010, which action was removed to the Court on August 5, 2010. In a First

5 Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of 10 alleged national classes,

6 that WDPR and Disney Online engaged in certain practices, in violation of federal

7 and California law, which discriminatorily denied members of the represented

8 classes the benefit of the full use and enjoyment of the Disney Parks and of the

9 websites owned or operated by Disney. WDPR and Disney Online denied the

10 allegations in the First Amended Complaint.

11

The parties agree that as part of the Court's issuance of a preliminary

12 approval order substantially in accordance with Exhibit B to this Settlement

13 Agreement, Named Plaintiffs will be deemed to have filed a Second Amended

14 Complaint in the Action to: (1) add WDPRO as a named defendant in the Action,

15 thus conditionally subjecting WDPRO to the rights and obligations provided for in

16 this Settlement Agreement; (2) remove Teresa Stockton as a named plaintiff in the

17 caption and in the allegations of the operative complaint in the Action; and (3) add

18 allegations regarding the accessibility of the Disney Cruise Line website

19 (www.disneycruise.com) to individuals with visual impairments. Disney denies the

20 material allegations in the Second Amended Complaint as well. A copy of the

21 Second Amended Complaint, which shall be deemed filed as of the Court's

22 preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement, is attached as Exhibit D to this

23 Settlement Agreement.

24

D. Class Allegations

25

On February 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification,

26 seeking certification of 10 national classes. On June 29, 2011, the Court entered an

27 order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion, certifying the

28 following Classes: (1) the Signage Class; (2) the Kennel Class, but only with

-6-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 9 of 38 Page ID #:7668

1 respect to claims that individuals with visual impairments have been, or will in the

2 future be, deterred from visiting the Disney Parks out of concern that there might

3 not exist reasonable relief areas for service animals; (3) the Companion Ticket

4 Class; (4) the Parade and Show Class; and (5) the Website Class. The five classes

5 certified by the Court shall be referred to in this Settlement Agreement as the

6 "Certified Classes." The Court declined, without prejudice, to certify: (1) the

7 Disney Character Class; (2) the Locker Class; (3) the Parking Class; (4) the Maps

8 Class; and (5) certain subclasses of the Kennel Class allegedly composed of

9 individuals with visual impairments accompanied by service animals who paid a fee

10 for use of the kennel or were deterred from attending the Disney Parks because of

11 Disney's (a) charge of a kennel fee, or (b) policy forbidding the tethering of service

12 animals at locations within the Disney Parks while guests with visual impairments

13 experience rides or attractions; and (6) the Audio Description Device Class.

14

As part of the motion seeking preliminary approval of this Settlement

15 Agreement, the Parties shall jointly seek conditional approval, for settlement

16 purposes only, of four reconstituted Settlement Classes that would replace not only

17 the Certified Classes but also the uncertified classes alleged in Plaintiffs' First

18 Amended Complaint. Specifically, the Parties shall request that the Court certify

19 the following four Settlement Classes:

20

(1) The Website Class: All individuals with visual impairments

21 who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have

22 been or will be unable to gain equal access to or enjoyment of one or more of the

23 websites owned or operated by Disney such as www.disney.go.com,

24 www.disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com, and www.disneycruise.com as a

25 result of their visual disability.

26

(2) The Effective Communication Class: All individuals with

27 visual impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C.

28 §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the

-7-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 10 of 38 Page ID #:7669

1 Disney Parks because of (i) the absence of maps in an alternative format, or (ii) the

2 absence of menus in an alternative format, or (iii) the absence of schedules of

3 events at the Disney Parks in an alternative format, or (iv) inadequate or

4 inconsistent operation of the audio description service on the Handheld Device, or

5 (v) Disney's refusal to provide a free or discounted pass to their sighted

6 companions, or (vi) the failure to be read, in full, the menus, maps or schedules of

7 events at the Disney Parks.

8

(3) The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual

9 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

10 and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney

11 Parks because of (i) the fee charged for the use of a kennel for their service animal,

12 or (ii) the absence of reasonably-designated service animal relief areas, or (iii) the

13 absence of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not allow

14 service animals, or (iv) the lack of equal interaction with Disney employees who

15 portray Disney characters because the individuals with visual impairments are

16 accompanied by service animals.

17

(4) The Infrastructure Class: All individuals with visual

18 impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

19 and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney

20 Parks because of (i) physical barriers to access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable

21 modifications to Disney's policies and practices to permit such equal access or

22 enjoyment. Among other things, the members of this class have been or will be

23 denied equal access to or enjoyment of the parade viewing areas at the Disneyland

24 Resort and the Walt Disney World Resort, and to public lockers or parking lots at

25 the Disneyland Resort.

26

The Parties stipulate to certifying the above Settlement Classes for

27 settlement purposes only, conditioned upon the Court entering the Final Approval

28 Order and the successful conclusion of appeals, if any, from the entry of the Final

- 8-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 11 of 38 Page ID #:7670

1 Approval Order. The Parties further agree that evidence of this limited stipulation

2 for settlement purposes only will not be deemed admissible in this or any other

3 proceeding and that it would be unsupportable to contend otherwise.

4

E. The Conduct of the Litigation

5

Named Plaintiffs have vigorously prosecuted this Action, and Disney

6 has vigorously contested it, including extensive document, written and witness

7 discovery and many hours with retained consultants and employees analyzing the

8 claims and considering and developing reasonable modifications and assistive

9 measures. These extensive efforts permit the Parties to assess the relative strengths

10 and weaknesses of their respective positions in the Action.

11

In the absence of an approved settlement, the Parties recognize that

12 they would face a potentially long and arduous litigation that would continue to

13 consume time and resources and present each of them with ongoing litigation risks

14 and uncertainties. The Parties wish to avoid these risks and uncertainties, as well as

15 the consumption of time and resources, through settlement pursuant to the terms

16 and conditions of this Settlement Agreement. After careful review and

17 consideration, the Named Plaintiffs, for themselves individually and on behalf of all

18 members of the Settlement Classes, and Class Counsel are of the opinion that this

19 Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and provides appropriate

20 relief for the Settlement Classes. Class Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs, for

21 themselves individually and on behalf of all members of the Settlement Classes,

22 believe that this Settlement Agreement is in the best interest of the Settlement

23 Classes based on all the facts and circumstances. As reflected by the signatures of

24 counsel at the end of this document, the Parties have consented to this Settlement

25 Agreement and will represent to the Court that this Settlement Agreement is fair

26 and reasonable.

27

28

- 9-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 12 of 38 Page ID #:7671

1

F. No Admission of Liability

2

Nothing contained in, nor the consummation of, this Settlement

3 Agreement is to be construed or deemed an admission of liability, culpability,

4 negligence, or wrongdoing on the part of Disney or any of the parties released by

5 this Settlement Agreement. Each of the Parties to this Settlement Agreement has

6 entered into this Settlement Agreement with the intention of avoiding further

7 disputes and litigation with the attendant inconvenience and expenses. This

8 Settlement Agreement is a settlement document and shall be inadmissible as

9 provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence or any other similar law.

10 II. RELIEF TO BE PROVIDED TO SETTLEMENT CLASSES

11

A. Affirmative Relief

12

In consideration of the dismissal and release of all claims asserted in

13 the Second Amended Complaint, Disney agrees to perform the following

14 affirmative steps to enhance accessibility for guests with visual impairments at the

15 Disney Parks and on the Disney Websites. Except where otherwise noted, Disney

16 agrees to complete performance of such steps within one year after the Effective

17 Date of this Settlement Agreement:

18

1. The Website Class

19

a. In connection with the planned redesign of the Disney

20 Websites, Disney agrees to enhance the accessibility of such websites to users with

21 visual impairments in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section II.A.1 of

22 this Settlement Agreement. Subject to Section II.A.l.a.(v) of this Settlement

23 Agreement, Disney shall implement such accessibility enhancements in accordance

24 with the accessibility standards set forth in Section II.A.l.b below and by the

25 following dates:

26

(i) By December 31, 2012:

27

A. The majority of the content-related pages of

28 the www.disneyworld.com website will be accessible to screen readers, including a

- 10-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 13 of 38 Page ID #:7672

1 page containing an accessible version of the hours and schedules for the Walt

2 Disney World Parks otherwise posted on the website.

3

B. All of the menus currently posted on the

4 www.disneyworld.com website will be accessible to screen readers.

5

c. For Restaurants at the Disney Parks located

6 at the Walt Disney World Resort, sample menus accessible to screen readers (which

7 provide examples of the menu items, but do not necessarily accurately and

8 completely reflect all short-term, temporary or daily menu items) will be posted on

9 the www.disneyworld.com website.

10

(ii) By July 2013:

11

A. Guests of the Walt Disney World Resort

12 using screen readers on the www.disneyworld.com website will be able to purchase

13 tickets and passes to the Walt Disney World Parks and book rooms and packages at

14 WDPR-owned properties at the Walt Disney World Resort to the same extent as

15 individuals who are not using screen readers.

16

B. The majority of the content-related pages of

17 the www.disneyland.com website will be accessible to screen readers, including a

18 page containing an accessible version of the hours and schedules for the Disneyland

19 and DCA Parks otherwise posted on the website.

20

C. All of the menus currently posted on the

21 www.disneyland.com website will be accessible to screen readers.

22

D. For Restaurants at Disneyland and DCA,

23 sample menus accessible to screen readers (which provide examples of the menu

24 items, but do not necessarily accurately and completely reflect all short-term,

25 temporary or daily menu items) will be posted on the www.disneyland.com

26 website.

27

(iii) By June 30, 2014: Guests of the Disneyland Resort

28 using screen readers on the www.disneyland.com website will be able to purchase

- 11 -

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 14 of 38 Page ID #:7673

1 tickets and passes to Disneyland and DCA and book rooms and packages at

2 WDPR-owned properties at the Disneyland Resort to the same extent as individuals

3 not using screen readers.

4

(iv) By December 31,2015:

5

A. Individuals using screen readers on the

6 www.disneycruise.com website will be able to book staterooms, reserve onboard

7 activities, and book shore excursions on Disney Cruise Line cruises to the same

8 extent as individuals who are not using screen readers.

9

B. The majority of the content-related pages on

10 the www.disneycruise.com website will be accessible to screen readers.

11

(v) Diligence. Disney agrees to undertake diligent,

12 good faith efforts to satisfy the deadlines listed in this Section II.A.1.a. The Parties

13 agree that Disney will have complied with the provisions of this Section II.A.1.a as

14 long as Disney has undertaken diligent, good faith efforts to meet the referenced

15 deadlines.

16 b. Applicable Accessibility Standards. In fulfilling the
17 obligations set forth in Section II.A.1.a above, WDPRO and WDPR agree to follow
18 the WCAG 2.0 guidelines to the extent required by this Section II.A.l.b and
19 Section II.A.1.c.
20 (i) All Level A guidelines, except for Success Criteria
21 4.1.1 Parsing.
22 (ii) The following Level AA guidelines:
23 A. 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum), except for text
24 that requires a certain foreground and background appearance to conform to the
25 branding requirements that Disney establishes for the text;
26 B. 1.4.5 Images of Text;
27
c. 2.4.5 Multiple Ways;
28

- 12-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 15 of 38 Page ID #:7674

1

D. 2.4.6 Headings and Labels;

2

E. 2.4.7 Focus Visible, except when the

3 technical limitations of the supported web browsers, or other technical limitations,

4 make it impractical to implement;

5

F. 3.2.4 Consistent Identification; and

6

G. 3.3 .3 Error Suggestion.

7

(iii) The following Level AAA guidelines:

8

A. 2.3.2 Three Flashes;

9

B. 2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only);

10

c. 2.4.1 0 Section Headings;

11

D. 3.1.4 Abbreviations;

12

E. 3.3.5 Help; and

13

F. 3.3 .6 Error Prevention.

14

(iv) To the extent that any of the Disney Websites

15 utilize security measures designed by third parties, such as those offered by

16 CAPTCHA or Turing, WDPRO agrees to implement such third party's features or

17 tools for making such security measures accessible to users with visual

18 impairments.

19

c. Excluded Disney Websites Content. The following

20 portions of the Disney Websites need not comply with WCAG 2.0 standards or

21 otherwise be made accessible to screen readers:

22

(i) Content provided by users of the Disney Websites;

23

(ii) The websites or web pages (other than the Disney

24 Websites or the web pages that comprise the Disney Websites) that are reachable

25 from links contained within the Disney Websites;

26

(iii) Content contained on websites or platforms owned

27 or operated by a party other than Disney;

28

(iv) Content provided on the Disney Websites through a

- 13-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 16 of 38 Page ID #:7675

1 direct feed from a party other than Disney, such as an RSS (Rich Site Summary)

2 feed;

3

(v) Live webcasts;

4

(vi) Those portions of the Disney Websites that are

5 built and maintained by parties other than Disney;

6

(vii) Immersive, interactive marketing campatgns,

7 provided that ALT tags are provided for all images; and

8

(viii) Short-term marketing websites or web pages that

9 are publicly available for less than four months in duration, provided that ALT tags

10 are provided for all images; and

11

(ix) Personalized media content, including Photo Pass.

12

d. Accessibility Policy. Within 90 days after the Effective

13 Date:

14

(i) WDPRO will adopt a written policy memorializing

15 its commitment to website accessibility and to compliance with the standards set

16 forth in Sections II.A.1.b and II.A.1.c above ("the Accessibility Policy");

17

(ii) WDPRO and WDPR will each communicate the

18 Accessibility Policy to all of their respective employees and outside contractors

19 who each determines have responsibility for developing or maintaining the

20 accessibility features of the Disney Websites;

21

(iii) Contracts between WDPRO and outside

22 contractors, which are entered into after the Effective Date, and relate to the

23 performance of services on the Disney Websites by such outside contractors, will

24 include a provision requiring compliance with the Accessibility Policy; and

25

(iv) WDPRO will create a link to content within the

26 Disney Websites that will reaffirm the importance to Disney of making the Disney

27 Websites accessible to all of Disney's guests, including those who have visual

28 impairments, and will provide a method for making complaints or comments about

- 14-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 17 of 38 Page ID #:7676

1 the accessibility of the Disney Websites.

2

e. Accessibility Testing/Development. As WDPRO

3 enhances the accessibility of the Disney Websites, as provided above, it will:

4

(i) Select and use an electronic testing tool

5 periodically to assess the Disney Websites;

6

(ii) Select and develop testing protocols for its quality

7 assurance process that include testing the Disney Websites against the requirements

8 stated in this Settlement Agreement; and

9

(iii) Test periodically the Disney Websites against the

10 version of the JAWS screen reader utility identified in the Accessibility Policy.

11

f. Audits. WDPRO agrees to conduct periodic audits of the

12 Disney Websites to monitor its ongoing compliance with the accessibility standards

13 it has agreed to follow in Section II.A.1.d above, provided that no audits are

14 required of any "Future Requirements," as defined in Section II.A.1.h below, or of

15 any of the accessibility standards in Section II.A.1.d that have been superseded by

16 such Future Requirements. Such audits will utilize both electronic and human

17 testing components, including at least one individual with a visual impairment. If

18 any audit under this Section II.A.1.f uncovers any failure to comply with the

19 obligations contained in this Settlement Agreement with respect to any newly-

20 launched portion of the Disney Websites, WDPRO will log any such non-

21 compliance and prioritize the remediation of any such non-compliance in the same

22 manner as other non-accessibility-related issues are remediated.

23

g. Telephone Service. Within 90 days after the Effective

24 Date, Disney will provide a telephone service to assist guests with visual

25 impairments who wish to purchase tickets and passes to the Disney Parks or to

26 book rooms and packages at WDPR-owned properties at the Walt Disney World

27 and Disneyland Resorts. The telephone service shall be available at all times,

28 except when the computerized reservations systems that will be used by the service

- 15 -

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 18 of 38 Page ID #:7677

1 are unavailable for routine maintenance, backup and upgrades and for unplanned

2 and unforeseen circumstances. This telephone service shall be available until

3 WDPRO meets the standards identified in Sections II.A.1.a.(ii)A and II.A.1.a.(iii)

4 above.

5

h. Intervening Legislation or Regulation. In the event that

6 the U.S. Department of Justice, or other governmental body or agency with the

7 power to so act, issues website-related accessibility requirements (the "Future

8 Requirements") that become effective during the performance of the obligations

9 made in this Settlement Agreement, Disney may comply instead with any Future

10 Requirements that apply to the Disney Websites, and will not be obligated to

11 provide the affirmative relief required in Section II.A.1.a.

12

2. The Effective Communication Class

13

a. Schedules

14

(i) As of the Effective Date, Disney will continue to

15 make available by telephone an audio recording that provides the schedules for

16 major entertainment offerings (e.g., Fantasmic, World of Color) at Disneyland and

17 DCA.

18

(ii) As of the Effective Date, Disney will provide a

19 telephone service to read parade and show information contained in the current and

20 applicable Schedule Information Sheet and answer questions about such parades

21 and shows upon request. Within 90 days after the Effective Date, the telephone

22 number for this service will be included on the "Services for Guests with Visual

23 Disabilities" Information Sheet that is available at the Disney Parks and will be

24 posted on the www.disneyland.com and www.disneyworld.com websites on the

25 respective "Visual Disabilities" pages. This telephone service will be available at

26 least until the earlier of the following events: (a) the Next Generation Handheld

27 Device is deployed and contains the information available on the Schedule

28 Information Sheet, and (b) the applicable portions of the "Park Hours and

- 16-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 19 of 38 Page ID #:7678

1 Schedule" pages of the www.disneyland.com and www.disneyworld.com websites

2 containing the information on the Schedule Information Sheet are available in

3 screen-readable format.

4

(iii) Disney will take the actions identified in Sections

5 II.A.1.a.(i)A and II.A.1.a.(ii)B for making information accessible that is contained

6 on the "Park Hours and Schedule" pages of the www.disneyland.com and

7 www.disneyworld.com websites.

8

b. Menus

9

(i) As of the Effective Date, Disney will provide a

10 telephone service to read information from menus for Restaurants whose menus are

11 posted on the "Dining" pages of the respective www.disneyland.com and

12 www.disneyworld.com websites and answer questions about such menus upon

13 request. Within 90 days after the Effective Date, the telephone numbers for this

14 service will be included on the "Services for Guests with Visual Disabilities"

15 Information Sheet and will be posted on the "Visual Disabilities" pages of the

16 respective www.disneyland.com and www.disneyworld.com websites. This

17 telephone service will be available at least until the earlier of the following events:

18 (a) the Next Generation Handheld Device is deployed and contains menu content

19 for the Restaurants that Disney identifies in Schedule E-1 of Exhibit E to this

20 Settlement Agreement, and (b) the menus available on the www.disneyland.com

21 and www.disneyworld.com websites are available in screen-readable format.

22

(ii) Disney will take the actions identified in Sections

23 II.A.1.a.(i)B and II.A.1.a.(ii)C for making information accessible that is contained

24 on the "Dining" pages of the www.disneyland.com and www.disneyworld.com

25 websites.

26

(iii) Disney will include in the audio description service

27 on the Next Generation Handheld Device menu content for the three Restaurants

28 that it identifies in Schedule E-2 of Exhibit E to this Settlement Agreement.

- 17-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 20 of 38 Page ID #:7679

1

(iv) In developing the Next Generation Handheld

2 Device, Disney will explore the possibility of including menu content for all

3 Restaurants whose menus are available on the www.disneyland.com and

4 www.disneyworld.com websites. Disney agrees to use diligent, good faith efforts

5 to include menu content for the Restaurants that it identifies in Schedule E-3 of

6 Exhibit E to this Settlement Agreement.

7

(v) Disney will update its Operating Guidelines for

8 food and beverage locations to provide that employees should read menus,

9 including entire menus, to guests, upon request.

10

(vi) Disney will provide a Braille menu at the four

11 Restaurants it identifies in Schedule E-4 of Exhibit E to this Settlement Agreement.

12 These Braille menus may be sample menus that provide examples of the menu

13 items, but do not necessarily accurately and completely reflect all short-term,

14 temporary or daily menu items.

15

c. Stationary Braille Maps

16

Disney will provide at least two stationary Braille maps in

17 each of the Disney Parks, except that stationary Braille maps will not be installed at

18 DCA Park until approximately six months after its current renovation project is

19 completed, which is targeted for June 2012.

20

d. Mobile Braille Maps

21

Disney will provide mobile Braille maps at the Disney

22 Parks for guests with visual impairments to borrow upon posting a refundable

23 deposit not to exceed the deposit required for borrowing of the Handheld Device.

24

e. Handheld Device

25

(i) Disney will take the actions stated in Sections

26 II.A.2.b.(iii) and II.A.2.b.(iv) and will also provide information in the audio

27 description service of the Handheld Device relating to the locations of service

28 animal relief areas. Named Plaintiffs acknowledge that these actions may benefit

- 18-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 21 of 38 Page ID #:7680

1 members of the Effective Communication Settlement Class.

2

(ii) In developing the Next Generation Handheld

3 Device, Disney will explore the possibility of: (a) providing navigational

4 capabilities that will allow guests with visual impairments to hear information

5 directing them to their desired locations; and (b) posting GPS coordinates for

6 various attractions or other locations within the Disney Parks for use by guests with

7 visual impairments who use map or global positioning system devices.

8

(iii) Disney has considered any input provided by

9 Named Plaintiffs regarding the functionality of the Handheld Device prior to

10 Named Plaintiffs' entering into the Settlement Agreement.

11

f. Companion Tickets

12

(i) Within 10 business days after the Effective Date,

13 Disney will provide, at no charge, on a one-time basis, 100 one-day tickets for

14 admission to either Disneyland or DCA, and 100 one-day tickets for admission to

15 either Magic Kingdom, Epcot Center, Disney's Hollywood Studios or Disney's

16 Animal Kingdom, to no more than two 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, as

17 provided below. The Parties shall jointly select up to two charitable organizations

18 whose primary purpose is to serve individuals with visual impairments, but only

19 one organization for the tickets to the Disney Parks at the Disneyland Resort and

20 one organization for the tickets to the Disney Parks at the Walt Disney World

21 Resort.

22

(ii) The Parties agree that, by providing the enhanced

23 capacity and content of the audio description service on the Handheld Device (as

24 described in Section II.A.2.e above), and by providing temporary kenneling at

25 attractions on which service animals cannot ride (as described in Section II.A.3.e

26 below), Disney materially increases the ability of class members to visit the Disney

27 Parks without the assistance of a sighted companion.

28

- 19-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 22 of 38 Page ID #:7681

1

3. The Service Animal Class

2

a. Within 90 days after the Effective Date, Disney will

3 designate at least three service animal relief areas in the public areas at each of the

4 Disney Parks and will continue to allow service animal relief in any open area at the

5 Disney Parks.

6

b. Within 180 days after the Effective Date, Disney will add

7 information about the location of the designated service animal relief areas in each

8 of the Disney Parks to (i) the "Visual Disabilities" and "Services for Guests with

9 Service Animals" pages of the respective www.disneyland.com and

10 www.disneyworld.com websites; and (ii) the "Services for Guests with Visual

11 Disabilities" and the "Services for Guests with Service Animals" Information

12 Sheets. Disney will also add information about the location of the designated

13 service animal relief areas in each of the Disney Parks to the relevant stationary and

14 mobile Braille maps provided pursuant to this Settlement Agreement.

15

c. Within the time stated in that Section II.A.2.e.(i), Disney

16 will take the actions noted in that Section to add information to the audio

17 description service on the Handheld Device describing the location of designated

18 service animal relief areas.

19

d. Disney will update the Operating Guidelines for its

20 custodial employees and for employees working in the areas adjacent to the

21 designated service animal relief areas to note the location of the designated service

22 animal relief areas and policies for use of the areas.

23

e. Disney will provide temporary kennels or cages at

24 attractions at which service animals cannot ride.

25

f. Disney will post on the respective "Visual Disabilities"

26 pages of the www.disneyland.com and www.disneyworld.com websites, and

27 include on the "Services for Guests with Service Animals" and "Services for Guests

28 with Visual Disabilities" Information Sheets, its policy, applicable at attractions at

-20-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 23 of 38 Page ID #:7682

1 which service animals cannot ride, of allowing guests with service animals to leave

2 such service animals with another member of the guest's party and to permit the

3 guest or individual temporarily handling the service animal to exchange places with

4 the guest who has just taken the ride or attraction.

5

g. Not later than 14 days after the Effective Date, WDPR

6 will commence permitting guests with visual impairments at the Disneyland Resort

7 who are accompanied by service animals to use the service animal relief area and

8 run at the Disneyland Resort kennel free of charge, provided that the guest stays

9 with the service animal at all times while visiting the kennel.

10

h. Disney will update its Operating Guidelines for WDPR

11 employees who portray characters in the Disney Parks to provide that their

12 interactions with a guest accompanied by a service animal should occur as if the

13 guest were not accompanied by the service animal. Training for WDPR employees

14 working as characters will include training on this aspect of the updated Operating

15 Guidelines.

16

4. The Infrastructure Class

17

a. Within six months after the Effective Date, Disney will

18 update its relevant Operating Guidelines to provide that disabled parade viewing

19 areas are available to all guests with disabilities, including guests with visual

20 impairments, who require preferential viewing as a result of their disability. Disney

21 will continue to make these viewing areas available on a first-come, first-served

22 basis.

23

b. Disney has reviewed its current designated disabled

24 parade viewing areas in the Disney Parks to consider whether the level of non-

25 parade ambient noise materially interferes with a guest's ability to experience the

26 parade. The Named Plaintiffs acknowledge that Disney has already considered

27 their input on this subject.

28

c. Disney will install five keyed lockers at a single location

- 21 -

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 24 of 38 Page ID #:7683

1 at each of the Disneyland and DCA Parks. Locker keys will be made available to

2 guests with visual impairments at a location determined by WDPR to be

3 appropriate and near the keyed lockers. The rental rate of keyed lockers will not

4 exceed the rental rate of non-keyed lockers.

5

d. Parking

6

(i) Disney will designate in the Pinocchio Lot at the

7 Disneyland Resort the number of disabled parking spaces required by the applicable

8 Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines and by Title 24 of the California

9 Building Code (the "Design Standards"). Consistent with these Design Standards,

10 Disney will designate these parking spaces in the location that it determines to be

11 the most proximate to the tram loading/unloading area adjacent to the Pinocchio

12 Lot and the Mickey & Friends Parking Structure (the "Loading Area"). Disney will

13 also create paths of travel between these parking spaces and the Loading Area that

14 comply with the applicable provisions of the Design Standards.

15

(ii) Disney will, to the extent necessary, relocate or

16 reconfigure any disabled parking spaces or paths of travel in the Mickey & Friends

17 parking structure so that, other than the guest's own vehicle, a guest with

18 disabilities is not required to travel behind parked vehicles.

19

B. Modification of Obligations in the Ordinary Course

20

Nothing in this Settlement Agreement is intended, nor shall it be

21 interpreted, to prevent Disney, as part of its ongoing operations of the Disney Parks

22 or of the Disney Websites, from implementing changes to the features of the Parks

23 or Disney Websites, or their operation, that would modify any of Disney's

24 obligations under Section II.A. of this Settlement Agreement (including eliminating

25 any such feature or its operation), provided that any such changes to the Parks or

26 Disney Websites or their operations comply with the Americans with Disabilities

27 Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code§§ 51

28 et seq.), the Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code§§ 54 et seq.) and all other laws

-22-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 25 of 38 Page ID #:7684

1 and regulations prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

2 III. NOTICE TO SETTLEMENT CLASSES

3

In their motion seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement,

4 the Named Plaintiffs, WDPR and Disney Online will propose that Class Counsel

5 email or mail a copy of the Notice substantially in the form of Exhibit A to this

6 Settlement Agreement to each individual known to Class Counsel to have a visual

7 disability and to have expressed any concerns similar to those which Named

8 Plaintiffs have alleged in the Action. WDPR and Disney Online will make

9 reasonable efforts, and will bear the costs, to publish the Notice in the next edition

10 of the regularly-circulating publications of the National Federation of the Blind, the

11 American Council of the Blind, The American Foundation for the Blind, and the

12 Los Angeles Radio Reader Service. Counsel for the Parties shall distribute the

13 Notice described in this Section within 14 calendar days after the Court enters the

14 Preliminary Approval Order.

15

The failure of any Class Members to receive the Notice shall not be a basis

16 for invalidating this Settlement Agreement or any order entered pursuant to this

17 Settlement Agreement, and the settlement shall nevertheless be binding upon all

18 Class Members.

19 IV. CAFA NOTICE

20

Within 14 calendar days after the Court enters the Preliminary Approval

21 Order, WDPR and Disney Online shall serve notice of the proposed settlement in

22 compliance with the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§

23 1711 et seq.

24 V. RELEASE BY NAMED PLAINTIFFS

25

In consideration for the mutual promises and covenants set forth or referred

26 to in this Settlement Agreement, the Named Plaintiffs, upon the entry of the Final

27 Approval Order, will release Disney, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, and

28 in the case of all such entities, their respective past and present owners,

- 23-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 26 of 38 Page ID #:7685

1 representatives, officers, directors, shareholders, attorneys, agents, employees,

2 insurers, successors and assigns (collectively referred to as the "Released Parties")

3 from any and all claims, counter-claims, liabilities, obligations, demands, and

4 actions of any and every kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, that have

5 arisen or might have arisen at any time up to and including the Effective Date. This

6 Release includes any claims that were, or could have been, asserted in the Action,

7 including, without limitation, individual and class claims for discrimination and/or

8 denial of equal access to or enjoyment of any goods, services, facilities, websites,

9 privileges, advantages, or accommodations based upon a disability related to visual

10 impairment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101

11 et seq.), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.), the Disabled

12 Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code§§ 54 et seq.), any other state, local or federal statute,

13 rule, or regulation, or common law that governs, addresses, or affects the rights of

14 individuals with disabilities to gain equal or full access to or enjoyment of places of

15 public accommodation or places open to the public. This release includes, but is

16 not limited to, claims for relief alleging a pattern and practice of disability-based

17 discrimination in connection with, or an unlawful disparate impact associated with,

18 access to or enjoyment of the Disney Parks or the websites owned or operated by

19 Disney.

20 VI. RELEASE BY CLASS MEMBERS

21

In consideration for the mutual promises and covenants set forth or referred

22 to in this Settlement Agreement, Class Members who are not Named Plaintiffs and

23 each of their executors, successors, heirs, assigns, administrators, agents and

24 representatives (collectively referred to as the "Releasing Parties"), upon the entry

25 of the Final Approval Order, will release the Released Parties from any and all

26 claims, counter-claims, liabilities, obligations, demands, and actions of any and

27 every kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, that the Releasing Parties

28 may have against the Released Parties for discrimination and/or denial of equal

-24-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 27 of 38 Page ID #:7686

1 access to or enjoyment of any goods, services, facilities, websites, privileges,

2 advantages, or accommodations based upon a disability related to visual

3 impairment under the common law or any state, local or federal statute, rule or

4 regulation, arising from Disney's practices or procedures in connection with, or the

5 condition of, the Disney Parks or websites owned or operated by Disney prior to the

6 Effective Date, or as those practices, procedures or conditions at the Disney Parks

7 or of the websites owned or operated by Disney are subsequently modified to

8 comply with the terms of this Settlement Agreement. This release includes but is

9 not limited to any and all claims that have arisen or might have arisen that could

10 have been asserted in the Action, including claims in violation of the Americans

11 with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal.

12 Civil Code§§ 51 et seq.), the Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code§§ 54 et seq.),

13 any other state, local or federal statute, rule, or regulation, or common law that

14 governs, addresses or affects the rights of individuals with disabilities to gain equal

15 or full access to or enjoyment of places of public accommodation or places open to

16 the public. This release includes, but is not limited to, claims for class-wide

17 injunctive or declaratory relief alleging a class-wide pattern and practice of visual

18 disability-based discrimination in connection with, or an unlawful disparate impact

19 associated with, access to or enjoyment of the Disney Parks or the websites owned

20 or operated by Disney. This release includes any claims for damages, fines or

21 penalties in amounts statutorily authorized (including as determined by reference to

22 minimum or other prescribed amounts) for violations of the State Disability

23 Statutes, but does not include claims for monetary damages (including as they may

24 be multiplied) in individualized amounts recoverable by a Class Member that,

25 under the State Disability Statutes or common law, are determined, not by reference

26 to a minimum or other statutorily prescribed amount, but by the actual harm, loss,

27 bodily injury, injury to property, emotional distress, or economic damage allegedly

28 suffered by a Class Member. By way of example, this release includes claims for

-25-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 28 of 38 Page ID #:7687

22 WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO
23 EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING
24 THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST
25 HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT
26 WITH THE DEBTOR."
27

28

-26-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 29 of 38 Page ID #:7688

1

Named Plaintiffs, for themselves and for all Releasing Parties, expressly

2 waive the protections of California Civil Code Section 1542 with respect to the

3 Released Claims.

4 VIII. NAMED PLAINTIFFS' SERVICE PAYMENTS

5

In recognition of the Named Plaintiffs' role in prosecuting this Action,

6 including the provision of information to Class Counsel, assisting with disclosures

7 and feedback to Disney, responding to Disney's discovery requests, and appearing

8 and testifying at depositions noticed by Disney, Class Counsel shall file a motion

9 for an award of service payments of no more than $15,000 for each Named Plaintiff

10 to be paid by Disney, which motion shall be heard at the time ofthe Final Approval

11 and Fairness Hearing. Class Counsel shall file this motion within 14 days after the

12 Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. Disney shall neither oppose nor

13 support this motion. The amount of each service payment will be determined by

14 the Court.

15

If approved by the Court, and subject to each of the Named Plaintiffs

16 providing counsel of record for Disney with completed Forms W-9, Disney shall

17 pay the approved service payment amounts to the Named Plaintiffs within 30 days

18 after the Effective Date by means of a check sent by certified U.S. mail to the

19 address provided by Class Counsel. Disney shall issue Forms 1099 to each of the

20 Named Plaintiffs for the full amount of such payments.

21 IX. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

22

Class Counsel shall file a motion for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees

23 and costs not to exceed $1,550,000. This award and amount shall include all fees

24 and costs recoverable including any attorneys' fees and costs incurred after the date

25 of this Settlement Agreement. This motion shall be heard at the time of the Final

26 Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Counsel shall file the motion for an award of

27 fees within 14 days after the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. Disney

28

-27-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 30 of 38 Page ID #:7689

1 shall not oppose this motion or any proposed order awarding fees and costs in an

2 amount not to exceed $1,550,000 in the aggregate.

3

Subject to each of the Class Counsel providing counsel of record for Disney

4 with completed Forms W-9 and appropriate and complete wiring instructions,

5 Disney shall pay any amounts due pursuant to this section and an Order of the

6 Court within 30 days after the Effective Date by wiring the appropriate amount to a

7 bank account designated for such purposes by Class Counsel.

8 X. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

9

Named Plaintiffs, WDPR and Disney Online will submit this Settlement

10 Agreement to the Court, and request (1) preliminary approval of the terms of the

11 Settlement Agreement, (2) approval of the Notice attached as Exhibit A to this

12 Settlement Agreement, or such other notice that the Court shall mandate, and (3)

13 approval of all other steps to be taken to obtain Final Approval. Named Plaintiffs,

14 WDPR and Disney Online will request that the Court enter a Preliminary Approval

15 Order, substantially in the form of Exhibit B.

16

Named Plaintiffs, WDPR and Disney Online shall cooperate to obtain the

17 Court's prompt preliminary and final approval of the Settlement Agreement. To

18 expedite the implementation of the Settlement Agreement, Named Plaintiffs,

19 WDPR and Disney Online shall ask the Court to set the hearing on the final

20 approval of the Agreement no more than 75 days after the first provision of the

21 Notice.

22

Counsel for Named Plaintiffs, WDPR and Disney Online shall distribute the

23 Notice within 14 days after the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. In

24 addition, Class Counsel shall file the motions contemplated in Sections VIII and IX

25 above within 14 days after the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order.

26 XI. CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS

27

Any member of the Settlement Classes who elects to object to this Settlement

28 Agreement and the proposed Preliminary Approval Order or otherwise to be heard

-28-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 31 of 38 Page ID #:7690

1 concerning this settlement, shall timely inform Class Counsel, in writing of his or

2 her intent to object or appear at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing by

3 following the procedures set forth in the Notice. The objection date shall be set at

4 least 35 days after the date on which Notice is distributed, and shall be after the date

5 that Class Counsel files the motions contemplated in Sections VIII and IX above.

6 XII. FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING

7

On the date set forth in the Notice, the Court shall conduct the Final

8 Approval and Fairness Hearing.

9

The Parties shall request that, if the Court approves the Settlement

10 Agreement at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing, it shall enter the Final

11 Approval Order substantially in the form proposed as Exhibit C to this Settlement

12 Agreement.

13 XIII. FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

14

The Final Approval Order shall: (a) dismiss the Second Amended Complaint

15 and Teresa Stockton's allegations in the First Amended Complaint with prejudice;

16 (b) approve the settlement, adjudging the terms of this Settlement Agreement to be

17 fair, reasonable and adequate, and direct consummation of its terms and provisions;

18 and (c) permanently enjoin all Class Members from presenting against Disney or its

19 present or former parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders, officers,

20 directors, employees, partners, agents, representatives, attorneys, insurers, and any

21 other successors and assignees, any individual or Settlement Class claims that are

22 released by Sections V or VI of this Settlement Agreement or which were or could

23 have been asserted in the Action.

24 XIV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

25

The Parties agree that only the Parties, or Class Counsel on behalf of a

26 member of the Settlement Class, may initiate a proceeding for violation or

27 enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and that before any Party or

28 Class Counsel initiates any claim, motion or other proceeding for violation or

-29-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 32 of 38 Page ID #:7691

1 enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, the complaining Party must first provide

2 the counterparty with (i) written notice of the matter in dispute to the counsel of

3 record in the Action for that counterparty and (ii) a reasonable opportunity to cure

4 any alleged event of default or omission. The Party receiving such written notice of

5 a matter in dispute must respond in writing within four weeks of receipt of the

6 notice providing either a statement of opposition to the claim or of its intent to cure.

7 In the event that this notice and cure procedure is unavailing, the Parties may apply

8 to the Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

9 XV. FORCE MAJEURE

10

Disney's obligations under this Settlement Agreement, including the

11 obligations under Section II.A of this Settlement Agreement, may be postponed if

12 the postponement is caused by or attributable to aforce majeure. Under this force

13 majeure provision, Disney's obligations under this Settlement Agreement may be

14 tolled, for the period of the force majeure's effect, if any inability to perform any

15 obligations under this Settlement Agreement is due to acts of God, war, government

16 laws or regulations, terrorism, disaster, strikes, civil disorder or an emergency

17 beyond Disney's control, that make it illegal or impossible for Disney to perform.

18 XVI. APPLICABLE LAW

19

The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement shall be in all respects

20 interpreted, enforced and governed by and under federal law and, to the extent that

21 resort must be had to state law, by the law of the State of California.

22 XVII. FAILURE TO OBTAIN FINAL APPROVAL

23

In the event that this Settlement Agreement does not become final and

24 effective in its current form, for whatever reason, this entire Settlement Agreement,

25 including its exhibits, shall become null and void and of no force or effect. In that

26 event, no Party shall make any arguments in the Action based on any other Party

27 having made any agreement in any of the papers submitted in connection with the

28

- 30-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 33 of 38 Page ID #:7692

1 settlement process, or any Preliminary Approval Order entered as part of the

2 settlement process.

3 XVIII. CONFIDENTIALITY

4

All proprietary and confidential documents or information that previously

5 have been provided to Class Counsel and/or the Named Plaintiffs as of the date this

6 Settlement Agreement is executed shall be treated as, and shall forever remain,

7 confidential. Those documents and information shall not be disclosed to anyone

8 other than the Court or agreed-upon mediator or special master in connection with

9 any proceedings to enforce any provision of this Settlement Agreement. If such

10 disclosure is deemed necessary by Class Counsel, Class Counsel shall identify and

11 disclose to Disney such documents and information deemed necessary to disclose at

12 least 10 business days prior to filing such documents with the Court, mediator, or

13 special master, and, if Disney so requests, shall seek permission to file said

14 documents with this Court, mediator, or special master under seal. All the files,

15 records, discovery, investigation, work papers and any other document, whether

16 electronic or written, that describes or contains any assessment of practices of

17 Disney or which describes a condition, act or event at the Disney Parks or which

18 relates to any of the websites owned or operated by Disney (with the exception of

19 documents that were publicly filed with the Court) shall not be made available to or

20 transferred to any other person and shall be kept and maintained by Class Counsel

21 inviolate. Class Counsel warrant to Disney that they shall not produce their files, or

22 any portion of such files (with the exception of documents that were publicly filed

23 with the Court), to any other person unless compelled to do so by a formal legal

24 process in which event Class Counsel shall promptly notify counsel of record for

25 Disney of that event. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent Class Counsel from

26 using any information obtained in the course of this case in connection with any

27 action necessary to enforce or maintain the Settlement Agreement, or in connection

28 with any claim of professional negligence brought against Class Counsel.

- 31 -

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 34 of 38 Page ID #:7693

1

Within 60 days after the Effective Date, all proprietary and confidential

2 documents or information provided to Class Counsel by Disney and designated as

3 "Confidential" or a similar designation pursuant to the Confidentiality Agreement

4 executed by the Parties and all copies of such documents or information shall be

5 destroyed, except that Class Counsel may maintain copies of all documents filed

6 with the Court. Certification of such destruction shall be provided to counsel of

7 record for Disney.

8

Other than necessary disclosures made to the Court, including the public

9 filing of this Settlement Agreement and the Class Notice attached as Exhibit A to

10 this Settlement Agreement, the Parties' settlement negotiations and all related

11 information shall be held strictly confidential by Class Counsel and the Named

12 Plaintiffs, and shall not be disclosed to any third parties (including the media).

13 Notwithstanding the provisions in this Section, Class Counsel and the Named

14 Plaintiffs may communicate with members of the Classes for purposes of

15 implementing, administering and enforcing the Settlement Agreement as provided

16 in this Settlement Agreement, and Class Counsel may respond to inquiries they

17 receive from Class Members.

18 XIX. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE MEDIA

19

The Parties and their counsel agree that they will not issue any press releases,

20 initiate any contact with the media, or have any communications with the media

21 about this Action or the fact, amount or terms of the settlement, except that Disney

22 may make statements to the media about the accessibility of the Disney Parks or

23 Parks Websites for its guests with disabilities, and the enhancements that it has

24 agreed to make for guests with visual impairments.

25 XX. MISCELLANEOUS

26

A. No Oral Modification

27

This Settlement Agreement may not be changed, altered, or modified,

28 except in writing and signed by the Parties to this Settlement Agreement, and

-32-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 35 of 38 Page ID #:7694

1 approved by the Court. This Settlement Agreement may not be discharged except

2 by performance in accordance with its terms or by a writing signed by all of the

3 Parties to this Settlement Agreement.

4

B. Entire Agreement

5

This Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement between the

6 Parties relating to the settlement and transaction contemplated by this Settlement

7 Agreement, and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings,

8 representations, and statements, whether oral or written and whether by a Party or

9 such Party's legal counsel are merged into this Settlement Agreement. No rights

10 under this Settlement Agreement may be waived except in writing.

11

c. Successors in Interest

12

This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the

13 benefit of the Parties to this Settlement Agreement and their respective heirs,

14 trustees, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.

15

D. Execution in Counterparts

16

This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and

17 when each Party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart, each

18 counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed

19 I I I

20 I I I

21 Ill

22 I I I

23 I I I

24 I I I

25 I I I

26 I I I

27 I I I

28 I I I

- 33-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 36 of 38 Page ID #:7695

1 counterparts, shall constitute one fully-signed Settlement Agreement, which shall

2 be binding upon and effective as to all Parties.

3

STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY:

4

5 Dated: January 18, 2013

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

6

By:~/.F(;:s/'-rDTTia~vzr'd;.;H~.fiR'7a~iz;;;;mi-!.arn~--­

7

DAVID H. RAIZMAN

8

Attorneys for Defendants

Walt Dtsney Parks and Resorts U.S.,

9

Inc., Disney Online, and Walt Disney

Parks and Resorts Online

10

11 Dated: January 18, 2013
12

FORIZS & DOGALI, P.A.

13

By:.__!./A4.s~N/A~DndrY;.v!D:,=OD~ogG;P<Aa~l7Li .I.....------

14

Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs

15

Cari Shtelds and Amber Boggs and

the Settlement Classes

16

17 Dated: January 18, 2013 18 19 20 21 22

EUGENE FELDMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW,APC
By:--.:!.:.,;;;s:,-.,1E~l{g~e~n~e:..,;,F,..,Fe;:,rld~m~an~...----­ EUGENE FELDMAN
Attorneys For Named Plaintiffs Cari Shtelds and Amber Boggs and the Settlement Classes

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 34-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 37 of 38 Page ID #:7696

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am

over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is

4 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1400, Los Angeles,

California 90067.

5

On January 18,2013, I served the foregoing document described as:

6

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE on the interested parties in this action by transmitting a copy as follows:

7

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

8 X By ELECTRONIC FILING (I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification

9

of such filing to counsel denoted on the attached Service List.)

10

By PERSONAL SERVICE

11

by personally delivering such envelope to the addressee.

12

by causing such envelope to be delivered by messenger to the office

of the addressee. 13

X By UNITED STATES MAIL (I am readily familiar with the firm's

14

_P-ractice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under

that practice it would be de_Rosited with U.S. Postal Service on that same

15

day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the

ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,

16

service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date

is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.) 17

By OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (by causing such envelo_Re to be delivered

18

to the office of the addressee by overnight delivery via Federal Express or

by other similar overnight delivery service.) 19

By FAX TRANSMISSION 20

(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of

21

California that the above is true and correct.

22 X (Federal) I declare that I am em_Rloyed in the office of a member of the bar
of this court at whose direction the service was made. 23
Executed on January 18, 2013, at Los Angeles, California. 24

25 MELANIE WILLIS
26 Name
27

Is/ Melanie Willis
Signature

28

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 281 Filed 01/18/13 Page 38 of 38 Page ID #:7697

1

SERVICE LIST

2

Cari Shields, et al. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., et al.

3

USDC Case No. 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO

4

5 Served Electronically
6 A. Anderson B. Dogali 7 adogali@forizs-dogali.com, cfranklin@forizs-dogali.com

8 Barbara Ursula Uberoi buberoi@forizs-dogali.com, ksutton@forizs-dogali.com
9
Lee Wm. Atkinson 10 latkinson@forizs-dogali.com

11 Eugene Feldman genefeldman@mindspring.com
12
David Grant Geffen 13 geffenlaw@aol.com, surisageffenlaw@aol.com, smgeffenlaw@aol.com

14 Surisa E. Rivers Surisageffenlaw@aol.com
15
Mehgan Sidhu 16 msidhu@nfb.org

17 Served by U.S. Mail
18

19

Teresa Stockton 1760 West Avenue J-12, Apt 107

20 Lancaster, CA 93534

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 291 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:7938

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARI SHIELDS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 10-cv-05810-DMG (FMOx)
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

This matter came before the Court on January 25, 2013 on t he Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement of plai ntiffs Cari Shields and Am ber Boggs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the cl asses they represent (“Plaintiffs”), and defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Disney Online and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online (“Disn ey”) in the above-captioned action. (Collectively, Plaintiffs and Disney are r eferred to as the “Parties.”) The Court has considered the substantial briefing and the argument of counsel for the Parties since the initial subm ission of their prelim inary approval papers on April 23, 2012 and over the course of hearings on May 4, 2 012, May 14, 2012, July 29, 2012, August 3, 2012, Septem ber 14, 2 012, October 12, 2012 and November 30, 2012. The

CASE NO. 10-CV-05810-DMG (FMOX)

- 1 -

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 291 Filed 01/29/13 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:7939

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

Court has also considered the entirety of the record in this action in issuing the below ruling.
In addition, the Court has considered the comments or objections subm itted by the National Federation of t he Blind (“NFB”) and the American Council of the Blind (“ACB”).
The Court having found t hat the proposed resolution of this matter set forth in the Class Action Settlem ent Agreement And Release, as m odified in the revised Class Action Settlement Agreement And Release (a true an d correct copy of which is designated as Exhibit A at Doc. # 290- 2 (the “Revised Settl ement Agreement”), taken as a whole, is fundam entally fair, adequate, and reasonable to all concerned, and for other good cause shown, the Court hereby Orders as follows:
1. The following classes shall be certified as settlement classes under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
a. The Website Class: All indi viduals with visual im pairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have been or will be unable to gain equal access to or enjoyment of one or m ore of the websites maintained by Disney such as www.disney.go.com, www.disneyland.com, www.disneyworld.com, and www.disneycruise.com as a result of their visual disability.
b. The Effective Comm unication Class: All individuals with visual impairments who (a) have a disability , as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102, and (b) have been or will be denied equal access to or enjoyment of the Disney Parks (as that term is defined in the Revised Settlement Agreement) because of (i) the absence of maps in an alternativ e format, or (ii) the absence o f menus in an alternative format, or (iii) the absence of schedules of events at the Disney Parks in an alternative format, or (iv) inadequa te or inconsistent operation of t he audio description service on the Handheld Device, or (v) Disney’s refusal to provide a

CASE NO. 10-CV-05810-DMG (FMOX)

- 2 -

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 291 Filed 01/29/13 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:7940

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

free or discounted pass to their sighted companions, or (vi) the failure to be read, in

full, the menus, maps or schedules of events at the Disney Parks.

c. The Service Animal Class: All individuals with visual

impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

and (b) have been o r will be denied equal access to or enjoym ent of the Disney

Parks because of (i) the fee ch arged for the use of a kennel for their service ani mal,

or (ii) the absence of reasonably-designat ed service animal relief areas, or (iii) the

absence of a location to kennel their service animal at attractions that do not allow

service animals, or ( iv) the lack of e qual interaction with Disney em ployees who

portray Disney charact ers because the i ndividuals with visual im pairments are

accompanied by service animals.

d. The Infrastructure Class:

All individuals with visual

impairments who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102,

and (b) have been o r will be denied equal access to or enjoym ent of the Disney

Parks because of (i) physical barriers to access, or (ii) the lack of reasonable

modifications to Disney’s pol icies and pr actices to perm it such equal access or

enjoyment. Am ong other things, the mem bers of this class have been or will be

denied equal access to or enjoyment of th e parade viewing areas, public lockers, o r

parking lots at the Disneyland Resort.

2. Andy Dogali of Fori zs and Dogali PA, and Eugene Feldm an, of the

Eugene Feldman, Attorney At Law, APC, are appointed as class counsel of the

certified classes under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. The Court hereby grants final approval to the Revised Settlem ent

Agreement as it finds that, taken as a whole, the settlement and com promise

contained in that Revised Settlement Agre ement are fundamentally fair, adequate,

and reasonable to all concerned.

//

//

CASE NO. 10-CV-05810-DMG (FMOX)

- 3 -

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO Document 291 Filed 01/29/13 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:7941

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

4. The Court grants Pl aintiffs' request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,403,500 and costs in the amount of $146,500. The Court also approves a $15,000 incentive award to Cl ass Representative Cari Shields and a $15,000 incentive award to Class Representative Amber Boggs.
5. The Second Amended Complaint shall be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 29, 2013

________________________________ DOLLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CASE NO. 10-CV-05810-DMG (FMOX)

- 4 -

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 1 of 32
(FMOx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,PROTORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−05810−DMG−FMO

Cari Shields et al v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. et al Date Filed: 08/05/2010

Assigned to: Judge Dolly M. Gee

Date Terminated: 01/29/2013

Referred to: Magistrate Judge fernando m. olguin

Jury Demand: None

Case in other court: Superior Court of CA for the County of Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights:

Los Angeles, BC438241

Americans with Disabilities − Other

Cause: 28:1441 Notice of Removal

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

Cari Shields on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by A Anderson B Dogali Forizs and Dogali PA 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33634 813−289−0700 Fax: 813−289−9435 Email: adogali@forizs−dogali.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbara Ursula Uberoi Forizs and Dogali PA 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway Suite 300 Tampa, Fl 33634 813−289−0700 Fax: 813−289−9435 Email: hforget@forizs−dogali.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian A Hohman Forizs and Dogali PA 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33634 813−289−0700 Fax: 813−289−9435 Email: bhohman@forizs−dogali.com TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugene Feldman Eugene Feldman Law Offices 555 Pier Avenue Suite 4 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254−3800 310−372−4636 Fax: 310−372−4639 Email: genefeldman@mindspring.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Wm Atkinson Forzis and Dogali PA 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33634 813−289−0700 Fax: 813−289−9435 Email: latkinson@forizs−dogali.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 2 of 32

Lindsay Galloway Forzis and Dogali PA 4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33634 813−289−0700 Fax: 813−289−9435 Email: lgalloway@forizs−dogali.com TERMINATED: 08/18/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Amber Boggs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by A Anderson B Dogali (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbara Ursula Uberoi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian A Hohman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugene Feldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Wm Atkinson (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsay Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Teresa Stockton on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Teresa Stockton 1760 West Avenue J−12 Apt 107 Lancaster, CA 93534 918−878−7730 PRO SE

A Anderson B Dogali (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian A Hohman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugene Feldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 3 of 32
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lee Wm Atkinson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Galloway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/18/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.

represented by David H Raizman Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &Stewart, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−438−1285 Fax: 213−239−9045 Email: david.raizman@ogletreedeakins.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elena S Min Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP 1800 Century Park East Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−203−4000 Fax: 310−229−1285 Email: elena.min@dbr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M Altieri Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas 41st Floor New York, NY 10036−2714 212−248−3140 Fax: 212−248−3141 Email: james.altieri@dbr.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason F King Drinker Biddle &Reath LLP 500 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 973−549−7000 Fax: 973−360−9831 Email: jason.king@dbr.com TERMINATED: 12/07/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yehonatan Cohen Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP 1800 Century Park East Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−203−4046 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 4 of 32

Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. TERMINATED: 09/10/2010
Defendant The Walt Disney Company TERMINATED: 09/10/2010
Defendant Does 1−10, inclusive Defendant Disney Online, Inc.
Objector National Federation of the Blind

represented by David H Raizman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/06/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elena S Min (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David H Raizman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/06/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elena S Min (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David H Raizman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elena S Min (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M Altieri (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason F King (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yehonatan Cohen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Grant Geffen David Geffen Law Firm 530 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310−434−1111 Fax: 310−434−1115 Email: geffenlaw@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mehgan Sidhu National Federation of the Blind 200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 5 of 32

Baltimore, MD 21230 410−659−9314 x 2314 Fax: 410−659−5129 Email: msidhu@nfb.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Surisa E Rivers David Geffen Law Firm 530 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310−434−1111 Fax: 310−434−1115 Email: Surisageffenlaw@aol.com TERMINATED: 01/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Objector Ever Lee Hairston

represented by David Grant Geffen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Surisa E Rivers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Objector Rochelle Houston

represented by David Grant Geffen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Surisa E Rivers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/05/2010
08/05/2010 08/05/2010 08/05/2010
08/05/2010

# Docket Text
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of CA for the County of Los Angeles, case number BC438241 with CONFORMED FILED copy of summons and class action complaint. Case assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee, Discovery to Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. (Filing fee $ 350 PAID. ), filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., The Walt Disney Company.(et) Modified on 8/5/2010 (et). (mg). (Entered: 08/05/2010)
2 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (et) (mg). (Entered: 08/05/2010)
3 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (et) (mg). (Entered: 08/05/2010)
4 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to attorney A Anderson B Dogali for Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. Your Pro Hac Vice application has not been received by the court. Please return your completed Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case, form G−64, or a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing of your application and the $275.00 fee and this notice immediately. Out−of−state federal government attorneys who are not employed by the U.S. Department of Justice are required to file a Pro Hac Vice application; no filing fee is required. (et) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
5 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to attorney Brian A Hohman for Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. Your Pro Hac Vice

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 6 of 32

08/06/2010 08/10/2010
08/18/2010
08/19/2010 08/23/2010 08/23/2010 08/30/2010 08/30/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010 09/10/2010

application has not been received by the court. Please return your completed Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case, form G−64, or a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing of your application and the $275.00 fee and this notice immediately. Out−of−state federal government attorneys who are not employed by the U.S. Department of Justice are required to file a Pro Hac Vice application; no filing fee is required. (et) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., of Notice to Adverse Parties and State Court of Removal to Federal Court served on 8/6/10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
7 FIRST STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. answer now due 9/10/2010; Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. answer now due 9/10/2010; The Walt Disney Company answer now due 9/10/2010, filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.; Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc.; The Walt Disney Company.(Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
8 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE Dolly M. Gee. PLEASE READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT GOVERNS THIS CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS SHALL SERVE THIS ORDER IMMEDIATELY ON ALL PARTIES AND/OR THEIR COUNSEL, INCLUDING ANY NEW PARTIES TO THE ACTION. IF THIS CASE WAS REMOVED FROM STATE COURT, DEFENDANT WHO REMOVED THE CASE SHALL SERVE THIS ORDER ON ALL OTHER PARTIES. Memoranda of points and authorities shall not exceed 25 pages. See Local; Rule 11−6. All original filings are to be filed electronically pursuant to Local Rule 5−4. Courtesy copies of ALL electronically filed documents MUST be delivered to the courtroom deputy clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. the following business day. (See attached Initial Standing Order for further information). (jp) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
9 NOTICE filed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc.. of Entry of Initial Standing Order for Cases Assigned to Judge Gee (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
10 APPLICATION for attorney Anthony Anderson Benton Dogali to Appear Pro Hac Vice and designating Eugene Feldman as local counsel filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. (PHV FEE PAID) Lodged Proposed Order. (ir) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
11 APPLICATION for attorney Brian A Hohman to Appear Pro Hac Vice and designating Eugene Feldman as local counsel filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields.(PHV FEE PAID) Lodged Proposed Order. (ir) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
12 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee granting Application of Non−Resident Attorney Anthony Anderson Benton Dogali to appear on behalf of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs 10 , designating Eugene Feldman as local counsel. (gk) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
13 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee granting Application of Non−Resident Attorney Brian Andrew Hohman to appear on behalf of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs 11 , designating Eugene Feldman as local counsel. (gk) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
14 Notice of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff and Class Representative Cari Shields, (Hohman, Brian) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
15 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiff and Class Representative Cari Shields. Related Case(s): BC438241 (Hohman, Brian) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 against Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., Disney Online, Inc., Does 1−10, Inclusive filed by Plaintiffs Cari Shields, Amber Boggs, Teresa Stockton. (lom) (gk). (Additional attachment(s)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 7 of 32

09/16/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 10/21/2010
10/25/2010 10/26/2010 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 10/29/2010 11/02/2010 11/03/2010 11/23/2010 12/03/2010 12/03/2010

added on 9/30/2010: # 1 Issued Summons on the First Amended Complaint as to Disney Online, Inc.) (gk). (Entered: 09/13/2010)
17 Amended Notice of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff and Class Representative Cari Shields, (Hohman, Brian) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
18 ANSWER to First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc..(Min, Elena) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
21− DAY Summons Issued re First Amended Complaint 16 as to Defendant Disney Online, Inc. (gk) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
19 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Scheduling Conference set for 11/29/2010 11:00 AM.This case has been assigned to the calendar of United States District Judge Dolly M. Gee. The responsibility for the progress of litigation in the federal courts falls not only upon the attorneys in the action, but upon the court as well. In order "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action," (Fed.R.Civ.P. 1), all counsel are hereby ordered to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District of California. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS). (vv) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
20 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification from November 4, 2010 to January 14, 2011 filed by Plaintiff and Class Representative Cari Shields. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hohman, Brian) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
21 OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff and Class Representative Amber Boggs, Scheduling Conference Order [DOC 19] served on October 26, 2010. (Hohman, Brian) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
22 ANSWER to First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Disney Online, Inc..(Min, Elena) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
23 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. identifying ABC Enterprises, Inc. and Disney Enterprises, Inc. as Corporate Parent. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
24 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., identifying ABC Enterprises, Inc. and Disney Enterprises, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
25 STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Conference from 11/29/10 to 12/6/10 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
26 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Based on the foregoing Joint Stipulation 25 and upon a finding of good cause, that The 11/4/2010 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification is continued until 1/14/2011, with the hearing to be set on or after 2/28/2011. (jp) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
27 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee, re Stipulation 25 : Scheduling Conference continued to December 6, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. The parties joint Rule 26(f) Report shall be filed no later than November 22, 2010. (lc) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
28 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 10 days (Plaintiffs' estimate); 7 days (Defendants' estimate), filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc... (Min, Elena) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
29 APPLICATION to Substitute attorney Drinker Biddle &Reath LLP in place of attorney Eisenberg Raizman Thurston &Wong LLP filed by Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
30 APPLICATION to Substitute attorney Drinker Biddle &Reath LLP in place of attorney Eisenberg Raizman Thurston &Wong LLP filed by Defendant Disney Online, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 12/03/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 8 of 32

12/03/2010 12/03/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010
01/12/2011 01/18/2011

31 Second STIPULATION to Continue Deadline for Class Certification Motion from 1/14/11 to 2/14/11 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
32 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Cari Shields, upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jennifer Clapp, Paralegal/Authorized to Accept Service for Disney Online, Inc. in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons returned. (Hohman, Brian) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
33 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Having reviewed the Second Joint Stipulation to Continue Deadline on Motion for Class Certification 31 submitted by plaintiffs, on the one hand, and defendants on the other hand, that the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification is continued from 1/14/2011 until 2/14/2011, with the hearing on such Motion to be set on or after 3/30/2011. (jp) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
34 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee GRANTING Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney Elena S Min of Drinker Biddle &Reath LLP in place and instead of David H Raizman of Eiesnberg Raizman Thurston &Wong LLP 29 . (jp) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
35 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee GRANTING Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney Elena S Min OF Drinker Biddle &Reath LLP for Disney Online in place and stead of David H Raizman of Eiesnberg Raizman Thurston &Wong LLP 30 . (jp) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
36 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: Court and counsel confer. The Court hereby sets the Final Pretrial Conference for 10/4/2011 02:00 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Bench Trial set for 11/1/2011 08:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court issues the scheduling and case management order with further deadlines. Counsel are reminded of their obligations and requirements to timely and fully comply with all orders. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
37 SCHEDULING AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER RE COURT TRIAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court has scheduled the dates set forth on the last page of this Order after review of the parties' Joint Scheduling Conference Report. Bench Trial set for 11/1/2011 08:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/4/2011 02:00 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Amended Pleadings and Addition of Parties Cut−Off 1/14/2011. Non−Expert Discovery cut−off 6/28/2011. Motions due by 7/5/2011. Expert Disclosure &Report Deadline 8/2/2011. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure &Report Deadline 8/30/2011. Expert Discovery Cut−Off 9/13/2011. Settlement Conference Completion Date 9/6/2011. Motions in Limine to be filed by 9/13/2011. Opposition to Motions in Limine Filing Deadline 9/20/2011. Class Cert. Motion Cut−Off 2/14/2011. Early Mediation 3/25/2011. Joint Status Report re results of Early Mediation due 4/1/2011. Status Report re Settlement due by 9/13/2011. Proposed Pretrial Conference Order due by 9/23/2011. Pretrial Exhibit Stipulation 9/23/2011. Joint Exhibit List due by 9/23/2011. Witness Lists &Joint Trial Witness Time Estimate Form due by 9/23/2011. Witness Declarations or Marked Depositions 10/11/2011. Proposed Findings of Fact &Conclusions of Law 10/11/2011. Mark Up of Opponent's Proposed Findings of Fact &Conclusions of Law 10/18/2011. (gk) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
38 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limit filed by Plaintiff Amber Boggs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hohman, Brian) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
39 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 38 FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including fifty (50) pages for the memorandum of law in support of their Motion for Class Certification, with Defendants receiving equal pages for their response, in addition to one (1) extra week to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. (vdr) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 9 of 32

02/07/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/17/2011
02/17/2011
02/17/2011
02/17/2011
02/18/2011 02/22/2011 03/01/2011

40 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Withdraw Brian Hohman as Attorney of Record filed by counsel for plaintiff Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
41 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. Motion set for hearing on 4/11/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
42 EXHIBIT A part 1 to MOTION to Certify Class 41 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A part 2, # 2 Exhibit B part 1, # 3 Exhibit B part 2, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
43 EXHIBIT G to MOTION to Certify Class 41 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H, # 2 Exhibit I, # 3 Exhibit J, # 4 Exhibit K, # 5 Exhibit L, # 6 Exhibit M, # 7 Exhibit N)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
44 EXHIBIT O to MOTION to Certify Class 41 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit P, # 2 Exhibit Q, # 3 Exhibit R, # 4 Exhibit S)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
45 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of motion and Motion for Class Certification 41 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below: Proposed order not submitted pursuant to Local Rule 52−4.1. 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: 02/17/2011)
46 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Exhibits A−F re motion for Class Certification 42 . 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. (jp) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
47 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Exhibits G−N re Motion for Class Certification 43 . 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. (jp) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
48 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Exhibits O−S re Motion for Class Certification 44 . 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. (jp) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
50 ORDER by Clerk re: MOTION to Certify Class 41 , Exhibits 42 43 44 . Documents are accepted as filed. Counsel are reminded to follow correct efiling procedures pursuant to Local Rules and General Orders of this Court in the future. (kpa) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
49 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee RE: Plaintiffs' MOTION 41 for Class Certification. On the Court's own motion, the plaintiff's motion for class certification, currently scheduled for 4/11/2011, is hereby ordered continued to 4/15/2011 at 3:00 PM. (vdr) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
51 STIPULATION to Continue Deadlines to Conduct and Report on Early Mediation from March 25, 2011 to April 1, 2011 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Min,

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 10 of 32

03/01/2011
03/03/2011 03/04/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011

Elena) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
52 ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINES FOR CONDUCTING AND REPORTING ON EARLY MEDIATION by Judge Dolly M. Gee, re Stipulation 51 . The deadline for the parties to conduct the early mediation in this action is continued from 3/25/2011 until 4/1/2011; and the deadline for the parties to report on the results of the early mediation is continued from 4/1/2011 until 4/8/2011. (vdr) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
53 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Lee Wm. Atkinson to appear on behalf of Plaintiffs Cari Shields, Amber Boggs, and Teresa Stockton, and designating Eugene Feldman as local counsel. (PHV FEE PAID.) Lodged Proposed Order. (gk) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
54 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting 53 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Lee William Atkinson on behalf of Plaintiffs, designating Eugene Feldman as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
55 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Privilege Log filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
56 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Motion filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
57 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Motion and Memo Ps&As In Support Thereof filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
58 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Decl of Gregory B. Hale In Support Thereof filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
59 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Decl of Mark Haskell In Support Thereof filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
60 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Decl of Kristine Theiler In Support Thereof filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
61 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Decl of David Raizman and Exhs 1−4 In Support Thereof filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhs 1−4 of Raizman's Decl)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
62 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Defs Proposed Protective Order filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
63 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Defs Proof of Service in Support of Motion for Protective Order &Supporting Docs filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
64 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation Unopposed Ex Parte Application and Decl of David Raizman In Support Thereof filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc..(Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/22/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 11 of 32

03/22/2011 03/22/2011
03/23/2011 03/23/2011
03/24/2011
03/25/2011 03/25/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011

65 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for [Proposed] Order Re Defs Unopposed Ex Parte Appl to Exceed Page Limits, etc. filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc..(Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
66 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Privilege Log 55 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Scheduling Order, # 2 Exhibit B − Atkinson Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C − Raizman Declaration, # 4 Proposed Order on Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Privilege Log)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
67 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. correcting MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Privilege Log 55 (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
68 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Proposed Order 65 re Ex Parte Application 64 . The following error(s) was found: This document tendered for the judge's approval should have been submitted as a separate PDF attachment to the Ex Parte Application, document number 64, or 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. (vdr) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
69 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ON A MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Defendants' Unopposed Ex Parte Application Of Defendants To Exceed Page Limit On Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification, and the accompanying Declaration Of David H. Raizman 64 , this Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants may file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a length not to exceed 60 pages, exclusive of tables, exhibits and attachments. (gk) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
70 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. of Evidence Booklet in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/25/2011)
79 Defendants' Evidentiary Submission in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification 41 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc. and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. (Attachments: Parts 1−23)(kpa) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
71 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. correcting Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 70 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark Jones)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
72 AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., re Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 70 of Defs Evidentiary Submission in Opposition for Motion for Class Certification served on March 28, 2011. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
73 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Certify Class 41 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
74 DECLARATION of Elena Min re Response in Opposition to Motion 73 Re Technical Failure of Electronic Case Filing System filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
75 APPENDIX filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Re: Response in Opposition to Motion 73 Of Selected Authorities Cited in Defendants' Opposition to Pltfs' Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D−1, # 5 Exhibit D−2A, # 6 Exhibit D−2B, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 12 of 32

03/28/2011 03/29/2011 03/30/2011 04/04/2011 04/05/2011
04/05/2011 04/05/2011
04/05/2011 04/05/2011
04/05/2011 04/05/2011
04/05/2011

76 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. correcting MOTION for Protective Order for Motion and Memo Ps&As In Support Thereof 57 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
77 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Protective Order for Motion 56 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
78 EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief on Certification filed by Plaintiffs' Amber Boggs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Lee Wm. Atkinson, # 2 Proposed Order Ex−Parte Application)(Atkinson, Lee) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
80 REPLY to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
81 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION for Protective Order for Motion and Memo Ps&As In Support Thereof 57 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. 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. (es) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
82 ORDER by Clerk of Court The document is accepted as filed. NO ACTION REQUIRED AT THIS TIME RE: Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112), 81 (es) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
83 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION for Protective Order for Decl of Kristine Theiler In Support Thereof 60 , MOTION for Protective Order for Decl of Gregory B. Hale In Support Thereof 58 , MOTION for Protective Order for Decl of David Raizman and Exhs 1−4 In Support Thereof 61 , MOTION for Protective Order for Decl of Mark Haskell In Support Thereof 59 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. 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. (es) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
84 ORDER by Clerk of Court The document is accepted as filed. NO ACTION REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. RE: Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112), 83 (es) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
85 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION for Protective Order for Defs Proposed Protective Order 62 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. 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. (es) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
86 ORDER by Clerk of Court The document is accepted as filed. NO ACTION REQUIRED AT THIS TIME RE: MOTION for Protective Order for Defs Proposed Protective Order 62 (es) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
87 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION for Protective Order for Defs Proof of Service in Support of Motion for Protective Order &Supporting Docs 63 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. 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. (es) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
88 ORDER by Clerk of Court The document is accepted as filed. NO ACTION REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. RE: Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 13 of 32

04/05/2011 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011
04/06/2011
04/06/2011 04/06/2011

Documents (G−112), 87 (es) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
89 REPLY In Support Of MOTION for Protective Order for Motion 56 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
90 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting Ex Parte Application 78 for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their reply memorandum of points and authorities in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification on 4/4/2011. (vdr) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
91 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Joint Stipulation Re Discovery Dispute and Pltfs' Motion to Compel and for Sanctions filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
92 DECLARATION of Elena S. Min re MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion 91 to Motion to Compel and for Sanctions filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
93 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Re Defs Orig Transcript from Depo of Jason Davis in Advance of Hearing re MOTION to Certify Class 41 (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
94 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Re Defs Orig Transcript from Depo of Mark Jones In Advance of Hearing re MOTION to Certify Class 41 (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
95 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Re Defs Certified Copies of Transcripts from Depo of Amber Boggs In Advance of Hearing re MOTION to Certify Class 41 (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
96 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Re Defs Certified Copies of Transcripts from Depo of Cari Shields In Advance of Hearing re MOTION to Certify Class 41 (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
97 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Re Defs Certified Copies of Transcripts from Depo of Teresa Stockton In Advance of Hearing re MOTION to Certify Class 41 (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
98 Defs Index of Offered Deposition Testimony in Opposition to Mtn for Class Certification Pursuant to L.R. 32−1 and 16−2 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. re: Response in Opposition to Motion 73 (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
99 NOTICE of Filing the Deposition Transcript of Amber Boggs in Advance of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiff Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Transcript of Amber Boggs Volume 1, # 2 Deposition Transcript of Amber Boggs Volume 2)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
100 NOTICE of Filing the Deposition Transcript of Cari Shields in Advance of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiff Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Transcript of Cari Shields Volume 1, # 2 Deposition Transcript of Cari Shields Volume 2)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
101 NOTICE of Filing the Deposition Transcript of Teresa Stockton in Advance of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Transcript of Teresa Stockton)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
102 NOTICE of Filing the Deposition Transcript of Mark Jones in Advance of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Transcript of Mark Jones)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 14 of 32

04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/08/2011
04/08/2011
04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/13/2011 04/14/2011 04/14/2011 04/15/2011 04/15/2011

103 NOTICE of Filing the Deposition Transcript of Jason Davis in Advance of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Transcript of Jason Davis)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
104 Plaintiffs Index of Offered Testimony for Use at the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
105 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. Amendment to Notice (Other), Notice (Other) 99 Amended Notice of Filing Deposition Transcripts of Amber Boggs in Advance of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Transcript of Amber Boggs Volume 1, # 2 Deposition Transcript of Amber Boggs Volume 2)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
106 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. Amendment to Notice (Other), Notice (Other) 100 Amended Notice of Filing Deposition Transcripts of Cari Shields in Advance of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Transcripts of Cari Shields Volume 1, # 2 Deposition Transcripts of Cari Shields Volume 2)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
107 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. Amendment to Notice (Other), Notice (Other) 103 Amended Notice of Filing Deposition Transcripts of Jason Davis in Advance of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Transcript of Jason Daivs)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
108 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. Amendment to Notice (Other), Notice (Other) 102 Amended Notice of Filing the Deposition Transcript of Mark Jones in Advance of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Transcript of Mark Jones)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
109 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. Amendment to Miscellaneous Document 104 Plaintiffs' Amended Index of Offered Testimony for Use at the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
110 NOTICE OF COMPLETION of Early Mediation Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. The outcome of the proceedings was: parties unable to settle. Joint Mediation Status Update (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
112 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Lindsay Galloway to appear on behalf of Plaintiffs Cari Shields, Amber Boggs, and Teresa Stockton, and designating Eugene Feldman as local counsel. (PHV FEE PAID.) (gk) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
111 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Disqualify Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott pursuant to L.R. 72−5 filed by Plaintiffs' Amber Boggs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Lee Wm. Atkinson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Atkinson, Lee) (Entered: 04/14/2011)
114 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting 112 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Lindsay Galloway on behalf of Plaintiffs Cari Shields, Amber Boggs and Teresa Stockton, designating Eugene Feldman as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
113 REFERRAL OF MOTION to Disqualify Judge/Magistrate Judge has been filed. Pursuant to GO 08.05 and Local Rule 72−5 MOTION to Disqualify Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott pursuant to L.R. 72−5 111 is referred to Judge Dolly M. Gee for determination. (at) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
115 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE RECUSAL by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott: This Court voluntarily recuses itself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because of personal knowledge of evidentiary facts apparently at issue in the proceeding. 28 U.S.C.§ 455(b)(1). (es) Modified on 4/18/2011 (es). (Entered: 04/15/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 15 of 32

04/15/2011 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 05/06/2011 05/09/2011
06/02/2011 06/03/2011 06/14/2011 06/17/2011 06/17/2011

116 MINUTES OF Plaintiffs' Motion 41 for Class Certification Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee. The case is called and counsel state their appearance. Following oral argument, the Court advises counsel that the motion is taken under submission and a written order will issue.Court Reporter: Sherri Kleeger. (vdr) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
117 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF CASE filed. Pursuant to order filed on 4−15−2010. Case transferred to Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin for any discovery matters that are or may be referred by the District Judge. Case number will now read CV10−05810 DMG (FMOx). (at) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
118 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Eugene Feldman counsel for Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. Filed by Plaintiffs Cari Shields, Amber Boggs and Teresa Stockton (Feldman, Eugene) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
119 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
120 REQUEST for Hearing as to Discovery re MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Privilege Log 55 , Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion, 66 , MOTION for Protective Order for Motion 56 filed by Plaintiff Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. Request set for hearing on 5/11/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Galloway, Lindsay) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
121 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin re Stipulation for Protective Order 119 . (See document for further details). (mr) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
122 DECLARATION of Lee Wm. Atkinson re Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion, 66 Supplemental filed by Plaintiff Amber Boggs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Atkinson, Lee) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
123 ORDER RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin: IT IS ORDERED THAT: Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Privilege Log (Document No. 55 ) is denied without prejudice. Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (Document No. 56 ) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs' Request for Hearing Before Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin (Document No. 120 ) is denied as moot. (See document for further details) (mr) (Entered: 05/09/2011)
124 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Scheduling and Case Mgmt Order Re Court Trial filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − F, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
125 OPPOSITION In opposition to re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Scheduling and Case Mgmt Order Re Court Trial 124 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Defendants' Ex Parte Application)(Galloway, Lindsay) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
126 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Raizman, David) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
127 APPLICATION for attorney James M. Altieri to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE NOT PAID.) filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case)(Raizman, David) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
128 APPLICATION for attorney Jason F. King to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE NOT PAID.) filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case)(Raizman, David) (Entered: 06/17/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 16 of 32

06/20/2011 06/20/2011
06/20/2011
06/20/2011
06/21/2011 06/24/2011 06/24/2011 06/28/2011 06/28/2011 06/29/2011

129 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Covering the Documents Identified in the [Proposed] Protective Order; to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions; For Leave To Exceed Deposition Limit; and for Visual Examinations of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs Pursuant to Rule 35(B) filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 7/13/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
130 DECLARATION of David H. Raizman in Support of MOTION for Protective Order for Covering the Documents Identified in the [Proposed] Protective Order; to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions; For Leave To Exceed Deposition Limit; and for Visual Examinations of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs MOTION for Protective Order for Covering the Documents Identified in the [Proposed] Protective Order; to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions; For Leave To Exceed Deposition Limit; and for Visual Examinations of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs 129 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 through 20)(Raizman, David) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
131 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION for Protective Order for Covering the Documents Identified in the [Proposed] Protective Order; to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions; For Leave To Exceed Deposition Limit; and for Visual Examinations of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs MOTION for Protective Order for Covering the Documents Identified in the [Proposed] Protective Order; to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions; For Leave To Exceed Deposition Limit; and for Visual Examinations of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs 129 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
132 DECLARATION of Lee Wm. Atkinson in Opposition to MOTION for Protective Order for Covering the Documents Identified in the [Proposed] Protective Order; to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions; For Leave To Exceed Deposition Limit; and for Visual Examinations of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs MOTION for Protective Order for Covering the Documents Identified in the [Proposed] Protective Order; to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions; For Leave To Exceed Deposition Limit; and for Visual Examinations of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs 129 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
133 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Plaintiff Amber Boggs. as to Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 132 . (Atkinson, Lee) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
134 ORDER Re: DISCOVERY MOTIONS by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin: IT IS ORDERED THAT: The hearing set for July 13, 2011, is hereby vacated. Defendants' "Motions: (1) for Protective Order; (2) to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions; (3) for Leave to Exceed Deposition Limit; and (4) for Visual Examinations of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs Pursuant to Rule 35(B)" (Document No. 129 ) are denied without prejudice. (mr) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
135 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin re Stipulation for Protective Order 126 . (See document for details). (mr) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
136 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation ON A MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by DEFENDANTS Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
137 OPPOSITION SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO re: MOTION to Certify Class 41 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
138 ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting in part and denying in part 41 . The dates and deadlines set forth in the Courts Scheduling and Case Management Order, filed on December 6, 2010 [Doc. # 36], are hereby VACATED. The Court will issue an Amended

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 17 of 32

06/29/2011
07/06/2011 07/06/2011 07/06/2011 07/07/2011 07/07/2011 07/13/2011 07/13/2011 07/13/2011 07/13/2011
07/15/2011

Schedule. SEE ORDER. (im) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
139 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee 124 136 . The Courts amended schedule of pretrial and trial dates is attached. Defendants June 2, 2011 ex parte application for a modification of the scheduling order [Doc. # 124] and ex parte application to exceed page limitation on motion for partial summary judgment [Doc. # 136] are DENIED as moot. Court Trial set for January 3, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. Final Pretrial Conference set for December 6, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. SEE ORDER FOR OTHER IMPORTANT DEADLINES. (im) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
140 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order ; Defs MotionsTo Re−Open Pltfs Depositions; and For Leave to Exceed Deposition Limit filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 7/27/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
141 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION for Protective Order ; Defs MotionsTo Re−Open Pltfs Depositions; and For Leave to Exceed Deposition Limit 140 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
142 DECLARATION of David Raizman In Support Of MOTION for Protective Order ; Defs MotionsTo Re−Open Pltfs Depositions; and For Leave to Exceed Deposition Limit 140 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−20 to Raizman Decl)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
143 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting 128 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Jason F. King on behalf of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., and Disney Online, Inc., designating David H. Raizman as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
144 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting 127 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney James M. Altieri on behalf of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., and Disney Online, Inc., designating David H. Raizman as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
145 SUPPLEMENT DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED DEPOSITION LIMIT filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David H. Raizman, # 2 Exhibit to Supp. Declaration of David Raizman)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
146 SUPPLEMENT DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
147 SUPPLEMENT DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RE−OPEN PLAINTIFFS DEPOSITIONS filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
148 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID H. RAIZMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTIONS: (1) FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; (2) TO RE−OPEN PLANITIFFS DEPOSITIONS; AND (3) FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED DEPOSITION LIMIT, 140 MOTION for Protective Order ; Defs Motions To Re−Open Pltfs Depositions; and For Leave to Exceed Deposition Limit. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − D to Decl. of Raizman)(Min, Elena) Modified on 7/15/2011 (mr). (Entered: 07/13/2011)
149 MINUTES − IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Transcripts lodged 4/6/2011 are ordered returned to the requesting counsel, David H. Raizman re: (1) Jason Davis 93 , (2) Mark Jonse 94 , (3) Amber Boggs 95 , (4) Cari Shields 96 , and (5) Teresa Stockton 97 . Court Reporter: Not Reported. Acknowledged receipt on 7/15/2011. (gk) (Entered: 07/15/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 18 of 32

07/22/2011
08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/05/2011
08/10/2011 08/10/2011 08/10/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011

150 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) RE: VACATING HEARING ON MOTIONS: (1) FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; (2) TO RE−OPEN PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITIONS; AND (3) FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED DEPOSITION LIMIT by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin: IT IS ORDERED THAT the hearing set for July 27, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. with respect to defendants' Motions: (1) for Protective Order; (2) to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions; and (3) for Leave to Exceed Deposition Limit ("Motions") is hereby vacated. The court's decision on the Motions will follow. (mr) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
151 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Further Written Responses and Production of Documents ( Motion set for hearing on 8/24/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin.), MOTION for Leave to Conduct Additional Depositions filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
152 DECLARATION of Elena S. Min in support of MOTION to Compel Further Written Responses and Production of Documents MOTION for Leave to Conduct Additional Depositions 151 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 6, # 2 Exhibit 7 − 19)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
153 DECLARATION of Lindsay Galloway in opposition to MOTION to Compel Further Written Responses and Production of Documents MOTION for Leave to Conduct Additional Depositions 151 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Teresa Stockton. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
154 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Further Written Responses and Production of Documents MOTION for Leave to Conduct Additional Depositions 151 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
155 ORDER RE DISCOVERY MOTIONS by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin: The court has reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to defendants' Motions: (1) for Protective Order; (2) to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions; and (3) for Leave to Exceed Deposition Limit (collectively, "Motions") and accompanying Joint Stipulation ("Joint Stip."), each filed on July 6, 2011, and concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve these Motions. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (Document No. 140) is denied. 2. Defendants' Motion to Re−Open Plaintiffs' Depositions (Document No. 140) is granted in part and denied in part. See attached order for further details. (es) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
156 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Further Written Responses and Production of Documents MOTION for Leave to Conduct Additional Depositions 151 Memorandum ISO Motion for Leave to Conduct Additional Depositions filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
157 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Further Written Responses and Production of Documents MOTION for Leave to Conduct Additional Depositions 151 Defs' Supplemental Memorandum ISO of Motion to Compel Further Written Responses &Production of Documents filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
158 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Further Written Responses and Production of Documents MOTION for Leave to Conduct Additional Depositions 151 Supplemental Decl. of Elena Min ISO Defendants' Motions filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
159 NOTICE of Motion for Forzis &Dogali, P.A. to Remove Lindsay Galloway, Esq., as Counsel of Record filed by Plaintiffs Cari Shields. (Atkinson, Lee) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
160 STIPULATION to Continue Pre−Trial and Trial Dates from August 26, 2011 to March 5, 2012 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order To Continue Pre−Trial and Trial Dates)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/18/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 19 of 32

08/22/2011 08/25/2011
09/30/2011 09/30/2011 10/03/2011 10/04/2011 10/07/2011 10/31/2011

161 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) RE: VACATING HEARING ON MOTIONS: (1) FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS; AND (2) TO COMPEL FURTHER WRITTEN RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin: IT IS ORDERED THAT the hearing set for August 24, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. with respect to defendants' Motions: (1) for Leave to Conduct Additional Depositions; and (2) to Compel Further Written Responses and Production of Documents ("Motions") is hereby vacated. The court's decision on the Motions will follow. (mr) (Entered: 08/22/2011)
162 ORDER CONTINUING PRE−TRIAL AND TRIAL DATES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 160 , the Court ORDERS that the Amended SchedulingOrder 139 is modified as follows: Non−Expert Discovery cut−off 10/28/2011. Motions due by 11/4/2011. Initial Expert Disclosure &Report Deadline 12/5/2011. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure &Report Deadline 1/3/2012. Expert Discovery Cut−Off 1/23/2012. Settlement Conference Completion Date 9/23/2011. Joint Status Report re Settlement due by 9/30/2011. Motions in Limine to be filed by 1/17/2012. Opposition to Motion in Limine Filing Deadline 1/24/2012. Proposed Pretrial Conference Order due by 1/25/2012. Pretrial Exhibit Stipulation 1/25/2012. Joint Exhibit List due by 1/25/2012. Witness Lists &Joint Trial Witness Time Estimate Form due by 1/25/2012. Witness Declarations or Marked Depositions 1/17/2012. Objections to Witness Declarations/Marked Depositions 1/23/2012. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1/17/2012. Mark Up of Opponent's Proposed Findings/Conclusions 1/23/2012. Bench Trial set for 3/6/2012 08:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/7/2012 03:00 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (gk) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
163 APPLICATION to Withdraw as Attorney for Teresa Stockton Application set for hearing on 10/31/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Points and Authorities in Support of Application, # 2 Declaration A. Dogali, # 3 Declaration G. Feldman, # 4 Proposed Order on Application)(Atkinson, Lee) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
164 STATUS REPORT (Joint) Regarding Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
165 ORDER Re: DISCOVERY MOTION by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin: IT IS ORDERED THAT defendants' Motion: (1) for Leave to Conduct Additional Depositions and (2) to Compel Further Written Responses and Production of Documents (Document No. 151 ) are taken off−calendar. In the event the case does not settle, the parties may request that the court place the motions back on calendar. (mr) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
166 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER REQUIRING SERVICE ON PLAINTIFF TERESA STOCKTON by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 9/30/2011, Plaintiffs' counsel Eugene Feldman, Lee Wm. Atkinson, and A. Anderson B. Dogali filed an application to withdraw from their representation of Plaintiff Teresa Stockton 163 . By no later than 10/11/2011, Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a proof of service showing that Plaintiff Stockton has been served with a copy of this Order and a written notification that she must appear at the hearing on her counsel's application to withdraw on 10/31/2011 at 9:30 AM. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
167 Certificate OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 166 served on October 7, 2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Atkinson, Lee) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
168 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court hereby GRANTS Anderson B. Dogali and Lee Wm. Atkinson of Forizs &Dogali and Eugene Feldman's ("DA), counsel for the representative plaintiffs and the plaintiff class, Motion to Withdraw as counsel for representative plaintiff Teresa Stockton 163 , provided DAFfile the proof of service described in this Order. The Court orders DAFto serve this Order on Ms. Stockton and, thereafter, file a proof of service no later than 11/7/2011. After the Court grants this motion to withdraw, Plaintiff Stockton will remain a plaintiff andclass member. To the extent plaintiff

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 20 of 32

11/03/2011 12/07/2011 12/22/2011 12/27/2011 12/27/2011 12/28/2011
01/06/2012
01/13/2012 01/27/2012 02/06/2012

Stockton is not an attorney and is not represented by an attorney, however, she may not serve as a class representative in this lawsuit while proceeding pro se. The Court orders the parties to file any motion for approval of class action settlement by no later than 12/30/2011. The Court sets a Telephonic Status Conference set for 12/19/2011 11:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 11/01/2011)
169 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, re Order on Application to Withdraw as Attorney, Motion Hearing, Set/Reset Hearing,,,,,,,,,,,, 168 served on October 31, 2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Atkinson, Lee) (Entered: 11/03/2011)
170 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney David H Raizman counsel for Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc..Jason F. King 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 Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. and Disney Online, Inc. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
171 STIPULATION to Continue TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE DATE AND DEADLINE TO FILE PAPERS SEEKING APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration YEHONATAN COHEN)(Cohen, Yehonatan) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
172 STIPULATION to Continue TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE DATE AND DEADLINE TO FILE PAPERS SEEKING APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Re: Stipulation to Continue, 171 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc..(Cohen, Yehonatan) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
173 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Proposed Order re Stipulation to Continue, 172 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (1) SCHEDULING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE; AND (2) CONTINUING DEADLINE TO FILE PAPERS SEEKING APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT)(Cohen, Yehonatan) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
174 ORDER: (1) SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE; AND (2) CONTINUING DEADLINE TO FILE PAPERS SEEKING APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 172 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Telephonic Status Conference shall be continued to 1/6/2012 11:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court continues the deadline by which the parties may submit papers for preliminary approval of a class action settlement to 1/27/2012. (gk) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
175 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE (Held and Completed) before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court and counsel confer regarding the status of the class action settlement. The deadline by which the parties must submit papers for preliminary approval of a class action settlement remains set on 1/27/2012. The Court sets a further Telephonic Status Conference on 1/27/2012 at 11:00 AM. If the parties file papers for preliminary approval of a class action settlement prior to that date, the telephonic status conference will be vacated. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (jp) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
176 NOTICE of New Address filed by Plaintiff Teresa Stockton, 1722 South Carson Avenue, Apartment 904, Tulsa, OK 74119; Phone Number (918) 878−7730. (gk) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
177 MINUTES OF Telephone Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court instructs the parties to file a joint status report, including the proposed date for filing any motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, by no later than February 10, 2012. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (im) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
178 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On the Court's own motion, the Final Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for February 7, 2012 is hereby continued to May 8, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. In addition, the Court trial currently

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 21 of 32

02/10/2012 02/15/2012 02/18/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012
02/22/2012 02/23/2012 02/27/2012 03/02/2012
03/06/2012 04/02/2012
04/09/2012 04/23/2012
04/23/2012

scheduled for March 6, 2012 is continued to June 5, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. (smom) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
179 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Yehonatan Cohen)(Cohen, Yehonatan) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
180 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Cohen, Yehonatan) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
181 Joint Proposal of Case Management Deadlines (Min, Elena) (Entered: 02/18/2012)
182 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., re Miscellaneous Document 181 RE JOINT PROPOSAL OF CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES served on February 21, 2012. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
183 REQUEST TO PLACE BACK ON CALENDAR FOR RULING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS: (1) FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS AND (2) TO COMPEL FURTHER WRITTEN RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. re: Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion 154 (Min, Elena) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
184 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Elena S Min counsel for Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Filed by Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. and Disney Online filed by James M. Altieri (admitted pro hac vice) (Min, Elena) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
185 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney Barbara U. Uberoi filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
186 JOINT REPORT of SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS (L.R. 16−15.7) filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
187 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice (Other) 185 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is Appearance. Attorney Barbara Uberoi appears to be an out−of−state attorney. If attorney wishes to be admitted into this case, please submit an Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice, [Prop] Order, a certificate of good standing, payment of filing fee. See our court's website for forms. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
188 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Barbara Ursula Uberoi on behalf of Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields (Uberoi, Barbara) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
189 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS−ORDER REQUIRING JOINT STATUS REPORT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The parties have not yet filed the contemplated papers and the date by which they anticipated filing them has now passed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report by no later than 4/9/2012 and file their motion papers seeking preliminary approval of the class action settlement by no later than 4/23/2012. (jp) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
190 STATUS REPORT (Jointly) of Class Plaintiffs and Defendants filed by Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
191 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action and for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes and for Leave to Amend filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 5/25/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
192 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motions for: (1) Preliminary Approval of Class

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 22 of 32

04/23/2012 04/23/2012 04/23/2012
04/23/2012 04/24/2012 04/24/2012 04/24/2012
04/24/2012 04/27/2012
04/27/2012

Action Settlement; (2) Leave to Conditionally File Second Amended Complaint; and (3) Conditional Class Certification of Settlement Classes filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Yehonatan Cohen with Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
193 DECLARATION of Andy Dogali In Support Of Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action and for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes and for Leave to Amend 191 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
194 MEMORANDUM in Support of Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action and for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes and for Leave to Amend 191 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
195 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASSES AND MANDATING NOTICE TO CLASS OF FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING re Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action and for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes and for Leave to Amend 191 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
196 DECLARATION of David H. Raizman In Support Of Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action and for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes and for Leave to Amend 191 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
197 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. correcting Memorandum in Support of Motion, 194 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points &Authorities)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
198 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by DEFENDANTS Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., re Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action and for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes and for Leave to Amend 191 served on 04/23/12 &04/24/12. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
199 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., re EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motions for: (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Leave to Conditionally File Second Amended Complaint; and (3) Conditional Class Cer EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motions for: (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Leave to Conditionally File Second Amended Complaint; and (3) Conditional Class Cer 192 served on 04/23/12 &4/24/12. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
200 ORDER GRANTING 192 EX PARTE APPLICATION to exceed page limit on memorandum of points and authorities by Judge Dolly M. Gee. This Court hereby orders that the parties may file a memorandum not to exceed thirty−one (31) pages, exclusive of tables, exhibits and attachments. (ys) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
201 Joint STIPULATION for Hearing re Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 193 , Motion Related Document, 195 , Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 196 , Errata 197 , Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action and for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes and for Leave to Amend 191 , Memorandum in Support of Motion, 194 , Joint STIPULATION to Reset filed by Plaintiff Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order Advancing Hearing)(Uberoi, Barbara) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
202 AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, re Stipulation for Hearing, Stipulation to Reset,,,, 201 served on April 27,

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 23 of 32

04/27/2012 04/27/2012 05/01/2012 05/01/2012 05/04/2012
05/04/2012

2012. (Uberoi, Barbara) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
203 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Joint Motions and Motions: (1) for Preliminary Approval to Class Action Settlement, (2) for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes; and (3) for Leave to Amend filed 4/23/2012 191 . The following error(s) was found: Proposed Second Amended Complaint not submitted, Local Rule 15−1. 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: 04/27/2012)
204 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval to Class Action Settlement, Granting Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Classes and Mandating Motion to Class of Final Approval and Fairness Hearing filed 4/23/2012 195 . The following error(s) was found: This document tendered for the judge's approval should have been submitted as a separate PDF attachment to the Motion, document number 191, or 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: 04/30/2012)
205 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR Re: Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112A) filed 4/27/2012 203 . Deficiency Notice issued in error. Deficiency cited as to document number 191 for lack of a Proposed Second Amended Complaint. The Proposed Second Amended Complaint is attached to document number 196−1, pages 58−91, as Exhibit D. (gk) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
206 ORDER ADVANCING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF MOTIONS FOR CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND FILING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 201 , the hearing on the joint motions for preliminary approval of class action settlement, conditional certification of settlement classes, and leave to file Second Amended Complaint 191 is advanced to 5/4/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (gk) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
207 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee RE: Joint Motions: (1) for Preliminary Approval to Class Action Settlement, (2) for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes; and (3) for Leave to Amend 191 . The parties, including plaintiff Teresa Stockton, stipulated on the record that Ms. Stockton's individual claims in the First Amended Complaint shall be dismissed. The Court accepted the parties' stipulation and Ms. Stockton's claims were dismissed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(1)(A)(ii). For the reasons stated on the record, the Court grants the joint motions: (1) for preliminary approval of class action settlement; (2) for conditional certification of settlement classes; and (3) for leave to amend. A formal order shall issue today. The hearing for final approval is set for 8/3/2012 at 9:30 AM. Plaintiffs second complaint shall be manually filed in accordance with General Order 10−07 and Local Rule 3−2 by no later than 5/9/2012. Counsel are instructed to provide the final version of the class notice via email to the court clerk in Word format. Court Reporter: Kathy Stride. (gk) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
208 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND MANDATING NOTICE TO CLASS OF FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Having considered the Joint Motions: (1) for Preliminary Approval to Class Action Settlement, (2) for Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes; and (3) for Leave to Amend 191 , the Court hereby Orders as follows: Conditioned on the Courts final approval of the proposed settlement, the following classes shall be certified as settlement classes under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The Website Class, The Effective Communication Class, The Service Animal Class, The Infrastructure Class. The Proposed Second Amended Complaint shall be

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 24 of 32

05/08/2012 05/08/2012 05/08/2012 05/13/2012 05/14/2012
05/14/2012
05/18/2012 05/18/2012 05/18/2012 05/18/2012

manually filed pursuant to General Order 10−07 and Local Rule 3−2 within five days of the date of this Order, and the deadline for Disney's response to that complaint shall be 20 days after the Court's ruling at the final approval hearing. Conditioned on the Court's final approval of the proposed settlement, Andy Dogali of Forizs &Dogali, PA, and Eugene Feldman, of Eugene Feldman, Attorney at Law, APC, are appointed as Class Counsel of the conditionally−certified classes under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Conditioned on the Court's final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement, the Court hereby grants preliminary approval to the proposed settlement and compromise contained in the Settlement Agreement as it finds that, taken as a whole, the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable to all concerned. A final hearing on the approval of the Settlement Agreement will be held by this Court on 8/3/2012 at 9:30 AM. No later than 14 days after entry of this Order, Notice of the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing shall be provided in the manner in this order. All other proceedings and pretrial and trial deadlines in this matter are hereby stayed pending the Court's ruling on final approval of the Settlement Agreement. See document for details. (gk) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
209 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., Disney Online, Inc., and Does 1−10, inclusive; amending First Amended Complaint 16 ; filed by Plaintiffs Cari Shields, Amber Boggs, and Teresa Stockton. (gk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/10/2012: # 1 Issued Summons on Second Amended Complaint) (gk). (Entered: 05/09/2012)
14−Day Summons Issued re Second Amended Complaint 209 as to Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., Disney Online, Inc., and Does 1−10, inclusive. (gk) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
210 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Cari Shields, Amber Boggs, and Teresa Stockton. (gk) (gk). (Entered: 05/09/2012)
211 Joint EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Approval of (1) Objection Deadline of July 6, 2012; and (2) Modified Form of Class Notice filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Declaration of Yehonatan Cohen with Exhibit 1, # 3 Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 05/13/2012)
212 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of Proposed Order Approving Objection Submission Deadline and Modified Form of Class Notice re Joint EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Approval of (1) Objection Deadline of July 6, 2012; and (2) Modified Form of Class NoticeJoint EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Approval of (1) Objection Deadline of July 6, 2012; and (2) Modified Form of Class Notice 211 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cohen, Yehonatan) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
220 MINUTES OF Telephonic Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court and counsel confer regarding the parties joint ex parte application to approve: (1) objection deadline of 7/6/2012 and (2) modified form of class notice 211 . Following discussions with counsel, the Court will modify the preliminary approval order as stated on the record. Counsel are instructed to provide the final version of the class notice via email to the court clerk in Word format. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
213 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Approval of Incentive Payments filed by Plaintffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. Motion set for hearing on 8/3/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
214 EXHIBIT (Proposed Order) to MOTION for Order for Approval of Incentive Payments 213 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
215 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. Motion set for hearing on 8/3/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
216 EXHIBIT (Proposed Order) to MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 215 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 05/18/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 25 of 32

05/18/2012 05/18/2012 05/18/2012 05/23/2012
05/23/2012
05/24/2012 06/29/2012
06/29/2012
07/06/2012 07/06/2012 07/06/2012

217 DECLARATION of Andy Dogali in Support of MOTION for Order for Approval of Incentive Payments 213 , MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 215 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
218 DECLARATION of Eugene Feldman in Support of MOTION for Order for Approval of Incentive Payments 213 , MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 215 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
219 Notice of Filing Inadvertently Omitted Exhibits re: Declaration (Motion related) 217 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
221 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Incentive Awards filed 5/18/2012 214 . The following error(s) was found: This document tendered for the judge's approval should have been submitted as a separate PDF attachment to the Motion, document number 213, or 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: 05/24/2012)
223 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Proposed Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed 5/18/2012 216 . The following error(s) was found: This document tendered for the judge's approval should have been submitted as a separate PDF attachment to the Motion, document number 215, or 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: 05/24/2012)
222 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR RE: Notice to Filer of Deficiencies in Electronically Filed Documents (Form G−112A) filed 5/23/2012 221 . The bottom of the form was dated 5/18/2012 in error. The correct filing date is 5/23/2012. (gk) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
224 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Supplementing The Record of the May 4. 2012 Hearing filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 7/27/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Andy Dogali, # 2 Exhibit A &B to Dogali Decl., # 3 Declaration David Raizman, # 4 Exhibit A to Raizman Decl., # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Exhibit A to Proposed Order, # 7 Proof of Service)(Cohen, Yehonatan) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
225 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Order for Supplementing The Record of the May 4. 2012 Hearing 224 STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD OF THE MAY 4, 2012 HEARING filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Stipulation of the Parties in Support of the Motion to Supplement the Record of the May 24 Hearing [Dkt No. 224])(Cohen, Yehonatan) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
226 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 8/3/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Final Approval to Class Action Settlement and Dismissing Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice)(Raizman, David) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
227 MEMORANDUM in Support of Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 226 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
228 DECLARATION of Yehonatan Cohen In Support Of Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 226 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered:

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 26 of 32

07/06/2012 07/06/2012 07/10/2012
07/20/2012 07/20/2012 07/24/2012 07/27/2012
07/27/2012 08/01/2012 08/03/2012

07/06/2012)
229 DECLARATION of David Raizman In Support Of Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 226 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
230 DECLARATION of Andy Dogali In Support Of Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 226 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
231 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS BY NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND; NOTICE TO TERESA STOCKTON REGARDING JOINT MOTION FOR AN ORDER SUPPLEMENTING THE RECORD OF THE 5/4/2012 HEARING by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court is in receipt of a letter dated 7/6/2012 from the National Federation of the Blind ("NFB"), attached hereto as Exhibit A, in which the NFB objects to the parties' proposed class action settlement. The parties shall file a joint response to the NFB's objections by no later than 7/20/2012. On 7/27/2012 at 9:30 AM, the Court will hear the parties' joint motion for an Order supplementing the record 224 . The parties seek to supplement the record so as to clarify certain statements that counsel made during the 5/4/2012 hearing on the parties' motion for preliminary settlement approval. If, in light of these clarifications, Teresa Stockton seeks to withdraw the voluntary dismissal of her claims with prejudice, she shall file notice to that effect on or before 7/20/2012 and appear at the 7/27/2012 hearing. If Stockton intends to appear at the hearing telephonically, she shall notify the Court's deputy clerk at least three days before the hearing. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
232 STATEMENT of Non−Opposition MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 215 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
233 JOINT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS OF NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND AND AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND TO FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT re Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 226 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
234 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., re Motion Related Document, 233 served on July 24, 2012. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
235 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD OF THE 5/4/2012 HEARING by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court hereby grants the Joint Motion of Plaintiffs Cari Shields and Amber Boggs and Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Disney Online and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Online 224 . The record of the 5/4/2012 hearing before the Court is supplemented by incorporation of and reference to the Stipulation of the Parties in Support of the Motion to Supplement the Record of 5/4/2012 Hearing [Doc. # 224−6]. (gk) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
237 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: Teresa Stockton made no appearance. Following discussions with counsel, the Court grants the joint motion for an order supplementing the record of the 5/4/2012 hearing 224 . A written order will issue. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
236 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 215 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. (Uberoi, Barbara) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
242 MINUTES OF HEARING RE JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; MOTION TO APPROVE INCENTIVE AWARDS; MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS [Doc##213,215,226] held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The parties appeared and presented argument. The hearing on the Joint Motion for Final Approval is continued to September 14, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. The parties shall meet and confer to

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 27 of 32

08/06/2012
08/06/2012 08/10/2012 08/13/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 09/10/2012
09/14/2012
09/17/2012
09/28/2012 10/03/2012

see if they can address the Court's due process concerns. The parties may file a supplemental brief of no more than five pages by August 10, 2012. The Court requests that the parties file an updated joint report of any class member objections by August 31, 2012. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwassser. (bp) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
238 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 8/3/2012 to 8/3/2012 as to Defendants Disney Online, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. Court Reporter Anne Kielwasser. Court will contact Elena Min at elena.min@dbr.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Testimony of: Motion for Final Settlement Approval. Other: 8/3/2012. Category: Daily. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
239 AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., (regarding Transcript Order − Docket 238) served on August 6, 2012. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
240 SUPPLEMENT to Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 226 in Response to Objections of National Federation of the Blind and American Council of the Blind filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
241 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., re Supplement(Motion related), Supplement(Motion related) 240 served on 8/13/2012. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
243 STATEMENT of Non−Joinder filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields re: Supplement(Motion related), Supplement(Motion related) 240 . (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
244 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
245 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee re: Plaintiffs' motion for Order for Approval of Incentive Payments 213 , motion for Attorney Fees 215 ,and Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 226 ,previously scheduled for 9/14/2012 9:30 AM is hereby advanced to 9:00 AM on 9/14/2012. *PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE ONLY.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(vv) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/10/2012)
247 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court and counsel confer. Following discussions with counsel, the Court instructs counsel to meet and confer in an attempt to agree on a revised settlement agreement satisfying objections raised by National Federation of the Blind. The parties shall file a joint status report by no later than 9/28/2012. Plaintiffs' motion to approve incentive awards 213 , motion for attorneys' fees 215 and joint motion for final approval of class action settlement 226 are continued to 10/5/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
246 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 09/14/2012 to 09/14/2012 as to Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. Court Reporter Anne Kielwasser. Court will contact Elena S. Min at elena.min@dbr.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 09/14/2012. Category: Daily. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
248 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
249 STIPULATION to Continue HEARING ON MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND FOR INCENTIVE AWARDS from

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 28 of 32

10/04/2012 10/09/2012 10/12/2012 10/15/2012 10/17/2012 10/19/2012
11/02/2012 11/05/2012

10/05/2012 to 10/12/2012 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
250 ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND FOR INCENTIVE AWARDS 249 by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Having considered the Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and for Incentive Awards 213 , 215 , 226 , and for good cause shown, the Court hereby continues the hearing currently set for 10/5/2012 to 10/12/2012 at 09:30 AM. (jp) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
251 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 09−14−12 @ 9a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number 213/894−2969 AKtranscripts.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 10/30/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/7/2013. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
252 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: Following discussions with counsel, the Court instructs counsel to contact Magistrate Judge Olguin to assist with the issues as stated on the record. The parties shall file a joint statement of their position on the cases cited at today's hearing. The National Federation of the Blind may file any supplemental brief no later than 7 days after the filing of the joint statement. Plaintiffs' motion to approve incentive awards 213 , motion for attorneys' fees 215 , and joint motion for final approval of class action settlement 226 are continued to 11/9/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
253 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin: This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Olguin for settlement. (mr) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
254 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. Court Reporter. Court will contact Elena S. Min at elena.min@dbr.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Opinion of the Court on 10/12/2012. Other: 10/12/2012. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
255 ORDER Re: SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS ORDERED as follows: The parties and their trial counsel shall appear for the Settlement Conference on October 30, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom F of the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, 9th Floor, Los Angeles, California. Each party may deliver to the chambers of the Magistrate Judge a Confidential Settlement Conference Statement on or before October 23, 2012, at 4:00 p.m. The Statement shall be in the form of a letter, and shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. The Statement shall be submitted in a sealed envelope clearly marked confidential, and shall not be filed. (See document for further details). (mr) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
256 MINUTES (In Chambers) Re: Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin: On October 30, 2012, the court, counsel and the parties met and conferred off the record regarding settlement. Although the case did not settle, the court and the parties agreed that the parties will continue to meet and confer regarding settlement. Counsel for the parties shall file a Status Report Re: Settlement no later than November 27, 2012. **See attached Order**Court Recorder: None. (es) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
257 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement from November 9, 2012 to November 30, 2012 Re: Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 226 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc..

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 29 of 32

11/06/2012 11/20/2012 11/27/2012 11/28/2012
11/29/2012 11/29/2012 11/30/2012 11/30/2012
12/05/2012
12/06/2012 12/11/2012

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Continuance of Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement)(Raizman, David) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
258 ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court continues the hearing currently set for November 9, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. to November 30, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. (im) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
259 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Notice of Withdrawal from Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. (Uberoi, Barbara) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
260 STATUS REPORT Re: Settlement filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
261 STATEMENT Joint Statement Regarding Cases Cited at October 12, 2012 Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields on behalf of class members re: Status Report 260 , Settlement Conference, Set/Reset Deadlines,, 256 , Notice (Other) 259 , Motion Hearing, Link Motions to Minutes, Set/Reset Motion Hearing and RRDeadlines,,,,,, 252 . (Attachments: # 1 Joint Statement Part 2, # 2 Joint Statement Part 3, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A: Proposed Case Management &Trial Schedule, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B: Chronology of Settlement)(Uberoi, Barbara) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
262 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, re Statement,, 261 Supplemental Proof of Service of Joint Statement Regarding Cases Cited at the October 12, 2012 Hearing served on Nov. 29, 2012. (Uberoi, Barbara) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
263 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce and Approve Settlement filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 1/18/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
264 Amendment to MOTION to Enforce and Approve Settlement 263 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO APPROVE AND ENFORCE SETTLEMENT filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
265 MINUTES OF PLAINTIFFS Motion to Approve Incentive Awards; Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs; Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 213 215 226 before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The case is called and counsel state their appearance. The Court and counsel confer. Following discussions with counsel, plaintiffs' motion to approve incentive awards, motion for attorneys' fees and joint motion for final approval of class action settlement shall be held in abeyance until the ruling on defendants' motion to approve and enforce settlement. Court Reporter: Katherine Stride. (jp) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
266 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc. Court Reporter. Court will contact Elena S. Min at elena.min@dbr.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (11/30/2012). Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Min, Elena) (Entered: 12/05/2012)
268 RESPONSE filed by Objectors National Federation of the Blind, Ever Lee Hairston, Rochelle Houston, to Parties' Joint Statement Regarding Cases Cited at 10/12/2012 Hearing 261 , 252 . (gk) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
267 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee, ORDERING Response of Objectors to Parties' Joint Statement Regarding Cases Cited at 10/12/2012 Hearing submitted by Objectors National Federation of the Blind, Ever Lee Hairston, Rochelle Houston received on 12/6/2012 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk. (gk) (Entered: 12/12/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 30 of 32

12/17/2012 12/28/2012 01/02/2013 01/03/2013 01/03/2013
01/03/2013 01/03/2013
01/04/2013 01/04/2013 01/04/2013

269 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Third Party MOTION for attorney Mehgan Sidhu to Appear Pro Hac Vice(PHV Fee of $325 receipt number 0973−11404212 paid.) filed by non−party objector National Federation of the Blind. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(Geffen, David) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
270 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Enlargement of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Approve and Enforce Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. Motion set for hearing on 1/18/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
273 Address Change filed by Plaintiff Teresa Stockton, changing address to: 1760 West Avenue J−12, Apartment 107, Lancaster, CA 93534. (gk) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
271 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields, re MOTION for Enlargement of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Approve and Enforce Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) MOTION for Enlargement of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Approve and Enforce Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) 270 to Theresa Stockton served on January 3, 2013. (Uberoi, Barbara) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
272 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court, having considered Plaintiff's Motion for an Enlargement of Time to file an opposition to Defendant's motion to enforce and approve the class settlement 270 , hereby orders that: Plaintiff's opposition brief is due 1/4/2013; Defendant's reply brief is due 1/11/2013; The hearing for Defendants' motion to enforce and approve the settlement 263 , currently set for 1/18/2013 at 9:30 AM, is unchanged. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
274 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting 269 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Mehgan Sidhu on behalf of Objector, National Federation of the Blind, designating David Geffen as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
279 Notice of Electronic Filing re Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 274 , Request for Hearing, Request for Relief,,,, 276 , Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 277 , Order on Motion for Enlargement of Time to File,, 272 , Proof of Service (subsequent documents), Proof of Service (subsequent documents) 271 , Amendment (Motion related), Amendment (Motion related) 275 , MOTION for Enlargement of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Approve and Enforce Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) MOTION for Enlargement of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Approve and Enforce Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) 270 , Notice of Change of Address 273 e−mailed to yehonatan.cohen@dbr.com bounced due to 5.1.0 − Unknown address error 550−'No such user − psmtp'. The primary e−mail address associated with the attorney record had already been deleted. 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: 01/14/2013)
275 Amendment to MOTION to Enforce and Approve Settlement 263 Second Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Approve and Enforce Settlement filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Enforce and Approve Settlement)(Raizman, David) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
276 Joint REQUEST for Hearing on Fairness and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, re Transcript Designation and Ordering Form (G−120), Transcript Designation and Ordering Form (G−120) 266 , MOTION to Enforce and Approve Settlement 263 , filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. Request set for hearing on 1/18/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
277 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., re Request for Hearing, Request for Relief,,,, 276 ,

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 31 of 32

01/10/2013 01/14/2013
01/18/2013 01/18/2013 01/18/2013 01/21/2013 01/22/2013
01/23/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013

Amendment (Motion related), Amendment (Motion related) 275 served on 01/04/2013. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
278 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 9/14/12 @ 9 a.m. re Transcript 251 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/10/2013)
280 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST FOR HEARING ON FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 1/4/2013, the parties filed a joint request for a hearing on final settlement approval to take the place of the hearing on Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement on 1/18/2013 276 . The Court, finding good cause therefor, hereby orders that: The Court will hold a further hearing on final settlement approval on 1/18/2013 at 9:30 AM. The hearing for Defendants' motion to enforce and approve the settlement 263 , currently set for 1/18/2013 at 9:30 AM, is VACATED and will be reset if necessary. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
281 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.. (Raizman, David) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
282 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement from January 18, 2013 to January 25, 2013 Re: Request for Hearing, Request for Relief,,,, 276 filed by Defendants Disney Online, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc..(Raizman, David) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
283 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of [Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval to Class Action Settlement and Dismissing Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice re Stipulation to Continue, 282 , Amendment (Motion related), Amendment (Motion related) 275 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval to Class Action Settlement and Dismissing Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice)(Raizman, David) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
284 DECLARATION of Class Counsel Andy Dogali in Support of Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement 226 , MOTION to Enforce and Approve Settlement 263 filed by Plaintiffs Amber Boggs, Cari Shields. (Dogali, A Anderson) (Entered: 01/21/2013)
285 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Stipulation of Parties to Continue hearing on Final Approval of Class ActionSettlement Agreement filed 1/18/2013 282 . The following error(s) was found: Proposed order not submitted pursuant to Local Rule 52−4.1. 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: 01/22/2013)
286 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney David Grant Geffen counsel for Objector National Federation of the Blind. Surisa Rivers will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice.Surisa Rivers is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Obj. Nat'l Fed. of the Blind (Geffen, David) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
287 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of Proposed Order Setting Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement re Stipulation to Continue, 282 , Amendment (Motion related), Amendment (Motion related) 264 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Setting Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement)(Raizman, David) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
288 ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 282 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that the hearing on the parties' joint motion for final approval of the class action settlement agreement 226 is set for hearing on 1/25/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (gk) (Entered: 01/24/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-05810-DMG-FMO As of: 05/23/2013 01:32 PM PDT 32 of 32

01/25/2013
01/28/2013 01/29/2013

289 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee RE: Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys' Fees, and Incentive Payments 213 , 215 , 226 . The Court hears oral argument from counsel for Objector National Federation of the Blind. The Court gives final approval to the Amended Class Settlement Agreement. The Court grants Plaintiffs' request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,403,500 and costs in the amount of $146,500. The Court also approves a $15,000 incentive award to Class Representative Cari Shields and a $15,000 incentive award to Class Representative Amber Boggs. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to resolve any disputes that may arise. Defendants' motion to approve and enforce settlement 26 is denied as moot. The parties shall submit a proposed order to the Court by 1/28/2013. Court Reporter: Mary Rickey. (gk) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
290 NOTICE OF LODGING filed [AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE re Order on Motion for Order, Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Motion for Settlement, Motion Hearing,,,,,,,,,,,, 289 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Min, Elena) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
291 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court hereby Orders as follows: (1.)The following classes shall be certified as settlement classes under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: a. The Website Class. b. The Effective Communication Class. c. The Service Animal Class. d. The Infrastructure Class. (2.) Andy Dogali of Forizs and Dogali PA, and Eugene Feldman, of the Eugene Feldman, Attorney at Law, APC, are appointed as class counsel of the certified classes under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (3.) The Court hereby grants final approval to the Revised Settlement Agreement as it finds that, taken as a whole, the settlement and compromise contained in that Revised Settlement Agreement re fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable to all concerned. (4.) The Court grants Plaintiff's request for an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $1,403,500 and costs in the amount of $146,500. The Court also approves a $15,000 incentive award to Class Representative Cari Shields and a $15,000 incentive award to Class Representative Amber Boggs. (5.) The Second Amended Complaint shall be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. (See document for further information.) Case Terminated. Made JS−6. (sp) (Entered: 01/30/2013)