Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page1 of 11

1 Timothy P. Fox – Cal. Bar No. 157750

Sarah M. Morris* 2 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

3

ENFORCEMENT CENTER 104 Broadway, Suite 400

4 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 757-7901

5 tfox@creeclaw.org

smorris@creeclaw.org 6

7

Bill Lann Lee – Cal Bar. No. 108452 Julie Wilensky – Cal. Bar No. 271765 Joshua Davidson – Cal. Bar No. 275168 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 839-6824 blee@lewisfeinberg.com jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com mcaesar@lewisfeinberg.com

8 Julia Campins – Cal. Bar No. 238023

Kevin W. Williams*

Hillary Benham-Baker – Cal. Bar No. 265019 COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY

9 CAMPINS BENHAM-BAKER, LLP

COALITION

8 California #703 10 San Francisco, CA 94111

655 Broadway #775 Denver, CO 80203

11

(415) 373-5333 julia@cbbllp.com

(303) 839-1775 kwilliams@ccdconline.org

12 hillary@cbbllp.com

13 *Pro hac vice application forthcoming

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed 15 Class

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

19

20 THE CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

21

ENFORCEMENT CENTER, on behalf of itself, and ANN CUPOLO-FREEMAN,

22 RUTHEE GOLDKORN, and KENNETH KILGORE, on behalf of themselves and a

23 proposed class of similarly situated persons

defined below, 24

25 Plaintiffs,

26

v.

Case No. _______________
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

27 RLJ LODGING TRUST, 28
Defendant.

COMPLAINT

- 1 – CASE NO. _________

Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page2 of 11

1

Plaintiffs, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (“CREEC”), on behalf of

2 itself, and Ann Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, and Kenneth Kilgore on behalf of

3 themselves and a proposed class defined below, by and through undersigned counsel, file their

4 Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and respectfully allege as follows:

5

INTRODUCTION

6

1.

For more than 20 years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has required hotels

7 that provide transportation services to their guests to provide equivalent accessible transportation

8 services to guests who use wheelchairs or scooters.

9

2.

Nevertheless Defendant RLJ Lodging Trust (“RLJ”) – which owns and/or

10 operates approximately 150 hotels spread among more than 20 states – has repeatedly failed to

11 provide wheelchair-accessible transportation in hotels that provide transportation to nondisabled

12 guests.

13

3.

As a result, while RLJ’s nondisabled guests staying at these hotels can take

14 advantage of airport shuttle services and transportation services to areas near the hotel, guests

15 who use wheelchairs or scooters are denied these services. This action is limited to challenging

16 RLJ’s violations of state and federal requirements governing accessible transportation, including

17 for example purchase and lease of accessible vehicles and provision of accessible transportation.

18

4.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief establishing that RLJ has engaged

19 in violations of the ADA and California state law, and requiring RLJ to comply with these

20 statutes by providing wheelchair-accessible transportation services that are equivalent to the

21 transportation services provided to nondisabled guests at RLJ’s hotels.

22

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23

5.

Plaintiffs’ claims arise under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

24 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. (“ADA”), and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq.

25 (“the Unruh Act”).

26

6.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

27 §§ 1331 and 1343, and pursuant to its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims brought

28 under the laws of the State of California. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for

COMPLAINT

- 2 – CASE NO. _________

Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page3 of 11

1 declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

2

7.

Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

3

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

4

8.

This action arises in part in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and thus is

5 properly assigned to the San Francisco/Oakland Division.

6

PARTIES

7

9.

Plaintiff the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (“CREEC”) is a

8 nationwide civil rights membership organization based in Denver, Colorado whose mission

9 includes, among other purposes, ensuring that persons with disabilities participate in our nation’s

10 civic life without discrimination, including in the opportunity to benefit from the services

11 provided by hotels.

12

10. Plaintiff Ann Cupolo-Freeman is a member of CREEC and is and has been at all

13 relevant times a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman has diastrophic

14 dysplasia and uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning

15 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable

16 California law, including California Government Code section 12926. Because Ms. Cupolo-

17 Freeman requires a wheelchair-accessible vehicle in order to utilize transportation services

18 offered by hotels, she has a personal interest in ensuring that hotels comply with federal and state

19 requirements governing provision of accessible transportation services to hotel guests. She is

20 also a tester in this litigation.

21

11. Plaintiff Ruthee Goldkorn is a member of CREEC and is and has been at all times

22 material hereto a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff Goldkorn has multiple sclerosis and

23 uses a power wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42

24 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law,

25 including California Government Code section 12926. Because Ms. Goldkorn requires a

26 wheelchair-accessible vehicle in order to utilize transportation services offered by hotels, she has

27 a personal interest in ensuring that hotels comply with federal and state requirements governing

28 provision of accessible transportation services to hotel guests. She is also a tester in this

COMPLAINT

- 3 – CASE NO. _________

Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page4 of 11

1 litigation.

2

12. Plaintiff Kenneth Kilgore is a member of CREEC and is and has been at all times

3 material hereto a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff Kilgore is a quadriplegic who uses

4 a wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §

5 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

6 California Government Code section 12926. Because Mr. Kilgore requires a wheelchair-

7 accessible vehicle in order to utilize transportation services offered by hotels, he has a personal

8 interest in ensuring that hotels comply with federal and state requirements governing provision

9 of accessible transportation services to hotel guests. He is also a tester in this litigation.

10

13. Defendant RLJ is an investment trust incorporated in Maryland, with its principal

11 place of business at 3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland. RLJ is a self-

12 advised, publicly traded real estate investment trust focused on acquiring premium-branded,

13 focused-service and compact full-service hotels. RLJ owns and/or operates hotels throughout the

14 United States, including approximately 12 hotels in the State of California.

15

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

16

14. Defendant RLJ owns and/or operates the Hyatt Place Fremont/Silicon Valley

17 located in Fremont, CA, a hotel that provides its guests with a local shuttle service within an

18 eight-mile radius of the hotel.

19

15. On or about October 22, 2014, Plaintiff Kilgore telephoned the Hyatt Place

20 Fremont/Silicon Valley and asked if it provided wheelchair-accessible shuttle services. He was

21 informed that the hotel does not offer wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

22

16. Had Plaintiff Kilgore been informed that the hotel did provide wheelchair-

23 accessible shuttle services, he intended to stay at the hotel and to use those services. He was

24 deterred from doing so by the hotel’s lack of wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

25

17. Plaintiff Kilgore would like to stay at the Hyatt Place Fremont/Silicon Valley

26 hotel in the future and use the hotel’s transportation services, and will do so if he calls and is told

27 that such accessible services exist.

28

18. Defendant RLJ owns and/or operates the Hyatt House Emeryville/San Francisco

COMPLAINT

- 4 – CASE NO. _________

Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page5 of 11

1 Bay Area hotel located in Emeryville, CA, a hotel that provides its guests with a local shuttle

2 service within a three-mile radius of the hotel.

3

19. On or about October 28, 2014, Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman telephoned the Hyatt

4 House Emeryville/San Francisco Bay Area and asked if it provided wheelchair-accessible shuttle

5 services. She was informed that the hotel does not offer wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

6

20. Had Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman been informed that the hotel did provide

7 wheelchair-accessible shuttle services, she intended to stay at the hotel and to use those services.

8 She was deterred from doing so by the hotel’s lack of wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

9

21. Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman would like to stay at the Hyatt House Emeryville/San

10 Francisco Bay Area in the future and use the hotel’s transportation services, and will do so if she

11 calls and is told that such accessible services exist.

12

22. Defendant RLJ owns and/or operates the Hyatt House San Ramon hotel located in

13 San Ramon, CA, a hotel that provides its guests with a local shuttle service within a five-mile

14 radius of the hotel.

15

23. On or about October 28, 2014, Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman telephoned the Hyatt

16 House San Ramon and asked if it provided wheelchair-accessible shuttle services. She was

17 informed that the hotel does not offer wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

18

24. Had Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman been informed that the hotel did provide

19 wheelchair-accessible shuttle services, she intended to stay at the hotel and to use those services.

20 She was deterred from doing so by the hotel’s lack of wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

21

25. Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman would like to stay at the Hyatt House San Ramon hotel

22 in the future and use the hotel’s transportation services, and will do so if she calls and is told that

23 such accessible services exist.

24

26. Defendant RLJ owns and/or operates the Hyatt House San Diego/Sorrento Mesa

25 hotel located in San Diego, CA, a hotel that provides its guests with a local shuttle service within

26 a five-mile radius of the hotel.

27

27. On or about October 17, 2014, Plaintiff Goldkorn telephoned the Hyatt House San

28 Diego/Sorrento Mesa and asked if it provided wheelchair-accessible shuttle services. She was

COMPLAINT

- 5 – CASE NO. _________

Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page6 of 11

1 informed that the hotel does not offer wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

2

28. Had Plaintiff Goldkorn been informed that the hotel did provide wheelchair-

3 accessible shuttle services, she intended to stay at the hotel and to use those services. She was

4 deterred from doing so by the hotel’s lack of wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

5

29. Plaintiff Goldkorn would like to stay at the Hyatt House San Diego/Sorrento

6 Mesa hotel in the future and use the hotel’s transportation services, and will do so if she calls and

7 is told that such accessible services exist.

8

30. On information and belief, RLJ owns and/or operates a number of other hotels in

9 the United States that offer transportation services to their guests but do not offer equivalent

10 transportation services to guests who use wheelchairs or scooters. These hotels include, without

11 limitation:

12

A. Hampton Inn & Suites Clearwater/St. Petersburg - Ulmerton Road, 4050

13

Ulmerton Rd., Clearwater, FL

14

B. Embassy Suites Fort Myers - Estero, 10450 Corkscrew Commons Dr., Estero, FL

15

C. Hampton Inn West Palm Beach Central Airport, 1601 Worthington Rd., West

16

Palm Beach, FL

17

D. DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Columbia, 5485 Twin Knolls Rd., Columbia, MD

18

E. Holiday Inn Grand Rapids - Airport, 3063 Lake Eastbrook Blvd. SE, Grand

19

Rapids, MI

20

F. SpringHill Suites by Marriott Portland Hillsboro, 7351 NE Butler St., Hillsboro,

21

OR

22

G. Courtyard Austin Airport, 7809 E Ben White Blvd., Austin, TX

23

H. Fairfield Inn & Suites San Antonio Airport/North Star Mall, 88 Loop 410 NE,

24

San Antonio, TX

25

I. Courtyard Grand Junction, 765 Horizon Dr., Grand Junction, CO

26

J. Residence Inn Grand Junction, 767 Horizon Dr., Grand Junction, CO

27

31. On information and belief, after August 25, 1990, RLJ has purchased or leased

28 vehicles for use on fixed-route and/or demand-responsive transportation systems in place at its

COMPLAINT

- 6 – CASE NO. _________

Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page7 of 11

1 hotels.

2

32. CREEC brings this action based on associational standing on behalf of its

3 members. CREEC’s members – including Mr. Kilgore, Ms. Goldkorn, and Ms. Cupolo-

4 Freeman – include persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility, who

5 would like to stay at RLJ hotels and use their transportation services, but have been deterred and

6 prevented from doing so by the failure of those hotels to provide equivalent, wheelchair-

7 accessible transportation services. Because CREEC seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief,

8 individual participation of CREEC members is not required.

9

33. Pre-suit efforts to resolve this issue were unsuccessful.

10

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

11

34. Plaintiffs Cupolo-Freeman, Goldkorn, and Kilgore (the “Representative

12 Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class defined as follows:

13 individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility who have been, or in the future will be,

14 denied the full and equal enjoyment of transportation services offered to guests at hotels owned

15 and/or operated by RLJ because of the lack of equivalent accessible transportation services at

16 those hotels.

17

35. Joinder of all members of the proposed class would be impracticable because,

18 without limitation, the class consists of numerous individuals who are geographically diverse,

19 these individuals are very difficult to identify and they are unlikely to be able to bring individual

20 suits.

21

36. There are numerous common questions of law and fact, including but not limited

22 to:

23

A. Whether Defendant RLJ is a “private entity[y] . . . not primarily engaged in the

24

business of transporting people”;

25

B. Whether hotels owned and/or operated by Defendant RLJ provide fixed-route

26

and/or demand-responsive transportation systems;

27

C. Whether Defendant RLJ has purchased or leased any vehicles after August 25,

28

1990 for use on fixed-route or demand-responsive systems, and if so, the seating

COMPLAINT

- 7 – CASE NO. _________

Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page8 of 11

1

capacity of those vehicles;

2

D. Whether Defendant RLJ’s transportation vehicles are readily accessible to and

3

usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs;

4

and

5

E. Whether Defendant RLJ has ensured that the transportation system in place at

6

each hotel, when viewed in its entirety, meets the equivalent service requirements

7

of 49 C.F.R. part 37.

8

37. The claims of the Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class

9 because they arise from the same course of conduct engaged in by Defendant RLJ, are based on

10 the same alleged violations of the same statutes and regulations, and seek the same relief.

11

38. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of

12 the class. The Representative Plaintiffs have no interests adverse to the interests of other

13 members of the class. Further, the attorneys they have retained include counsel who have been

14 appointed as class counsel in, and have successfully litigated, numerous disability rights class

15 actions across the country.

16

39. Finally, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is proper here because Defendant RLJ

17 has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making

18 appropriate final injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.

19

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 20

21

40. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation herein.

22

41. Title III requires that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis

23 of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,

24 advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns .

25 . . or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(a).

26

42. Hotels that provide fixed-route transportation services to guests must comply with

27 the following requirements:

28

A. For all purchases or leases after August 25, 1990, vehicles with a seating capacity

over 16 passengers must be wheelchair-accessible;
- 8 – COMPLAINT

CASE NO. _________

Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page9 of 11

1

B. For all purchases or leases after August 25, 1990, vehicles with a seating capacity

2

of under 16 passengers must be either wheelchair-accessible or equivalent service

3

must be provided.

4

43. Hotels that provide on-demand transportation services to guests must either

5 provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles or ensure that equivalent service is provided.

6

44. Defendant RLJ owns and/or operates “an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of

7 lodging,” which is a place of public accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(A), and is

8 also a “private entit[y] not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people” pursuant to

9 49 C.F.R. part 37.

10

45. Defendant RLJ has engaged in illegal disability discrimination, as defined by Title

11 III, including without limitation, by failing to ensure that transportation vehicles in use at its

12 hotels are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals

13 who use wheelchairs, by failing to ensure that its hotels provide equivalent accessible

14 transportation services to such individuals, and/or by failing to ensure that personnel are trained

15 to proficiency with respect to the provision of accessible transportation services.

16

46. Defendant RLJ’s ongoing and continuing violations of Title III have caused, and

17 in the absence of an injunction will continue to cause, harm to the plaintiffs and the class.

18

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code, § 51, et seq., and the Unruh Act’s

19

Incorporation of the ADA

20

47. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation herein.

21

48. Defendant RLJ’s hotels are business establishments and, as such, must comply

22 with the provisions of the Unruh Act.

23

49. The Unruh Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to

24 full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business

25 establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of California. Cal.

26 Civ. Code § 51(b).

27

50. A violation of the ADA, the DOJ Standards, or Title 24 is also a violation of the

28 Unruh Act.

COMPLAINT

- 9 – CASE NO. _________

Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page10 of 11

1

51. Defendant RLJ has violated the Unruh Act by, inter alia, denying, or aiding or

2 inciting the denial of, Plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights to the full and equal accommodations,

3 advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered at Defendant’s business establishments,

4 specifically the transportation services offered at Defendant’s hotels.

5

52. Defendant has also violated the Unruh Act by denying, or aiding or inciting the

6 denial of, Plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights to equal access arising from the provisions of the

7 ADA.

8

53. Defendant RLJ’s ongoing and continuing violations of the Unruh Act have

9 caused, and in the absence of an injunction will continue to cause, harm to the plaintiffs and the

10 class.

11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment as follows:

13

1. A declaration that Defendant RLJ’s conduct as alleged here has violated, and

14 continues to violate, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Unruh Civil

15 Rights Act, as well as their implementing regulations;

16

2. Issuance of a permanent injunction requiring Defendant RLJ to comply with the

17 ADA and the Unruh Act;

18

3. Award of Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided by law; and

19

4. Such other additional or alternative relief as the Court finds just and proper.

20

21 Dated: January 15, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

22

23

By: _/s/ Timothy P. Fox_

24

Timothy P. Fox – Cal. Bar No. 157750

Sarah M. Morris*

25

CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

ENFORCEMENT CENTER

26

104 Broadway, Suite 400

27

Denver, CO 80203 (303) 757-7901

28

tfox@creeclaw.org

smorris@creeclaw.org

COMPLAINT

- 10 –

CASE NO. _________

Case4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document1 Filed01/15/15 Page11 of 11

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
COMPLAINT

Bill Lann Lee – Cal Bar. No. 108452 Julie Wilensky – Cal. Bar No. 271765 Joshua Davidson – Cal. Bar No. 275168 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 839-6824 blee@lewisfeinberg.com jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com mcaesar@lewisfeinberg.com
Julia Campins – Cal. Bar No. 238023 Hillary Benham-Baker – Cal.Bar No.265019 CAMPINS BENHAM-BAKER, LLP 8 California #703 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 373-5333 julia@cbbllp.com hillary@cbbllp.com
Kevin W. Williams* COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION 655 Broadway #775 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 839-1775 kwilliams@ccdconline.org
*Pro hac vice application forthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

- 11 –

CASE NO. _________

 
 Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 12

1 Timothy P. Fox – Cal. Bar No. 157750

Sarah M. Morris – pro hac vice 2 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

3

ENFORCEMENT CENTER 104 Broadway, Suite 400

4 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 757-7901

5 tfox@creeclaw.org

smorris@creeclaw.org 6

Bill Lann Lee – Cal Bar. No. 108452 Julie Wilensky – Cal. Bar No. 271765 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 839-6824 blee@lewisfeinberg.com jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com

7

8 Julia Campins – Cal. Bar No. 238023

Kevin W. Williams – pro hac vice

Hillary Benham-Baker – Cal. Bar No. 265019 COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY

9 CAMPINS BENHAM-BAKER, LLP

COALITION

935 Moraga Road, Suite 200 10 Lafayette, CA 94549

655 Broadway #775 Denver, CO 80203

11 (415) 373-5333 julia@cbbllp.com

(303) 839-1775 kwilliams@ccdconline.org

12 hillary@cbbllp.com

13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed
14 Class

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

OAKLAND DIVISION

18

19 THE CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND
20 ENFORCEMENT CENTER, on behalf of
itself, and ANN CUPOLO-FREEMAN, 21 RUTHEE GOLDKORN, and JULIE
22 REISKIN, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated persons
23 defined below,

Case No. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

24 Plaintiffs,

25

v.

26 RLJ LODGING TRUST,
27
Defendant. 28

- 1 – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 12

1

Plaintiffs, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (“CREEC”), on behalf of

2 itself, and Ann Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, and Julie Reiskin on behalf of themselves

3 and a proposed class defined below, by and through undersigned counsel, file their Class Action

4 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and respectfully allege as follows:

5

INTRODUCTION

6

1.

For more than 20 years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has required hotels

7 that provide transportation services to their guests to provide equivalent accessible transportation

8 services to guests who use wheelchairs or scooters.

9

2.

Nevertheless Defendant RLJ Lodging Trust (“RLJ”) – which owns and/or

10 operates approximately 150 hotels spread among more than 20 states – has repeatedly failed to

11 provide equivalent wheelchair-accessible transportation in hotels that provide transportation to

12 nondisabled guests.

13

3.

As a result, while RLJ’s nondisabled guests staying at these hotels can take

14 advantage of airport shuttle services and transportation services to areas near the hotel, guests

15 who use wheelchairs or scooters are denied equivalent services. This action is limited to

16 challenging RLJ’s violations of state and federal requirements governing accessible

17 transportation, including for example purchase and lease of accessible vehicles and provision of

18 accessible transportation.

19

4.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief establishing that RLJ has engaged

20 in violations of the ADA and California state law, and requiring RLJ to comply with these

21 statutes by providing wheelchair-accessible transportation services that are equivalent to the

22 transportation services provided to nondisabled guests at RLJ’s hotels.

23

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24

5.

Plaintiffs’ claims arise under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

25 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. (“ADA”), and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq.

26 (“the Unruh Act”).

27

6.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

28 §§ 1331 and 1343, and pursuant to its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims brought

- 2 – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 12

1 under the laws of the State of California. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for

2 declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

3

7.

Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

4

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

5

8.

This action arises in part in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and thus is

6 properly assigned to the San Francisco/Oakland Division.

7

PARTIES

8

9.

Plaintiff the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (“CREEC”) is a

9 nationwide civil rights membership organization based in Denver, Colorado whose mission

10 includes, among other purposes, ensuring that persons with disabilities participate in our nation’s

11 civic life without discrimination, including in the opportunity to benefit from the services

12 provided by hotels.

13

10. Plaintiff Ann Cupolo-Freeman is a member of CREEC and is and has been at all

14 relevant times a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman has diastrophic

15 dysplasia and uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning

16 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable

17 California law, including California Government Code section 12926. Because Ms. Cupolo-

18 Freeman requires a wheelchair-accessible vehicle in order to utilize transportation services

19 offered by hotels, she has a personal interest in ensuring that hotels comply with federal and state

20 requirements governing provision of accessible transportation services to hotel guests. She is

21 also a tester in this litigation.

22

11. Plaintiff Ruthee Goldkorn is a member of CREEC and is and has been at all times

23 material hereto a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff Goldkorn has multiple sclerosis and

24 uses a power wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42

25 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law,

26 including California Government Code section 12926. Because Ms. Goldkorn requires a

27 wheelchair-accessible vehicle in order to utilize transportation services offered by hotels, she has

28 a personal interest in ensuring that hotels comply with federal and state requirements governing

- 3 – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 4 of 12

1 provision of accessible transportation services to hotel guests. She is also a tester in this

2 litigation.

3

12. Plaintiff Julie Reiskin is a member of CREEC and is and has been at all times

4 material hereto a resident of the State of Colorado. Plaintiff Reiskin is a Board Member of the

5 Legal Services Corporation and the Executive Director of the Colorado Cross-Disability

6 Coalition. She travels frequently across the country. Plaintiff Reiskin has multiple sclerosis and

7 uses a power wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42

8 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law,

9 including California Government Code section 12926. Because Ms. Reiskin requires a

10 wheelchair-accessible vehicle in order to utilize transportation services offered by hotels, she has

11 a personal interest in ensuring that hotels comply with federal and state requirements governing

12 provision of accessible transportation services to hotel guests. She is also a tester in this

13 litigation.

14

13. Defendant RLJ is an investment trust incorporated in Maryland, with its principal

15 place of business at 3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland. RLJ is a self-

16 advised, publicly traded real estate investment trust focused on acquiring premium-branded,

17 focused-service and compact full-service hotels. RLJ owns and/or operates hotels throughout the

18 United States, including approximately 12 hotels in the State of California.

19

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

20

14. Defendant RLJ owns and/or operates the Hyatt Place Fremont/Silicon Valley

21 located in Fremont, CA, a hotel that provides its guests with a local shuttle service within an

22 eight-mile radius of the hotel.

23

15. On or about October 7 and 12, 2015, Plaintiff Reiskin telephoned the Hyatt Place

24 Fremont/Silicon Valley and asked if it provided wheelchair-accessible shuttle services. She was

25 informed that the hotel does not offer equivalent wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

26

16. Had the hotel provided equivalent wheelchair-accessible shuttle services, and had

27 it informed Plaintiff Reiskin of those wheelchair-accessible shuttle services, she intended to stay

28

- 4 – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 5 of 12

1 at the hotel and to use those services. She was deterred from doing so by the hotel’s lack of

2 equivalent wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

3

17. Plaintiff Reiskin would like to stay at the Hyatt Place Fremont/Silicon Valley

4 hotel in the future and use the hotel’s transportation services, and will do so if the hotel

5 accurately informs her that it provides equivalent accessible transportation services.

6

18. Defendant RLJ owns and/or operates the Hyatt House Emeryville/San Francisco

7 Bay Area hotel located in Emeryville, CA, a hotel that provides its guests with a local shuttle

8 service within a three-mile radius of the hotel.

9

19. On or about October 28, 2014, Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman telephoned the Hyatt

10 House Emeryville/San Francisco Bay Area and asked if it provided wheelchair-accessible shuttle

11 services. She was informed that the hotel does not offer equivalent wheelchair-accessible shuttle

12 services.

13

20. Had the hotel provided equivalent wheelchair-accessible shuttle services, and had

14 it informed Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman of those wheelchair-accessible shuttle services, she

15 intended to stay at the hotel and to use those services. She was deterred from doing so by the

16 hotel’s lack of equivalent wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

17

21. Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman would like to stay at the Hyatt House Emeryville/San

18 Francisco Bay Area in the future and use the hotel’s transportation services, and will do so if she

19 calls and is told that such accessible services exist.

20

22. Defendant RLJ owns and/or operates the Hyatt House San Ramon hotel located in

21 San Ramon, CA, a hotel that provides its guests with a local shuttle service within a five-mile

22 radius of the hotel.

23

23. On or about October 28, 2014, Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman telephoned the Hyatt

24 House San Ramon and asked if it provided wheelchair-accessible shuttle services. She was

25 informed that the hotel does not offer equivalent wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

26

24. Had the hotel provided equivalent wheelchair-accessible shuttle services, and had

27 it informed Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman of those wheelchair-accessible shuttle services, she

28

- 5 – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 6 of 12

1 intended to stay at the hotel and to use those services. She was deterred from doing so by the

2 hotel’s lack of equivalent wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

3

25. Plaintiff Cupolo-Freeman would like to stay at the Hyatt House San Ramon hotel

4 in the future and use the hotel’s transportation services, and will do so if the hotel accurately

5 informs her that it provides equivalent accessible transportation services.

6

26. Defendant RLJ owns and/or operates the Hyatt House San Diego/Sorrento Mesa

7 hotel located in San Diego, CA, a hotel that provides its guests with a local shuttle service within

8 a five-mile radius of the hotel.

9

27. On or about October 17, 2014, Plaintiff Goldkorn telephoned the Hyatt House San

10 Diego/Sorrento Mesa and asked if it provided wheelchair-accessible shuttle services. She was

11 informed that the hotel does not offer wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

12

28. Had Plaintiff Goldkorn been informed that the hotel did provide wheelchair-

13 accessible shuttle services, she intended to stay at the hotel and to use those services. She was

14 deterred from doing so by the hotel’s lack of equivalent wheelchair-accessible shuttle services.

15

29. Plaintiff Goldkorn would like to stay at the Hyatt House San Diego/Sorrento

16 Mesa hotel in the future and use the hotel’s transportation services, and will do so if the hotel

17 accurately informs her that it provides equivalent accessible transportation services.

18

30. On information and belief, RLJ owns and/or operates a number of other hotels in

19 the United States that offer transportation services to their guests but do not offer equivalent

20 transportation services to guests who use wheelchairs or scooters. These hotels include, without

21 limitation:

22

A. Hampton Inn & Suites Clearwater/St. Petersburg - Ulmerton Road, 4050

23

Ulmerton Rd., Clearwater, FL

24

B. Embassy Suites Fort Myers - Estero, 10450 Corkscrew Commons Dr., Estero, FL

25

C. Hampton Inn West Palm Beach Central Airport, 1601 Worthington Rd., West

26

Palm Beach, FL

27

D. DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Columbia, 5485 Twin Knolls Rd., Columbia, MD

28

- 6 – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 7 of 12

1

E. SpringHill Suites by Marriott Portland Hillsboro, 7351 NE Butler St., Hillsboro,

2

OR

3

F. Courtyard Austin Airport, 7809 E Ben White Blvd., Austin, TX

4

G. Fairfield Inn & Suites San Antonio Airport/North Star Mall, 88 Loop 410 NE,

5

San Antonio, TX

6

31. On information and belief, after August 25, 1990, RLJ has purchased or leased

7 vehicles for use on fixed-route and/or demand-responsive transportation systems in place at its

8 hotels.

9

32. On information and belief, RLJ relies on third parties to provide accessible

10 transportation services at many of its hotels.

11

33. On information and belief, many of these third parties do not provide accessible

12 transportation services that are equivalent to the transportation services provided to nondisabled

13 guests. For example, and without limitation, these third-party transportation companies do not

14 have the capability or capacity to provide equivalent transportation services, do not provide

15 transportation services during the hours that such services are available to nondisabled guests,

16 and/or require longer advance notice than nondisabled guests must provide.

17

34. CREEC brings this action based on associational standing on behalf of its

18 members. CREEC’s members – including Ms. Reiskin, Ms. Goldkorn, and Ms. Cupolo-

19 Freeman – include persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility, who

20 would like to stay at RLJ hotels and use their transportation services, but have been deterred and

21 prevented from doing so by the failure of those hotels to provide equivalent, wheelchair-

22 accessible transportation services. Because CREEC seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief,

23 individual participation of CREEC members is not required.

24

35. Pre-suit efforts to resolve this issue were unsuccessful.

25

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

26

36. Plaintiffs Cupolo-Freeman, Goldkorn, and Reiskin (the “Representative

27 Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class defined as follows:

28 individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility who have been, or in the future will be,

- 7 – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 8 of 12

1 denied the full and equal enjoyment of transportation services offered to guests at hotels owned

2 and/or operated by RLJ because of the lack of equivalent accessible transportation services at

3 those hotels.

4

37. Joinder of all members of the proposed class would be impracticable because,

5 without limitation, the class consists of numerous individuals who are geographically diverse,

6 these individuals are very difficult to identify and they are unlikely to be able to bring individual

7 suits.

8

38. There are numerous common questions of law and fact, including but not limited

9 to:

10

A. Whether Defendant RLJ is a “private entity[y] . . . not primarily engaged in the

11

business of transporting people”;

12

B. Whether hotels owned and/or operated by Defendant RLJ provide fixed-route

13

and/or demand-responsive transportation systems;

14

C. Whether Defendant RLJ has purchased or leased any vehicles after August 25,

15

1990 for use on fixed-route or demand-responsive systems, and if so, the seating

16

capacity of those vehicles;

17

D. Whether Defendant RLJ’s transportation vehicles are readily accessible to and

18

usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs;

19

and

20

E. Whether Defendant RLJ has ensured that its transportation systems, when viewed

21

in their entirety, meet the equivalent service requirements of 49 C.F.R. part 37.

22

39. The claims of the Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class

23 because they arise from the same course of conduct engaged in by Defendant RLJ, are based on

24 the same alleged violations of the same statutes and regulations, and seek the same relief.

25

40. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of

26 the class. The Representative Plaintiffs have no interests adverse to the interests of other

27 members of the class. Further, the attorneys they have retained include counsel who have been

28

- 8 – FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 9 of 12

1 appointed as class counsel in, and have successfully litigated, numerous disability rights class

2 actions across the country.

3

41. Finally, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is proper here because Defendant RLJ

4 has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making

5 appropriate final injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.

6

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 7

8

42. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation herein.

9

43. Title III requires that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis

10 of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,

11 advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns .

12 . . or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(a).

13

44. Hotels that provide fixed-route transportation services to guests must comply with

14 the following requirements:

15

A. For all purchases or leases after August 25, 1990, vehicles with a seating capacity

16

over 16 passengers must be wheelchair-accessible;

17

B. For all purchases or leases after August 25, 1990, vehicles with a seating capacity

18

of under 16 passengers must be either wheelchair-accessible or equivalent service

19

must be provided;

20

45. Hotels that provide on-demand transportation services to guests must either

21 provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles or ensure that equivalent service is provided.

22

46. Defendant RLJ owns and/or operates “an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of

23 lodging,” which is a place of public accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(A), and is

24 also a “private entit[y] not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people” pursuant to

25 49 C.F.R. part 37.

26

47. Defendant RLJ has engaged in illegal disability discrimination, as defined by Title

27 III, including without limitation, by failing to ensure that transportation vehicles in use at its

28 hotels are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals

who use wheelchairs, by failing to ensure that its hotels provide equivalent accessible

- 9 –

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 10 of 12

1 transportation services to such individuals, and/or by failing to ensure that personnel are trained

2 to proficiency with respect to the provision of accessible transportation services.

3

48. Defendant RLJ’s ongoing and continuing violations of Title III have caused, and

4 in the absence of an injunction will continue to cause, harm to the plaintiffs and the class.

5

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code, § 51, et seq., and the Unruh Act’s

6

Incorporation of the ADA

7

49. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation herein.

8

50. Defendant RLJ’s hotels are business establishments and, as such, must comply

9 with the provisions of the Unruh Act.

10

51. The Unruh Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to

11 full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business

12 establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of California. Cal.

13 Civ. Code § 51(b).

14

52. A violation of the ADA, the DOJ Standards, or Title 24 is also a violation of the

15 Unruh Act.

16

53. Defendant RLJ has violated the Unruh Act by, inter alia, denying, or aiding or

17 inciting the denial of, Plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights to the full and equal accommodations,

18 advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered at Defendant’s business establishments,

19 specifically the transportation services offered at Defendant’s hotels.

20

54. Defendant has also violated the Unruh Act by denying, or aiding or inciting the

21 denial of, Plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights to equal access arising from the provisions of the

22 ADA.

23

55. Defendant RLJ’s ongoing and continuing violations of the Unruh Act have

24 caused, and in the absence of an injunction will continue to cause, harm to the plaintiffs and the

25 class.

26

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

27 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment as follows:

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

- 10 –

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 11 of 12

1

1. A declaration that Defendant RLJ’s conduct as alleged here has violated, and

2 continues to violate, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Unruh Civil

3 Rights Act, as well as their implementing regulations;

4

2. Issuance of a permanent injunction requiring Defendant RLJ to comply with the

5 ADA and the Unruh Act;

6

3. Award of Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided by law; and

7

4. Such other additional or alternative relief as the Court finds just and proper.

8

9 Dated: November 2, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

10

11

By: _/s/ Timothy P. Fox_

12

Timothy P. Fox – Cal. Bar No. 157750

Sarah M. Morris – pro hac vice

13

CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

ENFORCEMENT CENTER

14

104 Broadway, Suite 400

15

Denver, CO 80203 (303) 757-7901

16

tfox@creeclaw.org

smorris@creeclaw.org

17

Bill Lann Lee – Cal Bar. No. 108452

18

Julie Wilensky – Cal. Bar No. 271765

19

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, & JACKSON, P.C.

20

476 9th Street

Oakland, CA 94612

21

(510) 839-6824

blee@lewisfeinberg.com

22

jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com

23 Julia Campins – Cal. Bar No. 238023

24

Hillary Benham-Baker – Cal.Bar No.265019

CAMPINS BENHAM-BAKER, LLP

25

935 Moraga Road, Suite 200

Lafayette, CA 94549

26

(415) 373-5333

27

julia@cbbllp.com

hillary@cbbllp.com

28 Kevin W. Williams – pro hac vice

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

- 11 –

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 50 Filed 11/02/15 Page 12 of 12

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
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION 655 Broadway #775 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 839-1775 kwilliams@ccdconline.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

- 12 –

CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00224-YGR

 
 Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15 OAKLAND DIVISION
16

17 THE CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

18 ENFORCEMENT CENTER, on behalf of

itself, and ANN CUPOLO-FREEMAN, 19 RUTHEE GOLDKORN, and JULIE

20

REISKIN, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated

21 persons,

Case No. 15-cv-0224-YGR
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

22

Plaintiffs,

*AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT*

23

v.

24 RLJ LODGING TRUST,

25

Defendant.

26

27

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 13

1

Plaintiffs Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (“CREEC”), Ann Cupolo

2 Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, and Julie Reiskin (“Named Plaintiffs”) filed unopposed motions for

3 approval of a class action settlement and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Dkt. Nos. 74,

4 69.) The Court held a hearing on the motions on May 3, 2016. Having carefully considered the

5 papers and for the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS final approval of the proposed

6 class settlement and AWARDS attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel.

7

I. BACKGROUND

8

A. Litigation History

9

In this class action, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations

10 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., and California’s

11 Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., regarding the provision of wheelchair-

12 accessible transportation by hotels. Plaintiff CREEC is a civil rights organization based in

13 Colorado and California. CREEC’s mission includes “ensuring that persons with disabilities

14 participate in our nation’s civic life without discrimination . . . .” (Dkt. No. 50 ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs

15 Cupolo Freeman, Reiskin, and Goldkorn are CREEC members who each have disabilities within

16 the meaning of the ADA and California law and use wheelchairs for mobility. Defendant RLJ

17 Lodging Trust (“RLJ”) is a real estate investment trust that owns approximately 127 hotels

18 nationwide, approximately 42 of which provide transportation services to guests. (Dkt. No. 67 at

19 1.)

20

Transportation services provided by hotels are covered by the ADA regulations applicable

21 to “private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people,” which include 22 “[s]huttle systems and other transportation services operated by privately-owned hotels.”1 Under

23 Department of Transportation regulations, these requirements apply to entities that “operate”

24

25

1 49 C.F.R. § 37.37(b); accord 28 C.F.R. § 36.310(a)(2). The ADA explicitly prohibits

covered entities such as RLJ from “directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other

26 arrangements,” engaging in actions otherwise prohibited by Title III. 42 U.S.C. §

12182(b)(1)(A)(i); see also Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 833 (9th Cir. 2000)

27 (holding that a “landlord has an independent obligation to comply with the ADA that may not be

eliminated by contract”).

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 1 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 13

1 hotel transportation services,2 and the regulations broadly define “operates” to include “the

2 provision of transportation service by a public or private entity itself or by a person under a

3 contractual or other arrangement or relationship with the entity.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.3. In addition,

4 the Department of Justice has explicitly incorporated these regulations to cover public

5 accommodations that provide transportation services, thus extending their coverage to any entity

6 that owns, operates, leases or leases to a place of public accommodation (including hotels) that 7 provides transportation services to guests.3

8

The regulations generally require a hotel that offers transportation services to purchase

9 accessible vehicles or to provide wheelchair-accessible transportation services to persons with

10 disabilities that are equivalent to the inaccessible transportation services they provide their guests.

11 See 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.101 & 37.171. Section 37.105 sets forth the equivalent service standard and

12 identifies a number of characteristics that must be equivalent. The regulations also require that

13 personnel be trained to proficiency. 49 C.F.R. § 37.173.

14

In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege two claims against RLJ: 1) disability

15 discrimination under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), for failing to ensure that transportation

16 services at its hotels comply with the ADA’s accessible transportation requirements; and 2)

17 violation of California Civil Code section 51(b) for denying Plaintiffs and the class members’

18 rights to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered at

19 RLJ’s hotels. (Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 42-55.) Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and a permanent

20 injunction requiring RLJ to comply with the ADA and the Unruh Act, as well as an award of

21 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs do not seek damages on behalf of the class or the

22 Named Plaintiffs. Id. at 10-11.

23

24

2 See 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.101, 37.171.

25

3 28 C.F.R. § 36.310(c) (stating that hotels and other public accommodations not primarily

engaged in the business of transportation that provide transportation services “shall comply with

26 the requirements pertaining to vehicles and transportation systems in the regulations issued by the

Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 306 of the Act.”); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.104

27 (defining “public accommodation” as “a private entity that owns, leases (or leases to), or operates

a place of public accommodation”).

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 2 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 13

1

B. Mediation and Settlement

2

Early in the litigation, the parties participated in mediation in San Francisco with retired

3 Magistrate Judge James Larson of JAMS. The parties exchanged extensive information to enable

4 a thorough investigation of the class’s claims. Dkt. No. 67 (Prelim. Approval Order) at 2.

5 Plaintiffs’ counsel analyzed documents and other information RLJ produced, including

6 information about the transportation services offered to guests without disabilities at each RLJ

7 hotel, and the transportation services, if any, offered to guests with disabilities of the RLJ hotels

8 identified in the complaint, including the names of third-party transportation providers used to

9 provide such services. (Dkt. No. 56 ¶¶ 8-12.) Plaintiffs also analyzed the relevant portions of the

10 management agreements for the RLJ hotels identified in the Complaint. (Id. ¶ 11.) As part of the

11 information exchange for mediation, Plaintiffs produced documents regarding the Named

12 Plaintiffs’ and other testers’ calls to RLJ hotels. (Id. ¶ 9.)

13

Following the mediation, the parties continued to negotiate a potential injunctive

14 settlement, while engaging in additional factual investigation. The individual Named Plaintiffs

15 made additional calls to the RLJ hotels they had called before filing suit to test whether the

16 transportation for guests with disabilities was in compliance with the ADA. Plaintiffs’ counsel

17 also called third-party transportation providers identified by certain RLJ hotels to evaluate

18 whether those companies could provide wheelchair-accessible services equivalent to the

19 transportation services provided to guests without disabilities, and did outreach to potential class

20 members. (Dkt. No. 70 ¶ 16.)

21

From July through November 2015, the parties continued negotiating the injunctive relief

22 terms of the settlement. (Id. ¶ 17.) The parties reached full agreement on injunctive relief before

23 negotiating attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. ¶ 18.) On November 5, 2015, the parties executed a

24 memorandum of understanding memorializing the material terms of the settlement, and

25 subsequently executed a long-form agreement. (Id. ¶ 19.) Following the preliminary approval

26 hearing on January 12, 2016, the parties modified the proposed agreement and executed the

27

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 3 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 5 of 13

1 operative Settlement Agreement on January 22, 2016. (Dkt. No. 65-1.) The Court granted

2 preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement on January 25, 2016. (Dkt. No. 67.)

3

C. The Settlement Agreement

4

The terms of the proposed settlement are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. (Dkt. No.

5 67-1, “Agreement.”) The principal terms of the settlement are summarized below:

6

1. Injunctive Relief

7

Plaintiffs and RLJ have negotiated a comprehensive scheme for injunctive relief.4 The

8 injunctive relief of the Settlement Agreement requires RLJ hotels to comply with the regulations

9 described above. The Settlement Agreement sets forth what compliance means, with specific

10 attention to ensuring that any third-party transportation providers used by RLJ hotels to provide

11 equivalent accessible transportation truly do provide such equivalent accessible transportation.

12 (Agreement ¶ 5, 5.a.) Moreover, the Settlement Agreement explicitly requires that accurate

13 information be provided to potential hotel guests, so that no guests are erroneously deterred. (Id.

14 ¶ 5.c.) RLJ will provide information to Plaintiffs regarding the current status of the hotels that

15 provide transportation services to their guests, as well as any applicable third-party transportation 16 providers.5 (Id. ¶ 4.) Finally, RLJ will notify all management companies – the companies that

17 directly manage hotels owned by RLJ – about the Settlement Agreement and the management

18 companies’ obligations under the ADA, as well as any hotel’s non-compliance with either. (Id. ¶

19 6.)

20

To ensure that RLJ hotels come into compliance, the Settlement provides for a multistage

21 monitoring process involving both a third-party monitor and monitoring by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

22

4 The Complaint sought only injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Settlement

Agreement does not provide for any monetary damages and releases individual damages claims

23 only for the individual Named Plaintiffs through the date of preliminary approval. The proposed

recovery to the class is in all other requests identical to the recovery to the individual Named

24 Plaintiffs.

25

5 Under the Settlement Agreement RLJ is not required to provide this information for four

RLJ-owned hotels operated by Sage Hospitality Resources, LLC, whose transportation services

26 are at issue in another lawsuit brought by Plaintiff CREEC pending in the District of Colorado:

Marriott Denver International Airport, Embassy Suites Irvine California, Courtyard Portland City

27 Center, and Renaissance Pittsburgh. (Agreement ¶ 4.e.) As such, the release does not cover any

claims regarding accessible transportation at these hotels. (Id. ¶ 15.c.)

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 4 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 6 of 13

1 First, the third-party monitor will contact up to 50% of RLJ hotels that provide transportation

2 services to guests every four months for the first two years of the Settlement Agreement’s term to

3 test their compliance. (Id. ¶ 7.b.) Subsequent monitoring cycles will also include hotels that

4 failed to provide accurate information or equivalent accessible services during the previous cycle.

5 (Id. ¶ 7.c.) This stepped-up monitoring ensures that so-called problem hotels are more closely

6 monitored. Second, the monitor will send a tester to 15% of the hotels who, during those

7 telephone conversations, claim to have equivalent accessible transportation to confirm that the

8 hotel does indeed provide equivalent, accessible transportation. (Id. ¶ 7.b.) Finally, any hotel

9 found to be out of compliance during the first two years of monitoring will be subjected to a third

10 year of monitoring unless it can prove that it has purchased its own accessible transportation

11 vehicle. (Id. ¶ 7.d.) Hotels whose non-compliance is confined to inaccurate information will be

12 subjected to the third year of monitoring only if they are found to be out of compliance a second

13 time. (Id. ¶ 7.d.) This comprehensive monitoring program is thorough and addresses the issues

14 that Plaintiffs have uncovered during their investigation.

15

RLJ will continue to provide information to Plaintiffs’ counsel throughout this process.

16 (Id. ¶ 7.e.) Additionally, RLJ will provide notices to hotel managers concerning their respective

17 hotel’s non-compliance. (Id. ¶ 8.a.) After three instances of non-compliance, RLJ has committed

18 to one of the following: discontinuing all transportation services at that particular hotel,

19 purchasing a wheelchair-accessible vehicle for use at that hotel, or taking other action to address

20 non-compliance that will be acceptable to Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id. ¶ 8.c.) This final part of the

21 monitoring and compliance process closes the loop so that all hotels should be in full compliance

22 with the ADA by the end of the third year of the Settlement Agreement, if not before then. Future

23 management agreements between RLJ and hotel management companies must include a

24 requirement that the hotel managers comply with accessible transportation requirements under the

25 ADA. (Id. ¶ 8.d.)

26

The parties have agreed that Progressive Management Resources, Inc. (“PMR”) will be

27 the third-party monitor. RLJ will pay the monitor’s fees and costs. (Id. ¶ 7.f.)

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 5 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 7 of 13

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel will also be involved in monitoring. (Id. ¶ 7.b.i.) They will do so

2 through any members of the class who visit RLJ hotels as well as through their own monitoring of

3 the third-party transportation providers used by RLJ hotels to ensure that the services provided by

4 the third parties are actually equivalent to the services provided to guests without disabilities. In

5 addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel will review monitoring reports by PMR, and raise issues as needed

6 with RLJ.

7

Finally, in the event of a dispute the parties cannot resolve on their own, the parties agreed

8 to a multi-stage process by which the dispute is first brought to a mediator, and if the dispute

9 cannot be resolved in mediation, the parties will bring the dispute to the Court for resolution

10 during the term of the Settlement Agreement. (See id. ¶ 14.)

11

2. Class Release

12

The Settlement Agreement releases claims for injunctive or declaratory relief on behalf of

13 the class through the date of preliminary approval, or January 25, 2016. (See id. ¶ 15.a.) It does

14 not release any claims for monetary damages on behalf of class members, other than the claims

15 for monetary damages of the three Named Plaintiffs. (See id. ¶ 15.b.) Nor does it release any

16 claims of class members or the three Named Plaintiffs against management companies for RLJ 17 hotels.6 (See id. ¶ 15.c.)

18

3. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

19

The Settlement Agreement provides that Class Counsel will seek, and RLJ will not

20 oppose, an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs up $135,000, subject to Court approval.

21 (Id. ¶ 11.a.) The award of fees will compensate Class Counsel for work performed in connection

22 with this action, including “ensuring that the Settlement is implemented, and monitoring and

23 evaluating compliance with the Settlement . . . .” (Id.)

24

///

25

///

26 6 As noted above, Plaintiffs and the class do not release any claims regarding accessible
27 transportation at four RLJ hotels operated by Sage Hospitality Resources, LLC, a defendant in a similar pending lawsuit brought by CREEC.
28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 6 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 8 of 13

1

D. Notice to the Class

2

Plaintiffs proposed, and the Court ordered, dissemination of the class notice by email to

3 known disability advocacy groups and independent living centers, as well as to individuals with

4 disabilities who have communicated with CREEC about accessible hotel transportation and/or

5 this lawsuit. Consistent with the notice plan, CREEC posted the notice, Settlement Agreement,

6 and related case documents on the page of its website identified in the notice, and sent the class

7 notice to 650 disability-related organizations and 41 individuals. (Dkt. No. 74-1 ¶¶ 2-5.) CREEC

8 made efforts to redeliver returned notices and ultimately reached all but four organizations and

9 two individuals it attempted to reach. (Id. ¶ 4.)

10

II. CLASS CERTIFICATION

11

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s order granting preliminary approval, the Court

12 confirms that the proposed settlement class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of

13 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Dkt. No. 67.) The Court further confirms the

14 appointment of Ann Cupolo Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, and Julie Reiskin as class

15 representatives, and the appointment of Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel.

16

The Settlement Class is defined as:

17

All individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility who, from January

15, 2013 to the date of preliminary approval of the Settlement [January 25, 2016],

18

have been denied the full and equal enjoyment of transportation services offered

to guests at Hotels owned and/or operated by RLJ because of the lack of

19

equivalent accessible transportation services at those Hotels.

20 (Id. at 7-13.)

21

III. FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

22

The Court approves the proposed settlement as a “fair, reasonable, and adequate”

23 resolution of this litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Com’n of

24 City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). The Ninth Circuit has

25 recognized the “strong judicial policy that favors settlements, particularly where complex class 26 action litigation is concerned.” Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 27 1992). In evaluating a proposed class action settlement, “[i]t is the settlement taken as a whole,

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 7 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 9 of 13

1 rather than the individual component parts, that must be examined for overall fairness….” Staton

2 v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 960 (9th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Hanlon v.

3 Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)).

4

When determining whether to grant final approval, “the court’s intrusion upon what is

5 otherwise a private consensual agreement negotiated between the parties to a lawsuit must be

6 limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product

7 of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement,

8 taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d

9 at 625. A court should balance “the strength of plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and

10 likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial;

11 the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the

12 proceedings; the experience and views of counsel . . . ; and the reaction of the class members to

13 the proposed settlement.” Id. The list of factors a court should consider is not exclusive, and

14 “those factors not relevant to the case [may be] omitted.” Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec.,

15 361 F.3d 566, 576 n.7 (9th Cir. 2004). “Not all of these factors will apply to every class action

16 settlement,” and in certain circumstances, “one factor alone may prove determinative in finding

17 sufficient grounds for court approval.” Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DirecTV, Inc., 221

18 F.R.D. 523, 525-26 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (citing Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1376

19 (9th Cir. 1993)).

20

Here, the Court has evaluated the proposed settlement for overall fairness under the

21 relevant factors and concludes that the settlement merits approval. The extensive injunctive relief,

22 combined with robust monitoring, is an excellent result for the class, and is a fair and adequate

23 resolution of this case. The risk, duration, and expense of continued litigation in the absence of a

24 settlement also supports approval. Although the parties reached this settlement before the Court

25 was faced with resolving the parties’ claims on the merits, RLJ stated in the parties’ joint case

26 management statement that it anticipated filing a motion to limit the scope of discovery to four

27 hotels, that it would oppose a motion for class certification, and that it would move for judgment

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 8 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 10 of 13

1 on the pleadings and summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 25 at 4, 6.) Even if the Plaintiffs ultimately

2 were to prevail on the merits, by reaching this settlement at an early stage in the litigation,

3 Plaintiffs have obtained substantial injunctive relief for the class on a much shorter time frame

4 than otherwise possible.

5

In addition, although this case resolved early in the litigation, the parties exchanged crucial

6 information, permitting them to discuss both the relevant facts and possible frameworks for

7 injunctive relief. In particular, Plaintiffs obtained extensive information from RLJ in mediation,

8 which, combined with their own investigation, enabled them to make a thorough assessment of the

9 class’s claims. The settlement is the product of extensive negotiations and was reached with the

10 assistance of a JAMS mediator who is a retired federal magistrate judge. The views of counsel,

11 whom the Court has noted have “substantial experience in both disability rights and class action

12 litigation,” (Dkt. No. 67 at 3) also support approval. Finally, no class members objected to the

13 proposed settlement, which also supports approval.

14

In sum, the Court concludes that when viewed as a whole, the proposed settlement is “fair,

15 reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Therefore, the Court GRANTS final approval to

16 the class settlement.

17

IV. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

18

Rule 23(h) provides that “[i]n a certified class action, the court may award reasonable

19 attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement.”

20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). Courts have an independent obligation, however, “to ensure that the award,

21 like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have already agreed to an amount.” In

22 re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

23

The ADA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing

24 parties. 42 U.S.C. § 12205. The Ninth Circuit has approved the “lodestar” method for

25 calculating a reasonable attorneys’ fee in “class actions brought under fee-shifting statutes (such

26 as federal civil rights, securities, antitrust, copyright, and patent acts), where the relief sought –

27 and obtained – is often primarily injunctive in nature and thus not easily monetized, but where the

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 9 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 11 of 13

1 legislature has authorized the award of fees to ensure compensation for counsel undertaking

2 socially beneficial litigation.” In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941.

3

The Court determines the lodestar by multiplying the number of hours reasonably

4 expended on the matter by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433

5 (1983); Jordan v. Multnomah Cty., 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987). The lodestar should be

6 calculated by using hourly rates that are the “rate prevailing in the community for similar work

7 performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Camacho v. Bridgeport

8 Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). “Generally, when determining a reasonable hourly

9 rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.” Prison Legal News v.

10 Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 454-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979). In

11 calculating the lodestar, it is appropriate for Class Counsel to use their current hourly rates at the

12 time of the fee motion. See, e.g., In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d

13 1291, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that “[f]ull compensation requires charging current rates for all

14 work done during the litigation, or by using historical rates enhanced by an interest factor”);

15 Blackwell v. Foley, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1078 (N.D.Cal. 2010) (noting that plaintiff’s counsel in

16 ADA case were “entitled to receive their current hourly rates as compensation for the delay in

17 payment”). Although the Court presumes that the lodestar represents a reasonable fee, the Court

18 may adjust it upward or downward to reflect “a host of reasonableness factors, including the

19 quality of representation, the benefit obtained for the class, the complexity and novelty of the

20 issues presented, and the risk of nonpayment.” In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 942 (internal

21 quotations omitted). “Foremost among these considerations, however, is the benefit obtained for

22 the class.” Id.

23

Plaintiffs request a fee award of $128,467.70, and reimbursement of $6,532.30 for costs,

24 for a total of $135,000. This amount includes fees for work performed in connection with this

25 lawsuit as well as fees for future monitoring and evaluating compliance with the settlement.

26 According to Class Counsel, as of March 1, 2016, counsel’s lodestar is $144,110.50, reflecting

27 246.3 hours. (Dkt. No. 70 ¶ 8.) The lodestar reflects the exercise of billing judgment to omit

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 10 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 12 of 13

1 51.3 hours, and does not include time worked after March 1, 2016 relating to obtaining final

2 approval of the settlement or monitoring, which will continue for three years after final approval.

3 (Id.) The requested amount, $128,467.70, represents 89.1% of counsel’s lodestar. (Id.) Counsel

4 have requested their current rates for 2016, and submitted a detailed description of the work

5 performed by counsel in this case, including a breakdown of time spent on various categories of

6 tasks in the litigation, as well as an itemized list of costs. Class Counsel have extensive

7 experience litigating complex civil rights class actions, and the supporting declaration of Linda

8 Dardarian, a partner at a civil rights law firm in Oakland, California, confirms that the rates used

9 by Class Counsel are reasonable market rates. (Dkt. No. 71.)

10

The Court finds that the hourly rates requested are in line with the market rates charged by

11 attorneys and paralegals of similar experience, skill, and expertise practicing in the Northern

12 District of California. In addition, the number of hours that Class Counsel spent on this case was

13 reasonable in light of the issues presented in this litigation and the extensive injunctive relief

14 obtained for the Class. Class Counsel have reasonably accounted for and eliminated potentially

15 unnecessary and duplicative hours. No class member objected to the fee request. The Court

16 therefore concludes that the attorneys’ fees requested are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court

17 AWARDS Class Counsel $128,467.70.

18

Class Counsel are also entitled to reimbursement of reasonable expenses. Fed. R. Civ. P.

19 23(h). Class Counsel’s out-of-pocket costs total $6,532.30. The Court has examined the

20 expenses incurred by Class Counsel and concludes that they are reasonable and of the type that

21 would normally be charged by an attorney to a fee-paying client. See Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin.

22 Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 580 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court therefore AWARDS Class Counsel

23 $6,532.30 in expenses.

24

V. CONCLUSION

25

For the reasons above, the Court APPROVES the settlement and AWARDS Class Counsel

26 $128,467.70 in attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of $6,532.30 in costs. The Court enters the

27 Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 67-1) as an order of the Court and will retain jurisdiction during

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 11 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

Case 4:15-cv-00224-YGR Document 75 Filed 05/03/16 Page 13 of 13

1 the term of the Settlement Agreement over the parties, the lawsuit, and the settlement for

2 purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement.

3

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 69, 74.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 6 Dated: May 3, 2016
7

_________________________ Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers United States District Court Judge

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APP. & MOT. FOR ATTYS.’ FEES

- 12 -

CASE NO. 15-CV-00224 YGR

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-224 As of: 11/27/2018 08:41 AM PST 1 of 10
CLOSED,PROTO,PRVADR
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:15−cv−00224−YGR

Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center et al v. RLJ Lodging Trust Assigned to: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Cause: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/15/2015 Date Terminated: 05/03/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 American with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center on behalf of itself

represented by Julia Campins Campins Benham−Baker, LLP 935 Moraga Road, Suite 200 Lafayette, CA 94549 415−373−5333 Fax: 415−373−5334 Email: julia@campinsbenhambaker.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−757−7901 Fax: 303−595−9705 Email: tfox@creeclaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center 2120 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 510−431−8484 Email: blee@creeclaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510−839−6824 Fax: 510−839−7839 Email: jdavidson@lewisfeinberg.com TERMINATED: 10/07/2015

Julie Wilensky Disability Rights California 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 510−267−1200 Email: julie.wilensky@cco.sccgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin W. Williams Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition Legal Program

Case: 4:15-cv-224 As of: 11/27/2018 08:41 AM PST 2 of 10

1385 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 610−A Denver, CO 80222 303−839−1775 Email: kwilliams@ccdconline.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda Pham Lam Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510−839−6824 Fax: 510−839−7839 Email: Llam@lewisfeinberg.com TERMINATED: 10/07/2015

Sarah Morris Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−757−7901 Email: smorris@creeclaw.org TERMINATED: 02/03/2016

Plaintiff Ann Cupolo−Freeman

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hillary Jo Benham−Baker Campins Benham−Baker, LLP 935 Moraga Road, Suite 200 Lafayette, CA 94549 415−373−5333 Fax: 415−373−5334 Email: hillary@campinsbenhambaker.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2015

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Wilensky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin W. Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda Pham Lam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2015

Sarah Morris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2016

Timothy P. Fox

Case: 4:15-cv-224 As of: 11/27/2018 08:41 AM PST 3 of 10

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ruthee Goldkorn

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hillary Jo Benham−Baker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2015

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Wilensky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin W. Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda Pham Lam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2015

Sarah Morris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2016

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kenneth Kilgore on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated persons defined below TERMINATED: 11/02/2015

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hillary Jo Benham−Baker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2015

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Wilensky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin W. Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:15-cv-224 As of: 11/27/2018 08:41 AM PST 4 of 10

Plaintiff Julie Reiskin

Linda Pham Lam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2015
Sarah Morris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/03/2016
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie Wilensky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin W. Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant RLJ Lodging Trust

represented by Helen Lee Greenberg Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104−2872 415−362−2580 Fax: 415−434−0882 Email: helen.greenberg@lewisbrisbois.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steffanie Ann Malla Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP 333 Bush Street Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 415−362−2580 Fax: 415−434−0882 Email: Steffanie.Malla@lewisbrisbois.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/15/2015
01/15/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against RLJ Lodging Trust ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971−9212777.). Filed byKenneth Kilgore, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ruthee Goldkorn, Ann Cupolo−Freeman. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fox, Timothy) (Filed on 1/15/2015) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New

Case: 4:15-cv-224 As of: 11/27/2018 08:41 AM PST 5 of 10

01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/16/2015 01/16/2015
01/16/2015 01/22/2015
01/22/2015 01/22/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/27/2015 01/27/2015 02/04/2015

Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (cfeS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2015) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
3 Proposed Summons. (Fox, Timothy) (Filed on 1/15/2015) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right of Access under Americans with Disabilities Act. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 1/15/15. (Attachments: # 1 JCS Standing Order, # 2 Standing Order)(aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2015) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
5 Summons Issued as to RLJ Lodging Trust. (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2015) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
6 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Sarah Morris ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971−9215769.) filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Morris, Sarah) (Filed on 1/16/2015) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
7 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 6 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Sarah M. Morris. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2015) Modified on 1/16/2015 (mklS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/16/2015)
8 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971−9228078.) filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service Certificate of Good Standing, Colorado)(Williams, Kevin) (Filed on 1/22/2015) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
9 Certificate of Interested Entities by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Morris, Sarah) (Filed on 1/22/2015) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
10 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Fox, Timothy) (Filed on 1/22/2015) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
11 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2015) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
12 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 1/23/15. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2015) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore (Morris, Sarah) (Filed on 1/27/2015) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
14 ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 8 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Kevin William Williams representingPlaintiff. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2015) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
15 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 3/30/2015. Initial Case Management Conference set for Monday, 4/6/2015 02:00 PM before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2015) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

Case: 4:15-cv-224 As of: 11/27/2018 08:41 AM PST 6 of 10

02/09/2015
02/27/2015 02/27/2015 03/23/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015 03/26/2015
03/30/2015
04/06/2015
04/07/2015 04/28/2015 05/01/2015
05/01/2015
05/06/2015

16 NOTICE by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Fox, Timothy) (Filed on 2/9/2015) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
17 ANSWER to Complaint byRLJ Lodging Trust. (Greenberg, Helen) (Filed on 2/27/2015) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
18 Certificate of Interested Entities by RLJ Lodging Trust of Defendant RLJ Lodging Trust (Greenberg, Helen) (Filed on 2/27/2015) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
19 NOTICE of Firm Name Change by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 3/23/2015) Modified on 3/23/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2015)
20 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 3/24/2015) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
21 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 3/24/2015) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
22 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 3/24/2015) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
23 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 3/24/2015) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
24 NOTICE re Motion to Consolidate in Potentially Related Case filed in C−15−216−DMR by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Morris, Sarah) (Filed on 3/26/2015) Modified on 3/27/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2015)
25 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore, RLJ Lodging Trust. (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 3/30/2015) Modified on 3/31/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/30/2015)
27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers: Initial Case Management Conference held on 4/6/2015. Case Management Conference set for 5/11/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland.Court Reporter Diane Skillman. Plaintiff Attorney Julie Wilensky and Julia Campins. Defendant Attorney Helen Lee Greenberg. Attachment Minutes.(fs, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/6/2015) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
26 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by RLJ Lodging Trust.. (Malla, Steffanie) (Filed on 4/7/2015) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by Linda Pham Lam (Lam, Linda) (Filed on 4/28/2015) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
29 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Mediation by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore. (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 5/1/2015) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
30 Supplemental Joint Case Management Statement filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore. (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 5/1/2015) Modified on 5/4/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/01/2015)
31 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The Case Management Conference set for 5/11/2015 is CONTINUED to Monday, 7/20/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. Updated Case Management Statement due by 7/13/2015.

(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2015) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

Case: 4:15-cv-224 As of: 11/27/2018 08:41 AM PST 7 of 10

05/06/2015 05/06/2015
05/14/2015 05/26/2015
05/28/2015 06/02/2015
06/02/2015

32 ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 29 Stipulation selecting Private Mediation (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2015) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
33 ORDER SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING. Compliance Hearing regarding parties' selection of private mediator is set for Friday, 6/5/2015 09:01 AM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Filing due 5 days prior. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/6/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2015) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
34 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR STANDARD LITIGATION filed by RLJ Lodging Trust, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, et al. (Greenberg, Helen) (Filed on 5/14/2015) Modified on 5/15/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2015)
35 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO ENTER PROPOSED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER re 34 Stipulation filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, RLJ Lodging Trust, Kenneth Kilgore, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/26/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2015) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
36 Joint Statement Re: Mediation by RLJ Lodging Trust. (Greenberg, Helen) (Filed on 5/28/2015) Modified on 5/29/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2015)
37 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Protective Order for Standard Litigation filed by RLJ Lodging Trust, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Kenneth Kilgore, Ruthee Goldkorn. (Greenberg, Helen) (Filed on 6/2/2015) Modified on 6/2/2015 (cp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2015)
38 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING THE FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2015 AT 9:01 AM COMPLIANCE HEARING.

06/10/2015 07/01/2015 07/10/2015
09/14/2015
09/21/2015 09/21/2015

(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2015) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
39 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 6/10/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2015) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
40 Letter from counsel requesting continuance of CMC . (Greenberg, Helen) (Filed on 7/1/2015) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
41 ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Conference set for 7/20/2015 is CONTINUED to Monday, 9/21/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/9/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2015) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
42 SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER filed by RLJ Lodging Trust, Civil Right Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore. (Malla, Steffanie) (Filed on 9/14/2015) Modified on 9/15/2015 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2015)
43 NOTICE of Change of Address by Julia Campins (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 9/21/2015) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
44 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers: Initial Case Management Conference held on 9/21/2015. Amended Pleadings due by 10/27/2015. Case Management Statement due by 12/7/2015. Expert and Non−Expert Discovery due by 5/20/2016. Class Certification Motions filed by 2/2/2016. 5 Day Bench Trial set for 10/11/2016 08:30 AM before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Case Management Conference set for 12/14/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. Class Certification Motion Hearing set for 3/8/2016 02:00 PM before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Pretrial Conference set for Friday, 9/16/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Compliance Hearing is set for 8/26/2016 09:01 AM before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Dispositive Motion Hearing set for

Case: 4:15-cv-224 As of: 11/27/2018 08:41 AM PST 8 of 10

09/22/2015 10/07/2015 10/27/2015 10/27/2015
11/02/2015 11/02/2015 11/02/2015 11/12/2015 11/23/2015
11/23/2015
12/07/2015
12/07/2015
12/07/2015

7/12/2016 02:00 PM before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Court Reporter Name Kathy Wyatt. Plaintiff Attorney Julie Wilensky. Defendant Attorney Helen Lee Greenberg. Attachment Minutes.(fs, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/21/2015) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
45 CASE MANAGEMENT AND PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 9/22/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2015) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
46 NOTICE by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn of Withdrawal of Linda Lam and Joshua Davidson (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 10/7/2015) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
47 STIPULATION to Dismiss Plaintiff Kenneth Kilgore filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore. (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 10/27/2015) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
48 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Permitting Plaintiffs to File First Amended Complaint filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Kenneth Kilgore. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Proposed First Amended Complaint), # 2 Proposed Order)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 10/27/2015) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
49 ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 48 Stipulation permitting Plaintiff to File Proposed First Amended Complaint. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2015) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
50 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against RLJ Lodging Trust. Filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ruthee Goldkorn, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Julie Reiskin. (Fox, Timothy) (Filed on 11/2/2015) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
51 NOTICE of Change of Address by Julie Wilensky and Bill Lann Lee (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 11/2/2015) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
52 NOTICE of Change of Address by Kevin William Williams (Williams, Kevin) (Filed on 11/12/2015) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
53 NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO VACATE PENDING DEADLINES AND SET DEADLINE FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 11/23/2015) Modified on 11/24/2015 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/23/2015)
54 ORDER VACATING DATES AND SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING re 53 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. Compliance Hearing set for 12/11/2015 at 09:01 AM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 11/23/15. (jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2015) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
55 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Responses due by 12/21/2015. Replies due by 12/28/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A to Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit B to Proposed Order)(Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 12/7/2015) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
56 Declaration of Julie Wilensky in Support of 55 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 55 ) (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 12/7/2015) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
57 Declaration of Marissa McGarry in Support of 55 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie

Case: 4:15-cv-224 As of: 11/27/2018 08:41 AM PST 9 of 10

12/07/2015 12/07/2015 12/07/2015 12/08/2015 12/17/2015 01/06/2016 01/12/2016
01/22/2016 01/25/2016 01/25/2016

Reiskin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 55 ) (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 12/7/2015) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
58 Declaration of Julia Campins in Support of 55 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. (Related document(s) 55 ) (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 12/7/2015) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
59 Declaration of Timothy P. Fox in Support of 55 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. (Related document(s) 55 ) (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 12/7/2015) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
60 Declaration of Kevin W. Williams in Support of 55 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. (Related document(s) 55 ) (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 12/7/2015) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
61 CLERK'S NOTICE : In light of the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement (Dkt. No. 55) the Compliance Hearing currently set for 12/11/15 is hereby VACATED.
(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2015) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
62 Declaration of HELEN LEE GREENBERG REGARDING DISSEMINATION OF CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACTION NOTICE filed byRLJ Lodging Trust. (Greenberg, Helen) (Filed on 12/17/2015) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
63 Request for Judicial Notice re 55 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 55 ) (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 1/6/2016) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers: Motion Hearing held and submitted on 1/12/2016 re 55 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) filed by Julie Reiskin, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn. Final Approval Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Status Conference set for Monday, 1/25/2016 02:01 PM before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.Court Reporter Name Diane Skillman. Plaintiff Attorney Julie Wilensky. Defendant Attorney Helen Greenberg. Attachment Minutes.(fs, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/12/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
65 Declaration of Julie Wilensky in Support of 55 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Unopposed) − Supplemental Declaration filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Amended Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Proposed Notice, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 55 ) (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 1/22/2016) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
66 CLERK'S NOTICE: In light of the supplemental declaration (Dkt. No. 65) filed in support of the Motion to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Status Conference currently set for 1/25/2016 at 2:01 p.m. is hereby VACATED.. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ygrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2016) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
67 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS [*** DEADLINES AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT***] by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez

Case: 4:15-cv-224 As of: 11/27/2018 08:41 AM PST 10 of 10

02/03/2016 03/07/2016
03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/09/2016 03/29/2016
05/03/2016 05/03/2016 05/03/2016

Rogers granting 55 Motion to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B ) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2016) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
68 NOTICE by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin of Withdrawal of Sarah Morris (Fox, Timothy) (Filed on 2/3/2016) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
69 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. Motion Hearing set for 5/3/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Responses due by 3/21/2016. Replies due by 3/28/2016. (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 3/7/2016) Modified on 3/8/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2016)
70 Declaration of Julie Wilensky in Support of 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 69 ) (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 3/7/2016) Modified on 3/8/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2016)
71 Declaration of Linda M. Dardarian in Support of 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. (Related document(s) 69 ) (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 3/7/2016) Modified on 3/8/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2016)
72 Declaration of Julia Campins in Support of 69 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed byCivil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. (Related document(s) 69 ) (Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 3/7/2016) Modified on 3/8/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/07/2016)
73 NOTICE by RLJ Lodging Trust Notice of Unavailabilty (Greenberg, Helen) (Filed on 3/9/2016) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
74 Unopposed MOTION for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, Julie Reiskin. Motion Hearing set for 5/3/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Responses due by 4/12/2016. Replies due by 4/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Wilensky Declaration ISO Final Approval, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Final Approval and Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs, # 3 Proposed Final Judgment)(Wilensky, Julie) (Filed on 3/29/2016) Modified on 3/30/2016 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/2016)
75 ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 69 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 74 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. (ygrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
76 JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/3/2016. (ygrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
77 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers: Motion Hearing held and submitted on 5/3/2016 re 74 MOTION for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Julie Reiskin, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, and 69 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Julie Reiskin, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Ann Cupolo−Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn.Total Time in Court 6 minutes. Court Reporter Name Diane Skillman. Attachment Minutes.(fs, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/3/2016) (Entered: 05/05/2016)