,, Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 1 of 23

1 LAURENCE PARADIS (STATE BARNO.

ALEXIUS MARKWALDER (STATE BAR

2 MARY-LEE E. KIMBER (STATE BAR

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 3 2001 Center St., Third Floor

Berkeley, CA 94704 4 Telephone: (510) 665-8644

Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

5 TTY:

(510) 665-8716

Emaih 6

general@dralegal.org

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

12 CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY

CaseNo.

13

RIGHTS, ~C. ("CDR"), BEN ROCKWELL and DMITRI BELSER, on

14

behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS:

15 Plaintiffs,

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT; SECTION 504 OF THE

16 :V.

REHABILITATION ACT; CAL. CIV. CODE § 54, etseq.; CAL. CIV. CODE § 51,

~o

17 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

et seq.; CAL. CIV. CODE § 4450, et seq.; CAL. GOV’T. CODE 11135, etseq.; and

18

TRANSPORTATION ("Caltrans") and WILL DECLARATORY RELIEF KEMPTON, in his official capacity.

19 Defendants.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 2 of 23

1

INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiffs complain of Defendants herein and allege that:

3

1. This lawsuit is brought against Defendant California Department of

4 Transportation ("Caltrans") to remedy a systemic pattern and practice of discrimination being

5 committed by Caltrans against people with mobility and vision disabilities. Caltrans provides

6 and maintains many facilities throughout the state of California that are inaccessible to people

7 with disabilities. These facilities include sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways, as well as

8 park and ride facilities. These facilities frequently contain access barriers that expose disabled

9 persons to many hazards, including forcing wheelchair users to roll in the streets alongside

10 vehicular traffic. Caltrans has been required for many decades to identify and remedy such

11 access barriers but has failed and refused to meet this obligation. This lawsuit seeks to put an

12 end to such discrimination by requiring Caltrans to meet its obligation to protect the health and

13 safety of Californians with disabilities.

14

2. Defendant Will Kempton is sued in his official capacity as Director of Caltrans.

15 Caltrans and Kempton will be referred to in this complaint together as "Defendants".

16

3. Plaintiff Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. ("CDR") is a membership

17 organization representing persons with all disabilities throughout California, including

18 individuals who have been discriminated against and subjected to hazardous conditions due to

19 the access ban’iers at issue in this case. Plaintiff Ben Rockwell uses a wheelchair and has been

20 personally discriminated against and subjected to hazardous conditions due to the access barriers

21 at issue in this case. Plaintiff Dmitri Belser has a vision disability and has been personally

22 discriminated against and subjected to hazardous conditions due to the access barriers at issue in

23 this case. CDR, Rockwell and Belser will be referred to in this complaint together as

24 "Plaintiffs".

25

4. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and all Californians with mobility and

26 vision disabilities who are being discriminated against and subjected to hazardous conditions due

27 to the access barriers at issue in this case.

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 3 of 23

1

5. Defendants provide for public use an extensive network of physical facilities

2 around the state of California, including many public sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian

3 crossings, and other walkways (hereafter referred to as ’.’pedestrian rights of way"). Defendants

4 also provide for public use at various locations around California a system of Park and Ride

5 facilities. This system of pedestrian rights of way and Park and Ride facilities is hereafter

6 referred to collectively as "Caltrans facilities".

7

6. These Caltrans facilities constitute a key public program, service and activity

8 within Caltrans jurisdiction. Caltrans provides this public program, service and activity for the

9 benefit of residents of and visitors to the state of California. By refusing to provide access to this

10 key public program, service and activity, Defendants discriminate against persons with

ll disabilities in violation of federal and state law. Throughout the state of California, Defendants

12 have systemically:

13

Failed, and are failing, to provide program access to Caltrans facilities in that they

have not developed and implemented a comprehensive Self-Evaluation and

14

Transition plan covering pedestrian rights of way;

15
16 ~o
17
18
19
20

Followed, and are following, an unlawful policy of limiting the budget for accessibility upgrades to 20 percent of the total budget for Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation projects ("RRR") thereby refusing to provide program access to all Caltrans facilities along resurfaced, restored or rehabilitated projects;
Installed and/or maintained, and are installing and/or maintaining, pedestrian rights of way which have missing curb cuts, unsafe curb cuts, dangerous slopes and crumbled or uneven pavement, and inadequate detectable warnings, amongst other barriers;

21

Installed and/or maintained, and are installing and/or maintaining, Park and Ride

22

facilities with inaccessible paths of travel and non-compliant accessible parking

spaces, amongst other barriers;

23 Failed, and are failing, to provide accessible alternative routes during construction

24

and information in accessible form for persons with vision disabilities when

sidewalks are closed; and 25

26

Failed, and are failing, to inform local residents which facilities are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, thereby, hindering the complaint process.

27 7. These systemic failures create significant barriers for persons with disabilities. As
28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
2

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 4 of 23

1 a result of these barriers, disabled pedestrians experience unsafe, anxiety-ridden travel

2 experiences while using Caltrans facilities. Defendants’ failure to make accessible facilities

3 under its jurisdiction denies persons with disabilities access to Defendants’ programs, services

4 and activities and is in violation of both federal and state access requirements.

5

8. (;DR made efforts to resolve this dispute without litigation. In a letter dated June

6 6, 2006, CDR requested that Caltrans remedy or make plans to remedy the violations listed

7 herein. Caltrans refused and has since failed to take any remedial action.

8

9. Defendants’ repeated failures to fulfill its obligations under federal and state law

9 is particularly egregious in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Barden v. City of Sacramento,

10 292 F.3d 1073 (2002), which held that "Title II’s prohibition of discrimination in the provision

II of public services applies to the maintenance of public sidewalks."

12

10. Plaintiffs include individuals with mobility disabilities who require use of a

13 wheelchair, motorized scooter, or any other mobility device to navigate Caltrans facilities. Such

14 individuals require curb ramps that are properly designed, located, constructed, and maintained

15 so that they can use the pedestrian rights of way to travel to and from their desired destinations

16 without being required to travel in traffic and or traverse hazardous and unsafe curb ramps. Such

17 individuals also require that pedestrian rights of way be properly maintained so that they are free

18 from abrupt changes in level of over 1A inch (or ½ inch if the change in level is beveled), which

19 are difficult if not impossible to traverse by a person using a wheelchair, and cross-slopes of

20 more than two percent, which may cause a wheelchair or scooter to tip over sideways.

21 Pedestrian rights of way must also be sufficiently wide to allow passage of a mobility device.

22 Barriers such as light poles, trash cans and other obstructions must not narrow the pedestrian

23 right of way such that it is impassable for those with mobility disabilities. Finally, such

24 individuals require that alternative accessible routes be provided during construction that results

25 in sidewalk closures.

26

11. Plaintiffs also include individuals with vision disabilities. Such individuals

27 require that where paths of travel end and/or cross a street, the area be properly marked with

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
3

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 5 of 23

yellow truncated domes, permitting such individuals to safely use pedestrian rights of way and to

safely cross streets. Such individuals also require pedestrian rights of way be properly

maintained so as to be free from protruding objects (with overhead clearance of less than 80

inches) and other hazards that interfere with their ability to navigate safely. Such individuals

5 also require that information about sidewalk closures due to construction, or any other reason, be

6 provided in accessible form.

7

12. The named plaintiffs in this action, on behalf of themselves and all others

8 similarly situated, challenge Defendants’ systemic failure to make its facilities readily accessibl

9 to and useable by individuals who have mobility and/or vision disabilities. These actions are in

I0 violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation

ll Act of 1973, which requires public entities and entities receiving federal funds to provide equal

12 access to public services for people with disabilities. These actions are also in violation of

13 California Civil Code § 51, et seq.; California Civil Code § 54, et seq.; California Government

14 Code § 4450, et seq.; and California Government Code § 11135, et seq.

15

JURISDICTION

16

13. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, brought pursuant to the

17 Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 to 1~2213, specifically Title II of

18 the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., as well as

19 California Civil Code § 51 et seq. ("the Unruh Act"), California Civil Code § 54 et seq. ("the

20 Disabled Persons Act"), California Government Code § 4450 et seq., and California Government

21 Code § 11135, et seq.

22

14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 for

23 claims arising under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

24

15. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

25 §§ 2201 and 2202.

26

16. Under the doctrine of pendent and supplemental jurisdiction, this Court has

27 jurisdiction over claims alleged herein arising under California state law.

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
4

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 6 of 23

1

VENUE

2

17. Venue is proper in this Court because (i) Plaintiff CDR has members within the

3 Northern District of California, (ii) Defendant Caltrans owns and maintains non-compliant

4 facilities within the Northern District of California, and (iii) the acts and omissions giving rise to

5 this claim have occurred across the state of California, including within the Northern District of

6 California.

7

PARTIES

8

18. The organizational Plaintiff CDR, a nonprofit California corporation, is the oldest

9 and largest membership organization of persons with disabilities in California. Established in

10 1970 as the California Association of the Physically Handicapped with five members, CDR has
II grown to become an effective and widely respected cross-disability advocacy organization.
12 Plaintiff CDR’s mission is to initiate, sponsor, and implement plans, policies and activities that
13 will enhance the lives of persons with disabilities and enable them to enter more fully into
14 society at all levels. To this end, CDR seeks to improve the quality of life for all persons with
15 16 any disability by conducting education and training and by pursuing removal of barriers through
17 advocacy and change in public policy. Accordingly, the interests that CDR seeks to protect

18 through this litigation are germane to its mission and purpose. Further, CDR’s members include

19 persons with mobility and vision disabilities that have been harmed and continue to experience

20 harm because Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide access to Caltrans facilities.
21 Because this complaint seeks only injunctive relief, this lawsuit does not require the individual
22 participation of CDR members.
23 19. Named Plaintiff Rockwell is a person with a disability under all applicable
24 statutes. Plaintiff Rockwell uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility, and regularly travels alon
25 the pedestrian rights of way under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Plaintiff Rockwell has
26 experienced and continues to experience barriers along these pedestrian rights of way because of
27

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
5

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 7 of 23

Defendants ongoing violations.

20. Named Plaintiff Belser is a person with a disability under all applicable statutes.

Plaintiff Belser has a vision disability, uses a cane, and regularly travels along the pedestrian

rights of way under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Plaintiff Belser has experienced and continues

5 to experience barriers along these pedestrian rights of way because of Defendants’ ongoing

6 violations.

7

21. Defendant Caltrans is a governmental entity as defined by the laws of the State of

8 California and has fifty (50) or more employees. Caltrans also is a public entity within the

9 meaning of Title II of the ADA, as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1); 28 C.F.R. §

10 35.104. Defendant Caltrans is responsible for installing, repairing and maintaining all pedestrian

ll rights of way along California state highways, including but not limited to the design,

12 installation, repair and maintenance of the system of public sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian

13 crossings, other walkways and Park and Ride facilities along the state highway system

14 throughout the state of California.

15

22. Defendant Will Kempton, or his successor, is named and sued in his official

16 capacity as the Director of Caltrans. Defendant Kempton is responsible for managing the day-to-

17 day operations of California’s state transportation system and for the violations alleged herein.

18

23. References to "Defendants" shall be deemed to refer to each and all Defendants

19 alleged herein.

20

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

21

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

22 Plaintiffs bring this action, for injunctive and declaratory relief purposes only, on their own

23 behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The class the Named Plaintiffs seek to

24 represent is composed of all persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities who use and/or will

25 use Caltrans facilities. The claims asserted herein are solely for injunctive and declaratory relief

26 for the class; damage claims are not included in this complaint.

27

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

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
6

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 8 of 23

1 impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to

2 the Court.

3

26. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact

4 involved affecting the parties to be represented in that they, or their members, are all being

5 denied, or will be denied, their civil rights of access to Caltrans facilities due to the barriers

6 described herein.

7

27. Common questions of law and fact predominate, including questions raised by

8 Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants have failed to provide program access to Caltrans

9 facilities.

10

28. The named Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they, or their

11 members, are directly impacted by Defendants’ failure to provide program access to Caltrans

12 facilities. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the

13 interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are experienced in

14 representing clients in class action civil rights claims.

15

29. Claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class as a whole

16 because the Named Plaintiffs, or their members, are similarly affected by Defendants’ failure to

17 provide access to Caltrans facilities.

18

30. Defendants have acted and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the

19 class as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect

20 to the class as a whole.

21

31. References to Plaintiffs shall be deemed to include each named plaintiff and each

22 member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.

23

FACTS COMMON TO ALL ALLEGATIONS

24

32. Caltrans is responsible for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of

25 the California State Highway System and all pedestrian rights of way and Park and Ride

26 facilities along those systems. In total, Caltrans manages more than 45,000 miles of California’s

27 highway and freeway lanes.

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
7

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 9 of 23

l

33. Defendants have failed, and are failing, to prepare and implement a Self-

2 Evaluation and Transition Plan relating to its facilities that provides access to pedestrian rights of

3 way and Park and Ride facilities. Federal law requires that public entities create self-evaluation

4 and transition plans for all existing facilities, including pedestrian rights of way that are not

5 accessible. A transition plan must include a schedule for providing curb ramps or other sloped

6 areas where pedestrian rights of way cross curbs. Defendants’ failure to prepare and implement

7 a Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan relating to and ensuring program access to Caltrans

8 facilities denies persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities program access to such facilities.

9

34. Defendants have followed, and are following, an unlawful policy of limiting the

lO budget for accessibility upgrades to 20 percent of the total budget for alteration projects, known

ll as Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation projects ("RRR"). As such, Defendants routinely

12 fail to install and/or improve accessible features for pedestrian rights of way in conjunction with

13 RRR projects where such work will cost more than 20 percent of the total cost of the RRR

14 ~roject. The implementing regulations for Title III of the ADA (technically inapplicable to

15 ~)efendants) permit limits to the percentage of an alteration project’s total budget used to make

16 the paths of travel to the altered area accessible. However, courts have held that Title II of the

17 ADA, which requires newly constructed or altered streets to have curb ramps, supercedes any

18 exception based on disproportionate costs. Because curb ramps are a part of the alteration and

19 not a path of travel to the alteration, the Title Ili exception does not apply. Defendants’ failure to

20 install and/or improve accessible features for pedestrian rights of way in conjunction with RRR

21 projects where such installation and/or improvement costs in excess of 20 percent of the total

22 RRR budget denies persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities program access to pedestrian

23 rights of way under Caltrans’ jurisdiction.

24

35. Defendants have failed, and are failing, to install and maintain sidewalks,

25 crosswalks, pedestrian crossings and other walkways in violation of federal and state law. For

26 example, many intersections have no curb ramps or have curb ramps that are improperly

27 designed and/or constructed. Diagonal ramps intended to serve both coruers are routinely

28 Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 8

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 10 of 23

1 misplaced and are therefore unusable or dangerous; slopes on existing ramps are too steep and

2 threaten to tip a wheelchair or scooter using the ramp; landings are non-existent and force

3 individuals with mobility disabilities to use the much steeper side flares to access the curb cut;

4 and gutter pans have lips where the sidewalk meets the street and are often too steep to be used.

5 Similarly, many sidewalks are riddled with problems: many have buckled due to tree roots,

6 resulting in abrupt changes in level, or are narrowed by obstacles such as light poles and trash

7 cans. Further, compliant detectable warnings - yellow truncated domes - are frequently absent

8 on curb ramps. Also, protruding objects, such as low hanging tree limbs, reduce overhead

9 clearance and interfere with the ability to navigate safely. Caltrans facilities that do not contain

10 curb cuts, have inadequate and/or unsafe curb cuts, lack detectable warnings, or have

ll inaccessible pedestrian rights of way include (but are not limited to) facilities that have been

12 resurfaced or otherwise altered since January 26, 1992. Defendants’ failure to install and

13 maintain its pedestrian rights of way in an accessible condition denies persons with mobility

14 and/or vision disabilities access to Caltrans facilities.

15

36. Defendants have failed to install and/or maintain, and are failing to install and/or

16 maintain, Park and Ride facilities with accessible paths of travel that are free from protruding

17 objects and compliant accessible parking spaces in violation of federal and state law. As a result,

18 persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities are unable to safely use these facilities to access

19 public transportation on which they are often dependent. Defendants’ failure to install and/or

20 maintain Park and Ride facilities in an accessible condition denies persons with mobility and/or

21 vision disabilities access to Caltrans facilities.

22

37. Defendants have failed, and are failing, to provide accessible alternative routes

23 during construction and information in accessible form for persons with visual disabilities when

24 sidewalks are closed. As a result, persons with mobility disabilities are often forced to travel in

25 the street with traffic while persons with visual disabilities face danger of unknowingly walking

26 into a construction site. Defendants’ failure to maintain in an accessible condition alternative

27 routes to sidewalks that are closed during construction and provide information in accessible

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
9

;ase 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 11 of 23

1 form about sidewalk closures denies persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities access to

2 Caltrans facilities.

3

38. Defendants have failed, and are failing, to inform local residents which sidewalks,

4 crosswalks, pedestrian crossings, other walkways and Park and Rides are under the jurisdiction

5 of Caltrans. As a result, persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities frequently are not able

6 to readily determine the pedestrian rights of way for which Caltrans is the responsible entity,

7 thereby hindering pedestrian complaints to Caltrans regarding accessibility compliance.

8 Defendants’ failure to provide jurisdictional information to persons with mobility and/or vision

9 disabilities contributes to the denial of access to Caltrans facilities.

10

EXPERIENCES OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS

II

39. Plaintiff CDR has members who reside throughout the State of California and

12 who have, and will continue to, use Caltrans facilities and who have encountered and will

13 continue to encounter the various types of access barriers described herein. These barriers cause

14 frustration and anxiety and require (;DR members to expend substantially more effort than

15 would be required if Caltrans facilities were accessible.

16

40. For example, a CDR member with a mobility disability regularly uses the

17 Manzenita Park and Ride facility in Marin County, California. This CDR member reports that

18 the cross-slopes in the accessible parking spaces at this facility exceed the two percent legally

19 allowed, thereby making it difficult for him to exit his vehicle. In addition, because the Park and

20 Ride does not have a designated accessible pedestrian right of way from the parking lot to the

21 bus stop, he is forced to travel in the flow of the parking lot traffic when traveling from his

22 parking space to the bus stop. Finally, the CDR member notes that the pedestrian signal button

23 is inaccessible to persons in wheelchairs because it is placed too high and can only be accessed

24 from a steeply sloped sidewalk.

25

41. Also for example, a CDR member with a mobility disability must regularly travel

26 along Palm Avenue (California State Highway 75) in Imperial Beach, California to visit friends.

27 The sidewalk has multiple barriers including overgrown shrubbery, which narrows the sidewalk,

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
10

;ase 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 12 of 23

1 and steep cross-slopes (up to 28 percent) from driveways, which cause her scooter to tip over

2 sideways. In an effort to alert the government entity responsible for remedying the excessive

3 cross-slopes and narrow sidewalks in the 1300 block, she has contacted various entities at all

4 levels of government, including Caltrans, the City of Imperial Beach and the County of San

5 Diego. However, for over a year and a half, each of these three entities shuffled her complaint to

6 another of the three entities claiming that the pedestrian right of way is not under its jurisdiction.

7 Ultimately, Caltrans claimed jurisdiction and made a temporary fix using asphalt to minimize th

8 cross-slopes. The temporary fix, however, is non-compliant.

9

42. Plaintiff Rockwell has a mobility disability, which requires him to use a

10 wheelchair. He is resident of the City of Long Beach, California, where he is frequently denied

11 program access to Caltrans facilities as he conducts his daily activities, including going to

12 medical appointments, shopping, and visiting patients at community hospitals. Plaintiff

13 Rockwell has experienced and, absent an injunction, will continue to experience Caltrans

14 facilities, which are inaccessible to people with mobility disabilities due to the access barriers

l 5 described herein.

16

43. Plaintiff Rockwell has experienced and will continue to experience Caltrans

17 facilities which contain no curb ramps; curb ramps that are not accessible to a person with a

18 mobility disability due to improper design, installation, construction, and/or maintenance; and,

19

rights of way that are not accessible to a person with a mobility disability due to

20 improper design, installation, construction and/or maintenance.

21

44. Plaintiff Rockwell regularly travels on Pacific Coast Highway ("PCH")

22 (California State Highway 1) in Long Beach, California, which contains pedestrian rights of way

23 under Ca!trans’ jurisdiction. PCH has numerous intersections that do not have curb cuts or have

24 inadequate curb cuts. The lack of curb cuts along PCH subjects Plaintiff Rockwell to frustrating

25 and dangerous travel experiences. In addition, these access barriers require Plaintiff Rockwell to

26 expend substantially more time navigating PCH than would be required ifPCH were accessible.

27 For instance, Plaintiff Rockwell must often re-trace his route back to the previous curb cut and

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
11

:ase 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 13 of 23

then travel in the street of a six-lane expressway with on-street parking along some parts of the

2 street in order to reach his destination. Such routes, which force him into traffic traveling at high

3 speeds, put Plaintiff Rockwell at serious risk of danger.

4

45. For example, in August of 2006, Plaintiff Rockwell was traveling along PCH to

5 eat at The International House of Pancakes/~estaurant, a route he frequently travels. After

6 entering the sidewalk at the intersection of PCH and Long Beach Boulevard, Plaintiff Rockwell

7 proceeded west on the south side of the street. Traveling west, Plaintiff Rockwell was forced to

8 enter the street on at least three separate occasions due to mid-block obstacles and excessively

9 steep slopes on curb ramps. Plaintiff Rockwell traveled on the street as close as possible to the

10 cars parked along the curb. Nonetheless, at least, two large trucks drove within four inches of his

11 wheelchair. Additionally, a local bus driver opened the door of his bus as he passed and yelled at

12 Plaintiff Rockwell because he was traveling in the street.

13

46. On those occasions that Plaintiff Rockwell is able to access the sidewalk using

14 curb ramps, he often experiences difficulty using the curb ramps because they are excessively

sloped. As a result, he is forced to slow his motorized wheelchair to avoid tipping over

16 backwards.

17

47. Plaintiff Rockwell also confronts obstructions such as light poles, sign posts and

18 broken and/or uneven pavement on PCH. All of these obstructions not only impede his path of

19 travel but also force him to travel in the street. For example, at the corner of PCH and Pacific

20 Avenue, Plaintiff Rockwell has experienced great difficulty traveling along the pedestrian right

21 of way, because the light pole creates an obstruction. As a result, he is forced to re-trace his path

22 and enter the street in order to continue on PCH. This is not uncommon as light poles also

23 obstruct the path of travel at the corners of PCH and Obispo Avenue and PCH and Orizaba

24 Avenue.

25

48. While traveling on PCH, Plaintiff Rockwell has tipped over in his wheelchair on

26 numerous occasions. Indeed, in an attempt to remediate this problem, Plaintiff Rockwell

27 purchased a new wheelchair that has rear anti-tip wheels. While these wheels have mitigated the

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
12

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 14 of 23

1 tendency of his wheelchair to tip over backwards, they offer no assistance on excessive slopes or

2 for mid-block barriers, which still force Plaintiff Rockwell to travel in the street. As a

3 consequence, he continues to be harmed by Defendants’ conduct.

4

49. PlaintiffBelser has a vision disability and uses a cane to aid in navigation. He is a

5 resident of the City of Berkeley, California, where he is frequently denied access to Caltrans

6 facilities as he conducts his daily activities, including going to work. Plaintiff Belser has

7 experienced and, absent an injunction, will continue to experience Caltrans facilities, which are

8 inaccessible to people with vision disabilities due to the access barriers described herein.

9

50. For example, PlaintiffBelser regularly travels on San Pablo Avenue (California

10 State Highway 123) and Ashby Avenue (California State Highway 13) in Berkeley, California,

II which contain pedestrian rights of way under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. Ashby Avenues lacks

12 detectable warnings on almost all of the existing curb ramps. Detectable warnings indicate to

13 persons with vision disabilities where the sidewalk ends and the street begins. Applicable law

14 requires that detectable warnings be in the form of yellow, truncated domes. The absence of

15 detectable warnings along streets such as Ashby Avenue makes it makes it difficult for a person

16 :with a vision disability to navigate the pedestrian route with full assurance and safety. Without

17 proper detectible warnings, pedestrians with vision disabilities are exposed to the risk that they

18 may enter oncoming traffic without being aware that they are in a danger zone. For instance, at 19 particularly busy intersections where vehicles often cut corners, detectable warnings help

20 Plaintiff Belser know where it is safe to stand. Plaintiff Belser has also experienced, on both San

21 Pablo and Ashby Avenues, protruding objects which reduce the overhead clearance and which

22 are imperceptible ahead of time to persons with vision disabilities. Uneven/broken pavement

23 along San Pablo and Ashby Avenues create additional obstacles, which are often imperceptible

24 ahead of time to persons with vision disabilities. These barriers and safety hazards along San

25 Pablo and Ashby Avenues subject Plaintiff Belser to frustrating and dangerous travel

26 experiences, particularly since they are high traffic speed routes.

27

51. The conditions along Ashby Avenue are so difficult and dangerous that Plaintiff

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
13

C ~se 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 15 of 23

! Belser avoids using this route when possible. However, Plaintiff Belser does have to use Ashby

2 Avenue on his way to and from the South Berkeley Senior Center, which requires him to walk

3 between Ellis Street and Telegraph Street along Ashby Avenue. Plaintiff Belser has experienced

4 no detectable warnings along this route. Indeed, along Ashby Avenue from Adeline Boulevard

5 to Tunnel Road (approximately 19 blocks in length), there is only one curb ramp with the

6 required yellow truncated domes.

7

52. Pedestrians with vision disabilities experience further difficulties when using

8 Caltrans facilities due to a lack of adequate information when construction activities block part

9 or all of a pedestrian route. When such construction takes place, Caltrans needs to ensure that

10 pedestrians with vision disabilities are notified of the construction and provided adequate

11 information in accessible forms so that they can use alternate routes. Caltrans frequently fails to

12 do so. For example, Plaintiff Belser has experienced many occasions when the sidewalk along

13 Caltrans routes such as San Pablo Avenue has been blocked due to construction but Mr. Belser

14 did not become aware of the construction until encountering the closure partway down the block.

15 Consequently, Mr. Belser then had to re-trace his steps and cross to the other side of the street,

16 making it even more difficult for a person with vision disability to navigate along these routes.

17 The lack of information in accessible forms about sidewalk closures due to construction has

18 caused Plaintiff Belser to expend substantially more time navigating these pedestrian rights of

19 way than would be required if Caltrans had provided such information.

20

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21

(Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)

22

53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 52,

23 above, inclusive.

24

54. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") prohibits a public entity

25 from excluding a person with a disability from participating in, or denying the benefits of, the

26 goods, services, programs and activities of the entity or otherwise discriminating against a person

27 on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
14

( ~se 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 16 of 23

1

55. In requiring public entities to prepare and implement a Self-Evaluation and

2 Transition Plan to evaluate and improve accessibility, the regulations issued by the U.S.

Department of Justice specifically require public entities to include "a schedule for providing

4 curb ramps or other sloped areas where pedestrians walks cross curbs" and provides priorities for

5 such schedule. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d)(2). Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants do

6 not have a Self-Evaluation or Transition Plan that addresses pedestrian rights of way.

7 Defendants’ failure to prepare and implement a Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan constitutes

8 unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA.

9

56. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA also generally require that,

10 when a public entity alters any existing facility in any manner that affects usability, the altered

11 portions must be made accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §

12 35.151(b).

13

57. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA specifically provide that a

14 public entity must install curb ramps at intersections whenever it alters sidewalks, streets, roads

15 and/or highways at any time after January 26, 1992. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(e). An RRR project

16 undertaken by Caltrans constitutes an alteration within the meaning of the ADA. Since the

17 effective date of the ADA, Defendants have failed to provide proper curb ramps when Caltrans

18 alters sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways. Defendants’ conduct in failing to provide

19 proper curb ramps when they alter sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways constitutes unlawful

20 discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title I1 of the ADA.

21

58. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide that a public entity

22 must maintain the features of all facilities required to be accessible by the ADA. 28 C.F.R. §

23 35.133. Facilities required to be accessible include roads, walks, passageways and parking lots.

24 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

25

59. Defendants’ conduct in failing to maintain accessible facilities by failing to fix

26 uneven and/or crumbling pavement, failing to remove protruding and/or moveable obstructions,

27 failing to ensure a sufficiently wide path of travel, failing to correct excessive cross-slopes on the

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
15

C lse 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08123/2006 Page 17 of 23

1 path of travel and failing to provide compliant accessible parking spaces thus constitutes

2 unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA.

3

60. The regulations implementing Title III of the ADA - 28 C.F.R. 36 App. A - and

4 applying to Title II - 28 C.F.R. 35.151 (c) - provide that a public entity must maintain

5 accessibility for temporary facilities, including but not limited to, "temporary safe pedestrian

6 passageways around a construction site." 28 C.F.R. 36 App. A 4.1.1 (4).

7

61. Defendants’ conduct in failing to provide accessible alternative routes during

8 construction and accessible information for persons with visual disabilities when sidewalks are

9 closed constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of th

10 ADA.

II

62. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA also provide that a "public

12 entity shall make available to applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons

13 information regarding the provisions of this [regulation] and its applicability to the services,

14 programs, or activities of the public entity." 28 C.F.R. § 35.106.

15

63. Defendants’ conduct in failing to provide information about which facilities are

16 under their jurisdiction thus constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in

17 violation of Title II of the ADA.

18

64. Defendants’ conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of the ADA

19 and unless restrained from doing so, Defendants will continue to violate the ADA. Said conduct,

20 unless enjoined, will continue to inflict injuries for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at

21 law. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to section 308 of the ADA

22 42 U.S.C. § 12188.

23

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

24

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

25

(Violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973)

26

65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 64

27 above, inclusive.

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
16

( ase 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 18 of 23

1

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

2 regulations promulgated hereunder, prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities by

3 recipients of federal funding. Section 504 provides, in pertinent part, that:

4

No otherwise qualified handicapped individual.., shall, solely by reason of her

or his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of,

5

or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal

financial assistance .... 6

7

67. Defendants have received substantial federal financial assistance at all relevant

8 times.

9

68. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs in programs and activities

10 receiving federal financial assistance solely because of the disabilities of Plaintiff Rockwell,

11 Plaintiff Belser and Plaintiff CDR’s members, and all others similarly situated, in violation of 2

12 U.S.C. § 794 and the regulations promulgated hereunder.

13

69. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Section 504, Plaintiffs have

14 been injured as set forth herein.

15

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

16

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

17

(Violation of California Civil Code § 54, et seq.)

18

70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

19 69, above, inclusive.

20

71. The facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans constitute places of public

21 accommodation and/or places to which the general public is invited within the meaning of

22 California Civil Code §§ 54.1 and 54.3.

23

72. Defendants have and are violating Plaintiffs’ rights under California Civil Code §

24 54.1 et seq. by denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to and use and enjoyment of Caltrans

25 facilities due to the acts and omissions alleged herein.

26

73. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct alleged herein includes, inter alia, the

27 violation of the rights of persons with disabilities set forth in Title II of the ADA and

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
17

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 19 of 23

accompanying regulations, all of which have been expressly incorporated into California Civil

2 Code section 54.1, et seq. since January 1, 1993.

3

74. Defendants’ actions constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under California

4 Civil Code § 54, et seq., and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief remedying the

5 violations.

6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

7

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8

(Violation of California Civil Code § 51, et seq.)

9

75. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein the allegations in paragraph 1 through

l0 74, above, inclusive.

II

76. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein constitutes a violation of the Unruh

12 Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51, et seq., in that the conduct alleged herein

13 constitutes a violation of various provisions of the ADA, as set forth above, all of which have

14 been expressly incorporated into California Civil Code § 51. Pursuant to California Civil Code §

15 51, a violation of the civil rights of a person with a disability under the ADA is also a violation

16 of the civil rights of a person with a disability under the Unruh Civil Rights Act,

17

77. The actions of Defendants were and are in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights

18 Act, California Civil Code § 51, et seq., and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief

19 remedying the violations.

20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

21

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22

(Violation of California Government Code § 4450, et seq.)

23

78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 though

24 77 above, inclusive.

25

79. Caltrans facilities are publicly funded and intended for use by the public within

26 the meaning of California Government Code § 4450, et seq. Defendants have constructed,

27 altered, installed, maintained and/or operated its facilities in violation of disability access

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
18

ase 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08t23/2006 Page 20 of 23

1 requirements under California Government Code § 4450, et seq., and regulations implemented

2 pursuant thereto. The aforementioned acts and omissions of the Defendants constitute a denial

3 of equal access to and use of Caltrans facilities.

4

80. Defendants’ failure to provide full and equal access to Caltrans facilities has

5 caused Plaintiffs to suffer deprivation of their civil rights. Plaintiffs request injunctive relief

6 enjoining Defendants from maintaining the violations described above.

7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

8

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9

(California Government Code § 11135, et seq.)

10

81. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein the allegations of paragraphs 1 through

ll 80, above, inclusive.

12

82. California Government Code § 11135 and the regulations promulgated

13 thereunder, prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities by any program or activity

14 funded by the state. Section l 1135 provides, in pertinent part, that:

15

No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of... disability, be

unlawfully denied the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination

16

under, any program or activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any

financial assistance from the State. 17

18

83. Caltrans’ programs and activities are funded primarily by the state.

19

84. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs in such programs and activities

20 solely because of their disabilities in violation of Government Code § 11135 and the regulations

21 promulgated thereunder.

22

85. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of § 11135, Plaintiffs have been

23 injured as set forth herein.

24

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

25

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26

(Declaratory Relief)

27

86. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein the allegations of paragraphs 1 through

28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
19

C ~se 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 21 of 23

1 85, above, inclusive.

2

87. Plaintiffs contend, and are informed and believe that Defendants deny failing to

3 comply with applicable laws prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities in

4 violation of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, § 51 of the California Civil Code, §

5 54 of the California Civil Code, § 4450 of the California Government Code and § 11135 of the

6 California Government Code.

7

88. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each

8 of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

l0 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
12 89. An order and judgment enjoining Defendants from violating the Americans with
13 Disabilities Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; § 51 of the California Civil
14
Code; § 54 of the California Civil Code; § 4450 of the California Government Code; and §11135 15
of the California Government Code. 16
90. A declaration that the facilities listed herein under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, 17
including the sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian crossings, other walkways and Park and Rides,
18 are constructed, designed, and/or maintained in a manner which discriminates against Plaintiffs
19 and which fails to provide program access for persons with disabilities as required by law;
20 91. Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs;
21 92. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
22

23 DATED:
24

August 23, 2006

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

25 ~~g E. KIMBER
26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
27
\\Server~cases\CDR.CalTrans\Pleadings\Caltrans_Complaint_Final.doc
28
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
20

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 22 of 23

1 LAURENCE PARADIS (STATE BAR NO. 122336) ALEXIUS MARKWALDER (STATE BAR NO.227004)
2 MARY-LEE E. KIMBER (STATE BAR NO. 239086)

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 3 2001 Center St., Third Floor

Berkeley, CA 94704 4 Telephone: (510) 665-8644

Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

5 TTY:

(510) 665-8716

Email: 6

general@dralega!.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

12 CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY

13

RIGHTS, INC. ("CDR"), BEN ROCKWELL and DMITRI BELSER, on

14

behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

15 Plaintiffs,

16 go

17 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

18

TRANSPORTATION ("Caltrans") and WILL KEMPTON, in his official capacity.

19 Defendants.

20

Case No.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT; SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT; CAL. CIV. CODE § 54, et seq.; CAL. CIV. CODE § 51, et seq.; CAL. CIV. CODE § 4450, et seq.; CAL. GOV’T. CODE 11135, et seq.; and DECLARATORY RELIEF

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CaliforMaus for Disability Right.s; Inc. v. Califortda Departme~t of Transportation, Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
i

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page,23 of 23

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAI[L

(Fed. R. Civ. Proc. rule 5(b)) 2

I, the undersigned, hereby declare: 3

4

I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to or interested in the within entitled cause. I am an employee of Disability Rights Advocates and my business address is 2001 Center St.,

5 Third Floor, Berkeley, California 94704-1204. On August 23, 2006, I served a true copy of the following documents:

6 CLASS ACTION COMPLATION FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
7

on the parties, through their attorneys of record, by placing true copies thereof in sealed 8 envelopes addressed as follows for collection and mailing at Disability Rights Advocates, 2001
Center Street, Third Floor, Berkeley, California 94704-1,204: 9

10 Department of Transportation

11

Office of the Director

1120 N. Street

12

P.O. Box 942873

Sacramento, CA 94723 13

14

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.

15 Executed at Berkeley, California, this 23rd day of August, 2006.
16

17

18

Mary-Lee Kimber

19

20

21

22 23

24

25

26

27

28
National _Federation of the Blind, et aL v. Target Corporation, et aL Case No.: C-06-01802-BZ Certificate Of Service By Mail

 
 Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 1 of 22

1 LAURENCE PARADIS (STATE BAR NO. 122336) ALEXIUS MARKWALDER (STATE BAR NO.227004)

2 MARY-LEE E. KIMBER (STATE BAR NO. 239086)

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 3 2001 Center St., Third Floor

Berkeley, CA 94704 4 Telephone: (510) 665-8644

Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

5 TTY:

(510) 665-8716

Email: 6

general@dralegal.org

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

12 CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY

13

RIGHTS, INC. (“CDR”), CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND (“CCB”),

14

BEN ROCKWELL and DMITRI BELSER, on behalf of themselves, and on

15 behalf of all others similarly situated,

16 Plaintiffs,

17 v.

18

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (“Caltrans”) and WILL

19 KEMPTON, in his official capacity.

20 Defendants.

Case No. C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT; SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT; CAL. CIV. CODE § 54, et seq.; CAL. CIV. CODE § 51, et seq.; CAL. CIV. CODE § 4450, et seq.; CAL. GOV’T. CODE 11135, et seq.; and DECLARATORY RELIEF

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 2 of 22

1

INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiffs complain of Defendants herein and allege that:

3

1. This lawsuit is brought against Defendant California Department of

4 Transportation (“Caltrans”) to remedy a systemic pattern and practice of discrimination being

5 committed by Caltrans against people with mobility and vision disabilities. Caltrans provides

6 and maintains many facilities throughout the state of California that are inaccessible to people

7 with disabilities. These facilities include sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways, as well as

8 park and ride facilities. These facilities frequently contain access barriers that expose disabled

9 persons to many hazards, including forcing wheelchair users to roll in the streets alongside

10 vehicular traffic. Caltrans has been required for many decades to identify and remedy such

11 access barriers but has failed and refused to meet this obligation. This lawsuit seeks to put an

12 end to such discrimination by requiring Caltrans to meet its obligation to protect the health and

13 safety of Californians with disabilities.

14

2. Defendant Will Kempton is sued in his official capacity as Director of Caltrans.

15 Caltrans and Kempton will be referred to in this complaint together as “Defendants”.

16

3. Plaintiff Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. (“CDR”) is a membership

17 organization representing persons with all disabilities throughout California, including

18 individuals who have been discriminated against and subjected to hazardous conditions due to

19 the access barriers at issue in this case. Plaintiff California Council of the Blind (“CCB”) is a

20 membership organization representing Californians with vision disabilities, including individuals

21 who have been discriminated against and subjected to hazardous conditions due to the access

22 barriers at issue in this case. Plaintiff Ben Rockwell uses a wheelchair and has been personally 23 discriminated against and subjected to hazardous conditions due to the access barriers at issue in 24 this case. Plaintiff Dmitri Belser has a vision disability and has been personally discriminated 25 against and subjected to hazardous conditions due to the access barriers at issue in this case. 26 CDR, CCB, Rockwell and Belser will be referred to in this complaint together as “Plaintiffs”.

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 3 of 22

1

4. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and all Californians with mobility and

2 vision disabilities who are being discriminated against and subjected to hazardous conditions due

3 to the access barriers at issue in this case.

4

5. Defendants provide for public use an extensive network of physical facilities

5 around the state of California, including many public sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian

6 crossings, and other walkways (hereafter referred to as “pedestrian rights of way”). Defendants

7 also provide for public use at various locations around California a system of Park and Ride

8 facilities. This system of pedestrian rights of way and Park and Ride facilities is hereafter

9 referred to collectively as “Caltrans facilities”.

10

6. These Caltrans facilities constitute a key public program, service and activity

11 within Caltrans jurisdiction. Caltrans provides this public program, service and activity for the

12 benefit of residents of and visitors to the state of California. By refusing to provide access to this

13 key public program, service and activity, Defendants discriminate against persons with

14 disabilities in violation of federal and state law. Throughout the state of California, Defendants

15 have systemically:

16

 Failed, and are failing, to provide program access to Caltrans

facilities in that they have not developed and implemented a

17

comprehensive Self-Evaluation and Transition plan covering

pedestrian rights of way;

18

 Followed, and are following, an unlawful policy of limiting the

19

budget for accessibility upgrades to 20 percent of the total budget

for Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation projects (“RRR”)

20

thereby refusing to provide program access to all Caltrans facilities

along resurfaced, restored or rehabilitated projects;

21

 Installed and/or maintained, and are installing and/or maintaining,

22

pedestrian rights of way which have missing curb cuts, unsafe curb cuts, dangerous slopes and crumbled or uneven pavement, and

23

inadequate detectable warnings, amongst other barriers;

24

 Installed and/or maintained, and are installing and/or maintaining,
Park and Ride facilities with inaccessible paths of travel and non-

25

compliant accessible parking spaces, amongst other barriers;

26

 Failed, and are failing, to provide accessible alternative routes
during construction and information in accessible form for persons

27

with vision disabilities when sidewalks are closed; and

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
2

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 4 of 22

1

 Failed, and are failing, to inform local residents which facilities are

under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, thereby, hindering the complaint

2

process.

3

7. These systemic failures create significant barriers for persons with disabilities. As

4 a result of these barriers, disabled pedestrians experience unsafe, anxiety-ridden travel

5 experiences while using Caltrans facilities. Defendants’ failure to make accessible facilities

6 under its jurisdiction denies persons with disabilities access to Defendants’ programs, services

7 and activities and is in violation of both federal and state access requirements.

8

8. CDR made efforts to resolve this dispute without litigation. In a letter dated June

9 6, 2006, CDR requested that Caltrans remedy or make plans to remedy the violations listed

10 herein. Caltrans refused and has since failed to take any remedial action.

11

9. Defendants’ repeated failures to fulfill its obligations under federal and state law

12 is particularly egregious in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Barden v. City of Sacramento,

13 292 F.3d 1073 (2002), which held that “Title II’s prohibition of discrimination in the provision

14 of public services applies to the maintenance of public sidewalks.”

15

10. Plaintiffs include individuals with mobility disabilities who require use of a

16 wheelchair, motorized scooter, or any other mobility device to navigate Caltrans facilities. Such

17 individuals require curb ramps that are properly designed, located, constructed, and maintained 18 so that they can use the pedestrian rights of way to travel to and from their desired destinations 19 without being required to travel in traffic and or traverse hazardous and unsafe curb ramps. Such 20 individuals also require that pedestrian rights of way be properly maintained so that they are free 21 from abrupt changes in level of over ¼ inch (or ½ inch if the change in level is beveled), which 22 are difficult if not impossible to traverse by a person using a wheelchair, and cross-slopes of 23 more than two percent, which may cause a wheelchair or scooter to tip over sideways. 24 Pedestrian rights of way must also be sufficiently wide to allow passage of a mobility device. 25 Barriers such as light poles, trash cans and other obstructions must not narrow the pedestrian 26 right of way such that it is impassable for those with mobility disabilities. Finally, such 27 individuals require that alternative accessible routes be provided during construction that results 28 in sidewalk closures.

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
3

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 5 of 22

1

11. Plaintiffs also include individuals with vision disabilities. Such individuals

2 require that where paths of travel end and/or cross a street, the area be properly marked with

3 yellow truncated domes, permitting such individuals to safely use pedestrian rights of way and to

4 safely cross streets. Such individuals also require pedestrian rights of way be properly

5 maintained so as to be free from protruding objects (with overhead clearance of less than 80

6 inches) and other hazards that interfere with their ability to navigate safely. Such individuals

7 also require that information about sidewalk closures due to construction, or any other reason, be

8 provided in accessible form.

9

12. The named plaintiffs in this action, on behalf of themselves and all others

10 similarly situated, challenge Defendants’ systemic failure to make its facilities readily accessible

11 to and useable by individuals who have mobility and/or vision disabilities. These actions are in

12 violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation

13 Act of 1973, which requires public entities and entities receiving federal funds to provide equal

14 access to public services for people with disabilities. These actions are also in violation of

15 California Civil Code § 51, et seq.; California Civil Code § 54, et seq.; California Government

16 Code § 4450, et seq.; and California Government Code § 11135, et seq.

17

JURISDICTION

18

13. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, brought pursuant to the

19 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 to 12213, specifically Title II of

20 the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., as well as

21 California Civil Code § 51 et seq. (“the Unruh Act”), California Civil Code § 54 et seq. (“the

22 Disabled Persons Act”), California Government Code § 4450 et seq., and California Government

23 Code § 11135, et seq.

24

14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 for

25 claims arising under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

26

15. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

27 §§ 2201 and 2202.

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
4

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 6 of 22

1

16. Under the doctrine of pendent and supplemental jurisdiction, this Court has

2 jurisdiction over claims alleged herein arising under California state law.

3

VENUE

4

17. Venue is proper in this Court because (i) Plaintiffs CDR and CCB have members

5 within the Northern District of California, (ii) Plaintiff Dmitri Belser is a resident within the

6 Northern District of California, (iii) Defendant Caltrans owns and maintains non-compliant

7 facilities within the Northern District of California, and (iv) the acts and omissions giving rise to

8 this claim have occurred across the state of California, including within the Northern District of

9 California.

10

PARTIES

11

18. The organizational Plaintiff CDR, a nonprofit California corporation, is the oldest

12 and largest membership organization of persons with disabilities in California. Established in

13 1970 as the California Association of the Physically Handicapped with five members, CDR has

14 grown to become an effective and widely respected cross-disability advocacy organization.

15 Plaintiff CDR’s mission is to initiate, sponsor, and implement plans, policies and activities that

16 will enhance the lives of persons with disabilities and enable them to enter more fully into

17 society at all levels. To this end, CDR seeks to improve the quality of life for all persons with

18 any disability by conducting education and training and by pursuing removal of barriers through

19 advocacy and change in public policy. Accordingly, the interests that CDR seeks to protect

20 through this litigation are germane to its mission and purpose. Further, CDR’s members include

21 persons with mobility and vision disabilities that have been harmed and continue to experience

22 harm because Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide access to Caltrans facilities.

23 Because this complaint seeks only injunctive relief, this lawsuit does not require the individual

24 participation of CDR members.

25

19. The organizational Plaintiff CCB is a non-profit membership organization

26 composed of Californians who are blind or have low vision. The mission of the CCB is to gain

27 full independence and equality of opportunity for all blind and visually impaired Californians.

28 To this end, CCB provides information and referral, technical assistance, advocacy, leadership

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
5

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 7 of 22

1 development, publications, emergency funds, accessible technology loans, and scholarships.

2 CCB's goal is to ensure that culture, laws, programs, and attitudes throughout California are

3 inclusive of all people, especially persons who have blind or vision disabilities. Accordingly, the

4 interests that CCB seeks to protect through this litigation are germane to its mission and purpose.

5 Further, CCB’s members include persons with vision disabilities who have been harmed and

6 continue to experience harm because Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide

7 access to Caltrans facilities. Because this complaint seeks only injunctive relief, this lawsuit

8 does not require the individual participation of CCB members.

9

20. Named Plaintiff Rockwell is a person with a disability under all applicable

10 statutes. Plaintiff Rockwell uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility, and regularly travels along

11 the pedestrian rights of way under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Plaintiff Rockwell has

12 experienced and continues to experience barriers along these pedestrian rights of way because of

13 Defendants ongoing violations.

14

21. Named Plaintiff Belser is a person with a disability under all applicable statutes.

15 Plaintiff Belser has a vision disability, uses a cane, and regularly travels along the pedestrian

16 rights of way under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Plaintiff Belser has experienced and continues

17 to experience barriers along these pedestrian rights of way because of Defendants’ ongoing

18 violations.

19

22. Defendant Caltrans is a governmental entity as defined by the laws of the State of

20 California and has fifty (50) or more employees. Caltrans also is a public entity within the

21 meaning of Title II of the ADA, as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(l); 28 C.F.R. §

22 35.104. Defendant Caltrans is responsible for installing, repairing and maintaining all pedestrian 23 rights of way along California state highways, including but not limited to the design, 24 installation, repair and maintenance of the system of public sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian 25 crossings, other walkways and Park and Ride facilities along the state highway system 26 throughout the state of California.

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
6

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 8 of 22

1

23. Defendant Will Kempton, or his successor, is named and sued in his official

2 capacity as the Director of Caltrans. Defendant Kempton is responsible for managing the day-to-

3 day operations of California’s state transportation system and for the violations alleged herein.

4

24. References to “Defendants” shall be deemed to refer to each and all Defendants

5 alleged herein.

6

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

7

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

8 Plaintiffs bring this action, for injunctive and declaratory relief purposes only, on their own

9 behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The class the Named Plaintiffs seek to

10 represent is composed of all persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities who use and/or will

11 use Caltrans facilities. The claims asserted herein are solely for injunctive and declaratory relief

12 for the class; damage claims are not included in this complaint.

13

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

14 impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to

15 the Court.

16

27. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact

17 involved affecting the parties to be represented in that they, or their members, are all being

18 denied, or will be denied, their civil rights of access to Caltrans facilities due to the barriers

19 described herein.

20

28. Common questions of law and fact predominate, including questions raised by

21 Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants have failed to provide program access to Caltrans

22 facilities.

23

29. The named Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they, or their

24 members, are directly impacted by Defendants’ failure to provide program access to Caltrans

25 facilities. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the

26 interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are experienced in

27 representing clients in class action civil rights claims.

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
7

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 9 of 22

1

30. Claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class as a whole

2 because the Named Plaintiffs, or their members, are similarly affected by Defendants’ failure to

3 provide access to Caltrans facilities.

4

31. Defendants have acted and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the

5 class as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect

6 to the class as a whole.

7

32. References to Plaintiffs shall be deemed to include each named plaintiff and each

8 member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.

9

FACTS COMMON TO ALL ALLEGATIONS

10

33. Caltrans is responsible for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of

11 the California State Highway System and all pedestrian rights of way and Park and Ride

12 facilities along those systems. In total, Caltrans manages more than 45,000 miles of California's

13 highway and freeway lanes.

14

34. Defendants have failed, and are failing, to prepare and implement a Self-

15 Evaluation and Transition Plan relating to its facilities that provides access to pedestrian rights of

16 way and Park and Ride facilities. Federal law requires that public entities create self-evaluation

17 and transition plans for all existing facilities, including pedestrian rights of way that are not

18 accessible. A transition plan must include a schedule for providing curb ramps or other sloped

19 areas where pedestrian rights of way cross curbs. Defendants’ failure to prepare and implement

20 a Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan relating to and ensuring program access to Caltrans

21 facilities denies persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities program access to such facilities.

22

35. Defendants have followed, and are following, an unlawful policy of limiting the

23 budget for accessibility upgrades to 20 percent of the total budget for alteration projects, known

24 as Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation projects (“RRR”). As such, Defendants routinely

25 fail to install and/or improve accessible features for pedestrian rights of way in conjunction with

26 RRR projects where such work will cost more than 20 percent of the total cost of the RRR

27 project. The implementing regulations for Title III of the ADA (technically inapplicable to

28 Defendants) permit limits to the percentage of an alteration project’s total budget used to make

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
8

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 10 of 22

1 the paths of travel to the altered area accessible. However, courts have held that Title II of the

2 ADA, which requires newly constructed or altered streets to have curb ramps, supersedes any

3 exception based on disproportionate costs. Because curb ramps are a part of the alteration and

4 not a path of travel to the alteration, the Title III exception does not apply. Defendants’ failure to

5 install and/or improve accessible features for pedestrian rights of way in conjunction with RRR

6 projects where such installation and/or improvement costs in excess of 20 percent of the total

7 RRR budget denies persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities program access to pedestrian

8 rights of way under Caltrans’ jurisdiction.

9

36. Defendants have failed, and are failing, to install and maintain sidewalks,

10 crosswalks, pedestrian crossings and other walkways in violation of federal and state law. For

11 example, many intersections have no curb ramps or have curb ramps that are improperly

12 designed and/or constructed. Diagonal ramps intended to serve both corners are routinely

13 misplaced and are therefore unusable or dangerous; slopes on existing ramps are too steep and

14 threaten to tip a wheelchair or scooter using the ramp; landings are non-existent and force

15 individuals with mobility disabilities to use the much steeper side flares to access the curb cut;

16 and gutter pans have lips where the sidewalk meets the street and are often too steep to be used.

17 Similarly, many sidewalks are riddled with problems: many have buckled due to tree roots,

18 resulting in abrupt changes in level, or are narrowed by obstacles such as light poles and trash

19 cans. Further, compliant detectable warnings – yellow truncated domes – are frequently absent

20 on curb ramps. Also, protruding objects, such as low hanging tree limbs, reduce overhead

21 clearance and interfere with the ability to navigate safely. Caltrans facilities that do not contain

22 curb cuts, have inadequate and/or unsafe curb cuts, lack detectable warnings, or have

23 inaccessible pedestrian rights of way include (but are not limited to) facilities that have been

24 resurfaced or otherwise altered since January 26, 1992. Defendants’ failure to install and

25 maintain its pedestrian rights of way in an accessible condition denies persons with mobility

26 and/or vision disabilities access to Caltrans facilities.

27

37. Defendants have failed to install and/or maintain, and are failing to install and/or

28 maintain, Park and Ride facilities with accessible paths of travel that are free from protruding

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
9

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 11 of 22

1 objects and compliant accessible parking spaces in violation of federal and state law. As a result,

2 persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities are unable to safely use these facilities to access

3 public transportation on which they are often dependent. Defendants’ failure to install and/or

4 maintain Park and Ride facilities in an accessible condition denies persons with mobility and/or

5 vision disabilities access to Caltrans facilities.

6

38. Defendants have failed, and are failing, to provide accessible alternative routes

7 during construction and information in accessible form for persons with visual disabilities when

8 sidewalks are closed. As a result, persons with mobility disabilities are often forced to travel in

9 the street with traffic while persons with visual disabilities face danger of unknowingly walking

10 into a construction site. Defendants’ failure to maintain in an accessible condition alternative

11 routes to sidewalks that are closed during construction and provide information in accessible

12 form about sidewalk closures denies persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities access to

13 Caltrans facilities.

14

39. Defendants have failed, and are failing, to inform local residents which sidewalks,

15 crosswalks, pedestrian crossings, other walkways and Park and Rides are under the jurisdiction

16 of Caltrans. As a result, persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities frequently are not able

17 to readily determine the pedestrian rights of way for which Caltrans is the responsible entity,

18 thereby hindering pedestrian complaints to Caltrans regarding accessibility compliance.

19 Defendants’ failure to provide jurisdictional information to persons with mobility and/or vision

20 disabilities contributes to the denial of access to Caltrans facilities.

21

EXPERIENCES OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS

22

40. Plaintiff CDR has members who reside throughout the State of California and

23 who have used, and will continue to use, Caltrans facilities and who have encountered and will

24 continue to encounter the various types of access barriers described herein. These barriers cause

25 frustration and anxiety and require CDR members to expend substantially more effort than

26 would be required if Caltrans facilities were accessible.

27

41. For example, a CDR member with a mobility disability regularly uses the

28 Manzenita Park and Ride facility in Marin County, California. This CDR member reports that

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
10

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 12 of 22

1 the cross-slopes in the accessible parking spaces at this facility exceed the two percent legally

2 allowed, thereby making it difficult for him to exit his vehicle. In addition, because the Park and

3 Ride does not have a designated accessible pedestrian right of way from the parking lot to the

4 bus stop, he is forced to travel in the flow of the parking lot traffic when traveling from his

5 parking space to the bus stop. Finally, the CDR member notes that the pedestrian signal button

6 is inaccessible to persons in wheelchairs because it is placed too high and can only be accessed

7 from a steeply sloped sidewalk.

8

42. Also for example, a CDR member with a mobility disability must regularly travel

9 along Palm Avenue (California State Highway 75) in Imperial Beach, California to visit friends.

10 The sidewalk has multiple barriers including overgrown shrubbery, which narrows the sidewalk,

11 and steep cross-slopes (up to 28 percent) from driveways, which cause her scooter to tip over

12 sideways. In an effort to alert the government entity responsible for remedying the excessive

13 cross-slopes and narrow sidewalks in the 1300 block, she has contacted various entities at all

14 levels of government, including Caltrans, the City of Imperial Beach and the County of San

15 Diego. However, for over a year and a half, each of these three entities shuffled her complaint to

16 another of the three entities claiming that the pedestrian right of way is not under its jurisdiction.

17 Ultimately, Caltrans claimed jurisdiction and made a temporary fix using asphalt to minimize the

18 cross-slopes. The temporary fix, however, is non-compliant.

19

43. Plaintiff CCB has members who reside throughout the State of California and

20 who have used, and will continue to use, Caltrans facilities and who have encountered and will

21 continue to encounter the various types of access barriers described herein. These barriers cause

22 frustration and anxiety and require CCB members to expend substantially more effort than would

23 be required if Caltrans facilities were accessible.

24

44. For example, a CCB member with a vision disability, who uses a cane for

25 navigation, regularly uses El Camino Real (California State Highway 82) throughout the cities of

26 Palo Alto and Mountain View, mostly to access the main bus routes. Indeed, this CCB member

27 chose to live in his current residence because of its close proximity to the bus routes. However,

28 his walk to the bus stop is riddled with barriers. Close to the corner of Rengstorff Avenue and El

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
11

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 13 of 22

1 Camino Real, he encountered a dangerously low-hanging tree limb that extended over the entire

2 width of the sidewalk. Caltrans improperly trimmed the tree limb, which resulted in a greater

3 danger because, through the tree trimming, Caltrans transformed the overhanging tree limb into a

4 freshly cut, sharp-edged branch that protrudes over the sidewalk threatening blind pedestrians

5 who are unable to detect the tree limb. Walking along El Camino Real in Palo Alto, this member

6 has tripped over uneven pavement due to tree roots, which caused the sidewalk to buckle. He is

7 also unaware of any detectable warnings along El Camino Real in Mountain View and Palo Alto.

8

45. Another CCB member with a vision disability, who uses a service dog for

9 navigation, frequently walks along the Pacific Coast Highway (“PCH”) (California Highway

10 One). She walks along PCH to avoid residential streets where she and her service dog are more

11 likely to encounter other dogs. She regularly crosses PCH at Temple Avenue. Though the

12 crossing has an audible pedestrian signal, there are no detectable warnings at the corners. For

13 instance, on the southwest corner, because the curb is blended into the street, it is impossible to

14 tell where the sidewalk ends and where the street begins. On more than one occasion, this CCB

15 member has found herself standing in the street while waiting to cross PCH.

16

46. Plaintiff Rockwell has a mobility disability, which requires him to use a

17 wheelchair. He is resident of the City of Long Beach, California, where he is frequently denied

18 program access to Caltrans facilities as he conducts his daily activities, including going to

19 medical appointments, shopping, and visiting patients at community hospitals. Plaintiff

20 Rockwell has experienced and, absent an injunction, will continue to experience Caltrans

21 facilities, which are inaccessible to people with mobility disabilities due to the access barriers

22 described herein.

23

47. Plaintiff Rockwell has experienced and will continue to experience Caltrans

24 facilities which contain no curb ramps; curb ramps that are not accessible to a person with a

25 mobility disability due to improper design, installation, construction, and/or maintenance; and,

26 pedestrian rights of way that are not accessible to a person with a mobility disability due to

27 improper design, installation, construction and/or maintenance.

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
12

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 14 of 22

1

48. Plaintiff Rockwell regularly travels on PCH in Long Beach, California, which

2 contains pedestrian rights of way under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. PCH has numerous intersections

3 that do not have curb cuts or have inadequate curb cuts. The lack of curb cuts along PCH

4 subjects Plaintiff Rockwell to frustrating and dangerous travel experiences. In addition, these

5 access barriers require Plaintiff Rockwell to expend substantially more time navigating PCH than

6 would be required if PCH were accessible. For instance, Plaintiff Rockwell must often re-trace

7 his route back to the previous curb cut and then travel in the street of a six-lane expressway with

8 on-street parking along some parts of the street in order to reach his destination. Such routes,

9 which force him into traffic traveling at high speeds, put Plaintiff Rockwell at serious risk of

10 danger.

11

49. For example, in August of 2006, Plaintiff Rockwell was traveling along PCH to

12 eat at The International House of Pancakes restaurant, a route he frequently travels. After

13 entering the sidewalk at the intersection of PCH and Long Beach Boulevard, Plaintiff Rockwell

14 proceeded west on the south side of the street. Traveling west, Plaintiff Rockwell was forced to

15 enter the street on at least three separate occasions due to mid-block obstacles and excessively

16 steep slopes on curb ramps. Plaintiff Rockwell traveled on the street as close as possible to the

17 cars parked along the curb. Nonetheless, at least, two large trucks drove within four inches of his

18 wheelchair. Additionally, a local bus driver opened the door of his bus as he passed and yelled at

19 Plaintiff Rockwell because he was traveling in the street.

20

50. On those occasions that Plaintiff Rockwell is able to access the sidewalk using

21 curb ramps, he often experiences difficulty using the curb ramps because they are excessively

22 sloped. As a result, he is forced to slow his motorized wheelchair to avoid tipping over

23 backwards.

24

51. Plaintiff Rockwell also confronts obstructions such as light poles, sign posts and

25 broken and/or uneven pavement on PCH. All of these obstructions not only impede his path of

26 travel but also force him to travel in the street. For example, at the corner of PCH and Pacific

27 Avenue, Plaintiff Rockwell has experienced great difficulty traveling along the pedestrian right

28 of way, because the light pole creates an obstruction. As a result, he is forced to re-trace his path

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
13

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 15 of 22

1 and enter the street in order to continue on PCH. This is not uncommon as light poles also

2 obstruct the path of travel at the corners of PCH and Obispo Avenue and PCH and Orizaba

3 Avenue.

4

52. While traveling on PCH, Plaintiff Rockwell has tipped over in his wheelchair on

5 numerous occasions. Indeed, in an attempt to remediate this problem, Plaintiff Rockwell

6 purchased a new wheelchair that has rear anti-tip wheels. While these wheels have mitigated the

7 tendency of his wheelchair to tip over backwards, they offer no assistance on excessive slopes or

8 for mid-block barriers, which still force Plaintiff Rockwell to travel in the street. As a

9 consequence, he continues to be harmed by Defendants’ conduct.

10

53. Plaintiff Belser has a vision disability and uses a cane to aid in navigation. He is a

11 resident of the City of Berkeley, California, where he is frequently denied access to Caltrans

12 facilities as he conducts his daily activities, including going to work. Plaintiff Belser has

13 experienced and, absent an injunction, will continue to experience Caltrans facilities, which are

14 inaccessible to people with vision disabilities due to the access barriers described herein.

15

54. For example, Plaintiff Belser regularly travels on San Pablo Avenue (California

16 State Highway 123) and Ashby Avenue (California State Highway 13) in Berkeley, California, 17 which contain pedestrian rights of way under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. Ashby Avenues lacks 18 detectable warnings on almost all of the existing curb ramps. Detectable warnings indicate to 19 persons with vision disabilities where the sidewalk ends and the street begins. Applicable law 20 requires that detectable warnings be in the form of yellow, truncated domes. The absence of 21 detectable warnings along streets such as Ashby Avenue makes it makes it difficult for a person 22 with a vision disability to navigate the pedestrian route with full assurance and safety. Without 23 proper detectible warnings, pedestrians with vision disabilities are exposed to the risk that they 24 may enter oncoming traffic without being aware that they are in a danger zone. For instance, at 25 particularly busy intersections where vehicles often cut corners, detectable warnings help 26 Plaintiff Belser know where it is safe to stand. Plaintiff Belser has also experienced, on both San 27 Pablo and Ashby Avenues, protruding objects which reduce the overhead clearance and which 28 are imperceptible ahead of time to persons with vision disabilities. Uneven/broken pavement

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
14

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 16 of 22

1 along San Pablo and Ashby Avenues create additional obstacles, which are often imperceptible

2 ahead of time to persons with vision disabilities. These barriers and safety hazards along San

3 Pablo and Ashby Avenues subject Plaintiff Belser to frustrating and dangerous travel

4 experiences, particularly since they are high traffic speed routes.

5

55. The conditions along Ashby Avenue are so difficult and dangerous that Plaintiff

6 Belser avoids using this route when possible. However, Plaintiff Belser does have to use Ashby

7 Avenue on his way to and from the South Berkeley Senior Center, which requires him to walk

8 between Ellis Street and Telegraph Street along Ashby Avenue. Plaintiff Belser has experienced

9 no detectable warnings along this route. Indeed, along Ashby Avenue from Adeline Boulevard

10 to Tunnel Road (approximately 19 blocks in length), there is only one curb ramp with the

11 required yellow truncated domes.

12

56. Pedestrians with vision disabilities experience further difficulties when using

13 Caltrans facilities due to a lack of adequate information when construction activities block part

14 or all of a pedestrian route. When such construction takes place, Caltrans needs to ensure that

15 pedestrians with vision disabilities are notified of the construction and provided adequate

16 information in accessible forms so that they can use alternate routes. Caltrans frequently fails to

17 do so. For example, Plaintiff Belser has experienced many occasions when the sidewalk along

18 Caltrans routes such as San Pablo Avenue has been blocked due to construction but Mr. Belser

19 did not become aware of the construction until encountering the closure partway down the block.

20 Consequently, Mr. Belser then had to re-trace his steps and cross to the other side of the street,

21 making it even more difficult for a person with vision disability to navigate along these routes.

22 The lack of information in accessible forms about sidewalk closures due to construction has

23 caused Plaintiff Belser to expend substantially more time navigating these pedestrian rights of

24 way than would be required if Caltrans had provided such information.

25

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)

26

57. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 56,

27 above, inclusive.

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
15

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 17 of 22

1

58. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibits a public entity

2 from excluding a person with a disability from participating in, or denying the benefits of, the

3 goods, services, programs and activities of the entity or otherwise discriminating against a person

4 on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

5

59. In requiring public entities to prepare and implement a Self-Evaluation and

6 Transition Plan to evaluate and improve accessibility, the regulations issued by the U.S.

7 Department of Justice specifically require public entities to include “a schedule for providing

8 curb ramps or other sloped areas where pedestrians walks cross curbs” and provides priorities for

9 such schedule. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d)(2). Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants do

10 not have a Self-Evaluation or Transition Plan that addresses pedestrian rights of way.

11 Defendants’ failure to prepare and implement a Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan constitutes

12 unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA.

13

60. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA also generally require that,

14 when a public entity alters any existing facility in any manner that affects usability, the altered

15 portions must be made accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §

16 35.151(b).

17

61. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA specifically provide that a

18 public entity must install curb ramps at intersections whenever it alters sidewalks, streets, roads

19 and/or highways at any time after January 26, 1992. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(e). An RRR project

20 undertaken by Caltrans constitutes an alteration within the meaning of the ADA. Since the

21 effective date of the ADA, Defendants have failed to provide proper curb ramps when Caltrans

22 alters sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways. Defendants’ conduct in failing to provide

23 proper curb ramps when they alter sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways constitutes unlawful

24 discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA.

25

62. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide that a public entity

26 must maintain the features of all facilities required to be accessible by the ADA. 28 C.F.R. §

27 35.133. Facilities required to be accessible include roads, walks, passageways and parking lots.

28 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
16

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 18 of 22

1

63. Defendants’ conduct in failing to maintain accessible facilities by failing to fix

2 uneven and/or crumbling pavement, failing to remove protruding and/or moveable obstructions,

3 failing to ensure a sufficiently wide path of travel, failing to correct excessive cross-slopes on the

4 path of travel and failing to provide compliant accessible parking spaces thus constitutes

5 unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA.

6

64. The regulations implementing Title III of the ADA – 28 C.F.R. 36 App. A – and

7 applying to Title II – 28 C.F.R. 35.151(c) – provide that a public entity must maintain

8 accessibility for temporary facilities, including but not limited to, “temporary safe pedestrian

9 passageways around a construction site.” 28 C.F.R. 36 App. A 4.1.1(4).

10

65. Defendants’ conduct in failing to provide accessible alternative routes during

11 construction and accessible information for persons with visual disabilities when sidewalks are

12 closed constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the

13 ADA.

14

66. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA also provide that a “public

15 entity shall make available to applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons

16 information regarding the provisions of this [regulation] and its applicability to the services,

17 programs, or activities of the public entity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.106.

18

67. Defendants’ conduct in failing to provide information about which facilities are

19 under their jurisdiction thus constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in

20 violation of Title II of the ADA.

21

68. Defendants' conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of the ADA

22 and unless restrained from doing so, Defendants will continue to violate the ADA. Said conduct,

23 unless enjoined, will continue to inflict injuries for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at

24 law. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to section 308 of the ADA

25 42 U.S.C. § 12188.

26

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
17

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 19 of 22

1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973)

2

69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 68

3 above, inclusive.

4

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

5 regulations promulgated hereunder, prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities by

6 recipients of federal funding. Section 504 provides, in pertinent part, that:

7

No otherwise qualified handicapped individual . . . shall, solely by

reason of her or his handicap, be excluded from the participation

8

in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination

under any program or activity receiving Federal financial

9

assistance . . . .

10

71. Defendants have received substantial federal financial assistance at all relevant

11 times.

12

72. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs in programs and activities

13 receiving federal financial assistance solely because of the disabilities of Plaintiff Rockwell,

14 Plaintiff Belser and Plaintiff CDR’s members, and all others similarly situated, in violation of 29

15 U.S.C. § 794 and the regulations promulgated hereunder.

16

73. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Section 504, Plaintiffs have

17 been injured as set forth herein.

18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

19

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Civil Code § 54, et seq.)

20

74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

21 73, above, inclusive.

22

75. The facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans constitute places of public

23 accommodation and/or places to which the general public is invited within the meaning of

24 California Civil Code §§ 54.1 and 54.3.

25

76. Defendants have and are violating Plaintiffs’ rights under California Civil Code §

26 54.1 et seq. by denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to and use and enjoyment of Caltrans

27 facilities due to the acts and omissions alleged herein.

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
18

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 20 of 22

1

77. Defendants' discriminatory conduct alleged herein includes, inter alia, the

2 violation of the rights of persons with disabilities set forth in Title II of the ADA and

3 accompanying regulations, all of which have been expressly incorporated into California Civil

4 Code section 54.1, et seq. since January 1, 1993.

5

78. Defendants' actions constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under California

6 Civil Code § 54, et seq., and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief remedying the

7 violations.

8

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

9

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Civil Code § 51, et seq.)

10

79. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein the allegations in paragraph 1 through

11 78, above, inclusive.

12

80. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein constitutes a violation of the Unruh

13 Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51, et seq., in that the conduct alleged herein

14 constitutes a violation of various provisions of the ADA, as set forth above, all of which have

15 been expressly incorporated into California Civil Code § 51. Pursuant to California Civil Code §

16 51, a violation of the civil rights of a person with a disability under the ADA is also a violation

17 of the civil rights of a person with a disability under the Unruh Civil Rights Act,

18

81. The actions of Defendants were and are in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights

19 Act, California Civil Code § 51, et seq., and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief

20 remedying the violations.

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

22

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of California Government Code § 4450, et seq.)

23

82. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 though

24 81 above, inclusive.

25

83. Caltrans facilities are publicly funded and intended for use by the public within

26 the meaning of California Government Code § 4450, et seq. Defendants have constructed,

27 altered, installed, maintained and/or operated its facilities in violation of disability access

28 requirements under California Government Code § 4450, et seq., and regulations implemented

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
19

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 21 of 22

1 pursuant thereto. The aforementioned acts and omissions of the Defendants constitute a denial

2 of equal access to and use of Caltrans facilities.

3

84. Defendants' failure to provide full and equal access to Caltrans facilities has

4 caused Plaintiffs to suffer deprivation of their civil rights. Plaintiffs request injunctive relief

5 enjoining Defendants from maintaining the violations described above.

6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

7

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(California Government Code § 11135, et seq.)

8

85. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein the allegations of paragraphs 1 through

9 84, above, inclusive.

10

86. California Government Code § 11135 and the regulations promulgated

11 thereunder, prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities by any program or activity

12 funded by the state. Section 11135 provides, in pertinent part, that:

13

No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of . . .

disability, be unlawfully denied the benefits of, or be unlawfully

14

subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is

funded directly by the state or receives any financial assistance

15

from the State.

16

87. Caltrans’ programs and activities are funded primarily by the state.

17

88. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs in such programs and activities

18 solely because of their disabilities in violation of Government Code § 11135 and the regulations

19 promulgated thereunder.

20

89. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of § 11135, Plaintiffs have been

21 injured as set forth herein.

22

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

23

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief)

24

90. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein the allegations of paragraphs 1 through

25 89, above, inclusive.

26

91. Plaintiffs contend, and are informed and believe that Defendants deny failing to

27 comply with applicable laws prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities in

28 violation of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, § 51 of the California Civil Code, §

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
20

Case 4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document 4 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 22 of 22

1 54 of the California Civil Code, § 4450 of the California Government Code and § 11135 of the

2 California Government Code.

3

92. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each

4 of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.

5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

8

93. An order and judgment enjoining Defendants from violating the Americans with

9 Disabilities Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; § 51 of the California Civil

10 Code; § 54 of the California Civil Code; § 4450 of the California Government Code; and §11135

11 of the California Government Code.

12

94. A declaration that the facilities listed herein under the jurisdiction of Caltrans,

13 including the sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian crossings, other walkways and Park and Rides,

14 are constructed, designed, and/or maintained in a manner which discriminates against Plaintiffs

15 and which fails to provide program access for persons with disabilities as required by law;

16

95. Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs;

17

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

18 19 DATED: September 19, 2006

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

20

By: /s/ Mary-Lee Kimber

21

MARY-LEE E. KIMBER

22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

24

25

26

27
\\Server\cases\CDR.CalTrans\Pleadings\AmendedComplaintFinal.doc
28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
21

 
 Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document457 Filed01/25/10 Page1 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18

19

CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, ) Case No.: C06-5125 SBA

20 INC. (“CDR”), CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF )

THE BLIND (“CCB”), BEN ROCKWELL and ) [PROPOSED] ORDER RE:

21 DMITRI BELSER, on behalf of themselves, and ) PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

) CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

22

)

Plaintiffs,

)

23

)

v.

) Judge: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong

24

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

) Date Action Filed: August 23, 2006

25 TRANSPORTATION (“Caltrans”) and WILL )

KEMPTON, in his official capacity.

)

26

)

Defendants.

)

27

)

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document457 Filed01/25/10 Page2 of 5

1

WHEREAS, trial of the above-captioned case began before this Court on September 16,

2 2009;

3

WHEREAS, the Parties have advised the Court that they have settled the Litigation, the

4 terms of which have been memorialized in a Settlement Agreement;

5

WHEREAS, this Court has reviewed and considered the Settlement Agreement entered into

6 among the Parties in this Litigation, together with all exhibits thereto, the record in this case, and

7 the arguments of counsel;

8

NOW THEREFORE, for good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered as follows:

9

1. All capitalized terms and definitions used herein have the same meanings as set forth

10 in the Settlement Agreement.

11

2. The proposed settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement is hereby

12 preliminarily approved as being within the range of reasonableness such that notice thereof should

13 be given to Plaintiff Settlement Class Members.

14

3. The contents of the class notice, which are attached to the Settlement Agreement as

15 Exhibit 8, are hereby approved as to form.

16

4. The proposed Plaintiff Settlement Class is hereby conditionally certified subject to

17 Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement.

18

5. The Parties are hereby authorized to issue the class notice as follows:

19

Within 30 days after Preliminary Approval, the Parties shall distribute notice of the proposed

20 Settlement Agreement advising the Plaintiff Settlement Class of the terms of the proposed Settlement

21 Agreement and their right to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement. This notice shall be

22 published as follows:

23

(a) Defendants shall pay for publication in newspapers of a notice of class

24 settlement. This notice will include: A brief statement of the claims released by the class; the date of

25 the hearing on the final approval of the class settlement; the deadline for submitting objections to the

26 settlement; the web page, address, and phone and fax numbers that may be used to obtain a copy of the

27 NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT (attached as Exhibit 8 to

28 the Parties’ Settlement Agreement) in the format and language requested. Publication in these

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document457 Filed01/25/10 Page3 of 5

1 newspapers will be every other day for a period of thirty (30) days, no larger than one eighth page, in

2 the legal notice section of the following papers of general circulation: The Los Angeles Times, The San

3 Diego Union Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Sacramento Bee, The Riverside Press, and

4 The Oakland Tribune. The notice published in the newspapers will contain a statement in Spanish of

5 the web page, e-mail address, and phone numbers that may be used to obtain a copy of the NOTICE OF

6 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT in English, Spanish and alternative

7 accessible formats.

8

(b) Plaintiffs’ Attorneys and Defendants’ attorneys shall provide the NOTICE OF

9 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT in the manner, format and language

10 requested by any class member, advocacy group, government, or their counsel. Copies of the NOTICE

11 OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT shall be provided without charge

12 for copying or mailing.

13

(c) Defendants shall establish a web site where a copy of the NOTICE OF

14 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT will be available in English and

15 Spanish, and in a format that can be recognized and read by software commonly used by the individuals

16 with visual impairments to read web pages. Defendants shall post on the Caltrans website a link to the

17 web site where a copy of the NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

18 LAWSUIT will be available.

19

(d) A copy of the NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

20 LAWSUIT shall be mailed to the U.S. Attorney General, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights

21 Division, and the Attorney General for the State of California with a request to each office that they

22 consider publishing a description of the settlement in their newsletters and web pages.

23

(e) Plaintiffs’ Attorneys shall post NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF

24 CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT on the website of Disability Rights Advocates and shall make good faith

25 efforts to distribute it through disability-related listservs and other internet postings.

26

(f) Counsel for the Parties shall send by first class mail the NOTICE OF

27 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT to the last known address for each

28 member of the proposed Plaintiff Settlement Class whose declaration Counsel submitted in this action.

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document457 Filed01/25/10 Page4 of 5

1

6. The Court finds that the forms of notice to Plaintiff Settlement Class Members

2 regarding the pendency of the Litigation and of this settlement, including the methods of

3 dissemination to the proposed Plaintiff Settlement Class Members in accordance with the terms of

4 this order, constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances.

5

7. Any Plaintiff Settlement Class Member may enter an appearance in the Litigation

6 and/or may seek to intervene in the Litigation, individually or through the counsel of their choice at

7 his or her expense. Plaintiff Settlement Class Members who do not enter an appearance will be

8 represented by Class Counsel.

9

8. Objections by any Plaintiff Settlement Class Member to: (a) the proposed settlement

10 contained in the Settlement Agreement and described in the class notice; (b) the payment of fees

11 and reimbursement of expenses to Plaintiffs’ Counsel up to the negotiated maximum amounts set

12 forth in the Settlement Agreement; and/or (c) entry of the Judgment shall be heard, and any papers

13 submitted in support of said objection shall be considered by the Court at the Fairness Hearing only

14 if, on or before March 30, 2010, such objector files with the Clerk of the United States District

15 Court for the Northern District of California: (1) a notice of his, her or its objection and a statement

16 of the basis for such objection; (2) if applicable, a statement of his, her or its intention to appear at

17 the Fairness Hearing. Copies of the foregoing must also be mailed or delivered to counsel for the

18 Parties identified in the class notice. In order to be considered for hearing, all objections must be

19 submitted to the Court and actually received by the counsel identified in the class notice on or

20 before March 30, 2010. A Plaintiff Settlement Class Member need not appear at the Settlement

21 Hearing in order for his, her or its objection to be considered.

22

9. No later than fourteen days before the Fairness Hearing, the Parties shall file all

23 papers in support of the Application for Final Approval of the Settlement and/or any papers in

24 response to any valid and timely objection with the Court, and shall serve copies of such papers

25 upon each other and upon any objector who has complied with the provisions of Paragraph 8 of this

26 Order.

27

10. A hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) shall be held by the Court on April 27, 2010 at

28 1:00 p.m., in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay street,

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125

3

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document457 Filed01/25/10 Page5 of 5

1 Oakland, California 94612-5212, to consider and determine whether the proposed settlement of the

2 Litigation on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement should be approved as fair, just,

3 reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Plaintiff Settlement Class; whether Plaintiffs’

4 Counsels’ attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and whether the

5 Order approving the settlement and dismissing the Litigation on the merits and with prejudice

6 against the Plaintiffs and all Settlement Plaintiff Class Members, subject to the Court retaining

7 jurisdiction to administer and enforce the Settlement Agreement, should be entered.

8

11. The Fairness Hearing may, from time to time and without further notice to the

9 Plaintiff Settlement Class Members (except those who have filed timely and valid objections or

10 entered an appearance), be continued or adjourned by order of the Court.

11

12. Reasonable costs incurred in identifying and notifying Plaintiff Settlement Class

12 Members shall be paid by Defendants. In the event that the Settlement Agreement is not approved

13 by the Court, or otherwise fails to become effective, neither the Plaintiffs nor any of Plaintiffs’

14 Counsel shall have any obligation to repay the amounts actually and properly disbursed to

15 accomplish such notice and administration.

16

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

19 DATED: 1/25/10 20 21

____________________________________________ HONORABLE SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125

4

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

 
 Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page1 of 16

1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5

6 CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC. (“CDR”), CALIFORNIA
7 COUNCIL OF THE BLIND (“CCB”), BEN ROCKWELL, AND DMITRI BELSER, on
8 behalf of all others similarly situated,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

vs.

Case No: C 06-5125 SBA
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

11 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (“CALTRANS”) and
12 WILL KEMPTON, in his official capacity,

13

Defendants.

14

15

This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs, Californians for Disability Rights (“CDR”),

16 California Council for the Blind (“Council for the Blind”), Ben Rockwell (“Rockwell”) and

17 Dmitri Belser (“Belser”), on behalf of a class of mobility and vision impaired individuals

18 against the California Department of Transportation and its director (collectively “Caltrans” or

19 “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that Caltrans has failed to remove barriers and ensure

20 accessibility at existing pedestrian facilities and Park and Ride facilities throughout California

21 in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and section 504 of the

22 Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

23

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), this matter came before the Court

24 on April 27, 2010, for the fairness hearing for final approval of the parties’ settlement in the

25 above-captioned class action. Having reviewed the papers submitted and considered the

26 statements made at the hearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ application for final approval of

27 the settlement and overrules all objections thereto.

28

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page2 of 16

1 I. BACKGROUND

2

On August 23, 2006, Plaintiffs filed the instant class action on behalf of persons with

3 mobility and/or vision impairments. The Complaint alleges that as a result of Caltrans’ failure

4 to comply with federal disability laws, Plaintiffs and Class members have been denied access

5 to sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian underpasses and other public rights of way. Plaintiffs

6 seek injunctive relief only; no damages are sought.

7

On March 13, 2008, the Court certified the Class, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

8 Procedure 23(b)(2), as follows: “All persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities who are

9 allegedly being denied access under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the

10 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 due to barriers along sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian

11 underpasses, pedestrian overpasses and any other outdoor designated pedestrian walkways

12 throughout the state of California which are owned and/or maintained by the California

13 Department of Transportation.” Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of

14 Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334, 351 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

15

A court trial in this action commenced on September 16, 2009. Within a few days of

16 the start of trial, Plaintiffs completed the direct testimony of their expert, Peter Margen, and

17 Defendants commenced their cross-examination. During the proceedings, however, the parties

18 proposed temporarily suspending the trial to enable them to engage in settlement discussions

19 before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth LaPorte. The Court agreed and recessed the proceedings.

20 Over the course of the next several months, the parties engaged in several settlement

21 conferences with Magistrate Judge LaPorte and ultimately reached a global settlement that

22 resolves all claims in this case, as well as those being litigated in a parallel state court action.1

23 The parties then filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, which the Court

24

25

1 The state court action is pending in Alameda County Superior Court, and is styled as

Californians for Disability Rights v. California Dept. of Transp., Case No. RG08376549

26 (“State Action”). The State Action is being held in abeyance pending final approval of the

settlement, after which it will be dismissed. The instant case is denoted in this Order as the

27 “Federal Action.”

28

- 2 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page3 of 16

1 granted on January 25, 2010. (Docket 457.) The Preliminary Approval Order set the fairness

2 hearing for April 27, 2010, and ordered the parties to disseminate notice to the Class.

3

The salient features of the Settlement Agreement include, among other things: (1) a

4 funding commitment of $1.1 billion over the next thirty years to eliminate barriers and improve

5 access for Class members; (2) a monitoring procedure, which will include the hiring of an

6 access consultant to oversee compliance for the first seven years, and mandatory annual

7 reporting by Caltrans for the next thirty years; (3) a grievance procedure for public complaints

8 relating to access issues and Caltrans responses thereto; and (4) payment of attorneys’ fees (a

9 minimum of $3.75 million to a maximum of $8.75 million) for past work and future

10 compliance services. (Docket 454).

11

Several objections to the proposed settlement have been filed. On March 31, 2010, after

12 the expiration of the objection period, attorney Patricia Barbosa of Barbosa Group filed an

13 objection on behalf of thirty-four CDR and Class members (“Barbosa Objectors”), alleging that

14 the settlement was not approved consistent with CDR’s by-laws; that the thirty-year

15 compliance period is too long; that Caltrans should increase the amount of the settlement fund;

16 and that the monitoring provisions are insufficient. (Docket 473.) In addition, the Court

17 received three individually-submitted objections. Specifically, Marilynn Pike and Arnie T.

18 Pike filed separate letter objections on February 1, 2010, and Branlett Kimmons filed a letter

19 objection on April 16, 2010.2

20 II. LEGAL STANDARD

21

The Court may finally approve of a class settlement “only after a hearing and on finding

22 that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2); Officers for Justice v. Civil

23 Serv. Comm’n of the City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982).
24 The primary concern of Rule 23(e) is “the protection of those class members, including the
25 named plaintiffs, whose rights may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.”
26 2 Plaintiffs’ brief in response to the objections filed also makes reference to a letter,
27 dated January 27, 2010, from California Walks, a public advocacy group. This letter was not filed and therefore is not properly before the Court. However, the Court has obtained a copy of
28 the letter from Class counsel and reviewed its contents.

- 3 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page4 of 16

1 Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 624. Factors that the Court may in deciding whether or not to

2 approve the settlement include:

3

the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity,

and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining

4

class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in

settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the

5

proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of

a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members

6

to the proposed settlement.

7 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998); accord Molski v. Gleich, 318

8 F.3d 937, 953 (9th Cir. 2003).

9

The district court’s role at a fairness hearing is limited. The Court may approve or

10 reject the settlement. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. The district court does not have the authority

11 to “delete, modify or substitute certain provisions.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “The

12 proposed settlement is not to be judged against a hypothetical or speculative measure of what

13 might have been achieved by the negotiators.” Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625. Rather,

14 “the court’s intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement negotiated

15 between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned

16 judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion

17 between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable

18 and adequate to all concerned.” Id. To that end, the Court should consider whether there are

19 any objections to the proposed settlement and, if so, the nature of those objections. In re

20 General Motors Corp., 594 F.2d 1106. If objections are filed, the district court is to evaluate

21 whether they suggest serious reasons why the settlement proposal might be unfair. Bennett v.

22 Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982 (11th Cir. 1984).

23 III. DISCUSSION

24

A. APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT

25

The record supports the conclusion that that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable

26 and adequate. First, the burdens, expenses and risks associated with further litigation in this

27 action are tremendous. This case involves numerous, complex and novel issues of law, and

28 seeks statewide relief on an unprecedented scale. The complexity of the case is exemplified by

- 4 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page5 of 16

1 the extensive motion practice, which, in many instances delved into uncharted legal territory.

2 Though Plaintiffs prevailed on some of those rulings, Caltrans undoubtedly would have

3 appealed them in the event of an adverse judgment. The risk of proceeding further also is

4 underscored by questions regarding the strength of Plaintiffs’ case. Though Plaintiffs certainly

5 were able to present evidence to support their claim that Caltrans’ facilities are not entirely

6 compliant with disability laws, Caltrans had viable grounds for mounting an undue burden

7 defense. Thus, by resolving this and the state court action, Plaintiffs are able to avoid

8 protracted litigation and appeals and ensure the provision of immediate and tangible benefits to

9 the Class that might never have been realized absent a settlement.

10

The Court further finds that the settlement is the product of good faith negotiations at

11 arm’s length, and is not the product of fraud or collusion. See Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at

12 625. By the time of the settlement, the parties were well informed regarding the available

13 evidence both in support of and in opposition to their respective positions. Not only had the

14 parties, who were represented by well-qualified counsel,3 conducted extensive fact and expert

15 discovery, the parties had the benefit of having participated in several days of trial

16 proceedings—thus affording them a unique and fully informed opportunity to objectively

17 assess the case. In addition, the settlement was the direct result of multiple arms-length court-

18 supervised settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge LaPorte, whose persistence no

19 doubt was instrumental in facilitating the resolution.

20

In sum, the relevant considerations militate in favor of approving the settlement.

21 Plaintiffs balanced concerns such as the risks inherent in further litigation and the State’s fiscal

22 constraints against maximizing the benefit to the Class. The settlement affords significant and

23 immediate relief that may never have materialized had the trial concluded. Moreover, the

24

25 3 The experience of counsel representing Plaintiffs and Defendants also favors final
26 approval of the proposed settlement. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. The Class has been represented by Disability Rights Advocates (“DRA”), which has extensive experience litigation
27 ADA class action claims. Likewise, Defendants were represented by Green Taurig, a reputable private firm. The experience of the parties’ counsel further supports the conclusion that the
28 negotiated settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.

- 5 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page6 of 16

1 settlement guarantees increased funding for removal of access barriers and avoids years of

2 delay attributable to the ensuing appeals in the absence of a settlement.

3

B. CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

4

Plaintiffs seek final certification of the Plaintiff Settlement Class, which is defined as:

5 “all persons with Mobility and/or Vision Disabilities who currently or in the future will use or

6 attempt to use any Pedestrian Facility or Park and Ride Facility under Caltrans’ Jurisdiction.”

7 (Settlement § 1.38.) The certification of a class is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8 23. In order to be certified, (1) the class must be sufficiently numerous that joinder of all the

9 members is impracticable, (2) there must be questions of law or fact common to the class,

10 (3) the claims or defenses of the representative must be typical of those of the class, and (4) the

11 representative must be able to fairly and adequately protect the class’ interests. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12 23(a).

13

Because this Court has already certified the class as to the federal claims, the inquiry at

14 this juncture is limited to the question of whether the addition of the state law claims provides

15 any basis for changing the Court’s prior determinations regarding the propriety of class

16 certification. It does not.4 The claims in the state case allege that the Caltrans is obligated to

17 “develop and implement a transition plan which sets milestones and benchmarks for fixing the

18 existing barriers.” Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249

19 F.R.D. 334, 343 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The “program access” claim concerns pre-1993 facilities

20 and whether there is any obligation to render them accessible under the ADA. The other two

21 state claims are premised upon California Civil Code § 54 (Unruh Civil Rights Act),

22 Government Code § 4450 (ensuring accessibility of sidewalks, etc., to the disabled), and

23 Government Code § 11135 (prohibiting disability discrimination). These state claims seek the

24 same relief as the federal claims, though in some instances are based on more stringent

25 California regulations. (Mot. for Prelim. Approval (“Mot.”) at 10.)

26

27 4 No party or objector has raised any concern regarding certification of the Settlement
28 Class.

- 6 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page7 of 16

1

The inclusion of the state law claims does not alter the Court’s analysis of the

2 numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation components of class

3 certification under Rule 23. The state statutes essentially are the state counterparts to the ADA

4 and Rehabilitation Act. As they did in seeking federal class certification, Plaintiffs proffered

5 the declarations of thirty-one class members in support of their motion for class certification of

6 the state law claims. (Mot. at 11.) As in the instant case, the fundamental premise of the

7 motion for class certification is that Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that

8 affect class members similarly, i.e., they are denied access. In short, the same rationale for

9 certifying the federal claims exists for certifying the state claims. Therefore, the Court certifies

10 the Plaintiff Settlement Class as set forth in Section 1.38 of the Settlement Agreement.

11

C. OBJECTIONS

12

1. Barbosa Objectors

13

a) Authority to Enter Into Settlement

14

Three of the Barbosa Objectors, Susan Barnhill (“Barnhill”), Terrelle Terry (“Terry”)

15 and Linda Hinchey (“Hinchey”), are affiliated with CDR. They allege that CDR President

16 Laura Williams negotiated and agreed to the settlement without obtaining the approval of the

17 Executive Committee, ostensibly in violation of CDR’s by laws. They further claim that “they

18 were never provided with any information regarding the negotiations of the settlement class”

19 and were not allowed to participate in any settlement negotiations before Williams agreed to

20 the proposed settlement. (Barbosa Objections at 3.) Barbosa Objectors request that the Court

21 reject the settlement and require the parties to return to the bargaining table. (Id.)

22

Despite Barbosa Objectors suggestions to the contrary, CDR’s by-laws are silent with

23 regard to the organization’s management and disposition of litigation. (Williams Decl. ¶ 11;

24 Terry Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 1.) In practice, authority over litigation and related decisions is vested in

25 CDR’s Litigation Committee of which Williams is the chair. (Williams Decl. ¶ 12.)5 Though

26 the Litigation Committee generally obtains approval from the Executive Committee before

27 5 During the course of the litigation, Williams invited two objectors, Richard Skaff
28 (“Skaff”) and Hollyn D’Lil (“D’Lil”) to join the committee, but they declined to do so. (Id.)

- 7 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page8 of 16

1 commencing litigation, it does not obtain their approval to settle matters. (Id.) In this

2 instance, Williams first learned on March 23, 2010, that a few CDR members were objecting to

3 the settlement, even though the settlement had been public since December 2009. (Id.) Out of

4 an abundance of caution, Williams submitted the settlement to the Executive Committee, 5 which approved the settlement and Williams’ actions on behalf of CDR, by a majority vote. 6 (Id. ¶ 37.) Notably, only 8 of 544 CDR members have objected to the settlement. (Id.) Thus, 7 the Court rejects the Barbosa Objectors’ assertions that Williams was not authorized to approve 8 the settlement.

9

The above notwithstanding, whether Williams acted beyond her authority is inapposite

10 to the question before the Court; to wit, whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.

11 As set forth above, the settlement was reached through Court-supervised, arms-length

12 negotiations which ultimately yielded a beneficial outcome for the Class that they might not

13 have otherwise received had the case proceeded to verdict. Moreover, Barbosa Objectors

14 ignore that there are other Plaintiffs (Ben Rockwell, Dmitri Belser and California Council for

15 the Blind), who independently approved the settlement. Thus, irrespective of CDR, the Court

16 may properly consider the fairness of the settlement based on Rockwell and Belser’s request

17 that the Court do so.

18

b) “Censorship” of Dissenting Members

19

Next, Barbosa Objectors D’Lil and Skaff claim that Williams prevented them from

20 posting comments regarding the settlement on the CDR list-serv (i.e., an electronic bulletin

21 board) regarding their objections to the settlement. (Barbosa Objections at 6.) Without citation

22 to any legal authority, these objectors assert that William’s censorship should invalidate the

23 Executive Board’s after-the-fact ratification of the settlement.

24

Williams acknowledges that she prevented the postings at issue as a matter of internal

25 CDR policy, as she believed that they would be inconsistent with CDR’s good faith acceptance 26 of the settlement. (Williams Decl. ¶ 32.) Nonetheless, as CDR correctly points out, whether or 27 not these two CDR members’ postings were allowed is a matter of internal CDR policy and is 28 irrelevant to the issue of whether the settlement should be approved by the Court. In addition,

- 8 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page9 of 16

1 as set forth above, the Court has the authority to approve the settlement, even without CDR’s

2 approval.

3

c) Fairness to the Class

4

i. Thirty-Year Compliance Period

5

Barbosa Objectors complain that the thirty-year compliance period is too long, and that

6 some of the Class Members may not live to see the improvements. (Barbosa Objections at 7.)6

7 Such concerns, while perhaps understandable, ignore the real world financial constraints that

8 undeniably exist. More importantly, this objection must be placed in context with the overall

9 agreement and immediate benefits that will be conferred. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 (“It is

10 the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must be

11 examined for overall fairness.”). First, the settlement guarantees an immediate, annual $25

12 million level of funding for barrier removal, which is a significant increase from the existing $1

13 million allocation. (Rockwell Decl. ¶ 13.) Second, the settlement will result in access

14 upgrades beginning almost immediately in July 2010. Finally, a shorter compliance period will

15 not result in the elimination of access barriers more quickly unless there is a corresponding

16 increase in funding, which is not available.

17

While purporting to recognize Caltrans’ financial constraints, Barbosa Objectors argue

18 that “[t]he Agreement should allow for modifications due to the changing economy.” (Barbosa

19 Objections at 7.) However, it is not within the purview of the Court to second guess the details

20 of the settlement. See Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625. Moreover, Barbosa Objectors

21 ignore that if the settlement is not approved, there will be no obligation imposed on Caltrans to

22 increase its funding for barrier removal, curb ramp upgrades or any other access improvements.

23 Perhaps more fundamentally, such a modification cuts both ways. If Caltrans’ budget

24 continues to decline, a provision that allows funding to be adjusted due to economic changes

25 would actually result in less funds for access improvements. While perhaps a shorter

26

27

6 At the same time, they offer varying views as to how long the compliance period

should be; some want 15 years, while others want 10 years. (D’Lil Decl. ¶ 7; Skaff Decl. ¶ 7;

28 Chandler Decl. ¶ 9; Hinchey Decl. ¶ 6.)

- 9 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page10 of 16

1 compliance period would be preferable in a vacuum, the length of the compliance period as set

2 forth in the settlement does not detract from its overall fairness, adequacy and reasonableness.

3

ii. Seven-Year Monitoring Period

4

Next, Barbosa Objectors contend that the Agreement only provides funding for

5 compliance monitoring for the first seven years of the compliance period, and that there is no

6 assurance that proper monitoring will continue for the subsequent twenty-three years. (Barbosa

7 Objections at 8.) This argument, however, glosses over the monitoring provisions of the

8 Agreement. (Settlement Agt. ¶ 2.) For the first seven years of the compliance period, the

9 settlement calls for funding to hire an access consultant with specialized knowledge and

10 training to ensure Caltrans’ compliance with state and federal accessibility requirements. The

11 access consultant will ensure that Caltrans establishes an institutional framework (including

12 staffing, prioritization planning, etc.) in order to comply with the agreement. The seven-year

13 period was selected based on Class counsel’s experiences in other class settlements; namely,

14 that the first several years following a settlement is the most critical time period because that is

15 when the majority of implementation issues are likely to arise. (Paradis Decl. ¶ 27.) In

16 counsel’s opinion, which is based on their extensive experience in such matters, a seven-year

17 period for the access consultant is sufficient in this case. (Id.)

18

Compliance with the settlement agreement will also be monitored through detailed,

19 annual reports which Caltrans must submit to Class counsel for each of the next thirty years.

20 (Settlement Agt. Ex. 2.) Among other things, the report will include:

21

• a summary of barrier removal projects completed the preceding

22

year, including projects requested by the public;

• a detailed summary of the funding allocation for that year; 23
• a summary of pedestrian facilities and/or Park and Ride facilities

24

newly constructed that year;

25

• a summary of training and monitoring efforts;

26

• any revisions made to Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82,

which sets forth accessibility guidelines for California pedestrian

27

facilities;

28

- 10 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page11 of 16

1

• the identification of barrier removal projects and requisite funding

2

for the following year; and

• a summary of grievance and a status report on the Caltrans’

3

resolution of those grievances.

4 In short, there will be ample oversight of Caltrans’ compliance with the Agreement both during

5 and after the time period that the access consultant is retained.

6

Barbosa Objectors question DRA’s ability to monitor compliance without the access

7 consultant, and propose that the Court (1) specify the amount of funds DRA must spend on

8 monitoring and (2) establish a procedure through which class members can be assured of

9 DRA’s compliance with its monitoring obligations. (Barbosa Objections at 8.) Tellingly,

10 Barbosa Objectors fail to provide any authority or evidentiary support for the proposition that

11 the Court can and/or should require that the compliance monitor itself be monitored. Indeed,

12 such a system would be duplicative and unwieldy, and would inevitably lead to infighting over

13 how this second level of monitoring should be implemented.

14

Equally unpersuasive is the Barbosa Objectors’ claim that $75,000 per year for an

15 access consultant is “inadequate” to ensure compliance. (Barbosa Objections at 8.) No proof

16 is offered in support of this speculative assertion. In addition, as discussed above, the Court is

17 persuaded that seven years is sufficient time for the access consultant to identify any serious

18 violations of the Agreement. In that event, Plaintiffs may order the appointment of a special

19 master to increase or extend the monitoring of Caltrans’ compliance. (Paradis Decl. ¶¶ 29, 32.)

20

iii. Opt-Out

21

Next, Barbosa Objectors complain that there is no opt-out provision for Class members

22 who disagree with the terms of the agreement. (Barbosa Objections at 9.) However, the Class

23 was certified under Rule 23(b)(2), which is applicable where “the party opposing the class has

24 acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief

25 or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”

26 Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). Opting out generally is not permitted in Rule 23(b)(2) class actions.

27 Molski, 318 F.3d at 947 (“members of a Rule 23(b)(2) class do not have the right to opt-out.”).

28 Opt-out provisions usually are applicable where damages are sought. Id. at 948. Here,

- 11 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page12 of 16

1 Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief only; no damages are being sought. As such, the lack of an opt-

2 out provision is of no consequence.7

3

d) Adequacy of Funding

4

Finally, Barbosa Objectors criticize the $1.1 billion settlement as amounting to less than

5 1% of Caltrans overall budget and argue that there is no assurance that $1.1 billion is sufficient

6 to rectify all of the access barriers. (Barbosa Objections at 10.) This argument erroneously

7 assumes that the entirety of Caltrans budget is available to fund access improvements. The

8 vast majority of the Caltrans budget is allocated to operations, maintenance and local assistance

9 projects that cannot be applied to barrier removal. (Paradis Decl. ¶ 9.) According to

10 Defendants’ expert, the only budget specifically available to fund access projects is the SHOPP

11 (State Highway Operation and Protection Program), which amounts to only $1.5 billion of the

12 total Caltrans budget of $13 billion. (Id.) In addition, SHOPP funds are not dedicated to

13 barrier removal, but are used to rehabilitate and maintain 50,000 miles of highway and 12,559

14 bridges. (Id. ¶ 11.) SHOPP is already underfunded and its budget is shrinking. (Id. ¶ 13.)

15 Thus, Barbosa Objectors’ claim that the settlement fund should be a greater percentage of

16 Caltrans’ overall budget is inaccurate and ignores the evidence, the reality of the state’s

17 financial constraints and the myriad of issues that the parties were required to balance in

18 reaching this agreement.

19

As an ancillary matter, Barbosa Objectors assert that the settlement does not take into

20 account that future Caltrans budgets may increase, as shown by the budget increase in the

21 2008/2009 fiscal year. Again, this contention ignores the converse; namely, that future budgets

22 could dwindle. Indeed, given the State’s budget crisis, Caltrans budget for the 2009/2010 year

23 is $1.3 billion less than the prior year. (Id.) The settlement takes into account the risk of

24 shrinking financial resources and guarantees a minimum level of funding will be allocated to

25 access improvements. No such guarantees presently exist. The Court finds that the Barbosa

26 7 Some of the objectors complain that Plaintiffs should have sought damages. The
27 settlement does not bar individual damage claims. In addition, it has been public knowledge since 2006 that Plaintiffs were seeking only injunctive relief. Thus, any complaints that
28 Plaintiffs should have sought damages are untimely.

- 12 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page13 of 16

1 Objectors’ concerns regarding the adequacy of the amount allocated to barrier removal to be

2 unpersuasive.

3

2. California Walks

4

This letter is, ostensibly, from an advocacy group that promotes walking. The letter,

5 dated January 27, 2010, is addressed to the Court, but was never filed. California Walks does

6 not object to the settlement. Rather, they request that the settlement include a provision to

7 allocate some of the barrier removal funds to construct “sidewalk gap closures,” i.e., to

8 construct new sidewalks to fill in the gap where there are two existing walkways that do not

9 connect.

10

California Walks’ letter was not filed and is not properly before the Court. But even if

11 it were, the Court finds that the concerns expressed therein do not undermine the fairness,

12 adequacy and reasonableness of the settlement. As an initial matter, California Walks does not

13 profess to represent any class members and thus lacks standing to object. See Tarlecki v. bebe

14 Stores, Inc., 2009 WL 3720872 at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2009) (Patel, J.). In addition, they

15 fail to cite to any federal or state provision imposing a legal obligation to close sidewalk gaps.

16 (Paradis Decl. ¶ 40.) To the extent that any gaps pose accessibility issues for Class members,

17 they will be rectified under the terms of the settlement. (Settlement Agreement, Ex. 3 ¶ 2.)

18

3. Arnie & Marilynn Pike

19

The Pikes submitted separate letters to the Court on February 1, 2010, wherein they

20 complain that the thirty-year compliance period is too long. These objections are identical to

21 those presented by the Barbosa Objectors, and thus, for the same reasons, are overruled.

22

4. Walter Park

23

The Court’s preliminary approval order expressly alerted the public that to be

24 considered, objections were to be submitted to the Court and Class counsel by no later than

25 March 30, 2010. (Docket 457 ¶ 8.) Park’s objection, filed on March 31, 2001, is untimely and

26 need not be considered.

27

Even if considered on the merits, Park’s objections are without merit. First, he argues

28 that a 30-year compliance period is too long. This argument fails for the reasons stated above.

- 13 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page14 of 16

1

Second, Park contends that Caltrans’ information regarding its expenditures are

2 “murky.” Again, as set forth above, Plaintiffs and their counsel considered the actual amount

3 of monies available to fund access improvements. Park has presented no evidence to the

4 contrary.

5

Third, Park claims that future budget projections are “biased” because they are based on

6 the current fiscal crisis. Aside from being unsupported, this assertion fails to take into account

7 the inherent instability of the budget, and the fact that the settlement is intended to account for

8 that uncertainty.

9

Fourth, Park alleges that the settlement does not require a written transition plan.

10 However, both the Ninth Circuit and this Court have concluded that there is no private right of

11 action to compel a public entity to adopt a transition plan. See Lonberg v. City of Riverside,

12 571 F.3d 846, 852 (9th Cir. 2009) (“a public entity may be fully compliant with [Section II of

13 the ADA] without ever having drafted a transition plan, in which case, a lawsuit forcing the

14 public entity to draft such a plan would afford the plaintiff no meaningful remedy.”); Docket

15 207 at 12.

16

Finally, Park claims that the grievance procedure “is not well formed.” However,

17 Park’s quibbling with navigation features and links on the State’s website does not undermine

18 the overall fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the settlement.

19

5. Branlett Kimmons

20

Kimmons’ objection was filed on April 16, 2010, and therefore, is untimely. That aside,

21 his objection merely states that he “objects” to all aspects of the settlement without any

22 explanation. He also does not appear to be a Class member, and therefore, has no standing to

23 object. For these reasons, Kimmons’ objections, whatever they may be, are overruled.

24 //

25 //

26 //

27 //

28

- 14 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page15 of 16

1 IV. CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated above,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

4

1. The Court, for purposes of this Judgment of Dismissal, Final Order and Decree

5 incorporates by reference the Court’s order approving the Settlement Agreement (Docket No.

6 457).

7

2. The Court, for purposes of this Order, adopts the terms and definitions set forth

8 in the Settlement Agreement re: Class Action Settlement (“Settlement Agreement”).

9

3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Litigation and over all

10 parties to the litigation and the Plaintiff Settlement Class Members.

11

4. Defendants consent to the federal court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over

12 Plaintiffs’ state law claims for purposes of the Settlement Agreement.

13

5. The Court hereby dismisses this action, with prejudice and without costs, subject

14 to Paragraphs 6 and 7 below. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are hereby incorporated

15 into this Order.

16

6. Without affecting the finality of this Order in any way, the Court hereby retains

17 jurisdiction to resolve any dispute regarding compliance with the Settlement Agreement that

18 cannot be resolved through the meet and confer process set forth therein. Any disputes

19 regarding the Settlement Agreement shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth LaPorte for

20 Report and Recommendation.

21

7. Per the parties’ agreement, the attorney fee award for past work and future

22 compliance services will be no less than $3.75 million and no more than $8.75 million, and

23 costs are not to exceed $391,477. Plaintiffs’ application for an award of attorneys’ fees and

24 expenses has been submitted to the Court and referred to Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James

25 for determination, subject to review by this Court upon timely request by either party.

26

27

28

- 15 -

Case4:06-cv-05125-SBA Document515 Filed06/02/10 Page16 of 16

1

8. The Clerk shall terminate any pending docket matters and close the file.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Dated: June 2, 2010 4 5

______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 16 -

 
 2009 WL 2392156

2009 WL 2392156 United States District Court, N.D. California,
Oakland Division.
CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC. (“CDR”), California Council of the Blind (“CCB”), Ben Rockwell, and Dmitri Belser, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (“Caltrans”) and Will Kempton, in his official capacity, Defendants.
No. C 06–5125 SBA. | Aug. 4, 2009.
West KeySummary
1 Federal Civil Procedure Civil Rights Cases in General
A genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the California Department of Transportation provided accessible pedestrian facilities to the disabled petitioners. Thus, summary judgment was precluded in an action alleging that the Department’s design policies for pedestrian facilities did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. At issue was the Department’s contention that it was not obligated to design highway shoulders as accessible pedestrian routes. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, §§ 202, 244, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12132, 12164.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Mary–Lee Eileen Kimber, Laurence Wayne Paradis, Disability Rights Advocates, Berkeley, CA, Daniel Benjamin Kohrman, Julie Nepveu, Aarp Foundation Litigation, Washington, DC, Gerald Michael Harrington, Jose R. Allen, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, San Francisco, CA, Laurence Wayne Paradis, Roger Norton Heller, Disability Rights Advocates, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs.

David N. Sandler, Behrans Gossage Harrington Sandler, Gerald Michael Harrington, Ankush Agarwal, State Of California, San Francisco, CA, Alana Rika Cho, Gregory F. Hurley, Michael Chilleen, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.
*1 On July 14, 2009, this court heard oral argument on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. [Docket No. 323].1 Ankush Argawal and Gregory Hurley appeared for Defendants California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) and Caltrans Director Will Kempton. Laurence Paradis appeared for Plaintiffs. Having considered the motion, the supporting, opposing and reply memoranda, the evidence before the court, and the arguments of the parties, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
INTRODUCTION
Defendants move for summary judgment on two issues: (1) whether Caltrans’ policies for the design of pedestrian facilities comply with federal law and regulations2; and (2) whether Caltrans has system-wide procedures to ensure that pedestrian facilities are designed and constructed pursuant to its design policies. [Defs’ Reply at 1:7–10]. Defendants argue that no injunctive relief is needed to bring its design policies and implementation procedures into compliance and thus, request summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ case in its entirety.
Plaintiffs contend that the scope of the alleged violations, and thus, the lawsuit, is much broader than Defendants assert. In addition to whether Caltrans’ design guidelines and procedures violate the ADA and Section 504, their claims address numerous ways in which Caltrans has allegedly failed to comply with its legal obligations to provide accessible pedestrian facilities in the following ways: (1) failing to provide “program access” to existing pedestrian facilities; (2) failing to develop an effective public complaint system through which complaints regarding specific access barriers can be remedied in a timely and satisfactory manner; (3) failing to provide access to Caltrans’ newly constructed or altered

2009 WL 2392156

pedestrian facilities, e.g. not installing or upgrading curb ramps to comply with federal accessibility standards when Caltrans alters an adjoining roadway or pedestrian facility; (4) failing to develop or implement procedures to actually monitor compliance; (5) failing to remedy the effects of past non-compliant design guidelines; (6) failing to ensure that temporary pedestrian routes, when provided around construction work that blocks a pedestrian facility, are accessible to persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities; and (7) by contending that no federal accessibility standards are legally binding when Caltrans engages in new construction or alteration affecting its pedestrian facilities.
Because the majority of these claims are not addressed by the Defendants’ motion, the Court treats the motion as one for partial summary judgment. On the two issues raised by Defendants, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist as to each, thereby precluding the Court from summarily adjudicating them in Defendants’ favor.
BACKGROUND
I. Procedural Background. On March 13, 2008, this Court issued a ruling on Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Plaintiffs do not have a “private right of action to enforce either the self-evaluation or transition plan regulations.” [Docket No. 207 at 12:24–25]. The Court explicitly stated, however, that “plaintiffs’ other claims under the ADA, as well as § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, remain intact.” [Id. at 13:5–8]. Contrary to Defendants’ contention, this Court’s ruling did not eliminate Plaintiffs’ claim premised on Defendants’ failure to provide program access to existing pedestrian facilities. Specifically, the Court found that while Plaintiffs may not rely on their allegations about violations of the Self–Evaluation and Transition Plan regulations to demonstrate a violation of the access requirements for existing pedestrian facilities (i.e. program access), they may nonetheless litigate the barriers to access along existing pedestrian facilities under Title II of the ADA. [Docket No. 237 at 3:25–4:2].
*2 The Court certified a class of “all persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities who are allegedly being denied access under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 due to barriers along sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian underpasses, pedestrian overpasses and any other outdoor designated pedestrian walkways throughout the state of

California which are owned and/or maintained by the California Department of Transportation.” [Docket No. 237 at 13:27:7–10]. The class was thus certified not as to certain claims (i.e. design policies and implementation procedures) but as to the alleged denial of access due to barriers along Caltrans’ pedestrian facilities.
II. The relevant statutes and regulations. The ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132–12164. The regulations define “facility” to include “all or any portion of ... roads, walks, or passageways.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Streets and sidewalks are a program and service provided by the City. Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2002).
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. A “program” or “activity” means, in part, “all of the operations” of a state or local agency. 29 U.S.C. § 794(b).
Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.151, each new facility or part of a facility constructed or altered after January 26, 1992, must conform to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (“ADAAG”), the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (“UFAS”). 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(c). “Departures from particular requirements of either standard by the use of other methods shall be permitted when it is clearly evident that equivalent access to the facility or part of the facility is thereby provided.” Id. This regulation applies to public entities, including Caltrans.
The Department of Transportation (“DOT”) is the agency responsible for overseeing compliance with the ADA by public entities with respect to “programs, services and regulatory activities relating to transportation.” See 28 CFR § 35.190(b) (8). The DOT delegates the responsibility to ensure ADA compliance in the public right of way and on projects using surface transportation funds to the Federal Highway Agency (“FHWA”). The FHWA considers the public right of way to include travel lanes, medians, planting strips, and sidewalks.
The ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (“ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36 App., sets forth the minimum accessibility guidelines needed to measure compliance with ADA Title III obligations in planning and engineering new construction and alterations projects

2009 WL 2392156

for privately-owned public accommodations and commercial facilities. The Defendants’ position that no federal accessibility guidelines are legally binding on them in the context of pedestrian facilities is not persuasive. First, pedestrian facilities which are newly constructed or altered are clearly subject to § 35.151(c), which in turn explicitly requires that a public agency adopt one of two federal accessibility standards: ADAAG or UFAS. A departure from a particular requirement of the ADAAG or UFAS is permitted only to the extent that it is “clearly evident” that the method selected “provides equivalent access to the facility.” Second, the Court is persuaded by the caselaw that finds these standards legally enforceable and applicable to Title II entities, such as Caltrans. See Lopez v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 385 F.Supp.2d 981, 985 (N.D.Cal.2005) (granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment regarding their claims that defendant public entity failed to perform new construction and alterations in conformance with the ADA Accessability Guidelines); Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 133 F.Supp.2d 589, 592 (N.D.Ohio 2001), affirmed by Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901 (6th Cir.2001) (rejecting as mistaken the City’s argument that the regulations do not demand “strict compliance” as long as the facilities “when viewed in their entirety,” and holding that the standard for new facilities is more stringent than that for existing facilities). See also Pierce v. County of Orange, 519 F.3d 985, 1010 (9th Cir.2008); Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.2000).
LEGAL STANDARD
*3 The judgment sought in a motion for summary judgment should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir.2006). As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts, if any, are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Miller v. California, 212 Fed. Appx. 592 (9th Cir.2006).
Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kinedyne Corp., 296 F.3d 778, 785 (9th Cir.2002). Summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is “genuine,” that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at

248.
DISCUSSION
I. Whether Caltrans’ design policies comply with federal laws and regulations. The first issue which Defendants seek to have summarily adjudicated is whether Caltrans’ policies for the design of pedestrian facilities complies with Title II of the ADA, Section 504 and Section 35.151 of the Title II implementing regulations. It is undisputed that the Design Information Bulletin No. 82–03: Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects (“DIB 82–03”) is the master document for the design policies followed by Caltrans for newly constructed and altered sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways. DIB 82–03 was issued in October 2006 and revised in September 2007.
DIB 82–03 is divided into sections addressing pedestrian accessibility (Section 4. 1), new construction (Section 4.1.1), alterations (Section 4.1.2), accessibility requirements for roadway rehabilitation projects (Section 4.1.3), and minimum accessibility features (Section 4.1.4). [Cordova Decl., Ex. A]. Sections 4.3 through Section 4.3.19 include design standards and best practices for pedestrian facilities that cover features of the public right-of-way. [Cordova Decl. ¶ 4].
DIB 82–03 incorporates access guidelines from three sources: (1) ADAAG; (2) California Building Standards Code (“CBSC”); and (3) Draft Guidelines for Public Rights–of–Way (“DGPROW”). Although ADAAG is not specifically written for public rights-of-way projects, Caltrans applies some of its provisions to the highway environment. It is incorporated in Section 4.3.1 (surface), Section 4.3.2 (vertical clearance), Section 4.3.3 (clear width), Section 4.3.5 (cross slope), Section 4.3.8 (curb ramps), Section 4.3.14 (detectable warning surfaces) and Section 4.3.19 (protruding objections).
It is undisputed that the CBSC, also incorporated in DIB 82–03, is substantially equivalent, or even more stringent, than ADAAG. Finally, although it is undisputed that the DGPROW is not legally enforceable because it was withdrawn by the Department of Justice on January 21, 2009, DIB 82–03 incorporates it as well. [Cordova Decl. ¶ 7 and Ex. B].
*4 Defendant contends DIB 82–03 complies with the federal laws and regulation at issue in this case because the access policies contained therein either comply (the

2009 WL 2392156

ADAAG and the CBSC) or are considered “best practices” (DGPROW). Defendant argues that because the FHWA approved DIB 82–03 as a design guide that conforms to the ADA, the Court should defer to the FHWA’s judgment rather than substitute its own.
Plaintiffs present evidence of purported deficiencies in the current DIB 82–03. One significant example which raises disputed factual issues relates to Section 4.2, which excludes highway shoulders from accessibility requirements:
Vehicular lanes and shoulders are not required to be designed as accessible pedestrian routes even where it is legal for a pedestrian to traverse along a highway.
[Cordova Decl., Ex. A, DIB 82–03].
Plaintiffs’ position is that where a highway shoulder is the equivalent of a sidewalk and is used by pedestrians, it must be accessible. Defendants contend they are not legally obliged to design highway shoulders as accessible pedestrian routes. They concede, however, that in those cases where a highway shoulder is “specifically intended for pedestrian use,” it must be accessible. Thus, to the extent that the DIB 82–03 does not contemplate the accessibility of highway shoulders that are intended for pedestrian uses, there appears to be no dispute that Caltrans’ policy to the contrary does not comply with the ADA. A second purported deficiency is the failure of DIB 82–03 to address the issue of temporary accessible pedestrian routes around construction. In ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Plaintiffs’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court held that, to the extent Defendants elect to provide temporary routes for the use of the public, Defendants have a duty to make such routes accessible to all members of the public. [Docket No. 292]. The failure of DIB 82–03 to address temporary routes is additional evidence that Caltrans’ design policy does not comply with the the federal accessibility laws and regulation at issue in this matter.
Finally, Defendants claim that “FHWA’s review and approval of the DIB as an ADA compliant design guide for pedestrian features in the public right-of-way is undisputed.” [MSJ 13:12–14]. The Court, however, is persuaded by Plaintiff that the FHWA’s purported review and approval of DIB 82–03 is far from undisputed, as is the question of its ADA compliance. Defendants offer into evidence a copy of a letter from Mark Leja, of the Caltrans Division of Design, to Gene Fong, Division Administrator of the FHWA, dated October 19, 2006.

[Cordova Decl. Ex. D]. The letter relates to DIB 82–03 and states: “Your signature will constitute an agreement between the Federal Highway Administration and our Department that DIB 82–03 is an approved design guide for the California State Highway System. Enclosed is a copy for your records.” The letter is not signed by Gene Fong, but by Bill (last name undecipherable) “for Gene Fong,” and is dated October 20, 2006.
*5 The letter is inadmissible and incompetent evidence. First, it is clearly hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c), given that it is proffered to prove the FHWA’s imprimatur on DIB 82–03. Second, it is not authenticated and lacks foundation. Defendants have failed to submit any evidence demonstrating the circumstances of the letter and/or the authority of the person who ostensibly signed it. Clearly, the person to whom it was directed, Gene Fong, did not. See Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 777 (9th Cir.2002); see also Fed.R. Evid. 901(a). Consequently, whether or not the FHWA has approved the DIB 82–03 is a disputed factual issue which is material to the issues presented by Defendants.
Even if the FHWA approved DIB 82–03, the Defendants’ argument that the Court should defer to the FHWA rather than substitute its judgment is inapposite. Moreover, the Defendants’ analysis of Overton Park3 is inapplicable. This Court is not reviewing a decision of the FHWA, it is reviewing Caltrans’ design policies and procedures in adjudicating their compliance with federal accessibility laws.
The evidence demonstrates there are genuine disputes over material facts with respect to whether Caltrans’ design policies comply with the ADA, Section 504 and Section 35.151. The Court therefore DENIES the Defendants’ motion on the first issue.
II. Whether Caltrans has system-wide procedures to ensure that pedestrian facilities are designed and constructed pursuant to its design policies. Defendants contend that no injunctive relief is required to revise Caltrans’ current procedures for several reasons. First, all projects involving the construction or alteration of pedestrian facilities must be designed in accordance with the policies and standards of DIB 82–03. [MSJ at 18]. For example, the Highway Design Manual explicitly requires compliance with DIB 82–03. [Land Decl. ¶ 5]. Second, in the design process, if an access standard in the DIB 82–03 cannot be fully incorporated in a project’s design, an exception must be documented and approved. The exception must be fully documented to demonstrate why compliance is structurally impracticable (for a new construction) or technically infeasible (for alterations).

2009 WL 2392156

Before an exception can be approved, a professional registered civil engineer must scrutinize it. [Cordova Decl. ¶ 16]. Cost cannot be a factor to justify an exception, and this is explicitly set forth in DIB 82–03. Id. At the end of the design process, the designer certifies compliance with DIB 82–03 before submitting the project’s plans and specifications for construction. [Land Decl. ¶ 8]. Any changes during construction are subject to reevaluation by the design staff to ensure compliance. Finally, Caltrans offers a statewide training program on the policies and procedures of DIB 82–03. [Cordova Decl. ¶ 18]. Attendees include design and traffic engineers involved in designing pedestrian facilities and conducting accessibility investigations. There is no evidence that the training is mandatory.
*6 Plaintiffs do not dispute that the procedures exist on paper. They respond with circumstantial evidence of Caltrans’ failure to comply with its own design policies in the form of real-world documentation of inaccessibility in the built environment. This is presented in the expert’s report, in the form of a survey of 41 locations in which he identifies both necessary curb ramps that are missing, and extant curb ramps that are not accessible under the ADA, Section 504 and 28 C.F.R. 35.151. The three main alleged defects in the extant curb ramps are (1) a transition at the bottom of the curb ramp to the roadway that is not flush, making it dangerous for a scooter or wheelchair user to use the curb ramp without tipping over or falling out of the scooter or chair; (2) an abrupt change in level, or “bulge” where the gutter meets the street adjacent to the curb ramp, creating a dangerous barrier to scooter or wheelchair use; and (3) the absence of a detectable warning feature to alert pedestrians with vision disabilities that they are about to transition between the safety of the sidewalk and the hazardous environment of the street. [Docket No. 337, Margen Decl. ¶¶ 42–44].
Plaintiffs also submit the declarations of individual class members who detail their individual experiences with inaccessible pedestrian facilities in their own communities. For example, Dwight Bateman has a mobility disability and uses a wheelchair. He lives in Modesto, California and describes his difficulty using the sidewalks along McHenry Avenue due to several access barriers. Four intersections on McHenry Avenue, in particular, feature large tar bumps in the gutter near each of the curbs where road resurfacing layers have not been smoothed out. In order to make it onto the curb ramp over the abrupt changes in level, he must slow down and put one of his hands on the back side of his power wheelchair so that the jolt of going over the bump does not shake his body and cause back strain, exacerbating the back injury that caused his mobility disability in the first place, or simply cause him to fall out of his chair. He recounts that it takes time and effort to negotiate the bump, and he is often still

in the crosswalk when the traffic light changes, which is dangerous if the oncoming cars do not see him in the crosswalk before they proceed into the intersection. On one occasion in 2007, this danger was realized when an oncoming car did not see him in the crosswalk and accelerated at the green light. He had to slam his power wheelchair in reverse to avoid being hit by the car, and believes that had he been in his less powerful wheelchair, he would not have been able to avoid being hit. Bateman also describes that in early 2009, the curb ramps at these intersections were redone with new cement, which ended up exacerbating the abrupt changes in level created by the tar bumps. [Appendix of Class Members’ Declarations, Bateman Decl. ¶¶ 8–10].
Elizabeth Henry has a mobility disability and uses a wheelchair. She lives in Redwood City, California, and travels as a pedestrian along the El Camino Real to take her child to and from public school, and to shop and buy groceries. On several occasions while crossing the intersection of El Camino Real and Jefferson Avenue, the wheels of her wheelchair have hit the abrupt change in level near the gutter where it meets the asphalt, and caused things to fall off her lap and onto the ground. One, she hit the abrupt change hard enough to be propelled forward out of her chair and onto the ground. Another time, her child was in her lap, and she hit the abrupt change hard and the child fell onto the ground. [Appendix, Henry Decl. ¶¶ 1, 7–8]. Henry generally avoids using ramps with barriers, but cannot avoid the intersection with Jefferson Avenue because it is the only way to get from her house to many locations she frequents in town.
*7 Dimitri Belser is legally blind and uses a cane to navigate when traveling pedestrian rights-of-way. [Appendix, Belser Decl. ¶ 1]. He frequently uses the sidewalks on San Pablo Avenue in Berkeley, California, between Ashby Avenue and Dwight Avenue. Along Ashby Avenue, in particular, there are very few detectable warnings at curb ramps, and without them it is difficult to safely cross the street because he cannot tell when he is moving from the relative safety of the sidewalk into the street filled with cars. On one occasion in 2006, while waiting to cross Ashby Avenue at Martin Luther King Jr. Way, his cane was actually struck by a car and pulled from his hands. He believed he was standing on the sidewalk and had no idea he was so close to the street. [Id. ¶¶ 8, 11, 12]. Lillian Scaife is also legally blind and complains of the blended curb that was installed at the intersection of Temple Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway in Long Beach, California, five years ago, which has no detectable warnings to assist her in understanding whether she is standing in the street or on a sidewalk. [Appendix, Scaife Decl. ¶¶ 1, 6–7].
Plaintiff’s evidence that the resurfacing of city streets

2009 WL 2392156

created barriers to accessibility creates genuine issues of material fact with respect to Caltrans’ compliance with 28 C.F.R. 35.151. In Kinney v. Yerusalim, the Court held that the resurfacing of city streets is an alteration within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. 35.151(b). Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067, 1075 (3rd. Cir.1993). An “alteration,” therefore, triggers the compliance requirements in 28 C.F.R. 35.151(c). As for detectable warnings, they are required by Section 4.7.7 of the ADAAG, which Defendant concedes is incorporated in the DIB 82–03. Thus, to the extent that curbs identified by Plaintiffs which lack detectable warnings fall within the scope of Title II of the ADA, the evidence presents genuine issues of material fact on the issue of whether the procedures in DIB 82–03 ensure compliance with federal laws and regulations. Defendants provide no evidence that Caltrans employees actually avail themselves of the procedures recited in DIB 82–03 and summarized by Caltrans Chief Engineer Richard Land, nor that training on the policies and procedures is required. That the procedures exist on paper is insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that they ensure compliance with the federal accessibility laws, particularly in the face of Plaintiffs’ evidence of numerous access barriers in the built environment. For these reasons, the Court also DENIES the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the second issue presented.

III. Program Access Claims. Plaintiffs allege that Caltrans has systematically violated the requirements to provide program access to existing pedestrian facilities (constructed prior to and not altered since January 26, 1992) by failing to remedy numerous and pervasive access barriers, including but not limited to missing curb ramps, unsafe curb ramps, dangerous cross-slopes, crumbled and uneven pavement and inadequate detectable warnings. They present evidence in support of these claims in the form of twenty declarations detailing the access barriers faced by class members on a daily basis. The parties agreed, at the hearing, that the factual issue of what constitutes a “barrier” is disputed. This particular claim, however, is not the subject of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and need not be adjudicated here, but is reserved for trial.
CONCLUSION
*8 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

 
 Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

249 F.R.D. 334 United States District Court,
N.D. California.
CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC. (“CDR”), California Council of the Blind (“CCB”), Ben Rockwell, and Dmitri Belser, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (“CALTRANS”) and Will Kempton, in his official capacity, Defendants.
No. C 06-5125 SBA. | March 13, 2008.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*335 Mary-Lee Eileen Kimber, Laurence Wayne Paradis, Roger Norton Heller, Disability Rights Advocates, Berkeley, CA, Daniel Benjamin Kohrman, Julie Nepveu, AARP Foundation Litigation, Washington, DC, Gerald Michael Harrington, California Department of Transportation, Legal Division, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
David N. Sandler, Behrans Gossage Harrington Sandler, Gerald Michael Harrington, Ankush Agarwal, California Department of Transportation, Legal Division, San Francisco, CA, Eudeen Y. Chang, Gregory F. Hurley, Michael Drury, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.
Currently before the Court are: 1) defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Docket No. 52] and 2) plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [Docket No. 78]. Additionally, defendants have moved to strike the declarations of Joseph Abbott [Docket No. 133], Peter Margen [Docket No. 134], and Mary-Lee Kimber filed in support of plaintiff’s reply [Docket No. 192], as well as the Reply Appendix 1 [Docket No. 193], and the Reply Declaration of Peter Margen [Docket No. 194], as well as a motion for a hearing on those motions [Docket No. 195]. Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in the papers submitted to the Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a

hearing. For the reasons articulated below, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to plaintiffs’ state law claims in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth *336 causes of action, DENIED with respect to plaintiffs’ ADA claim, and GRANTED with respect to any right plaintiffs assert to enforce the self-evaluation and transition regulations of Title II of the ADA. The motion for class Certification is GRANTED and the motions to strike are DENIED AS MOOT.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background The plaintiffs in this putative class action lawsuit are two disability rights groups (Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. and California Council of the Blind) and two disabled individuals acting on behalf of all others similarly situated. They are suing the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) and its director, Will Kempton, to remedy an alleged “systematic pattern and practice of discrimination being committed by Caltrans against people with mobility and vision disabilities.” Docket No. 4 at 1. The plaintiffs allege that Caltrans, which provides an extensive network of facilities throughout the state including sidewalks, pedestrian crossings and a system of Park and Ride facilities, has systematically failed to maintain pedestrian rights of way or provide accessible alternative routes in construction areas. Id. at 2. The complaint alleges a host of other state and federal violations on the part of Caltrans, including the failure to remedy “dangerous slopes and crumbled or uneven pavement,” and the failure “to provide program access to Caltrans facilities in that they have not developed and implemented a comprehensive Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan covering pedestrian rights of way.” Id.
The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 19, 2006. See Docket Nos. 1, 4. The complaint alleges seven causes of action, four of which are based on state law and two of which are federal claims. The two federal claims arise under, respectively, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The seventh cause of action requests declaratory relief “in order that each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.” Docket No. 4 at 21. Plaintiffs do not seek damages1 but rather an injunction to prevent Caltrans from continuing its alleged violations of state and federal law. Id.
1

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

1

See Docket No. 65 at 4, line 16.

On September 20, 2007, Caltrans filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion requests 1) a dismissal of all state law claims, 2) a dismissal of the ADA claim based upon 11th Amendment immunity, and 3) a judgment that plaintiffs have no private cause of action to enforce the ADA regulations which require the creation of Self-Evaluation and Transition plans. Caltrans’ motion seeks dismissal of all of plaintiffs’ claims except for their second cause of action, which alleges a violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See Docket No. 4 at 18.
On October 23, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, seeking class certification for their federal law claims only. Plaintiffs move for the certification of the following class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2):
All persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities who are allegedly being denied access under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 due to barriers along sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian underpasses, pedestrian overpasses and any other outdoor designated pedestrian walkways throughout the state of California which are owned and/or maintained by the California Department of Transportation.
For purposes of class certification, persons with mobility disabilities are those who use wheelchairs, scooters, crutches, walkers, canes or similar devices to assist their navigation along sidewalks. For purposes of class certification, persons with vision disabilities are those who due to a vision impairment use canes or service animals for navigation along sidewalks. For purposes of class certification, Plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class with respect to any portions of Park and Ride, rest stops and/or vista point facilities owned and/or maintained by Caltrans.

*337 LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits judgment on the pleadings after an answer to a complaint has been filed. “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co.,

896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir.1989). “All allegations of fact by the party opposing the motion are accepted as true, and are construed in the light most favorable to that party.” Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 208 F.R.D. 288, 291 (N.D.Cal.2002). In determining whether judgment on the pleadings should be entered, a district court may consider the allegations made in the complaint and the answer, materials attached to the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c), and any other materials that are (1) specifically referred to the in the complaint, (2) central to the plaintiff’s claim, and (3) of uncontested authenticity. Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir.2006). If any other materials are to be considered, “the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).
B. Motion for Class Certification Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which sets forth a two-step procedure. First, the Court must determine that the following four requirements of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied: (1) numerosity; (2) common questions of law and fact; (3) typicality; and (4) fair and adequate representation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). Once these requirements are met, the plaintiff must also show that the lawsuit qualifies for class action status under one of the criteria found in Rule 23(b). See Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.2001), amended and superceded on denial of rehearing by Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that Plaintiff “bears the burden of demonstrating that [he] has met each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b)”).
Rule 23(b) requires that the plaintiff establish that either: (1) there is a risk of inconsistent adjudication, or adjudication of individual class member’s claims would substantially impair non-party members’ ability to protect their interests; (2) the defendant acted on grounds generally applicable to the class; or (3) common questions of law or fact predominate and class resolution is superior to other available methods. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b).
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that certification is appropriate. See Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1238 (9th Cir.2001). The Court maintains great discretion in certifying a class action. Vizena v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 360 F.3d 496, 502 (5th Cir.2004). The Court must rigorously analyze whether the class action allegations meet the requirements of Rule 23. See General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). However, “[b]ecause the early resolution of the class
2

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

certification question requires some degree of speculation ... all that is required is that the Court form a ‘reasonable judgment’ on each certification requirement.” In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litig., 1996 WL 655791 *2 (N.D.Cal.1996). “In formulating this judgment, the Court may properly consider both the allegations of the class action complaint and the supplemental evidentiary submissions of the parties.” Id. at *2. The Court may also consider the manageability of trying the plaintiffs’ claims in the form of a class action. Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 744 (5th Cir.1996).

ANALYSIS

I. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
A. Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims Caltrans argues extensively and persuasively that the plaintiffs’ state law claims should be dismissed due to this Court’s lack of jurisdiction over these causes of action. *338 See Docket No. 52 at 7-12. The plaintiffs agree with Caltrans, and in fact have offered to stipulate to a dismissal of the state law claims. See Docket No. 65 at 4; Agarwal Decl., ¶ 4. Since there is no dispute between the parties that the state law claims should be litigated in a competent state court, the plaintiffs’ third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action shall be dismissed.

However, the parties seem to dispute the manner in which the state law claims should be dismissed.2 Caltrans urges this Court to order plaintiffs to amend its First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 4) because “[o]therwise, as this case proceeds from the class certification stage to the merits stage of litigation, the Complaint on file will include several causes of action and supporting allegations that are no longer at issue, which impacts how Defendants conduct discovery and make the appropriate legal arguments to refute and undercut Plaintiffs’ case through future motions.” Docket No. 103 at 13. Caltrans neither explains nor provides legal support for its conclusion that its discovery strategy will be affected by some difference between simply dismissing the state claims or amending the complaint to remove the state claims.

2

In its 12(c) motion, Caltrans requests the state claims be

dismissed “with prejudice.” Docket No. 52 at 23. In its

reply, however, Caltrans changes its tune: “Defendants

do not contest the request that the claims be dismissed

without prejudice.” Docket No. 103 at 12.

may reassert his claims in a competent court.” Freeman v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Frigard v. United States, 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir.1988)) (quotation marks omitted). Therefore, since the propriety of dismissal of the state law causes of action is not in dispute, the plaintiffs’ state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.
B. Plaintiff’s federal claims Caltrans claims it is entitled to judgment-or at least partial judgment-pursuant to Federal Rule 12(c) on the plaintiffs’ federal ADA claim because 1) Congress’ attempt to abrogate 11th Amendment immunity under the ADA is invalid, and 2) the Ex Parte Young doctrine does not provide an exception permitting defendant Will Kempton to be sued in his official capacity as director of Caltrans. See Docket No. 52 at 12.
1. The Eleventh Amendment [1] Caltrans argues that it cannot be sued by California citizens in federal court because it enjoys sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment, and Congress’ “attempt” to abrogate this immunity is invalid. Caltrans correctly notes that sovereign immunity extends to state agencies and departments. Pennhurst State School and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Florida Department of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U.S. 147, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981) (per curiam); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) (per curiam). Thus, Caltrans enjoys 11th Amendment protection unless a statute unequivocally abrogates such immunity. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985), overruled on other grounds. Caltrans explains that in order for a statute to validly abrogate state sovereign immunity, it must 1) contain an unequivocal expression of Congressional intent to abrogate, 2) be enacted pursuant to Congress’ enforcement power under the 14th Amendment and 3) contain a remedial scheme that is “congruent and proportional” to the identified harm. See Docket No. 52 at 13; see also City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). Caltrans concedes the ADA satisfies the first two elements,3 but argues that the statute’s “proposed remedial scheme is not congruent and proportional to any identified harm inflicted by the states in the context of sidewalks or Park and Ride lots.” Docket No. 52 at 13. For this reason, Caltrans concludes that Congress’ attempt to *339 abrogate sovereign immunity under the ADA is invalid.

The plaintiffs correctly note that “[d]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice so that a plaintiff

3

A provision of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12202, provides

that “[a] State shall not be immune under the eleventh

3

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter.”

specifically the discrimination which is forbidden and the conduct needed to remedy the discrimination.” Dare, 191 F.3d at 1175 (citations omitted); see Docket No. 65 at 8.

To reach such a conclusion, Caltrans urges this Court to ignore a host of Ninth Circuit decisions that expressly find a valid abrogation in claims arising under Title II of the ADA. Hason v. Medical Bd. of California, 279 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir.2002); see also Phiffer v. Columbia River Corr. Inst., 384 F.3d 791, 792 (9th Cir.2004); Dare v. California, 191 F.3d 1167, 1175 (9th Cir.1999); Clark v. California, 123 F.3d 1267, 1270-71 (9th Cir.1997). Ninth Circuit decisions have expressly considered and rejected Caltrans’ proposition that the remedial scheme of Title II of the ADA is not congruent and proportional under the reasoning of Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). Thomas v. Nakatani, 309 F.3d 1203, 1209 (9th Cir.2002); Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1050-51 (9th Cir.2002). Garrett, on which Caltrans heavily relies, discusses the congruence and proportionality of Title I of the ADA, not Title II. The Supreme Court in Garrett specifically reserved any discussion of Title II, explaining that “[w]e are not disposed to decide the constitutional issue whether Title II, which has somewhat different remedial provisions from Title I, is appropriate legislation under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when the parties have not favored us with briefing on the statutory question.” Garrett, 531 U.S. at 360, n. 1, 121 S.Ct. 955. Despite Ninth Circuit decisions specifically rejecting Caltrans’ immunity argument and despite Garrett’s deferment of the question of the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA, the defendants nevertheless pursue their argument by claiming the Ninth Circuit has failed to “undertake[ ] the searching inquiry that the Supreme Court requires, as set forth in Garrett, which included a detailed discussion of legislative findings of discriminations by States.” Docket No. 52 at 15. This Court declines the defendants’ invitation to “overrule” Ninth Circuit 7 precedent.
By citing the dissenting opinions in two Ninth Circuit decisions as authority,4 Caltrans indirectly confirms that the only way this Court might embrace its reasoning would be to ignore clearly established Ninth Circuit precedent. Part of this precedent-the decisions in Clark and Dare-Caltrans claims is faulty because these cases fail to undertake the “searching inquiry” required under Garrett, which includes “a detailed discussion of legislative findings of discriminations by States.” See Docket No. 52 at 15. However, this argument is misdirected; as the plaintiffs point out, in Dare, the Ninth Circuit explained that “Congress made extensive factual findings regarding the widespread arbitrary and invidious discrimination which disabled people face. The ADA’s particular provisions for each sector then indicate

4

See Docket No. 52 at 15. The two cases are Hason, 294

F.3d at 1168-69 (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting) and

Phiffer, 384 F.3d at 793 (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting).

Defendants asks this Court to rule against a long string of Ninth Circuit precedent expressly establishing Congressional sovereign abrogation in the context of ADA claims under Title II. Such a ruling is more appropriately within the province of the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court not this Court. Since Caltrans has failed to show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding its sovereign immunity to the ADA claim, its motion is denied in this respect.

2. The Ex parte Young exception [2] Caltrans further contends that the plaintiffs are prohibited from suing Caltrans director Will Kempton in his official capacity because the Ex parte Young doctrine is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case. See Docket No. 52 at 16. In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the Supreme Court held that a federal court has jurisdiction over a suit against a state officer to enjoin official actions that violate federal law. See Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 288, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (O’Connor, J., joined by Scalia and Thomas, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
*340 In arguing that the Ex parte Young doctrine does not apply to this case, Caltrans relies on Ford Motor Co. v. Dept. of Treasury of Indiana, 323 U.S. 459, 65 S.Ct. 347, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945), for the proposition that “[t]he 11th Amendment bars a suit against state officials when the state is the real, substantial party in interest.”5 Docket No. 52 at 16 (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ford, 323 U.S. at 464, 65 S.Ct. 347). Although Caltrans correctly recites the general rule regarding immunity for state officials, it fails to explain why the Ex parte Young doctrine would not apply in this case. As the Supreme Court explains, “[t]he Court has recognized an important exception to this general rule: a suit challenging the constitutionality of a state official’s action is not one against the State.” Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 102, 104 S.Ct. 900. In this case, the plaintiffs’ discrimination claims fit squarely within the Ex parte Young doctrine: they are alleging Caltrans director Kempton violated a statute enacted to ensure the constitutional rights of disabled people.

5

A stronger source for this principle is Pennhurst, 465

4

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

U.S. at 101, 104 S.Ct. 900, which states plainly that “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against state officials when the state is the real, substantial party in interest.” (quotation marks omitted). The text of Ford, quoted by Pennhurst, actually explains that “when the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even though individual officials are nominal defendants.” Ford, 323 U.S. at 464, 65 S.Ct. 347.

pleadings establishing that “[p]laintiffs have no private right of action to enforce either the self-evaluation or transition plan regulations under the regulatory scheme of the ADA.” Defendants argue that the specific regulations at issue here create obligations that go beyond what is required by Title II, and therefore are not privately enforceable under Title II’s provisions for private causes of action. Docket No. 52 at 23. The first of the two regulations at issue here is 28 C.F.R. 35.105, which in part provides

As the plaintiffs further note, Caltrans’ argument that the Ex parte Young doctrine should not apply when Title II actions name a state as a party in addition to individual state officers has been expressly rejected by the Ninth Circuit. See Docket No. 65 at 9-10. In Miranda B. v. Kitzhaber, 328 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.2003), the court held that
[w]e are not concerned under Ex parte Young whether the state is the real party at interest; instead, the test for when Ex parte Young allows suits against officials to proceed is quite simple: In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a straightforward inquiry in whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.
Id. at 1189 (quoting Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Public Service Com’n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635, 645, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002) (quotation marks omitted)).
In the present case, the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint clearly alleges a violation of federal law in its first and second causes of action. See Docket No. 4 at 15-18. Similarly, the relief sought in the complaint can be characterized as prospective as it includes “[a]n order and judgment enjoining Defendants from violating the Americans with Disabilities Act [and] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.” Id. at 21. For these reasons, the Ex parte Young doctrine applies to the present suit and Caltrans’ motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied in this respect.
C. Private Right of Action to Enforce ADA Regulations [3] Lastly, Caltrans requests final judgment on the

[a] public entity shall, within one year of the effective date of this part, evaluate its current services, policies, and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part and, to the extent modification of any such services, policies, and practices is required, the public entity shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.

28 C.F.R. 35.105(a). Caltrans also requests a judgment on the pleadings regarding 28 C.F.R. 35.150(d), which provides in part

*341 [i]n the event that structural

changes to facilities will be

undertaken to achieve program

accessibility, a public entity that

employs 50 or more persons shall

develop, within six months of

January 26, 1992, a transition plan

setting forth the steps necessary to

complete such changes. A public

entity shall provide an opportunity

to interested persons, including

individuals with disabilities or

organizations

representing

individuals with disabilities, to

participate in the development of

the transition plan by submitting

comments. A copy of the transition

plan shall be made available for

public inspection.

28 C.F.R. 35.150(d)(1).

There is no Ninth Circuit decision addressing the private right to enforce these regulations. However, both the First and Sixth Circuits, as well as a sister court within this District, have weighed in on this issue. In Ability Center, the Sixth Circuit held no private right to enforcement existed under 28 C.F.R. 35.150(d), reasoning that “failing to develop a transition plan ... does not in and of itself ... hinder the disabled.” 385 F.3d at 914. Citing Ability

5

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

Center, a sister court within this District has likewise concluded that no private right of action exists to enforce these two regulations. In Cherry v. City College of San Francisco, 2005 WL 2620560 (N.D.Cal.2005) (Alsup, J.), the court noted that “there is no indication that a public entity’s failure to develop a transition plan harms disabled individuals, let alone in a way that Title II aims to prevent or redress,” and therefore no private right of action to enforce the transition plan regulation would lie. Id. at *4. More recently, in Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94 (1st Cir.2006), the First Circuit examined the self-evaluation regulation, § 35.105, and found that “it is altogether conceivable that a public entity may be in full compliance with Title II without observing the commands of the self-evaluation regulation,” and therefore a private right of action to enforce the self-evaluation regulation does not exist. Id. at 101.
In arguing that the Sixth Circuit, the First Circuit, and this Court’s sister court in Cherry were in error in holding that there is no private right to enforce either the self-evaluation or transition plan regulations, plaintiffs rely heavily on the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Chaffin v. Kansas State Fair Bd., 348 F.3d 850 (10th Cir.2003). The Chaffin court, in finding the existence of a private right of enforcement of Title II regulations, viewed the regulations collectively, and found that, as a whole, they “simply provide the details necessary to implement the statutory right created by § 12132 of the ADA. They do not prohibit otherwise permissible conduct.” 348 F.3d at 858.
Of Course, the Chaffin decision contrasts sharply with those of the First and Sixth Circuits, and was in fact explicitly rejected as “simply incorrect” by the First Circuit in Iverson. All of these decisions endeavor to interpret the Supreme Court’s guidance in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001). In characterizing the Supreme Court’s holding in Sandoval, the First Circuit stated:
[The Supreme Court recognized in Sandoval that] [a]n implementing regulation may under certain circumstances be enforced through the private right of action available under the organic statute that it implements. Under Sandoval, however, a private plaintiff may not, merely by referencing the organic statute, enforce regulations that interdict a broader swath of conduct than the statute itself prohibits. After all, the power to create a private right of action, like the power to create positive federal law itself, lies exclusively with Congress.

452 F.3d at 101 (internal citations omitted). In rejecting the Tenth Circuit’s analysis in Chaffin, the First Circuit in Iverson reasoned:
In our view, the Chaffin court misconstrued Sandoval and, thus, the decision is simply incorrect. Although the court appropriately recognized that “regulations may not create a private cause of action where no such right was intended by Congress in the statute authorizing promulgation of such regulations,” id. at 857, it inexplicably disregarded Sandoval’s corollary rule that regulations which impose an obligation beyond the statutory mandate are not enforceable through the statutory *342 right of action, see id. at 857-58. In light of this error, we elect to align ourselves with the Sixth Circuit, see Ability Ctr., 385 F.3d at 913-15, and to reject the position of the Tenth Circuit, see Chaf[f]in, 348 F.3d at 856-60.
452 F.3d at 101-102. This analysis is consonant with the reasoning employed by this Court’s sister court in Cherry. See 2005 WL 2620560, *3 (“Unlike the Sixth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit did not engage in a separate analysis for each regulation in dispute ... This order agrees with the Sixth Circuit that there is a distinction between regulatory violations that, by themselves, would deny the disabled meaningful access to public services and those that would not”).
In concurrence with the analysis articulated by the First and Sixth Circuits, as well this Court’s sister court in Cherry, this Court holds that Sandoval directs a regulation-by-regulation analysis, as opposed to the “collective” approach endorsed by the Tenth Circuit, in order to determine if each one exhibits a Congressional intent to create a private right of enforcement. In the present case it is conceivable that, as previously noted by this Court’s sister court in Cherry, both the transition plan and self-evaluation regulations might both be violated and yet there could still be no violation of Title II, and therefore Congress’s intent to create a private right of enforcement for violations of Title to II itself cannot be imputed to the accompanying regulations. 2005 WL 2620560 at *4. While the plaintiffs’ excerpts from ADA legislative history provide important insight into the ideas behind the creation of the statute, such as Congress’ concern with “curb cuts,” see Docket No. 65 at 14, these glimpses into the law’s history fail to mention either the self-evaluation or transition plan regulations, let alone shed any light on Congress’ intent to create a private right of enforcement of these regulations. Since neither regulation contains a clear Congressional intent to create a private right of enforcement, Sandoval mandates that none be found in the facts of this case. Accordingly, this Court concurs with its sister court’s ruling in Cherry, and holds that there is no private right of action to enforce either the self-evaluation or transition plan regulations.

6

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants’ motion pursuant to Rule 12(c) is DENIED with respect to plaintiffs’ ADA claim, and is GRANTED with respect to any right plaintiffs assert to enforce the self-evaluation and transition regulations of Title II of the ADA.
II. Motion for Class Certification While the Court has granted defendants’ motion with respect to any right plaintiffs assert to enforce the self-evaluation and transition regulations of Title II of the ADA, plaintiff’s other claims under the ADA, as well § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, remain intact. Accordingly, the Court will reach plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
As noted above, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth a two-part test for the maintenance of a class action. First, Plaintiffs must satisfy the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Second, one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b) must also be satisfied. Here, Plaintiffs seek to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), whereby class certification is proper if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.”
Plaintiffs have moved for the certification of the following class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2):
All persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities who are allegedly being denied access under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 due to barriers along sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian underpasses, pedestrian overpasses and any other outdoor designated pedestrian walkways throughout the state of California which are owned and/or maintained by the California Department of Transportation.
For purposes of class certification, persons with mobility disabilities are those who use *343 wheelchairs, scooters, crutches, walkers, canes or similar devices to assist their navigation along sidewalks. For purposes of class certification, persons with vision disabilities are those who due to a vision impairment use canes or service animals for navigation along sidewalks. For purposes of class certification, Plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class with respect to any portions of Park and Ride, rest stops and/or vista point facilities owned and/or maintained by Caltrans.
Mot. to Certify Class at 1. In characterizing the claims for

which they seek certification, plaintiffs are at pains to point out that they do not seek to litigate every alleged violation of the ADA by Caltrans:
Plaintiffs do not propose, and it would make no sense, to litigate individually every curb, ramp, protruding object, uneven sidewalk, or any other particular access barrier experienced by members of the proposed class. Rather Plaintiffs ask only that Caltrans take appropriate system-wide efforts to meet its longstanding obligations to ensure access to a core public service.
Mot. to Certify Class at 2. Plaintiffs continue: “This lawsuit is not about specific access barriers. Rather it is about Caltrans’ inactions and actions, including inadequate policies and practices, which have resulted in systematic discrimination against the class.” Id. at 4. Plaintiffs identify “two basic types of obligations at issue in the case.” First:
[F]or its existing sidewalks, federal law has long required that Caltrans identify existing access barriers, make a schedule to remedy these barriers and follow that schedule, as well as maintain access features in proper condition 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d)(2); 28 C.F.R. § 42.521(d). To do so, Caltrans must develop and implement a transition plan which sets milestones and benchmarks for fixing the existing barriers. Plaintiffs allege that Caltrans has failed to even begin the systematic efforts required to meet this program access obligation.
Id. Second:
[F]ederal laws pose a heightened “strict compliance” obligation for those sidewalks which Caltrans has newly constructed or altered subsequent to the passage of these laws 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(c); 28 C.F.R. § 42.522. Plaintiffs allege that Caltrans has violated these heightened access requirements on a systematic basis for may years through the use of improper design guidelines and the failure to ensure
7

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

compliance with even those deficient guidelines.
Id. at 5 (emphasis in original). As discussed above, the Court has determined that plaintiffs have no private right of action to enforce either the self-evaluation or transition plan regulations under 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.105 and 35.150(d). Therefore, to the extent plaintiffs’ claim that “Caltrans must develop and implement a transition plan which sets milestones and benchmarks for fixing the existing barriers” is based on the self-evaluation or transition plan regulations, those claims are no longer live. However, the second claim identified by plaintiffs, that “Caltrans has violated [the] heightened access requirements on a systematic basis for may years through the use of improper design guidelines and the failure to ensure compliance with even those deficient guidelines,” is still in play.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a). Specifically, defendants argue at length that plaintiffs have failed to meet the “commonality” requirement of Rule 23(a), because, according to defendants, trying plaintiffs’ case as a class action will require a “mini-trial” on every single alleged violation of the ADA by Caltrans. That is, defendants aver, for each and every plaintiff in the putative class, the Court will be forced to examine every alleged violation of the ADA independently-every crack in the sidewalk, every narrow passageway, every impermissibly steep curb ramp-and determine what, if any, remedial obligations Caltrans has with respect to that particular violation.
Defendants also argue that plaintiffs have failed to prove numerosity because they have come forward with declarations from “only” 22 potential class members. Defendants further argue that plaintiffs have failed to meet the “typicality” and “adequacy of representation” requirements of Rule 23(a). The Court addresses these arguments in turn.
*344 A. Commonality [4] Rule 23(a)(2) requires that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). Commonality focuses on the relationship of common facts and legal issues among class members. See, e.g., 1 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 3:10 at 271 (4th ed.2002). As the Ninth Circuit recently explained in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir.2007):
Rule 23(a)(2) has been construed permissively. All questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy the rule. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent

factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within the class.
Id. at 1177 (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.1998)).
The gravamen of defendants’ opposition to the motion for class certification is that commonality does not exist because each and every alleged violation of the ADA by Caltrans must be litigated individually. Defendants warn that certifying the class proposed by plaintiffs would “open the floodgates of countless mini-trials regarding each of the public pedestrian rights-of-way that are under the jurisdiction of the State of California, which amount to thousands of miles of sidewalks, curb ramps and other walkways.” Opp’n at 2.
Defendants argue that “[e]ach right-of-way is unique and requires individual evaluation. The almost infinite variations in design, layout, constraints, construction, and modification that distinguish one right-of-way from another, and the different construction and renovation dates at different locations, present individualized factual and legal issues so as to preclude a finding of commonality.” Id. at 4. This is because, defendants argue “[c]ontrary to Plaintiffs’ allegations, Caltrans does not have a centralized policy of ‘discrimination’ in violation of Title II. Ultimate decisions affecting the design, construction, and modification of a given right-of-way are made on an individualized basis by local offices in the twelve different geographic districts of Caltrans.” Id. As defendants summarize their argument:
The alleged “accessibility issues” complained of by Plaintiffs were not caused by some sort of centralized policy. Determining whether Caltrans has acted or failed to act in a manner that violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”) requires a highly individualized assessment of each of the various rights-of-way. (Plaintiffs need to meet their burden of proof that, inter alia, the right-of-way is actually within Caltrans’ jurisdiction and the right-of-way violates Title II because it denies access.) Furthermore, each of Caltrans’ rights-of-way was constructed at different times. As a result, different standards and regulations apply to determine compliance with the ADA....
8

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

Plaintiffs should be required to individually examine and litigate every facility they claim to be at issue.
Id. at 7.
The bulk of defendants’ opposition is devoted to a litany of issues that each individualized assessment would allegedly require. Defendants argue that, for each and every location of an alleged violation: 1) Plaintiffs will need to specify the specific injunctive relief sought for each location; 2) The Court will need to determine if it must order the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs for each and every pedestrian right-of-way; 3) The Court must then determine if the right-of-way “violates” the applicable ADA guidelines; 4) If compliance is deemed necessary, the Court must ascertain what to do to provide compliance; 5) The Court will need to determine if it has the necessary parties before it to effectuate the injunctive relief Plaintiffs demand; and finally 6) The Court will need to determine if costs and timeline are feasible. Opp’n at 16-18. In sum, defendants argue, “certifying a statewide class would be difficult for the Court to manage because it would put hundreds of thousands of pedestrian features throughout California before this Court and would require the Court to apply the above process to each of Caltrans’ pedestrian rights-of-way to determine if an ADA violation exists.” Id. at 19. Instead, defendants argue, “[t]he Court should require Plaintiffs to bring individual lawsuits with the burden to prove disability *345 discrimination at a particular pedestrian facility.” Id. at 15.
This argument misconstrues the nature of plaintiffs’ claims and requested relief. As plaintiffs make abundantly clear, they are not seeking that this Court directly order and oversee the remediation of every non-ADA compliant pedestrian feature throughout the state. Rather, they are seeking injunctive relief remedying Caltrans “use of improper design guidelines and the failure to ensure compliance with even those deficient guidelines.” Mot. at 2. In an attempt to sidestep this fact, defendants argue that their parade of administratively unmanageable horribles will overwhelm this case because “[c]ontrary to Plaintiffs’ allegations, Caltrans does not have a centralized policy of ‘discrimination’ in violation of Title II. Ultimate decisions affecting the design, construction, and modification of a given right-of-way are made on an individualized basis by local offices in the twelve different geographic districts of Caltrans.” Id. at 4.
However, the question of whether Caltrans has a “centralized policy of ‘discrimination’ in violation of Title II,” is precisely what is at issue in plaintiffs’ claims, and defendants cannot defeat certification by begging the question by prematurely assuming that no such centralized policy exists. Defendants’ argument is at core

simply the question of the merit of plaintiffs’ claims, and is therefore not appropriately addressed at the class certification stage. Courts have no authority “to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit in order to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974). Indeed, “a preliminary determination of the merits may result in substantial prejudice to a defendant, since of necessity it is not accompanied by the traditional rules and procedures applicable to civil trials.” Id.
Stripped of its merits-based premise, the essence of defendants’ argument-that in order to prove the existence of the forest the plaintiffs must individually prove the existence of each tree-is anathema to the very notion of a class action. Taken to its logical conclusion, under defendants’ reasoning, no civil rights class action would ever be maintainable, because, in order to prove the existence of a discriminatory pattern or practice, each class member would have to individually prove the highly individualized factors relating to each instance of discrimination they allegedly suffered. This would simply obviate the concept of the class action lawsuit.
In fact, courts regularly order the remediation of discriminatory practices in class actions without presiding over the details of the application of such remediation to each and every affected facility or individual. For example, in Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.2001), a sister court in this District (Case No. CV-94-02307-CW) found that the California Board of Prison Terms (the state parole authority) failed to make proper accommodations for the class consisting of numerous disabled prisoners, and entered a system-wide injunction requiring the Board to modify its policies and practices to comply with federal statutory and constitutional standards. Id. at 854. The Court did not address the specific details of every parole proceeding involving a person with disabilities, which is the analog of what defendants suggest here. See Opp’n at 15 (“The Court should require Plaintiffs to bring individual lawsuits with the burden to prove disability discrimination at a particular pedestrian facility.”).
Cases challenging an entity’s policies and practices regarding access for the disabled represent the mine run of disability rights class actions certified under Rule 23(b)(2). See e.g., Armstrong, 275 F.3d 849; Siddiqi v. Regents of University of California, 2000 WL 33190435, *8 (N.D.Cal.2000) (Wilken, J.) (“Defendants argue that the predominance of individualized fact questions makes this action inappropriate for adjudication under 23(b)(2). However, as discussed above, the Court finds the allegations that plaintiffs seek to adjudicate on a class-wide basis, the legality of the specified UC policies, are not based on individualized determinations but can be efficiently determined on a class-wide basis.”); Moeller v.
9

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

Taco Bell Corp., 220 F.R.D. 604 (N.D.Cal.2004). Indeed, Rule 23(b)(2) was designed specifically for civil rights cases like this, where plaintiffs seek *346 system-wide injunctive relief for a large class. See 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 4:11 (“[P]laintiffs’ allegations of systemic or District-wide policies or practices which violated the civil rights of a group of persons were precisely the kinds of claims which could be fairly adjudicated as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2), notwithstanding some particular considerations that invariably influenced how such policies or practices could ultimately affect an individual student.”) (citing Thomas County Branch of the N.A.A. C.P. v. City of Thomasville School Dist., 187 F.R.D. 690 (M.D.Ga.1999)).
The instant action is a garden variety class action of the type routinely certified under Rule 23(b)(2). There is nothing unique to plaintiffs’ claims that will require the Court to adjudicated every alleged violation of the ADA by Caltrans. Rather, the common question addressed by this lawsuit is whether and to what extent Caltrans has violated the ADA on a “systematic basis for many years through the use of improper design guidelines and the failure to ensure compliance with even those deficient guidelines.” The question of such system-wide discriminatory practices is an issue common to all plaintiffs.
The existence of even one significant issue common to the class is sufficient to warrant certification. See Dukes, 509 F.3d at 1177 (“The commonality test is qualitative rather than quantitative-one significant issue common to the class may be sufficient to warrant certification.”); see also 1 Newberg on Class Actions § 3:10 at 272-74. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) has been met.
B. Typicality [5] Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3). “[U]nder the rule’s permissive standards, representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Dukes, 509 F.3d at 1184 (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir.1998)). Some degree of individuality is to be expected in all cases, but that specificity does not necessarily defeat typicality. Id.
Typicality and commonality are similar requirements and tend to merge. See Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n. 13, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). In arguing the typicality is not met in this case, defendants rely primarily on their arguments regarding the alleged lack of commonality, which are not persuasive.

See Opp’n at 20-21. Here plaintiffs allege that they have suffered the very type of harm alleged on behalf of the class, caused by the same alleged system-wide failures by Caltrans, under the same legal theories. See Mot. to Certify Class at 22. at Accordingly, the Court finds that the typicality requirement has been met.
C. Numerosity [6] Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) (1). While there is no bright-line rule as to how many class members are required to be sufficiently numerous, various courts have found that the numerosity factor is satisfied if the class comprises 40 or more members and have found it not satisfied when the class comprises 21 or fewer. See Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2d Cir.1995); Ansari v. New York Univ., 179 F.R.D. 112, 114 (S.D.N.Y.1998).
Defendants argue that numerosity is not satisfied here because plaintiffs are “only able to identify 22 class members who claim to have suffered ‘discrimination’ even after soliciting for class members through issuing press releases to [Californians for Disability Rights and California Council of the Blind] members and soliciting for class members on [plaintiff’s counsel’s] website.” Opp’n at 22. Defendants continue, “the truth of the matter is that there exists only scant support for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Caltrans,” which defendants contend is affirmed by the declarations filed in support of their opposition. Id. The declarations, filed by various members of the mobility-impaired or vision-impaired community who are potential class members, assert that the declarants oppose plaintiffs’ lawsuit on various grounds. See, *347 e.g., Howard Decl., ¶¶ 6, 9, Stigile Decl., ¶ 3, Bashin Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, Elliott Decl., ¶¶ 23-24, Willow Decl., ¶ 4, Sheriff Decl., ¶¶ 9, 12-14. Defendants suggest that these declarations somehow demonstrate that numerosity is not met. See Opp’n at 22. However, defendants offer nothing to suggest the declarants’ opinions or experiences are in any way representative of the class. Moreover, it is entirely unclear how a potential class members’ view on the propriety of this instant lawsuit is relevant to the determination of the number of “persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities who are allegedly being denied access ... due to barriers along sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian underpasses, pedestrian overpasses and any other outdoor designated pedestrian walkways throughout the state of California which are owned and/or maintained by the California Department of Transportation.”
Additionally, defendants argue that plaintiffs’ statistical data is insufficient to establish numerosity, citing to various unpublished district court opinions outside of the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., Green v. Borg-Warner Protective
10

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

Servs. Corp., No. 95 Civ. 10419, et al., 1998 WL 17719, at *1-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.16, 1998) (rejecting census data on overall population of shelter residents because plaintiffs failed to link the population data to an actual violation of rights); see also LeGrand v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 95-CV-0333 1999 WL 342286, at *3-5 (E.D.N.Y. May 26, 1999) (numerosity not satisfied because the statistical data on number of pregnant women in company had no relation to the number of such women who suffered pregnancy discrimination). Here, Plaintiffs provide census data that there are “... [a]pproximately 219,000 people who can’t see ... 329,000 people who use wheelchairs ... [and] 1,110,000 people who use canes, crutches or walkers.” See Fagan Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.
However, contrary to defendants’ assertion, courts regularly rely on the type of data presented by plaintiffs in making numerosity determinations. See e.g., Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439, 448 (N.D.Cal.1994) (extrapolating from “evidence indicating that there are over 175,000 wheelchair users and over 700,000 semi-ambulatory persons in California” that “the number of disabled persons affected by the alleged access violations at the more than 70 theaters operated by defendant in California is in the thousands.”); Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 220 F.R.D. 604, 608 (N.D.Cal.2004) (observing that, in light of census statistics demonstrating that there are approximately 151,000 potential class members, and that restaurants covered by the proposed class had more than fifty million transactions the previous year, “as matter of common sense, the class in this case is large.”). A court may make common sense assumptions to support a finding that joinder would be impracticable. 1 Newberg on Class Actions, § 3:3 (“Where the exact size of the class is unknown but general knowledge and common sense indicate that it is large, the numerosity requirement is satisfied.”). Defendants do not dispute that there are approximately 1.5 million persons with relevant disabilities in the California, and that many of them use sidewalks owned or maintained by Caltrans. It is simply nonsensical to suggest, as defendants do, that out of these 1.5 million, no more than the 22 class members identified by plaintiffs have experienced “barriers along sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian underpasses, pedestrian overpasses and any other outdoor designated pedestrian walkways throughout the state of California which are owned and/or maintained by the California Department of Transportation.”
While precedent suggests that 20-40 class members is the “grey area” for numerosity, see Wamboldt v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. 2007 WL 2409200, *1 (N.D.Cal.2007), plaintiffs do not need to state the exact number of potential class members, nor is a specific number of class members required for numerosity. Bates v. United Parcel Service, 204 F.R.D. 440, 444 (N.D.Cal.2001). Here, there is no real question that there are at least 22 class members, and, extrapolating from the statistical data presented by

plaintiffs, common sense dictates that there are thousands-if not hundreds of thousands-more. Accordingly, the Court finds that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, and therefore the numerosity requirement is met. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1).
*348 D. Adequacy of Representation [7] Rule 23(a)(4) permits certification of a class action only if “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed.R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). This factor requires: (1) that the proposed representative plaintiffs do not have conflicts of interest with the proposed class, and (2) that plaintiffs are represented by qualified and competent counsel. See Dukes, 509 F.3d at 1185. Adequacy of representation “depends on the qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of antagonism, a sharing of interests between representatives and absentees, and the unlikelihood that the suit is collusive.” Brown v. Ticor Title Ins., 982 F.2d 386, 390 (9th Cir.1992) (citations omitted).
Defendants argue that there is “irreconcilable” antagonism within the class and therefore plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives. Defendants claim that the declarations they submit in opposition to class certification “highlight the irreparable antagonism between the purported class of all blind Californians, between the class of all mobility impaired Californians, and between the vision-impaired and mobility-impaired class members.” Opp’n at 22. Specifically, defendants argue that there are “people in the vision-impaired community who believe that the installation of curb ramps [allegedly favored by the mobility-impaired] on corners are unnecessary for access,” and that there are “individuals of the mobility-impaired community who are opposed to the installation of yellow tactile domes [allegedly favored by the vision-impaired] at curb ramps.” Opp’n at 23. “Such antagonism,” defendants aver, “destroys Plaintiffs’ purported class.” Id.
This argument is inapposite. A difference of opinion about the propriety of the specific relief sought in a class action among potential class members is not sufficient to defeat certification. See 1 Newberg on Class Actions § 3:30 (“As a general rule, disapproval of the action by some class members should not be sufficient to preclude a class action on the ground of inadequate representation”); see also Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 F.2d 920, 937 (2d Cir.1968) (holding that, where a complaint alleged discrimination against particular races by city housing relocation program and questions of fact common to all members, the “fact that some members of the class were personally satisfied with the defendants’ relocation efforts is irrelevant.”). Moreover, defendants
11

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

have provided no argument that this purported conflict is so “serious and irreconcilable” as to defeat certification as a matter of law. See Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 626-627, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). More importantly, defendants’ self-serving declarations aside, no mobility or vision impaired individual group has sought to intervene in this action. See Rosado v. Wyman, 322 F.Supp. 1173, 1193 (E.D.N.Y.1970) (noting that the fact that none of the allegedly antagonist class members has intervened in the action supported inference that no such antagonism actually existed).
The balance of defendants’ arguments related to adequacy are similarly unpersuasive. Defendants argue that the named plaintiffs must have adequate resources to pay the costs associated with the case so that they may check the “unfettered discretion of counsel.” Opp’n at 24. The Ninth Circuit has not weighed in on whether the financial status of the named plaintiff is relevant to class certification. See Moeller, 220 F.R.D. at 612. However, this Court’s sister court has previously held, persuasively, that “to deny a class whenever plaintiff’s counsel advances significant funds to plaintiffs of little or modest means would be to defeat the very purposes which class actions were designed to achieve.” Id. (quoting Bartelson v. Dean Witter & Co., 86 F.R.D. 657, 675 (E.D.Pa.1980)); see also In re West Coast Department Stores Antitrust Litigation, 1979 WL 1721 * 1-2 (N.D.Cal.1979) (holding that courts should not take into account named plaintiffs’ financial status in class certification context and noting that weight of authority is to this effect).
Defendants also argue that one of the named plaintiffs, Dmitri Belser, is an inadequate representative because he is, inter alia, “not aware of ADAAG standards or Title 24 standards regarding detectable *349 warning surfaces.” However, such fine-grained knowledge of the regulations at issue is not a necessary prerequisite for adequacy of representation. “The threshold of knowledge required to qualify a class representative is low; a party must be familiar with the basic elements of her claim, and will be deemed inadequate only if she is ‘startlingly unfamiliar’ with the case.” Id. at 611-12 (citations omitted). It is not necessary that a representative “be intimately familiar with every factual and legal issue in the case;” rather, “it is enough that the representative understand the gravamen of the claim.” Id. (citing In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation, 1990 WL 61951 at *3 (N.D.Cal.1990)).
Finally, the Court determines plaintiffs’ attorneys are experienced class action attorneys and are adequate class counsel.
Adequate representation is usually presumed in the absence of contrary evidence. Access Now, Inc. v. Ambulatory Surgery Center Group, Ltd., 197 F.R.D. 522,

528 (S.D.Fla.2000); 2 Newberg § 7.24 at 7-80 to 81. Defendants have failed to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, the Court finds that the adequacy of representation requirement is met.
E. Rule 23(b) [8] The party seeking certification bears the burden of showing that at least one requirement of Rule 23(b), in addition to each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a), has been met. See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186, amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001). Plaintiffs move to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that plaintiffs show that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief ... with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). The Court’s analysis of the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) necessarily touched on the propriety of certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(2). As noted, this case is precisely the sort of civil rights class action contemplated by Rule 23(b)(2). See 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 4:11; Thomasville School Dist., 187 F.R.D. 690.
While defendants argue that “the complexity and expense of a class action is not necessary in this case as the named Plaintiffs may achieve by injunction all relief that would inure to similarly situated persons without the necessity of class certification,” Opp’n at 25, there is no requirement that class certification must be “necessary.” See, e.g., Halbach v. Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 2007 WL 1018658, *10 (E.D.Mo.2007) (“The Court agrees with a number of other courts which have found that there is no ‘necessity’ requirement included in Rule 23(b)(2) certification.”). Indeed, such a requirement would effectively eviscerate Rule 23(b)(2), which was specifically designed with the benefits of collective action in mind. See Gatter v. Cleland, 87 F.R.D. 66 (E.D.Pa.1980) (“the adoption of a ‘need’ requirement would virtually eliminate class certification under Rule 23(b) (2)”); 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 4:11. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 23(b).
F. Evidentiary Objections and Motions to Strike Defendants have submitted evidentiary objections to 17 of the declarations offered by plaintiffs in support of their motions. Defendants have also moved to strike the declarations of Joseph Abbott [Docket No. 133] and Peter Margen [Docket No. 134], as well as the Declaration of Mary-Lee Kimber filed in support of plaintiff’s reply [Docket No. 192], the Reply Appendix 1 [Docket No. 193], and the Reply Declaration of Peter Margen [Docket No. 194]. Finally, defendants filed evidentiary objections to 10 declarations filed by plaintiffs in support of their
12

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

reply memorandum.
1. Evidentiary Objections Defendants have submitted evidentiary objections to virtually every declaration offered by plaintiffs in support of their motions; in total, defendants have submitted 121 evidentiary objections. However, as plaintiffs correctly note, these objections are simply boilerplate, and include absolutely no explanation as to why the testimony in question is objectionable. *350 The summary, vague nature of these objections is grounds alone for the court to deny them. See Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 189, 199 (N.D.Cal.2004) (“As Plaintiffs correctly object, Defendant’s attempt to assert these objections without providing any individualized discussion is procedurally defective. The objections therefore merit summary denial on the ground that they are unduly vague. Indeed, Defendant’s grossly overbroad approach is more suggestive of an intent to harass than a good faith effort to address genuine objections.”). Defendants respond, with a certain amount of chuztpa, that, despite the fact that they did not bother to provide the Court with any explanation in support of their objections, they nevertheless “respectfully request the Court review and rule on each and every one of Defendants’ evidentiary objections.” See Docket No. 179 at 3. The Court declines the defendants’ invitation to analyze objections that defendants did not themselves bother to analyze, and the objections are overruled on those grounds alone.
In any case, a perusal of the objections demonstrate that they are without merit. The vast majority of the testimony objected to by defendants is related to the class members’ personal experience with access barriers on various sidewalks. Such statements-recounting that the declarants have experienced “barriers” on various sidewalks and intersections-does not constitute “lay opinion” (Fed.R.Evid.701), nor do they constitute “improper expert opinion” (Fed.R.Evid.702). Moreover, defendants provide absolutely no explanation as to why any of the testimony is “irrelevant, prejudicial, and confusing” (Fed.R.Evid.402-404).
Accordingly, defendants’ evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

Accordingly, defendants’ motions to strike the materials submitted in support of the reply are DENIED AS MOOT, as is defendants’ motion to set the hearing date on those motions.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings [Docket No. 52] is DENIED with respect to plaintiffs’ ADA claim, but GRANTED with respect to any right plaintiffs assert to enforce the self-evaluation and transition regulations of Title II of the ADA.

The motion for class Certification [Docket No. 78] is GRANTED. The Court hereby CERTIFIES the following class:
All persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities who are allegedly being denied access under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 due to barriers along sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian underpasses, pedestrian overpasses and any other outdoor designated pedestrian walkways throughout the state of California which are owned and/or maintained by the California Department of Transportation. For purposes of class certification, persons with mobility disabilities are those who use wheelchairs, scooters, crutches, walkers, canes or similar devices to assist their navigation along sidewalks. For purposes of class certification, persons with vision disabilities are those who due to a vision impairment use canes or service animals for navigation along sidewalks. For purposes of class certification, Plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class with respect to any portions of Park and Ride, rest stops and/or vista point facilities owned and/or maintained by Caltrans.6

6

The class certified above will not include claims

relating to the stairs located in front of 18133 Sonoma

Highway, Sonoma, California; and the missing curb

ramp on the sidewalk in front of that location. These

areas are being addressed as part of a separate lawsuit.

See Notice of Mot. to Certify Class at 2.

2. Motions to Strike The Court did not rely on any of the testimony submitted by Margen or Abbot in ruling on the motion for class certification, and therefore the motions to strike those declarations are DENIED AS MOOT. Similarly, the Court did not consider any of the testimony or evidence presented in the declarations or appendices submitted by plaintiffs in support of their reply memorandum.

*351 The Court further appoints plaintiffs as the class representatives, and Disability Rights Advocates and AARP Foundation Litigation as class counsel.
The motions to strike [Docket Nos. 133, 134, 192, 193, 194] are DENIED AS MOOT, as is the motion for a hearing on those motions [Docket No. 195].
13

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334 (2008)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a case management conference is scheduled for May 21, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. The parties shall meet and confer prior to the conference and shall prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement which shall be filed no later than 10 days prior to the Case Management Conference that complies with the Standing Order For All Judges Of The Northern District Of California and the Standing Order of this Court. Plaintiffs shall be responsible for filing the statement as well as for arranging the conference call. All parties shall be on the line and shall call (510) 637-3559

at the above indicated date and time. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Parallel Citations 36 NDLR P 192
	  

14

 
 Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 1 of 49
CLOSED, E−Filing, PROTO, PRVADR, ProSe, REFDIS, REFRREFSET−EDL
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:06−cv−05125−SBA

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. et al v. California Department of Transportation et al Assigned to: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong Referred to: Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte (Settlement) Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/23/2006 Date Terminated: 06/02/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 American with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. ("CDR")

represented by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith Disability RIghts Advocates 2001 Center St. Third Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 x 114 Fax: Email: mkimber@dralegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alexius M Markwalder Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street Third Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 Email: amarkwal@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 06/05/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Benjamin Kohrman , AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E Street NW Room A4−240 Washington, DC 20049

202−434−2064 Fax: 202−434−6424 Email: dkohrman@aarp.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Michael Harrington California Department of Transportation Legal Division 595 Market Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−904−5693 Fax: 415−904−2333 Email: mike_harrington@dot.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jose R. Allen Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &Flom LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−984−6442 Fax: 415−984−2698 Email: jrallen@skadden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 2 of 49

Plaintiff Ben Rockwell on behalf of himself and all others similarily situated
Plaintiff Dmitri Belser on behalf of himself and all others similarily situated

Julie Nepveu , AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E Street NW B4−245 Washington, DC 20049 202−434−2075 Fax: Email: jnepveu@aarp.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence Wayne Paradis Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704−1204 510−665−8644 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: larryp@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roger Norton Heller Disability Rights Advocates 449 15th Street Suite 303 Invalid email address as of 5/08/08 Oakland, CA 94612 510−451−8644 Fax: 510−451−8511 Email: invalidaddress@invalidaddress.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexius M Markwalder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/05/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Michael Harrington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose R. Allen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence Wayne Paradis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roger Norton Heller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 3 of 49

Alexius M Markwalder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/05/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Michael Harrington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jose R. Allen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurence Wayne Paradis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roger Norton Heller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
California Council of the Blind ("CCB") on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith Disability RIghts Advocates 2001 Center St. Third Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 x 114 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: mkimber@dralegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alexius M Markwalder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/05/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Michael Harrington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jose R. Allen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurence Wayne Paradis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roger Norton Heller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans")

represented by David N. Sandler Behrans Gossage Harrington Sandler 595 Market Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94120−7444 415−904−5700

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 4 of 49
Fax: 415−904−2333 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Michael Harrington (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alana Rika Cho Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 949−732−6500 Fax: 949−732−6501 Email: choa@gtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ankush Agarwal State of California Department of Transportation Legal Division 595 Market Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−904−5679 Fax: 415−904−2333 Email: ankush_agarwal@dot.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eudeen Y. Chang Greenberg Traurig 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 949−732−6500 Fax: 949−732−6501 Email: changeu@gtlaw.com TERMINATED: 07/01/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory F. Hurley Greenberg Traurig LLP 3161 Michaelson Drive Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612−4410 949−732−6500 Fax: 949−732−6501 Email: hurleyg@gtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Chilleen Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 949−732−6500 Email: chilleenm@gtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Drury Riedl, McCloskey &Waring LLP 550 West C Street Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 619−237−3095

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 5 of 49

Fax: 619−237−3789 Email: mdrury@rmwllp.com TERMINATED: 07/01/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Will Kempton in his official capacity

represented by David N. Sandler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Michael Harrington (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alana Rika Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eudeen Y. Chang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory F. Hurley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Chilleen Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 949−732−6500 Fax: 949−732−6501 Email: chilleenm@gtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Drury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/23/2006
08/23/2006 08/23/2006 08/23/2006 08/30/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton (Filing fee $350, receipt number 3389226). Filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/8/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2006)
Summons Issued as to California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2006) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
2 Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right of Access under Americans with Disabilities Act. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2006) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2006) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
3 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell as to California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 8/30/2006) (Entered: 08/30/2006)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 6 of 49

08/31/2006 09/19/2006
09/19/2006
09/21/2006
09/21/2006 09/22/2006 09/22/2006
09/28/2006 10/10/2006 10/19/2006 11/02/2006
11/09/2006 01/17/2007 01/23/2007 01/23/2007 01/23/2007
01/25/2007

Summons Reissued as to California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2006) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
4 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS against California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/19/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. California Department of Transportation served on 9/1/2006, answer due 9/21/2006; Will Kempton served on 9/1/2006, answer due 9/21/2006. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/19/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
6 ANSWER to Complaint by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2006) To View Document Please See Document 9 Modified on 9/25/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/21/2006)
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/21/2006) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
8 CLERK'S NOTICE re: Defendants' Failure to E−File re 6 (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2006) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
9 Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint for Injunctive and Equitable Relief by California Department of Transportation. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/22/2006) Document Manually Filed on 09/21/06 Modified on 9/25/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/22/2006)
10 CONSENT to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell , California Council of the Blind.. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/28/2006) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
11 State's ANSWER to Amended Complaint byCalifornia Department of Transportation. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 10/10/2006) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
12 STIPULATION RE GENERAL ORDER 56 by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/19/2006) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
13 STIPULATION RE: EXCLUSION OF STUHR V. CALIFORNIA FROM THE SCOPE OF THE CLASS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
14 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXCLUSION OF STUHR V CALIFORNIA FROM THE SCOPE OF THE CLASS. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 11/9/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2006) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
15 Letter from Larry Paradis RE GENERAL ORDER 56. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 1/17/2007) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
16 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE APPLICATION OF GENERAL ORDER 56 TO TITLE II. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/23/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
17 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 2/9/2007 04:00 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/23/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
18 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 2/8/2007 04:00 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/23/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
19 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Dmitri Belser, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton, Californians for Disability Rights,

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 7 of 49

02/01/2007 02/10/2007 02/13/2007 02/13/2007 02/14/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007 03/05/2007 03/05/2007 03/13/2007 05/09/2007 05/09/2007
05/09/2007 05/10/2007

Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 1/25/2007) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
20 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 2/15/2007 02:30 PM. VIA TELEPHONE (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2007) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
21 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Amended) filed by California Department of Transportation. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 2/10/2007) (Entered: 02/10/2007)
22 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Daniel B. Kohrman filed by Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. Fee paid, receipt no. 44611000324. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/14/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2007)
Received Order re 22 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Californians for Disability Rights, Inc.. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2007) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
23 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 22 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Daniel B. Kohrman (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/15/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2007)
24 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 2/15/2007 before JUDGE ARMSTRONG (Date Filed: 2/15/2007). Case Management Conference set for 7/17/2007 01:00 PM. Motion Hearing set for 7/17/2007 01:00 PM. () (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/15/2007) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
CASE REFERRED to Private ADR. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2007) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
25 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Julie Nepveu filed by Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. Fee paid, receipt no. 44611000420. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/6/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/05/2007)
Received Order re 25 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Californians for Disability Rights, Inc.. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2007) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
26 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 25 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Julie Nepveu (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/14/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2007)
27 MOTION to Compel, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 5/9/2007) Modified on 5/10/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2007)
28 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber in Support re 27 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Depositions, Answers to Interrogatories, Answers to Requests for Admissions and Production of Documents filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit B# 6 Exhibit C# 7 Exhibit D# 8 Exhibit E# 9 Exhibit F# 10 Exhibit G# 11 Exhibit H)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 5/9/2007) Modified on 5/10/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/10/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2007)
29 Proposed Order re 27 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 5/9/2007) Modified on 5/10/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2007)
30 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for all Discovery purposes. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/10/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2007) (Entered: 05/10/2007)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 8 of 49

05/11/2007 05/11/2007 05/15/2007 05/17/2007 05/23/2007 05/29/2007 06/05/2007 06/13/2007
06/15/2007
06/15/2007 06/20/2007 06/20/2007 06/20/2007 06/21/2007 06/21/2007 06/25/2007

CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman for Discovery (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2007) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
MOTIONS 27 to Compel Depositions, Answers to Interrogatories, Answers to Request for Admissions and Production of Documents; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof REFERRED to Judge Magistrate Judge Zimmerman. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2007) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
31 INITIAL DISCOVERY ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 5/15/2007. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2007) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
32 FIRST DISCOVERY ORDER . Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 5/17/2007. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2007) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
33 STIPULATION Re: Extension of Time for Class Certification Hearing; and Proposed Order by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 5/23/2007) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
34 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion CLASS CERTIFICATION Motion Hearing set for 9/18/2007 01:00 PM.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/29/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
35 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Mary−Lee Eileen Kimber (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/5/2007) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
36 STATEMENT in Support re Motion to Compel, Part 1 filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement LR37−2 Statement Part 2# 2 Supplement LR37−2 Statement Part 3# 3 Supplement LR37−2 Statement Part 4# 4 Supplement LR37−2 Statement Part 5# 5 Supplement LR37−2 Statement Part 6)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/13/2007) Modified on 6/14/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/13/2007)
37 BRIEFING ORDER: Defendants' Opposition due 07/13/07; Plaintiffs' Reply due 07/13/07; Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion is scheduled for 08/01/07 at 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 6/15/2007. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2007) Modified on 6/18/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/15/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 37 Motion Hearing set for 8/1/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2007) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
38 MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Hearing and Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
39 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Hearing and Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
40 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Hearing and Briefing Schedule by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/20/2007) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
41 CLERK'S NOTICE SCHEDULING TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE(S). (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2007) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 41 Discovery Hearing set for 6/26/2007 03:30 PM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2007) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
42 Memorandum in Opposition re 38 Motion to Expedite Hearing and Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by California Department of

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 9 of 49

06/25/2007
06/26/2007 06/27/2007 06/27/2007 06/28/2007 06/28/2007 06/29/2007 08/07/2007 08/14/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/25/2007

Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/25/2007) Modified on 6/26/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/25/2007)
43 Declaration of G. Michael Harrington in Support of 42 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Hearing and Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed byCalifornia Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 42 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/25/2007) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
44 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/26/2007 before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman (Date Filed: 6/26/2007). (Tape #TC 22−07.) (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/26/2007) Modified on 6/28/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2007)
45 SECOND DISCOVERY ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 6/27/2007. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2007) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
46 AMENDED Minute Entry: Correcting Recorded Tape Number.Discovery Hearing held on 6/26/2007 before Bernard Zimmerman (Date Filed: 6/27/2007). (Tape #TC 21−07.) (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/27/2007) Modified on 6/28/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2007)
47 STIPULATION Re Plaintiffs' Pending Motion to Compel Discovery by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/28/2007) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
48 Proposed Order re Stipulation RE Plaintiffs' Pending Motion to Compel Discovery by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/28/2007) Modified on 6/29/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/2007)
49 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman withdrawing 27 Motion to Compel; withdrawing 38 Motion to Expedite (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2007) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
50 STIPULATION For Extension of Time for Class Certification Hearing and [Proposed] Order, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/7/2007) Modified on 8/8/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/07/2007)
51 STIPULATION AND ORDER: That the hearing for class certification and case management conference is rescheduled to 11/27/2007 at 01:00 PM. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 8/14/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2007) Modified on 8/15/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
52 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP Rule 12(c) filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 10/30/2007 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/20/2007) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
53 Declaration of Ankush Agarwal in Support of 52 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP Rule 12(c) filed byCalifornia Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 52 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/20/2007) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
54 Appendix re 52 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP Rule 12(c) Table of Contents and Table of Authorities for Motion filed byCalifornia Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 52 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/20/2007) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
55 Proposed Order re 52 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP Rule 12(c) by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/20/2007) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
56 MOTION to Consolidate Hearings filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/25/2007) Modified on 9/27/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 10 of 49

09/25/2007
09/25/2007 09/25/2007 09/25/2007 09/28/2007 09/28/2007 09/28/2007 09/28/2007 10/09/2007 10/09/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/12/2007

(Entered: 09/25/2007)
57 Declaration of Roger Heller In Support of 56 Motion to Consolidate Hearings filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/25/2007) Modified on 9/27/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2007)
58 Proposed Order re 56 Motion for Consolidation of Hearings and Briefing Schedules by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/25/2007) Modified on 9/27/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2007)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton re 52 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP Rule 12(c) Proof of Service Dated Sept. 21, 2007 (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/25/2007) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
60 Amended MOTION to Consolidate Hearings, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/25/2007) Modified on 9/27/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2007)
61 Memorandum in Opposition re 60 Amended Motion to Consolidate Hearings filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/28/2007) Modified on 10/1/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2007)
62 Declaration of Ankush Agarwal in Support of 61 Memorandum in Opposition Motion to Consolidate Hearings filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 61 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/28/2007) Modified on 10/1/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2007)
63 Proposed Order re 61 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Consolidate Hearings by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/28/2007) Modified on 10/1/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2007)
64 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton re 61 Memorandum in Opposition , 62 Declaration of Ankush Agarwal in Support , 63 Proposed Order (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/28/2007) Modified on 10/1/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2007)
65 Memorandum in Opposition to 52 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/9/2007) Modified on 10/10/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2007)
66 Proposed Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/9/2007) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
67 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 60 Motion for Hearing (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2007) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 52 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP Rule 12(c). Responses due by 11/6/2007. Replies due by 11/13/2007. Motion Hearing set for 11/27/2007 01:00 PM. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2007) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
68 Letter to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman re Request for Additional Depositions per Initial Discovery Order on May 15, 2007, from Defendants, dated 10/12/07. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 10/12/2007) Modified on 10/15/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/15/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2007)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 11 of 49

10/15/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007
10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/23/2007
10/23/2007 10/23/2007

69 Letter re Depositions to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman, from Plaintiffs, dated 10/15/07. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/15/2007) Modified on 10/15/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2007)
70 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 10/19/2007) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
71 Declaration of Ankush Agarwal in Support of 70 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed byCalifornia Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Letter by Defendants# 2 Exhibit B: Letter by Plaintiffs# 3 Exhibit C: Letter by Plaintiffs# 4 Exhibit D: Letter by Defendants to Judge Zimmerman)(Related document(s) 70 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 10/19/2007) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
72 Proposed Order re 70 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 10/19/2007) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
73 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton re 71 Declaration in Support,, 70 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, 72 Proposed Order, (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 10/19/2007) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
74 CLERK'S NOTICE SCHEDULING TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
75 Memorandum in Opposition Plaintiffs' Opposition to 70 Defendants' Administrative Motion for Additional Pages and Time to File Opposition filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/22/2007) Modified on 10/23/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/2007)
76 DECLARATION of Roger Heller in Opposition to 70 Defendants' Administrative Motion for Additional Pages and Time to File Opposition filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/22/2007) Modified on 10/23/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/2007)
77 Proposed Order Denying 70 Defendants' Administrative Motion for Additional Pages and Time to File Opposition by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/22/2007) Modified on 10/23/2007 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Hearing re Discovery Dispute set for 10/24/2007 at 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
78 MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. Motion Hearing set for 11/27/2007 01:00 PM. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
79 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 78 by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
80 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 78 , with Exhibits filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 12 of 49

10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/23/2007
10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/24/2007 10/24/2007 10/24/2007

Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
81 Declaration of Daniel B. Kohrman in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 78 , with Exhibit filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
82 Declaration of Haley Fagan in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 78 , with Exhibits filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
83 Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 78 filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C, Part 1# 4 Exhibit C, Part 2# 5 Exhibit D)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
84 Appendix A in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 78 : Deposition Excerpts from Defendants' Witnesses − Part 1 of 2 filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
85 Appendix A in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 78 : Deposition Excerpts from Defendants' Witnesses − Part 2 of 2 filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
86 Appendix B in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 78 : Deposition Excerpts from Plaintiffs' Witnesses filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2# 2 Part 3# 3 Part 4# 4 Part 5# 5 Part 6# 6 Part 7# 7 Part 8# 8 Part 9# 9 Part 10)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
87 Appendix C in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 78 : Declarations from Named Plaintiffs and Representative Class Members filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
88 Appendix C in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 78 : Declarations from Named Plaintiffs and Representative Class Members − Part 2 of 2 filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 10/23/2007) Modified on 10/24/2007 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 11/27/2007 01:00 PM. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
89 Letter to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong re Defendants' Administrative Motion for More Pages and More Time to File Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, from Ankush Agarwal, dated 10/24/07. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 10/24/2007) Modified on 10/25/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/25/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2007)
90 Minute Entry: Discovery Hearing held on 10/24/2007 before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman (Date Filed: 10/24/2007). (Tape #TC 35−07.) (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
91 Supplemental Letter to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong re Pending Administrative Motion, from Roger Heller, dated 10/24/07, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 13 of 49

10/29/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/31/2007
10/31/2007 11/06/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/09/2007 11/09/2007 11/09/2007
11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007

Rockwell. (Heller, Roger) (Filed on 10/24/2007) Modified on 10/25/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 10/25/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2007)
92 MOTION to Compel Depositions and Request for Sanctions and [Proposed] Order, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 10/29/2007) Modified on 10/30/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2007)
93 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 70 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 70 Motion for Extension of Time to File (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 78 MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Responses due by 12/11/2007. Replies due by 12/26/2007. Motion Hearing set for 1/29/2008 01:00 PM. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
94 ORDER: Continuing Case Management Conference and Hearing on 52 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP Rule 12(c) . Motion Hearing set for 1/29/2008 01:00 PM. Case Management Conference set for 1/29/2008 01:00 PM. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 10/31/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2007) Modified on 11/1/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/31/2007)
95 BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 10/31/2007. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2007) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
96 Letter from Ankush Agarwal re: Briefing Schedule for Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 11/6/2007) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
97 BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 11/8/2007. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
98 Letter from Plaintiffs Response Letter RE Briefing Schedule. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 11/8/2007) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
99 Memorandum in Opposition re 92 Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 11/9/2007) Modified on 11/13/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2007)
100 Proposed Order re 99 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 11/9/2007) Modified on 11/13/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2007)
101 Declaration of Roger Heller in Support of 99 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E, Part 1# 6 Exhibit E, Part 2# 7 Exhibit E, Part 3# 8 Exhibit F, Part 1# 9 Exhibit F, Part 2# 10 Exhibit F, Part 3# 11 Exhibit G, Part 1# 12 Exhibit G, Part 2# 13 Exhibit H)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 11/9/2007) Modified on 11/13/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2007)
102 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7−3.d Plaintiffs' Statement of Recent Decision filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
103 Reply Memorandum re 52 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP Rule 12(c) filed byCalifornia Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
104 Declaration of Ankush Agarwal in Support of 103 Reply Memorandum re: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP Rule 12(c) filed byCalifornia Department

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 14 of 49

11/14/2007 11/14/2007 11/15/2007 11/26/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/29/2007 12/03/2007
12/04/2007 12/07/2007
12/10/2007
01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008

of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 103 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
105 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton re 103 Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings per FRCP Rule 12(c) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 11/14/2007) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
106 Reply Memorandum re 92 First MOTION to Compel Depositions and Request for Sanctions and [Proposed] Order filed byCalifornia Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 11/14/2007) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
107 Letter from Plaintiffs re Teleconference Transcript. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 11/15/2007) Modified on 11/27/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2007)
108 Letter to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman re Third Party Depositions, from Plaintiffs, dated 11/26/07 (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 11/26/2007) Modified on 11/27/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2007)
109 THIRD DISCOVERY ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 11/28/2007. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2007) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
110 CLERK'S NOTICE SCHEDULING TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2007) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 110 Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 12/3/2007 at 02:30 PM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2007) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
111 Letter from Ankush Agarwal re: Depositions of Charlene Mackenzie and Que Pham. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 11/29/2007) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
112 STIPULATION and Request for Extension of Time for Class Certification Hearing and Briefing Schedule and [Proposed] Order by Dmitri Belser, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 12/3/2007) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
113 NOTICE of Association of Counsel, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 12/4/2007) Modified on 12/5/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/04/2007)
114 STIPULATION and Request for Extension of Time for Class Certification and FRCP Rule 12(c) Motion Hearing and Briefing Schedule and [Proposed] Order by Dmitri Belser, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 12/7/2007) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
115 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 78 MOTION to Certify Class and 52 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. Motion Hearing set for 2/26/2008 01:00 PM. Case Management Conference set for 2/26/2008 01:00 PM.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 12/7/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2007) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
116 OBJECTIONS to re 88 Appendix, to Declaration of Andrew Keefe by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
117 OBJECTIONS to re 88 Appendix, to Declaration of Ben Rockwell by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
118 OBJECTIONS to re 88 Appendix, to Declaration of Dan Kysor by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 15 of 49

01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008

119 OBJECTIONS to re 88 Appendix, to Declaration of Derrick Swanson by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
120 OBJECTIONS to re 87 Appendix, to Declaration of Dmitri Belser by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
121 OBJECTIONS to re 87 Appendix, to Declaration of Dorothy Hoefling by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
122 OBJECTIONS to re 82 Declaration in Support, to Declaration of Haley Fagan by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
123 OBJECTIONS to re 88 Appendix, to Declaration of John Lonberg by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
124 OBJECTIONS to re 87 Appendix, to Declaration of Joseph Abbott by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
125 OBJECTIONS to re 80 Declaration in Support, to Declaration of Laurence Paradis by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
126 OBJECTIONS to re 87 Appendix, to Declaration of Louis Herrera by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
127 OBJECTIONS to re 87 Appendix, to Declaration of Nicolas Boehm by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
128 OBJECTIONS to re 83 Declaration in Support, to Declaration of Peter Margen by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
129 OBJECTIONS to re 88 Appendix, to Declaration of Peter Mendoza by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
130 OBJECTIONS to re 88 Appendix, to Declaration of Richard Skaff by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
131 OBJECTIONS to re 87 Appendix, to Declaration of Ruth Goldkorn by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
132 OBJECTIONS to re 87 Appendix, to Declaration of Shane Idland by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
133 MOTION to Strike Declaration of Joseph Abbott filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2008 01:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
134 MOTION to Strike Declaration of Peter Margen filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2008 01:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 16 of 49

01/08/2008

135 ***DUPLICATE ENTRY, PLEASE SEE DOCUMENT 134 ***

01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008

MOTION to Strike Dec filed by California Department of Transportation. (Attachments: # 1 points, # 2 Proposed Order)(Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/9/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
136 DECLARATION of Bryan Bashen in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/9/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
137 Memorandum in Opposition re 78 Motion to Certify Class filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Dec of Peggy Elliott in Support, # 2 Dec of Marco Sanchez in support, # 3 Dec of Michael Whipple in support)(Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/9/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
138 Declaration of Don Campbell in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/9/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
139 Declaration of Scott Jackson in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/8/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
140 Declaration of Mike Hagen in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
141 Declaration of William Newton in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
142 Declaration of Christian Engelmann in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
143 Declaration of Michael Powers in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
144 Declaration of Stanley Ng in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
145 Declaration of Kiet Ly in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
146 Declaration of Al Ortiz in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
147 Declaration of Kim Blackseth in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 17 of 49

01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008

148 Declaration of Bryan Bashin in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
149 Declaration of Hector Cardova in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
150 Declaration of Matthew Goetz in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
151 Declaration of Kenneth Hatai in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
152 Declaration of Steve Hetland in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
153 Declaration of Ira Jackson Howard, Jr. in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
154 Declaration of Jonathan Lyens in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
155 Declaration of Paul Stanley Sheriff in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
156 Declaration of Robert Stigile in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
157 Declaration of Steve Takigawa in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
158 Declaration of James Willows in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
159 Declaration of Eudeen Y. Chang in Support of 137 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notification of Manual Filing)(Related document(s) 137 ) (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
160 Proposed Order re 137 Memorandum in Opposition, by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
161 ERRATA re 137 Memorandum in Opposition, by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 18 of 49

01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/11/2008 01/25/2008 01/28/2008
01/29/2008 01/29/2008 01/29/2008 01/29/2008 01/29/2008
01/31/2008 01/31/2008 02/01/2008 02/05/2008

1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
162 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 159 Declaration of Eudeen Y. Chang in Support by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
163 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by California Department of Transportation re 159 Declaration of Eudeen Y. Chang in Support of Caltrans' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [manual filing of exhibits] (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
164 NOTICE of Alternate Accessible Format, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton (Drury, Michael) (Filed on 1/11/2008) Modified on 1/14/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/11/2008)
165 ERRATA re 137 Reply to Opposition, by California Department of Transportation. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 1/25/2008) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
166 MOTION for Hearing re 133 MOTION to Strike Declaration of Joseph Abbott, 134 MOTION to Strike Declaration of Peter Margen filed by California Department of Transportation. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eudeen Y. Chang in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 1/28/2008) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
167 Reply Memorandum re 78 Motion for Class Certification filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 1/29/2008) Modified on 1/30/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2008)
168 Reply Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of 78 Motion for Class Certification filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 1/29/2008) Modified on 1/30/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2008)
169 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber in Support of 78 Motion for Class Certification filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 1/29/2008) Modified on 1/30/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2008)
170 Reply Appendix 1: Class Member Declarations in Support re 78 Motion for Class Certification filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 1/29/2008) Modified on 1/30/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2008)
171 Reply Appendix 2: Deposition Transcript Excerpts in Support re (parts 1 and 2) 78 Motion for Class Certification filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part 2)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 1/29/2008) Modified on 1/30/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2008)
172 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 166 Motion for Hearing (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2008) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 134 MOTION to Strike Declaration of Peter Margen, 133 MOTION to Strike Declaration of Joseph Abbott. Responses due by 2/5/2008. Motion Hearing set for 2/26/2008 01:00 PM. Replies due by 2/12/2008. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2008) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
173 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7−3.d Plaintiffs' Statement of Recent Decision filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/1/2008) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
174 Memorandum in Opposition re 134 Motion to Strike Declaration of Peter Margen filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/5/2008) Modified on 2/6/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2008)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 19 of 49

02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/08/2008
02/12/2008 02/12/2008 02/14/2008
02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008

175 Proposed Order re 174 Memorandum in Opposition by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/5/2008) Modified on 2/6/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2008)
176 RESPONSE to Evidentiary Objections in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/5/2008) Modified on 2/6/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2008)
177 NOTICE OF ERRATA re 170 Reply Appendix 1 in Support of Motion for Class Certification − Declaration of Lucia Greco by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/8/2008) Modified on 2/11/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/2008)
178 Reply to Opposition re 134 Motion to Strike Declaration of Peter Margen filed by Will Kempton, California Department of Transportation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Eudeen Y. Change in Support of)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/12/2008) Modified on 2/13/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2008)
179 Reply Memorandum re Evidentiary Objections filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Eudeen Y. Chang in Support of)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/12/2008) Modified on 2/13/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2008)
180 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/14/2008) Modified on 2/15/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/14/2008)
181 OBJECTIONS to 170 Appendix and Declaration of Toni Rediske by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
182 OBJECTIONS to 170 Appendix and Declaration of Suzanne Garcia by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
183 OBJECTIONS to 170 Appendix and Declaration of Patsy Chester by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
184 OBJECTIONS to 170 Appendix and Declaration of Dwight Bateman by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/20/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
185 OBJECTIONS to 170 Appendix and Declaration of Janet Abelson by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
186 OBJECTIONS to 170 Appendix and Declaration of Cynara Chatman−Dillon by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
187 OBJECTIONS to 170 Appendix and Declaration of Lucia Greco by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
188 OBJECTIONS to 170 Appendix and Declaration of Gary Palmer by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 20 of 49

02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008
02/15/2008 02/15/2008
02/19/2008 02/21/2008 02/21/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008

189 OBJECTIONS to 170 Appendix and Declaration of Catherine Shimozonoo by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
190 OBJECTIONS to 169 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
191 OBJECTIONS to 168 Reply Declaration of Peter Margen in Support by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
192 MOTION to Strike 169 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber in Support, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 4/1/2008 01:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities in Support, # 2 Declaration of Eudeen Chang in Support, # 3 Proposed Order)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
193 MOTION to Strike 170 Reply Appendix 1 , filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 4/1/2008 01:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities in Support, # 2 Declaration of Eudeen Chang in Support, # 3 Proposed Order)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
194 MOTION to Strike 168 Reply Declaration of Peter Margen in Support, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 4/1/2008 01:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities in Support, # 2 Declaration of Eudeen Chang in Support, # 3 Proposed Order)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/15/2008) Modified on 2/19/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
195 MOTION for Hearing re 194 Motion to Strike, 193 Motion to Strike, 192 Motion to Strike, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eudeen Chang in Support, # 2 Proposed Order in Support)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/19/2008) Modified on 2/20/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/19/2008)
196 Memorandum in Opposition re 195 Motion to Specially Set Hearing Date for Defendants' Motions to Strike filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/21/2008) Modified on 2/22/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/21/2008)
197 Proposed Order re 196 Denying Defendants' Administrative Motion to Specially Set Hearing Date for Defendants' Motions to Strike by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/21/2008) Modified on 2/22/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/21/2008)
198 Memorandum in Opposition re 192 Motion to Strike Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/4/2008) Modified on 3/5/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2008)
199 Proposed Order re 192 denying motion to strike declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/4/2008) Modified on 3/5/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/5/2008 (kk, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/5/2008 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2008)
200 Memorandum in Opposition re 193 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply Appendix 1 filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/4/2008) Modified on 3/5/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2008)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 21 of 49

03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/06/2008 03/13/2008 03/24/2008
04/02/2008 04/02/2008 04/08/2008 05/07/2008

201 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber in Support of 200 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply Appendix 1 filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/4/2008) Modified on 3/5/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2008)
202 Proposed Order re 193 denying Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply Appendix 1 by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/4/2008) Modified on 3/5/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/5/2008 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2008)
203 Memorandum in Opposition re 194 Defendants' Motion to Strike Reply Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/4/2008) Modified on 3/5/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2008)
204 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber in Support of 203 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Reply Declaration of Peter Margen filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/4/2008) Modified on 3/5/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2008)
205 Proposed Order re 194 denying Motion to Strike Reply Declaration of Peter Margen by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/4/2008) Modified on 3/5/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/5/2008 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2008)
206 RESPONSE to Objections to Plaintiffs' Reply Declarations by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/6/2008) Modified on 3/7/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/06/2008)
207 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 52 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 78 Motion to Certify Class; DENYING as moot 133 Motion to Strike ; DENYING as moot 134 Motion to Strike ; DENYING as moot 192 Motion to Strike ; DENYING as moot 194 Motion to Strike ; DENYING as moot 195 Motion for Hearing (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2008) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
208 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration and Proposed Order, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration, # 2 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber in Support of Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration, # 3 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/24/2008) Modified on 3/25/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/2008)
209 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 208 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration filed byCalifornia Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 208 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 4/2/2008) (Entered: 04/02/2008)
210 Proposed Order re 208 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 4/2/2008) Modified on 4/3/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/02/2008)
211 NOTICE of Pendency of Other Action, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 4/8/2008) Modified on 4/9/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/10/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2008)
212 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 22 of 49

05/09/2008
05/13/2008 05/28/2008
06/05/2008
07/09/2008
07/15/2008 08/27/2008
08/29/2008 09/02/2008 09/02/2008 09/02/2008 09/02/2008 09/04/2008 09/11/2008 09/17/2008

Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 5/7/2008) Modified on 5/8/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2008)
213 NOTICE OF ERRATA re 212 Joint Case Management Statement, by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 5/9/2008) Modified on 5/12/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/12/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2008)
214 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 6/5/2008 03:00 PM. via telephone. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2008) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
215 STIPULATION to Continue Case Management Conference With Proposed Order, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 5/28/2008) Modified on 5/29/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/28/2008)
216 STIPULATION AND ORDER: to Continue Case Management Conference to 7/23/2008 at 03:15 PM., VIA TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 6/4/08. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2008) Modified on 6/6/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2008)
217 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 7/9/2008) Modified on 7/10/2008 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2008)
218 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 9/11/2008 03:45 PM. via telephone. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2008) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
219 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/27/2008) Modified on 8/28/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/27/2008)
220 Letter to Magistrate Judge Zimmerman. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/29/2008) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
221 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2008) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
222 Letter from Defendants to Magistrate Judge Zimmerman re Discovery Disputes. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/2/2008) Modified on 9/3/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/02/2008)
223 NOTICE of Appearance by Jose R. Allen on behalf of Plaintiffs (Allen, Jose) (Filed on 9/2/2008) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 221 Scheduling Conference set for 9/4/2008 10:00 AM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2008) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
224 Minute Entry: Telephone Conference re discovery disputes. (Date Filed: 9/4/2008). (Tape #TC 26−08.) (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/4/2008) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
225 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 12/11/2008 03:45 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/10/08. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2008) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
226 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Plfs' 3rd Request for Production, and To Compel Caltrans To Designate a Witness To Testify on Its Behalf filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. Motion Hearing set for 10/22/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Motion to Compel, # 2 Allen Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel, # 3 Exhibits A−H to Allen Declaration, # 4 Exhibits I−L to Allen Declaration, # 5 Separate Statement

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 23 of 49

10/01/2008
10/08/2008
10/10/2008 10/10/2008 10/14/2008 10/16/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/20/2008 10/21/2008 10/22/2008 10/23/2008 11/24/2008 11/25/2008

in Support of Motion to Compel, # 6 Proposed Order)(Allen, Jose) (Filed on 9/17/2008) (Entered: 09/17/2008)
227 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 226 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Plfs' 3rd Request for Production, and To Compel Caltrans To Designate a Witness To Testify on Its Behalf filed byCalifornia Department of Transportation. (Attachments: # 1 Separate Statement in Opposition, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Exhibit A−C to Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 Exhibits D−E to Request for Judicial Notice, # 5 Declaration of G. Michael Harrington, # 6 Declaration of Eudeen Y. Chang, # 7 Declaration of Janice Benton, # 8 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 226 ) (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
228 Reply Memorandum re 226 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Plfs' 3rd Request for Production, and To Compel Caltrans To Designate a Witness To Testify on Its Behalf filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Jose R. Allen, # 2 Exhibits M−R to Supplemental Declaration of Jose R. Allen, # 3 Proof of Service)(Allen, Jose) (Filed on 10/8/2008) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
229 CLERKS NOTICE SCHEDULING TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE for 10/14/2008 at 4:00 PM. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2008) Modified on 10/14/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 229 Scheduling Conference set for 10/14/2008 04:00 PM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2008) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
230 Minute Entry: Telephone Conference held 10/14/2008, before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman (Date Filed: 10/14/2008). (Tape #FTR 4:00−4:08p.m. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/14/2008) Modified on 10/16/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/15/2008)
231 RESPONSE to 230 Minute Entry [and Order After Hearing] by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Allen, Jose) (Filed on 10/16/2008) Modified on 10/17/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/16/2008)
232 Letter from California Department of Transportation to Magistrate Judge Zimmerman Regarding Recusal. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 10/17/2008) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
233 NOTICE OF RECUSAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 10/17/2008. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2008) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James for Discovery (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2008) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
234 ***FILED IN ERROR PLEASE DISREGARD*** ORDER. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2008) Modified on 10/27/2008 (sv, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/21/2008)
235 NOTICE OF REFERENCE re Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for Discovery. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 10/22/08. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2008) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
236 Letter from California Department of Transportation to Magistrate Judge Zimmerman Regarding Order Filed. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 10/23/2008) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
237 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 208 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2008) Modified on 11/25/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/24/2008)
238 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by California Department of Transportation, Californian for Disability Rights, Inc.. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 11/25/2008) Modified on 11/26/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/25/2008)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 24 of 49

11/26/2008 11/26/2008 12/02/2008 12/10/2008
12/10/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/16/2008
12/18/2008 01/08/2009 01/09/2009 01/13/2009 01/22/2009

239 Letter to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James re: Discovery − Request for Production of Documents, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton (Allen, Jose) (Filed on 11/26/2008) Modified on 12/1/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2008)
240 Letter to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James re: Discovery − 30(b)(6) Designee re: Temporary Pedestrian Routes, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Allen, Jose) (Filed on 11/26/2008) Modified on 12/1/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/26/2008)
241 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 12/10/2008 03:45 PM. VIA TELEPHONE (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
242 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 12/10/2008 before JUDGE ARMSTRONG. Discovery due by 04/30/09; Motions to be heard by 07/14/09 at 1:00 PM, Pretrial Conference Continued to 09/01/09 at 1:00 PM,Case Referred to MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE to be held between 07/15/09 thru 08/07/09; Court Trial set for 09/09/09 at 8:30 AM. (Date Filed: 12/10/2008). () (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/10/2008) Modified on 12/16/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/16/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2008)
Set/Reset Hearings: re 242 Motion Hearing set for 7/14/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2008) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
243 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Bench Trial set for 9/9/2009 08:30 AM. Discovery due by 4/30/2009. Motions due by 7/14/2009. Pretrial Conference set for 9/1/2009 01:00 PM.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 12/15/08. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2008) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte for Settlement (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2008) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
244 DISCOVERY ORDER: That the Motion to Compel is GRANTED as to requests numbers 53−61 &63, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as to request number 62 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENIED as to request number 64, and the request to produce a 30(b)(6) witness is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, re 240 Letter, 239 Letter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James on 12/16/2008. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2008) Modified on 12/17/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2008)
245 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER − Settlement Conference set for 7/29/2009 09:30 AM. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 12/18/08. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2008) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
246 NOTICE of Appearance of Counsel Alana Rika Cho, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Cho, Alana) (Filed on 1/8/2009) Modified on 1/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2009)
247 Letter from Plaintiffs and Defendants to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James re: Discovery − Request for Production of Documents, dated 01/09/09 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A and B)(Allen, Jose) (Filed on 1/9/2009) Modified on 1/12/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2009)
248 Letter from Plaintiffs and Defendants to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James re: Discovery − 30(b)(6) Designee re: Maintenance and Rehabilitation Projects, dated 01/13/09. (Allen, Jose) (Filed on 1/13/2009) Modified on 1/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2009)
249 Minute Entry: Discovery Hearing held on 1/22/2009 before HON. MARIA−ELENA JAMES (Date Filed: 1/22/2009). (Court Reporter Margo Gurule.) (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/22/2009) (Entered: 01/22/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 25 of 49

01/22/2009 01/29/2009 02/05/2009 02/11/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009

250 Amended Minute Entry: Discovery Hearing held on 1/22/2009 before HON. MARIA−ELENA JAMES (Date Filed: 1/22/2009). (Court Reporter Margo Gurule.) (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/22/2009) Modified on 1/26/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2009)
251 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 3/10/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Affidavit of Eudeen Y. Chang, # 3 Proposed Order)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 1/29/2009) Modified on 1/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/29/2009)
252 Letter to Hon. Maria−Elena James re Discovery Dispute, from Eudeen Chang &Laurence Paradis, dated 02/05/09 . (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/5/2009) Modified on 2/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2009)
253 ORDER FOR PARTIES TO SUBMIT CHAMBERS COPY re 252 Letter filed by Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, California Council of the Blind. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 2/11/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
254 Memorandum in Opposition re 251 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
255 Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of 254 Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D, # 2 Exhibit E−I)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
256 Proposed Order re 251 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
257 Request for Judicial Notice re 254 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E, # 2 Exhibit F−J)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
258 Proposed Order re 251 Granting Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
259 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Defendants' Obligation to Make Temporary Pedestrian Routes Accessible filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. Motion Hearing set for 3/24/2009 01:00 PM (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
260 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of 259 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
261 Proposed Order re 259 Granting Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Defendants' Obligation to Make Temporary Pedestrian Routes Accessible by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
262 Cross−MOTION for Administrative Relief re Consolidation of Hearings filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 26 of 49

02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/23/2009 02/24/2009 02/24/2009 02/24/2009 02/25/2009 02/25/2009 02/25/2009 02/27/2009 03/02/2009

Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
263 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of 262 Cross−Motion for Administrative Relief re Consolidation of Hearings filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
264 Proposed Order re 262 Granting Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion for Administrative Relief re Consolidation of Hearings by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 2/17/2009) Modified on 2/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 259 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Defendants' Obligation to Make Temporary Pedestrian Routes Accessible. Motion Hearing set for 3/24/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2009) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
265 ORDER RE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION re 252 Letter filed by Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, California Council of the Blind. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 2/23/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2009) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
266 Reply in Support re 251 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Cho, Alana) (Filed on 2/24/2009) Modified on 2/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2009)
267 OBJECTIONS to 255 Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Cho, Alana) (Filed on 2/24/2009) Modified on 2/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2009)
268 Request for Judicial Notice re 266 Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 266 ) (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 2/24/2009) Modified on 2/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2009)
269 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstong, GRANTING 262 Motion for Consolidation of Hearings. Motion hearing set for 03/24/09 at 1:00 PM (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2009) Modified on 2/26/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/26/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/2009)
270 NOTICE OF ERRATA re 266 Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by California Department of Transportation. (Cho, Alana) (Filed on 2/25/2009) Modified on 2/26/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/25/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 251 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, 259 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Defendants' Obligation to Make Temporary Pedestrian Routes Accessible. Motion Hearing set for 3/24/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2009) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
271 Proposed Order re 266 Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Cho, Alana) (Filed on 2/27/2009) Modified on 3/2/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/27/2009)
272 NOTICE OF ERRATA re 254 Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/2/2009) Modified on 3/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 27 of 49

03/03/2009
03/04/2009
03/06/2009 03/10/2009 03/10/2009 03/10/2009 03/10/2009 03/10/2009 03/10/2009 03/10/2009 03/17/2009

273 Memorandum in Opposition re 259 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment re Defendants' Obligation to Make Temporary Pedestrian Routes Accessible filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Hector David Cordova, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Exhibit to Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 Proposed Order)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 3/3/2009) Modified on 3/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/2009)
274 MOTION to Strike re 255 Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleading filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 5/20/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Affidavit of Eudeen Y. Chang, # 3 Proposed Order)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 3/4/2009) Modified on 3/5/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/5/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/04/2009)
275 NOTICE OF ERRATA re 259 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/6/2009) Modified on 3/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/06/2009)
276 Reply Memorandum re 259 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
277 Declaration of Richard Skaff in Support of 259 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
278 Declaration of David McElroy in Support of 259 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
279 Declaration of Laura Williams in Support of 259 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
280 Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice re 259 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
281 Revised Proposed Order re 259 Granting Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Defendants' Obligation to Make Temporary Pedestrian Routes Accessible by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
282 RESPONSE to 267 Objections to the Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 3/10/2009) Modified on 3/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
283 STIPULATION to Consolidate Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Strike Declaration of Peter Margen Submitted in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with March 24, 2009 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on Pleadings and Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, Dmitri Belser. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 3/17/2009) Modified on 3/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/17/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 28 of 49

03/17/2009 03/17/2009 03/19/2009
03/20/2009 03/20/2009 03/20/2009 03/24/2009 03/24/2009 03/31/2009 04/07/2009

284 Memorandum in Opposition re 274 MOTION to Strike Declaration of Peter Margen Submitted In Support Of Plaintiffs' Opposition To Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings And Plaintiffs' Cross Motion For Summary Judgment filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Allen, Jose) (Filed on 3/17/2009) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
285 Declaration of Jose R. Allen in Support of 284 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion to Strike Declaration of Peter Margen filed byDmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Decl. of J. Allen)(Related document(s) 284 ) (Allen, Jose) (Filed on 3/17/2009) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
286 Transcript of Proceedings held on 01/22/09, before Judge MARIA−ELENA JAMES. Court Reporter/Transcriber MARGARET "MARGO" GURULE, Telephone number 415−504−4204 or margolargo@gmail.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/15/2009. (mng, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2009) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
287 Reply Memorandum re 274 Motion to Strike Declaration of Peter Margen filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 3/20/2009) Modified on 3/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2009)
288 MOTION to Strike 281 Plaintiffs' Revised [proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment and Belatedly Submitted Declarations of McElroy, Williams and Skaff In Support of Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 5/20/2009 01:00 PM. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 3/20/2009) Modified on 3/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2009)
289 Brief: Memorandum in Support re 288 Motion to Strike filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Eudeen Y. Chang, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Strike)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 3/20/2009) Modified on 3/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2009)
290 Renotice of Motion re 288 Motion to Strike filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2009 01:00 PM. (Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 3/24/2009) Modified on 3/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/24/2009)
291 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 3/24/2009 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Date Filed: 3/24/2009) re 251 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, 259 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment re Defendants' Obligation to Make Temporary Pedestrian Routes Accessible. (Court Reporter: Diane Skillman.) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/24/2009) Modified on 3/26/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/25/2009)
292 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, DENYING AS MOOT 288 Motion to Strike; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 251 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 259 Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING AS MOOT 274 Motion to Strike. The hearing set for 05/20/09 at 1:00 PM is VACATED (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2009) Modified on 4/1/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2009)
293 Joint Letter from Plaintiffs and Defendants to Magistrate Judge James re: Plfs' Motion to Enforce Compliance with 12/16/08 Court Order re: Caltrans' Ownership and/or Maintenance of Pedestrian Rights−of−Way, dated 04/07/09. (Allen, Jose) (Filed on 4/7/2009) Modified on 4/8/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/07/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 29 of 49

04/07/2009
04/07/2009 04/08/2009 04/09/2009 04/09/2009 04/09/2009 04/14/2009 04/15/2009 04/21/2009 04/24/2009 04/24/2009 04/27/2009

294 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadlines and for Case Coordination, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. Motion Hearing set for 5/12/2009 01:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of Motion for Case Coordination and Extension of Discovery Deadlines)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/7/2009) Modified on 4/8/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/07/2009)
295 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Case Coordination and Extension of Discovery Deadlines by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/7/2009) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
296 CLERKS NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing to 6/2/2009 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2009) Modified on 4/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2009)
297 MOTION to Shorten Time for Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Case Coordination and Extension of Discovery Deadlines, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/9/2009) Modified on 4/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/2009)
298 Declaration of Mary−Lee E. Kimber in Support of 297 Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Case Coordination and Extension of Discovery Deadlines filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/9/2009) Modified on 4/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/2009)
299 Proposed Order re 297 Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Case Coordination and Extension of Discovery Deadlines filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/9/2009) Modified on 4/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/09/2009)
300 Memorandum in Opposition re 297 Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Case Coordination and Extension of Discovery Deadlines filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Affidavit of Eudeen Y. Chang)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 4/14/2009) Modified on 4/15/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/2009)
301 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, GRANTING 297 Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing Plaintiff's Motion for Coordination and Extension fo Discovery Deadlines. Plaintiff's motion shall be heard on 04/28/09. Defendants opposition due 04/21/09. Plaintiff's reply brief due 04/24/09 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2009) Modified on 4/16/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2009)
302 Memorandum in Opposition re 294 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Deadlines and for Case Coordination filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Eudeen Y. Chang, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Proposed Order)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 4/21/2009) Modified on 4/22/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
303 Reply Memorandum re 294 Motion for Case Coordination and Extension of Discovery Deadlines filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/24/2009) Modified on 4/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/2009)
304 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber in Support re 303 Reply in Support of Motion for Case Coordination and Extension of Discovery Deadlines filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/24/2009) Modified on 4/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/2009)
305 DISCOVERY ORDER: That Caltrans shall notify Plaintiffs by 05/25/09 as to which of the locations identified in the 2007 survey it claims it has no legal liability

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 30 of 49

04/28/2009 04/29/2009 04/30/2009 05/18/2009 05/20/2009 06/02/2009
06/02/2009 06/02/2009
06/02/2009
06/02/2009 06/02/2009

for because of third party ownership or maintenance obligations re 293 Letter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James, on 4/27/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2009) Modified on 4/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/27/2009)
306 Joint Letter to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James re Production of Redacted New Construction and Alteration Documents from Eudeen Chang and Mary−Lee Kimber dated 04/27/09. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/28/2009) Modified on 4/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/28/2009)
307 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, DENYING 294 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; DENYING 294 Motion for Coordination (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2009) Modified on 4/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2009)
308 DISCOVERY ORDER re 306 Letter, filed by Ben Rockwell, Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 4/30/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2009) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
309 STIPULATION and Proposed Protective Order, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 5/18/2009) Modified on 5/19/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/18/2009)
310 ORDER RE PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER re 309 Proposed Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James, on 5/20/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2009) Modified on 5/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/20/2009)
311 ***ERRONEOUS ENTRY, PLEASE IGNORE***
MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 7/14/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
312 NOTICE of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
313 ***ERRONEOUS ENTRY, PLEASE IGNORE***
MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Cover to Page 5) filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 7/14/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
314 ***ERRONEOUS ENTRY, PLEASE IGNORE***
MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Page 6 to End) filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 7/14/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
315 Proposed Order re 323 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
316 Request for Judicial Notice re 323 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to RJN, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to RJN, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to RJN, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D to RJN)(Related document(s) 323 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 31 of 49

06/02/2009
06/02/2009 06/02/2009 06/02/2009 06/02/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/05/2009 06/05/2009

on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
317 Declaration of Ankush Agarwal in Support of 323 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Agarwal Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Agarwal Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to Agarwal Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D to Agarwal Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E to Agarwal Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F to Agarwal Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G to Agarwal Declaration, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H to Agarwal Declaration)(Related document(s) 323 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
318 Declaration of Gurinderpal S. Bhullar in Support of 323 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Bhullar Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B to Bhullar Declaration)(Related document(s) 323 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
319 Declaration of Jerome Champa in Support of 323 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 323 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
320 Declaration of Hector David Cordova in Support of 323 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Cordova Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B to Cordova Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C to Cordova Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D to Cordova Declaration, # 5 Exhibit E to Cordova Declaration)(Related document(s) 323 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
321 Declaration of Richard D. Land in Support of 323 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Land Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B to Land Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C to Land Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D to Land Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Exhibits E and F to Land Declaration)(Related document(s) 323 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/2/2009) Modified on 6/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2009)
322 ***ERRONEOUS ENTRY, PLEASE IGNORE***
Brief re 312 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed byCalifornia Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 312 ) (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/4/2009) Modified on 6/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/04/2009)
323 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Motion Hearing set for 7/14/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
324 Letter to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James re request to issue Protective Order with respect to document inspection, from Mary−Lee E. Kimber and Eudeen Chang, dated 06/02/09. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/5/2009) Modified on 6/8/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2009)
325 STIPULATION and Proposed Protective Order, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/5/2009) Modified on 6/8/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 32 of 49

06/05/2009 06/05/2009 06/05/2009 06/08/2009 06/11/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009
06/23/2009 06/23/2009

326 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 6/5/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2009) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
327 STIPULATION re Extension of Expert Discovery Deadline, filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/5/2009) Modified on 6/8/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2009)
328 Proposed Order re 327 Stipulation Regarding Extension of Expert Discovery Deadline filed by Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind, Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/5/2009) Modified on 6/8/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2009)
329 STIPULATION and Proposed Order re Extension of Expert Discovery Deadline, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell, Will Kempton, California Department of Transportation. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/8/2009) Modified on 6/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/2009)
330 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXPERT DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 6/10/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2009) Modified on 6/12/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2009)
331 OBJECTIONS to 320 Declaration of Hector David Cordova in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
332 OBJECTIONS to 318 Declaration of Gurinderpal S. Bhullar in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
333 OBJECTIONS to 321 Declaration of Richard D. Land in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
334 Memorandum in Opposition re 323 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
335 Declaration of Mary−Lee E. Kimber in Support of 334 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−G, # 2 Exhibit H−N)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
336 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of 334 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
337 Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of 334 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit A, # 7 Exhibit A, # 8 Exhibit A, # 9 Exhibit A, # 10 Exhibit A, # 11 Exhibit A, # 12 Exhibit A, # 13 Exhibit A, # 14 Exhibit A, # 15 Exhibit A, # 16 Exhibit A, # 17 Exhibit A, # 18 Exhibit A, # 19 Exhibit A, # 20 Exhibit A, # 21 Exhibit

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 33 of 49

06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/30/2009
07/01/2009 07/01/2009 07/02/2009 07/08/2009 07/08/2009

A)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
338 Declaration of Andrew Schwarz in Support of 334 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
339 Appendix of Class Member Declarations in Support of 334 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
340 Request for Judicial Notice re 334 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
341 Proposed Order re 323 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 6/23/2009) Modified on 6/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
342 Reply Memorandum re 323 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alana R. Cho, # 2 Declaration of Ankush Agarwal, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Ankush Agarwal, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Ankush Agarwal, # 5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Ankush Agarwal, # 6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Ankush Agarwal, # 7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Ankush Agarwal, # 8 Exhibit F to Declaration of Ankush Agarwal, # 9 Declaration of Hector David Cordova, # 10 Exhibit A to Declaration of Hector David Cordova, # 11 Exhibit B to Declaration of Hector David Cordova, # 12 Exhibit C to Declaration of Hector David Cordova, # 13 Exhibit D to Declaration of Hector David Cordova, # 14 Objections to Declaration of Larry Paradis, # 15 A to Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber, # 16 A to Declaration of Peter Margen, # 17 Response to Objection to Declaration of Gurinderpal Bhullar, # 18 Response to Objection to Declaration of Hector David Cordova, # 19 Response to Objection to Declaration of Richard D. Land)(Chang, Eudeen) (Filed on 6/30/2009) Modified on 7/1/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/30/2009)
343 NOTICE of Disassociation of Counsel, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 7/1/2009) Modified on 7/2/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/01/2009)
344 NOTICE of Disassociation of Counsel, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 7/1/2009) Modified on 7/2/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/01/2009)
345 Letter to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James re Discovery − Documents re ownership and/or maintenance of pedestrians facilities, from Alana Cho and Mary−Lee Kimber, dated 07/02/09 (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 7/2/2009) Modified on 7/6/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2009)
346 OBJECTIONS to 342 Declaration of Ankush Agarwal in Support of Defendants' Reply Re: Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 7/8/2009) Modified on 7/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2009)
347 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 350 . *** OBJECTIONS to 342 Declaration of Hector David Cordova in Support of Defendants' Reply Re: Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 34 of 49

07/08/2009
07/08/2009
07/09/2009
07/13/2009 07/13/2009 07/14/2009 07/22/2009 07/29/2009
07/29/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009 08/11/2009 08/11/2009

Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 7/8/2009) Modified on 7/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/9/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2009)
348 Response to 267 Defendants' Objections to the Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 7/8/2009) Modified on 7/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2009)
349 Declaration of Becca L. Von Behren in Support of 346 Plaintiffs' Objections to Declaration of Ankush Agarwal filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 7/8/2009) Modified on 7/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2009)
350 OBJECTIONS to 342 Declaration of Hector David Cordova in Support of Defendants' Reply Re: Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 7/9/2009) Modified on 7/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/09/2009)
351 RESPONSE to 346 Objection to Declaration of Ankush Agarwal filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Cho, Alana) (Filed on 7/13/2009) Modified on 7/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2009)
352 RESPONSE to 350 Objection to Declaration of Hector David Cordova filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Cho, Alana) (Filed on 7/13/2009) Modified on 7/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/13/2009)
353 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 7/14/2009 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Date Filed: 7/14/2009). (Court Reporter: Raynee Mercado) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/14/2009) Modified on 7/15/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/14/2009)
354 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney Michael Chilleen, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton (Chilleen, Michael) (Filed on 7/22/2009) Modified on 7/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2009)
355 ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE: That Caltrans shall supplement written notice by 08/01/09 at 5:00 PM; and Caltrans shall produce requested documents by 08/07/09 at 5:00 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James, on 7/29/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2009) Modified on 7/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/29/2009)
356 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held on 07/29/09 before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on 7/29/2009. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/29/2009) Modified on 8/4/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/03/2009)
357 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 323 Motion for Summary Judgment (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2009) Modified on 8/5/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2009)
358 ORDER: That the Pretrial Preparation Order is Modified with respect to Motions in Limine re 243 Case Management Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 8/4/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2009) Modified on 8/5/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2009)
359 Witness List by Ben Rockwell, Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/11/2009) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
360 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/11/2009) Modified on 8/12/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 35 of 49

08/11/2009 08/11/2009 08/11/2009 08/11/2009 08/12/2009 08/12/2009
08/12/2009 08/12/2009
08/12/2009 08/12/2009 08/14/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009

361 TRIAL BRIEF, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/11/2009) Modified on 8/12/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2009)
362 Proposed Witness List, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/11/2009) Modified on 8/12/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2009)
363 TRIAL BRIEF, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/11/2009) Modified on 8/12/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2009)
364 Pretrial Conference Statement by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/11/2009) Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2009)
365 Witness List by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/12/2009) Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2009)
366 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell Part 1. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact Part 2)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/12/2009) Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2009)
367 Pretrial Conference Statement by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/12/2009) Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2009)
368 DESIGNATION of Discovery Excerpts, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/12/2009) Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2009)
369 DESIGNATION of Discovery Excerpts, filed by California Department of Transportation. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/12/2009) Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2009)
370 ERRATA re 363 Trial Brief filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Revised Table of Authorities)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/12/2009) Modified on 8/13/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/12/2009)
371 Proposed Second Revised Witness List, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/14/2009) Modified on 8/17/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/14/2009)
372 Request for Clarification and/or to Exceed Page Limit, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/17/2009) Modified on 8/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/17/2009)
373 Response to 372 Request for Clarification and/or to Exceed Page Limit filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/17/2009) Modified on 8/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/17/2009)
374 CLERKS NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re 372 (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2009) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
375 ORDER Clarifying Order re Motion in Limine re 372 Request for Clarification and/or to Exceed Page Limit. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 8/18/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2009) Modified on 8/19/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 36 of 49

08/18/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009
08/19/2009 08/25/2009 08/25/2009 08/25/2009 08/25/2009 08/25/2009 08/25/2009

376 Revised Designation of Discovery Excerpts, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/18/2009) Modified on 8/19/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2009)
377 Evidentiary OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Exhibits and Designation of Discovery Excerpts filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/18/2009) Modified on 8/19/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2009)
378 MOTION in Limine, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/18/2009) Modified on 8/19/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/19/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2009)
379 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support 378 Motion in Limine filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/18/2009) Modified on 8/19/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2009)
380 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Evidence by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/18/2009) Modified on 8/19/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2009)
381 MOTION in Limine, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alan R. Cho, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Alana R. Cho, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Alana R. Cho, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Alana R. Cho, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Alana R. Cho, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Alana R. Cho, # 7 Exhibit F to Declaration of Alana R. Cho, # 8 Exhibit G to Declaration of Alana R. Cho)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/18/2009) Modified on 8/19/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2009)
382 Declaration of Alana R. Cho in Support of 381 Motion in Limine Nos. 1−11 filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 381 ) (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/19/2009) Modified on 8/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/19/2009)
383 RESPONSE to 380 Objections to Evidence, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/25/2009) Modified on 8/26/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2009)
384 Declaration of Mary−Lee E. Kimber in Support of 383 Responses to Objections to Evidence filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/25/2009) Modified on 8/26/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2009)
385 RESPONSE to 377 Evidentiary Objections to Defendants' Exhibits and Designation of Discovery Excerpts, filed by California Department of Transportation. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/25/2009) Modified on 8/26/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2009)
386 RESPONSE to 378 Motions in Limine, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alana R. Cho)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/25/2009) Modified on 8/26/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2009)
387 Memorandum in Opposition re 381 Motion in Limine, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 8/25/2009) Modified on 8/26/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2009)
388 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of 387 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/25/2009) Modified on 8/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 37 of 49

08/26/2009 08/26/2009
08/27/2009 08/27/2009 08/27/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/02/2009 09/03/2009 09/03/2009 09/08/2009
09/08/2009

389 ORDER: That parties may file Reply Briefs in Support of 378 , 381 Motions in Limine by 12:00 P.M., on 08/27/09. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 8/26/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2009) Modified on 8/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2009)
390 ERRATA to 388 Declaration of Laurence W. Paradis in Support of Memorandum in Opposition to Motions in Limine filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14A, # 15 Exhibit 14B, # 16 Exhibit 14C, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) Modified on 8/27/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2009)
391 Reply Memorandum re 378 Motion in Limine filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/27/2009) Modified on 8/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/27/2009)
392 Declaration of Becca L. Von Behren in Support of 391 Reply Memorandum filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/27/2009) Modified on 8/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/27/2009)
393 Reply Memoradum re 381 Motion in Limine filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alana R. Cho, # 2 Exhibits to Declaration of Alana R. Cho)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 8/27/2009) Modified on 8/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/28/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/27/2009)
394 Third Revised Witness List by California Department of Transportation. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 9/1/2009) Modified on 9/2/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/01/2009)
423 Minute Entry: Pretrial Conference Held on 09/01/09 (Date Filed: 9/1/2009). (Court Reporter: Raynee Mercado) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/1/2009) Modified on 9/16/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)
395 Witness List and List of Locations by Ben Rockwell, Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., California Council of the Blind. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/2/2009) Modified on 9/3/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/02/2009)
396 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Whether Plaintiffs Are Entitled To The Injunctive Relief They Demand For Existing Curb Ramps Adjacent To Altered Roadways by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alana R. Cho)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 9/3/2009) Modified on 9/4/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/03/2009)
397 BRIEF Re Defendants' Statute of Limitations Defense by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of Plaintiffs' Brief Re Defendants' Statute of Limitations Defense)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/3/2009) Modified on 9/4/2009 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/03/2009)
398 Request for Judicial Notice re Response to Caltrans' Trial Brief Regarding Whether Plaintiffs are Entitled to the Injunctive Relief They Demand for Existing Curb Ramps Adjacent to Altered Roadways filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 9/8/2009) Modified on 9/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2009)
399 Response Brief re 397 Brief re Statute of Limitations filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Related document(s) 397 ) (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 9/8/2009) Modified on 9/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 38 of 49

09/08/2009 09/08/2009 09/08/2009 09/08/2009
09/09/2009 09/09/2009 09/10/2009 09/10/2009 09/10/2009 09/10/2009

400 Response re Caltran's Trial Brief Regarding Injunctive Relief for Curb Ramps filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/8/2009) Modified on 9/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2009)
401 Declaration of Ronald Elsberry in Support of 400 Response to Caltrans' Trial Brief Regarding Injunctive Relief for Curb Ramps filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/8/2009) Modified on 9/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2009)
402 Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of 400 Response to Caltrans' Trial Brief Regarding Injunctive Relief for Curb Ramps filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 9/8/2009) Modified on 9/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2009)
403 EXHIBITS to 402 Declaration of Peter Margen in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Caltrans' Trial Brief Regarding Whether Plaintiffs are Entitled to the Injunctive Relief they Demand for Existing Curb Ramps Adjacent to Altered Roadways filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 1 − Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 1 − Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 1 − Part 3, # 4 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 1 − Part 4, # 5 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 1 − Part 5, # 6 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 1 − Part 6, # 7 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 1 − Part 7, # 8 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 1 − Part 8, # 9 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 1 − Part 9, # 10 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 2, # 11 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 3, # 12 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 4, # 13 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 5, # 14 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 6, # 15 Exhibit Margen Declaration Exhibit 7)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 9/8/2009) Modified on 9/9/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2009)
404 TRIAL BRIEF Defendants' Pre−Trial Motion Re: Plaintiff's Demand for Temporary Routes Not Legally Required or Warranted by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ankush Agarwal, # 2 Exhibit 1−8 to Declaration of Ankush Agarwal)(Harrington, Gerald) (Filed on 9/9/2009) Modified on 9/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/09/2009)
405 TRIAL BRIEF Motion on Plaintiffs' Legal Claims to Survey Facilities by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alana R. Cho, # 2 Declaration of Terry Abbott)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 9/9/2009) Modified on 9/10/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/09/2009)
406 CLERKS NOTICE RE DEFICIENCY re 404 &405 (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
407 NOTICE of Using Demonstrative Devices at Trial and Proposed Order, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 9/10/2009) Modified on 9/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/10/2009)
408 Letter to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong re Clarification of Docket Nos. 404 and 405, from Gregory F. Hurley on behalf of California Department of Transportation, dated 09/10/09 (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 9/10/2009) Modified on 9/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/10/2009)
409 RESPONSE to 404 Defendants' Pretrial Motion Re: Plaintiffs' Demand for Temporary Routes Not Legally Required or Warranted filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/10/2009) Modified on 9/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/10/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 39 of 49

09/10/2009
09/10/2009 09/10/2009 09/10/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/15/2009

410 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of 409 Response to Defendants' Pretrial Motion Re: Plaintiffs' Demand for Temporary Routes Not Legally Required or Warranted filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/10/2009) Modified on 9/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/10/2009)
411 MOTION For Order Directing Federal Marshal and/or Federal Security Services to Admit into the Federal Courthouse Electronic Equipment for use at Trial, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 9/10/2009) Modified on 9/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/10/2009)
412 RESPONSE to 405 Defendants' Pre−Trial Motion Re: Plaintiffs' Legal Claims to Survey Facilities filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 9/10/2009) Modified on 9/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/10/2009)
413 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of 412 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Pre−Trial Motion Re: Plaintiffs' Legal Claims to Survey Facilities filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 9/10/2009) Modified on 9/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/10/2009)
414 MOTION to Strike 402 Declaration in Support, 403 Exhibits filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alana R. Cho)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 9/11/2009) Modified on 9/11/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/11/2009)
415 MOTION for Leave to File a Response to Defendants' Motion to Strike filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
416 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 411 Motion for Order Directing Federal Marshal and/or Security Services to Admit into the Federal Courthouse Electronic Equipment for Use at Trial (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2009) Modified on 9/15/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2009)
417 ORDER: That Defendants have legal duty to upgrade non−compliant curb ramps when altering adjacent roadway re 396 Trial Brief, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/14/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2009) Modified on 9/15/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2009)
418 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 378 Motion in Limine NO. 8 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2009) Modified on 9/15/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2009)
419 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING Plaintiffs' Pre−Trial Motion re Plaintiffs' Demand for Temporary Routes Not Legally Required or Warranted re 404 Trial Brief, Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/14/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2009) Modified on 9/15/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2009)
420 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING Defendants' Motion on Plaintiffs' Legal Claims to Survey Facilities re 405 Trial Brief. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/14/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2009) Modified on 9/15/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/14/2009)
421 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 378 Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Evidence in Support of an Undue Burden Defense. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/14/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modified on 9/16/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 40 of 49

09/15/2009 09/15/2009 09/15/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/17/2009 09/18/2009 09/18/2009 09/18/2009 09/21/2009
09/22/2009 09/23/2009

422 NOTICE of Using Demonstrative Devices at Trial and Proposed Order, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modified on 9/16/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)
424 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING Plaintiffs' Access to the Federal Building for Equipment and Demonstrative Devices to Use at Trial. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/15/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modified on 9/16/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)
425 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 414 Motion to Strike; FINDING AS MOOT 415 Motion for Leave to File Response to Motion to Strike. Parties shall refrain from further unauthorized filings (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2009) Modified on 9/16/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2009)
426 Minute Entry: Bench Trial held on 9/16/2009 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Date Filed: 9/16/2009). (Court Reporter: Diane Skillman) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/16/2009) Modified on 9/17/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2009)
427 NOTICE of Using Equipment and Demonstrative Devices at Trial and Proposed Order, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 9/16/2009) Modified on 9/17/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2009)
428 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING Plaintiffs Access to the Federal Building for Equipment and Demonstrative Devices to Use at Trial re 427 Notice. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/16/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2009) Modified on 9/17/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2009)
429 NOTICE of Using Equipment and Demonstrative Devices at Trial and Proposed Order, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 9/17/2009) Modified on 9/18/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/17/2009)
430 ORDER: That Plaintiffs' Complaint Process Claim is DISMISSED without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/18/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2009) Modified on 9/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/18/2009)
431 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING Plaintiffs Access to the Federal Building for Equipment and Demonstrative Devices for Use at Trial re 429 Notice. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/18/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2009) Modified on 9/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/18/2009)
432 Minute Entry: Bench Trial held on 9/18/2009 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Date Filed: 9/18/2009). (Court Reporters: Raynee Mercado/Diane Skillman) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/18/2009) Modified on 9/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/18/2009)
439 Minute Entry: Bench Trial held on 9/21/2009 before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Parties to appear before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte for Settlement Conference set for 09/22/09 at 1:30 PM; Trial is RECESSED until 10/05/09. (Date Filed: 9/21/2009). (Court Reporter: Raynee Mercado) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/21/2009) Modified on 9/25/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/2009)
440 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held on 9/22/2009 and Further Settlement Conference continued to 9/28/2009 02:30 PM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/22/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
433 ORDER RE FILINGS OF STIPULATIONS AND CERTIFICATION OF MEET AND CONFER: That the Court's Order 430 is VACATED. The parties are to appear before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte for a MANDATORY

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 41 of 49

09/23/2009
09/23/2009
09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009
09/28/2009 10/16/2009 11/06/2009 11/18/2009
11/19/2009 11/19/2009 11/19/2009 11/19/2009

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Scheduled for 0922/09 at 1:30 PM. The trial date shall resume on 10/05/09 at 8:30 AM. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 9/21/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2009) Modified on 9/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
434 STIPULATION and Proposed re Complaint System filed by California Department of Transportation, Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind California Department of Transportation, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 9/23/2009) Modified on 9/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
435 STIPULATION re Section 4.2 of the DIB 82−03, filed by California Department of Transportation, Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind California Department of Transportation, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, Ben Rockwell. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 9/23/2009) Modified on 9/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
436 Statement of Certification re Meet and Confer Submitted Concurrently with Stipulations and Proposed Order, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 9/23/2009) Modified on 9/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
437 Statement of Meet and Confer Certification, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 9/23/2009) Modified on 9/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
438 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Stipulation, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stipulation)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 9/23/2009) Modified on 9/24/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
441 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held with Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on 9/28/2009. Further Settlement Conferences set for 10/7/2009 02:00 PM and 10/13/2009 02:00 PM. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/28/2009) Modified on 10/1/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2009)
442 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 11/18/2009 02:00 PM. via telephone. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2009) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
443 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (JOINT) filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, California Department of Transportation, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 11/6/2009) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
444 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 11/18/2009, before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Parties to submit settlement agreement by 12/18/09. Preliminary Approval hearing set for 01/26/10. Final Approval hearing set for 04/27/10 (Date Filed: 11/18/2009). (Court Reporter: Not Reported) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/18/2009) Modified on 12/1/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/25/2009)
445 Trial Sheet: Exhibit and Witness. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
446 Exhibit List, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell.. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
447 Defendant's Exhibit List, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton.. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
Exhibit Location C−5: Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits 0253, 0637 and 0845. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009) (Entered: 01/29/2010)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 42 of 49

12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/18/2009 12/20/2009 12/20/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009
12/22/2009 12/30/2009 01/25/2010

448 STIPULATION and Request Regarding Deadline for Submitting Settlement Agreement, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, California Department of Transportation, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/16/2009) Modified on 12/17/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
449 Proposed Order re 448 Stipulation and Request Regarding Deadline for Submitting Settlement Agreement by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, California Department of Transportation, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/16/2009) Modified on 12/17/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
450 ORDER: That the deadline for submitting the class settlement agreement and filing the motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement is EXTENDED to 12/21/09 re 448 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 12/17/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
451 STIPULATION and Request Regarding Deadline for Submitting Settlement Agreement, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/20/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2009)
452 Proposed Order re 451 Stipulation and Request Regarding Deadline for Submitting Settlement Agreement by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell, Will Kempton, California Department of Transportation. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/20/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 12/21/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2009)
453 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, filed filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, California Department of Transportation, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2009)
454 NOTICE of Settlement Agreement re: Class Action Settlement, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, California Department of Transportation, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3A, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9)(Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2009)
455 Proposed Order re 453 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, California Department of Transportation, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, Ben Rockwell. (Kimber, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 12/22/2009) Modified on 12/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/22/2009)
456 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong re 451 Stipulation and Request Regarding Deadline for Submitting Settlement Agreement. The Deadline for Submitting the Class Settlement Agreement and Filing the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement is EXTENDED to 12/22/09. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 12/30/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2009) Modified on 12/31/2009 (cjl, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/4/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/30/2009)
457 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 453 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Motion Hearing set for 04/27/10 at 1:00 PM (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2010) Modified on 1/26/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/26/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2010)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 43 of 49

01/25/2010 02/01/2010 02/01/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010
03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 4/27/2010 01:00 PM. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
458 Letter re Objection to Proposed Settlement, from Marilynn Pike, dated 01/28/10. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2010) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
459 Letter re Objection to Proposed Settlement, from Arnie T. Pike, dated 01/28/10. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2010) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
460 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. Motion Hearing set for 4/27/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
461 Proposed Order re 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
462 Declaration of Larry Paradis in Support of 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
463 Declaration of Jose Allen in Support of 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
464 Declaration of Dan Kohrman in Support of 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
465 Declaration of Ronald Elsberry in Support of 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
466 Declaration of Sanford Jay Rosen in Support of 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
467 Declaration of Richard M. Pearl in Support of 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
468 Declaration of William F. Alderman in Support of Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
469 Declaration of Todd M. Schneider in Support of Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 44 of 49

03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/25/2010 03/30/2010 03/31/2010
03/31/2010
03/31/2010
03/31/2010

470 Declaration of Ben Rockwell in Support of 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
471 Declaration of Jeff Thom in Support of 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 3/23/2010) Modified on 3/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
***Deadlines terminated re Motion Hearing as to 460 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2010) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
472 ORDER OF REFERENCE: That 460 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is REFERRED to the Chief Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 3/24/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2010) Modified on 3/26/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/25/2010)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James for Report and Recommendation on attys' fees. (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2010) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
473 OBJECTIONS to 457 Order on Motion for Settlement, filed by Connie Arnold, Alfred Bailey, Susan Chandler Barnhill, Tim M. Beckwith, Kathleen L. Berman, Patrick William Connally, Hollyn D'Lil, Ardy Delu, Francisco Godoy, Greg Hertzler, Pauline Horvath, Eliot Howard, Cynthia Jones, Ben Kinney, Jr, Jon Lonberg, Ross Long, Marshall Loskot, Peter Mendoza, Arnie Pike, Marilynn Pike, Bob Planthold, Susie Plourde, Christy Rudder, Dennis Sharp, Richard Skaff, Judy Smith, Don Stickle, Terrelle Terry, John Wilkins, David E. Wolf, Carol Wolfington, Zacharay Woodford, Craig Thomas Yates. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2010)
474 Declaration of Linda Hinchey in Support of 473 Objection, filed by Connie Arnold, Alfred Bailey, Susan Chandler Barnhill, Tim M. Beckwith, Dmitri Belser, Kathleen L. Berman, Patrick William Connally, Hollyn D'Lil, Ardy Delu, Francisco Godoy, Greg Hertzler, Pauline Horvath, Eliot Howard, Cynthia Jones, Ben Kinney, Jr, Jon Lonberg, Ross Long, Marshall Loskot, Peter Mendoza, Arnie Pike, Marilynn Pike, Bob Planthold, Susie Plourde, Christy Rudder, Dennis Sharp, Richard Skaff, Judy Smith, Don Stickle, Terrelle Terry, John Wilkins, David E. Wolf, Carol Wolfington, Zacharay Woodford, Craig Thomas Yates. (Related document(s) 473 ) (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2010)
475 Declaration of Hollyn D'Lil in Support of 473 Objection, filed by Connie Arnold, Alfred Bailey, Susan Chandler Barnhill, Tim M. Beckwith, Kathleen L. Berman, Patrick William Connally, Hollyn D'Lil, Ardy Delu, Francisco Godoy, Greg Hertzler, Pauline Horvath, Eliot Howard, Cynthia Jones, Ben Kinney, Jr, Jon Lonberg, Ross Long, Marshall Loskot, Peter Mendoza, Arnie Pike, Marilynn Pike, Bob Planthold, Susie Plourde, Christy Rudder, Dennis Sharp, Richard Skaff, Judy Smith, Don Stickle, Terrelle Terry, John Wilkins, David E. Wolf, Carol Wolfington, Zacharay Woodford, Craig Thomas Yates. (Related document(s) 473 ) (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2010)
476 Declaration of Richard Skaff in Support of 473 Objection, filed by Connie Arnold, Alfred Bailey, Susan Chandler Barnhill, Tim M. Beckwith, Kathleen L. Berman, Patrick William Connally, Hollyn D'Lil, Ardy Delu, Francisco Godoy, Greg Hertzler, Pauline Horvath, Eliot Howard, Cynthia Jones, Ben Kinney, Jr, Jon Lonberg, Ross Long, Marshall Loskot, Peter Mendoza, Arnie Pike, Marilynn Pike, Bob Planthold, Susie Plourde, Christy Rudder, Dennis Sharp, Richard Skaff, Judy Smith, Don Stickle, Terrelle Terry, John Wilkins, David E. Wolf, Carol Wolfington, Zacharay Woodford, Craig Thomas Yates. (Related document(s) 473 ) (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2010)

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 45 of 49

03/31/2010
03/31/2010
03/31/2010 03/31/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010

477 Declaration of Terrelle Terry in Support of 473 Objection, filed by Connie Arnold, Alfred Bailey, Susan Chandler Barnhill, Tim M. Beckwith, Kathleen L. Berman, Patrick William Connally, Hollyn D'Lil, Ardy Delu, Francisco Godoy, Greg Hertzler, Pauline Horvath, Eliot Howard, Cynthia Jones, Ben Kinney, Jr, Jon Lonberg, Ross Long, Marshall Loskot, Peter Mendoza, Arnie Pike, Marilynn Pike, Bob Planthold, Susie Plourde, Christy Rudder, Dennis Sharp, Richard Skaff, Judy Smith, Don Stickle, Terrelle Terry, John Wilkins, David E. Wolf, Carol Wolfington, Zacharay Woodford, Craig Thomas Yates. (Related document(s) 473 ) (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2010)
478 Declaration of Susan (Barnhill) Chandler in Support of 473 Objection, filed by Connie Arnold, Alfred Bailey, Susan Chandler Barnhill, Tim M. Beckwith, Kathleen L. Berman, Patrick William Connally, Hollyn D'Lil, Ardy Delu, Francisco Godoy, Greg Hertzler, Pauline Horvath, Eliot Howard, Cynthia Jones, Ben Kinney, Jr, Jon Lonberg, Ross Long, Marshall Loskot, Peter Mendoza, Arnie Pike, Marilynn Pike, Bob Planthold, Susie Plourde, Christy Rudder, Dennis Sharp, Richard Skaff, Judy Smith, Don Stickle, Terrelle Terry, John Wilkins, David E. Wolf, Carol Wolfington, Zacharay Woodford, Craig Thomas Yates. (Related document(s) 473 ) (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2010)
479 CLERKS NOTICE re: Failure to E−File re 473 − 478 (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
480 Letter to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong re Objection to Proposed Settlement, from Walter Park, dated 03/30/10. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
481 NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING re 460 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Hearing set for 05/13/10 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA. Opposition due by 04/22/10. Reply to Opposition due by 04/29/10. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James, on 4/5/2010. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2010) Modified on 4/6/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 460 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Opposition due by 4/22/2010. Reply to Opposition due by 4/29/2010. Motion Hearing set for 5/13/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2010) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
482 MOTION for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit and Response to Objections, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. Motion Hearing set for 4/27/2010 01:00 PM. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
483 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of 482 Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit and Response to Objections filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Related document(s) 482 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
484 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber Smith in Support of 482 Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit and Response to Objections filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 482 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
485 Declaration of Laura Williams in Support of 482 Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit and Response to Objections filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B,

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 46 of 49

04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010
04/16/2010 04/22/2010
04/22/2010 04/22/2010 04/27/2010

# 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 482 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
486 Declaration of Dmitri Belser in Support of 482 Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit and Response to Objections filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Related document(s) 482 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
487 Declaration of Jeff Thom in Support of 482 Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit and Response to Objections filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Related document(s) 482 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
488 Declaration of Ben Rockwell in Support of 482 Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit and Response to Objections filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Related document(s) 482 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
489 Declaration of Gregory Hurley in Support of 482 Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit and Response to Objections filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 482 ) (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
490 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 484 Declaration of Mary−Lee Kimber in Support, 486 Declaration of Dmitri Belser in Support, 485 Declaration of Laura Williams, 483 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support, 482 , Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit and Response to Objection, 488 , Declaration of Ben Rockwell in Support, 489 Declaration of Gregory Hurley in Support, 487 Declaration of Jeff Thom in Support, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/13/2010) Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/14/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/13/2010)
491 OBJECTIONS to 457 Order on Motion for Settlement, filed by Branlett Kimmons. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2010) Modified on 4/19/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2010)
492 Memorandum in Opposition re 460 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed byCalifornia Department of Transportation. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Declaration of Alana R. Cho, # 3 Objection to Declaration of Ben Rockwell, # 4 Objection to Declaration of Daniel Kohrman, # 5 Objection to Declaration of Jose Allen, # 6 Objection to Declaration of Jeff Thom, # 7 Objection to Declaration of Larry Paradis, # 8 Objection to Declaration of Richard Pearl, # 9 Objection to Declaration of Sanford Rosen, # 10 Objection to Declaration of Todd Schneider, # 11 Objection to Declaration of Willaim Alderman, # 12 Proposed Order)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 4/22/2010) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
493 Declaration of Gregory F. Hurley in Support of 492 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits Part 1, # 2 Exhibits Part 2, # 3 Exhibits Part 3, # 4 Exhibits Part 4)(Related document(s) 492 ) (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 4/22/2010) Modified on 4/26/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/26/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2010)
***Deadlines terminated re Response Deadline re 460 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2010) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
***Deadlines terminated re Motion Hearing 482 Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit and Response to

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 47 of 49

04/27/2010 04/28/2010 04/29/2010 04/29/2010
04/29/2010
04/29/2010
04/29/2010
04/29/2010 04/29/2010 04/29/2010 04/30/2010 04/30/2010

Objections (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2010) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
504 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 4/27/2010 before JUDGE ARMSTRONG (Date Filed: 4/27/2010). (Court Reporter DIANE SKILLMAN.) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/27/2010) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
494 NOTICE OF ERRATA re 493 Declaration in Support of Opposition to Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs − Exhibits P and Q filed by California Department of Transportation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit P, # 2 Exhibit Q)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 4/28/2010) Modified on 4/29/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/28/2010)
495 Reply Memorandum re 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 4/29/2010) Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2010)
496 Reply Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support re 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 4/29/2010) Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2010)
497 Reply Declaration of Jose R. Allen in Support re 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A_part1, # 2 Exhibit A_part2)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 4/29/2010) Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2010)
498 Reply Declaration of Ronald Elsberry in Support re 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 4/29/2010) Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2010)
499 Reply Declaration of Daniel B. Kohrman in Support of 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 4/29/2010) Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2010)
500 RESPONSE to 492 Memorandum in Opposition: Evidentiary Objections re Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 4/29/2010) Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2010)
501 OBJECTIONS to 492 Memorandum in Opposition: Evidentiary Objections re Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 4/29/2010) Modified on 4/30/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2010)
***Deadlines terminated re Reply Deadline as to 460 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2010) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
502 CLERKS NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing to 5/27/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2010) Modified on 5/3/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2010)
503 Proposed Judgment, Final Order and Decree re: Settlement Agreement, by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 4/30/2010) Modified on 5/3/2010

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 48 of 49

05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/21/2010 05/21/2010 05/21/2010 05/27/2010 05/27/2010 05/27/2010
06/02/2010

(jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2010)
505 OBJECTIONS to 496 Reply Declaration of Laurence W. Paradis in Support of Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 5/14/2010) Modified on 5/17/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/17/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2010)
506 OBJECTIONS to 497 Reply Declaration of Jose R. Allen in Support of Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 5/14/2010) Modified on 5/17/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2010)
507 OBJECTIONS to 498 Reply Declaration of Ronald Elsberry in Support of Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alana R. Cho)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 5/14/2010) Modified on 5/17/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2010)
508 OBJECTIONS to 499 Reply Declaration of Daniel B. Kohrman in Support, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 5/14/2010) Modified on 5/17/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/14/2010)
509 RESPONSE to Evidentiary Objections to Reply Declarations in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reasonable Fees and Costs, filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 5/21/2010) Modified on 5/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2010)
510 RESPONSE to 501 Objection to Declaration of Gregory F. Hurley in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Costs, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alana A. Cho)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 5/21/2010) Modified on 5/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2010)
511 Reply to 500 Responses to Defendants' Evidentiary Objection re Plaintiffs' Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 5/21/2010) Modified on 5/24/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/21/2010)
512 ORDER RE FURTHER BRIEFING re 460 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Defendants Supplemental Briefing due by 06/11/10; Plaintiffs' Reply Brief due by 06/18/10. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James, on 5/27/2010. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2010) Modified on 5/28/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/2010)
513 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 5/27/2010 before Chief Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James (Date Filed: 5/27/2010). (Court Reporter: Belle Ball.) (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/27/2010) Modified on 5/28/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/27/2010)
514 Transcript of Proceedings held on May 27, 2010, before Judge Maria−Elena James. Court Reporter/Transcriber Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, CRR, Telephone number (415)373−2529, belle_ball@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/25/2010. (Ball, Belle) (Filed on 5/27/2010) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
515 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 482 Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement in Class Action Lawsuit. All pending matters are TERMINATED. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 6/2/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2010) Modified

Case: 4:06-cv-5125 As of: 09/17/2010 08:47 AM PDT 49 of 49

06/11/2010
06/12/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 07/02/2010 07/02/2010 07/30/2010 08/25/2010 08/31/2010

on 6/3/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2010)
516 Supplemental Clarification of Deductions in Hours Sought in Support of 492 Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Costs filed by California Department of Transportation and Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gregory F. Hurley, # 2 Exhibit A part 1, # 3 Exhibit A part 2, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 492 ) (Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 6/11/2010) Modified on 6/14/2010 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2010)
517 ERRATA re 516 Brief, Exhibit A to the Declaration of Gregory F. Hurley by California Department of Transportation and Will Kempton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hurley, Gregory) (Filed on 6/12/2010) Modified on 6/14/2010 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2010)
518 STIPULATION and Request for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs Response to Supplemental Briefing of Defendants in Opposition to Plaintiffs Fee Motion; [Proposed] Order by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 6/14/2010) Modified on 6/15/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/2010)
519 Declaration of Ronald Elsberry in Support of 518 Stipulation and Request for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs Response to Supplemental Briefing of Defendants in Opposition to Plaintiffs Fee Motion filed byDmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 6/14/2010) Modified on 6/15/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/2010)
520 ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND re 518 Stipulation, filed by Ben Rockwell, California Department of Transportation, Dmitri Belser, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Will Kempton, California Council of the Blind. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 6/16/2010. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2010) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
521 ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT CHAMBERS COPIES re 516 Brief,, filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton, 517 Errata filed by California Department of Transportation, Will Kempton. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 6/16/2010. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2010) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
522 Reply to Supplemental Clarification of Deductions in Hours Sought in Support of Memorandum in Opposition re 460 Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 7/2/2010) Modified on 7/6/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/6/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2010)
523 Supplemental Declaration of Laurence W. Paradis in Support re 522 Reply to Supplemental Clarification of Deductions in Hours Sought filed by Dmitri Belser, California Council of the Blind, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., Ben Rockwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 7/2/2010) Modified on 7/6/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/02/2010)
524 CLERKS NOTICE to Counsel for Withdrawal of Exhibits in Accordance with Local Rule 79−4(b). (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2010) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
***Deadlines terminated re Release of Transcript Restriction as to 514 Transcript. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2010) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
525 CLERKS NOTICE of Disposal of Plaintiffs Trial Exhbits in accordance with LR 79−4(c). (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2010) (Entered: 08/31/2010)

 
 LAURENCE PARADIS (SBN 122336)

RONALD BEALS (SBN 53131)

MARY-LEE E. KIMBER (SBN 239086) 2 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

DAVID GOSSAGE (SBN 83522) G. MICHAEL HARRINGTON

2001 Center St., Third Floor 3 Berkeley, CA 94704

(SBN 124677) 595 Market Street, Suite 1700

4 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

San Francisco, CA 94105 Mail: P.O. Box 7444

5 TTY: Email:

(510) 665-8716 generadra lega I .org

San Francisco, CA 94120-7444 Telephone: (415) 904-5700

6

DANIEL B. KOHRMAN (DC BAR NO. 394064)

7 JULIE NEPVEU (DC BAR NO. 458305)

AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION

8 601 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20049

9 Telephone: (202) 434-2060

Facsimile: (202) 434-6424

10 Cell:

(202) 316-1991

Email:

clkohrinanicLaarp.org ,

11

ne

Facsimile: (415) 904-2333
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP GREGORY F. HURLEY (SBN 126791) MICHAEL J. CHILLEEN (SBN 210704) ALANA R. CHO (SBN 254730) 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 732-6500 Fascimilie: (949) 732-6501

12 JOSE R. ALLEN (SBN 122742) Pro Bono Counsel
13 Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94111
14 Telephone: (415) 984-6400 Facsimile: (415) 984-2698
15

Email: hurleyg@gtlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18

CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY 19 RIGHTS, INC. ("CDR"), CALIFORNIA

Case No. C-06-5125 SBA

20

COUNCIL OF THE BLIND ("CCB"), BEN ROCKWELL and DMITRI BELSER, on

21 behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated

22 Plaintiffs,
23 v.
24 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
25 TRANSPORTATION ("Caltrans") and WILL KEMPTON, in his official capacity.
26

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Judge: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong

Defendants. 27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement

1

This Settlement Agreement is made and entered by and among Plaintiffs Californians for

2 Disability Rights, Inc. ("CDR"), California Council of the Blind ("CCB"), Ben Rockwell and

3 Dmitri Belser, on behalf of themselves and each of the Plaintiff Settlement Class Members, and

4 Defendants California Department of Transportation and the Department's Director in his

5 official capacity.

6

1. DEFINITIONS.

7

Except to the extent expressly stated to the contrary, any term not expressly defined in

8 this Section or elsewhere in this Settlement Agreement shall have the meaning ascribed to it, if

9 any, by Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects (DIB 82), Federal Access

10 Laws or California Access Laws, in that order of preference. All other terms shall be interpreted

11 according to their plain and ordinary meaning. The following terms have the stated meanings

12 when used in this Settlement Agreement:

13

1.1. "Access Consultant" means and refers to the consultant hired pursuant to Exhibit

14 2 of this Settlement Agreement.

15

1.2. "Access Request(s)" means and refers to requests, comments, inquiries, as well as

16 formal accessibility grievances (as reflected in Exhibit 5) from individuals, organizations, public

17 agencies, cities, and/or local government entities conveyed to Caltrans (as set forth in Exhibits 1

18 and 5) that relate to access for pedestrians with Mobility and/or Vision Disabilities to Pedestrian

19 Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities.

20

1.3. "Accessibility Guidelines" means and refers in the broadest sense to federal and

21 California state standards and guidelines relevant to Pedestrian Facilities and/or Park and Ride

22 Facilities (including but not limited to ADAAG, PROWAG and Title 24). However, for the

23 purposes of this Settlement Agreement, Accessibility Guidelines means and refers to DIB 82

24 (See Exhibit 3A).

25

1.4. "ADAAG" means and refers to federal guidelines used to enforce design

26 requirements of the ADA, that were developed by the U.S. Access Board, and that were adopted

27 pursuant to regulations of the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"). ADAAG guidelines

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
1

1 currently are found in Appendix A of the DOJ Title III Regulations for the ADA and are

2 referenced in the DOJ's Title II Regulations, Section 35.151(c) of Title 28 of the Code of Federal

3 Regulations.

4

1.5. "ADA" means and refers to the statutory provisions contained in the Americans

5 with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.).

6

1.6. "Alterations" means and refers to that term as used in DIB 82 Section 4.1.2 (See

7 Exhibit 3A).

8

1.7. "Altered Facility" means and refers to any Pedestrian Facility and/or any Park and

9 Ride Facility that will have or has had Alterations.

10

1.8. "Annual Commitment," "Annual Commitment for Program Access

11 Improvements" or "ACPAI" means and refers to the Defendants' commitment to allocate

12 funding annually for the duration of the Compliance Period. "Annual Commitment for Program

13 Access Improvements" is defined in greater detail in Exhibit 1 to this Settlement Agreement.

14

1.9. "Annual Report" shall have the meaning set forth in Exhibit 2 to this Settlement

15 Agreement.

16

1.10. "APS" means and refers to accessible pedestrian signals.

17

1.11. "Caltrans" and "the Department" mean and refer to the State of California

18 Department of Transportation, including all district level offices, all of its officers, directors,

19 employees, and agents, and any state-wide agency or department that may hereafter assume the

20 authorities and responsibilities currently held by Caltrans, and any of them.

21

1.12. "CAPM Work" or "CAPM Projects" means and refers to projects performed

22 through Caltrans' Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) Program, as part of the State

23 Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). CAPM projects are performed to

24 preserve the existing pavement structure utilizing strategies that preserve or extend pavement

25 life. These terms also shall mean and refer to any successor program with a substantially similar

26 purpose.

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
2

1

1.13. "California Access Laws" means and refers to the Unruh Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51

2 et seq.), the Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq.), California Government Code

3 Sections 4450 et seq. and 11135 et seq., California Health and Safety Code Section 19953,

4 California Civil Code Section 526a, and California Code of Regulations Title 24.

5

1.14. "Caltrans' Jurisdiction" means and refers to Pedestrian Facilities and/or Park and

6 Ride Facilities owned and controlled by Caltrans, either in part or in full.

7

1.15. "Complaint(s)" mean and refer to the complaint(s) filed by Plaintiffs in the

8 Federal Action, the amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs in the Federal Action, the complaint

9 filed by Plaintiffs in the State Action, and/or the amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs in the

10 State Action.

11

1.16. "Compliance Period" means and refers to the period of time for which this

12 Settlement Agreement will be in effect. The Parties agree that the Settlement Agreement shall

13 become effective upon Final Approval, and remain in effect for the duration of the thirty (30)

14 year Annual Commitment.

15

1.17. "Compliance Evaluation Period" means and refers to the seven year period

16 following Final Approval in which compliance by the Defendants will be evaluated by the

17 Access Consultant. (See Exhibit 2).

18

1.18. "Curb Ramp" means and refers to the sloped transition where a Pedestrian

19 Facility crosses a curb.

20

1.19. "Defendant(s)" shall mean and refer to Caltrans, and the Department's Director

21 (formerly Will Kempton, succeeded by Randell Iwasaki) in his capacity as Director of Caltrans,

22 or his successor(s), or either of them.

23

1.20. "Detectable Warnings" means and refers to a standardized walking surface to

24 warn pedestrians with Vision Disabilities of hazards in the path of travel including but not

25 limited to Vehicular Ways. Compliant designs include those referenced in DIB 82.

26

1.21. "DIB 82" means and refers to the Caltrans' Design Information Bulletin attached

27 hereto as Exhibit 3A which synthesizes and reflects the most stringent federal and state

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
3

standards and guidelines and best practices, and which is currently entitled "Pedestrian

2 Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects" (current version designated 82-03) and

3 subsequent revisions thereto. As such federal and state standards, guidelines and best practices

4 evolve, DIB 82 will be revised to synthesize and reflect the design standards current at the time

5 of publication.

6

1.22. "Dispute" means and refers to each and every dispute that arises out of this

7 Settlement Agreement, any interpretation thereof, any asserted breach thereof, and/or the claims

8 released in this Settlement Agreement.

9

1.23. "Effective Date" means and refers to the date on which the Court grants Final

10 Approval of this Settlement Agreement.

11

1.24. "Existing Pedestrian Facilities" and/or "Existing Park and Ride Facilities," mean

12 and refer to Pedestrian Facilities and/or Park and Ride Facilities in existence on the Effective

13 Date.

14

1.25. "Fairness Hearing" means and refers to the hearing to be held by the Court,

15 pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to determine whether the

16 settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate.

17

1.26. "Federal Access Laws" means and refers to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

18 of 1973 and its implementing regulations and Title 11 of the ADA and its implementing

19 regulations.

20

1.27. "Federal Action" means and refers to the action between Plaintiffs and

21 Defendants filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California entitled

22 Californians for Disabilities Rights, Inc. et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al.,

23 Case No. C-06-5125 SBA (Armstrong, J.).

24

1.28. "Federal Court" or "Court" means and refers to the United States District Court in

25 which Plaintiffs filed their class action Complaint against Defendants in the Federal Action.

26

1.29. "Final Approval" means and refers to the Order by the Federal Court, after notice

27 and the holding of a Fairness Hearing, granting final approval of this Settlement Agreement.

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
4

1.30. "Litigation" means and refers to the Federal Action and the State Action.

2

1.31. "Mobility Disability" or "Mobility Disabilities" means and refers to any

3 impairment or condition that limits a person's ability to move his or her body or portion of his or

4 her body including, but not limited to, a person's ability to walk, ambulate, maneuver around

5 objects, and ascend or descend steps or slopes. A person with a Mobility Disability may or may

6 not use a wheelchair, scooter, Electric Personal Assisted Mobility Device, crutches, walker, cane,

7 brace, orthopedic device, Functional Electrical Stimulation, or similar equipment or device to

8 assist his or her navigation along sidewalks, or may be semi-ambulatory.

9

1.32. "New Construction" or "Newly Constructed" means and refers to any Pedestrian

10 Facility and/or any Park and Ride Facility newly constructed after the Effective Date.

11

1.33. "Order" means and refers to the Federal Court's Order issuing Final Approval of

12 this Settlement Agreement.

13

1.34. "Parties" or "Party" means and refers to Plaintiffs, members of the Plaintiff

14 Settlement Class, and Defendants or either of them.

15

1.35. "Park and Ride Facility" or "Park and Ride Facilities" means and refers to those

16 portions of buildings, structures, improvements, elements and routes intended for use by

17 members of the public contained in Park and Rides under Caltrans' Jurisdiction.

18

1.36. "Pedestrian Facility" or "Pedestrian Facilities" means and refers to any paved

19 walkways under Caltrans' Jurisdiction that Caltrans intends for use by members of the public,

20 including but not limited to outdoor pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian

21 undercrossings and/or pedestrian overcrossings.

22

1.37. "Plaintiff(s)" means and refers to CDR, CCB, Ben Rockwell, and/or Dmitri

23 Belser, and/or any or all of their agent(s).

24

1.38. "Plaintiff Settlement Class" or "Plaintiff Settlement Class Member(s)" means and

25 refers to all persons with Mobility and/or Vision Disabilities who currently or in the future will

26 use or attempt to use any Pedestrian Facility or Park and Ride Facility under Caltrans'

27 Jurisdiction.

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
5

1.39. "Plaintiffs' Attorneys" means and refers to the law firms of: Disability Rights Advocates, including Laurence W. Paradis, Esq., Mary-Lee E. Kimber, Esq, and all other members, partners, employees and associates thereof; AARP Foundation Litigation, including Daniel B. Kohrman, Esq., Julie Nepveu, Esq., and all other employees and associates thereof; and Jose Allen, Esq. Plaintiffs' Attorneys represent Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Settlement Class in both the Federal Action and in the State Action.
1.40. "Preliminary Approval" means and refers to the preliminary approval, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 7, by the Federal Court of the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
1.41. "Program Access" means and refers to applicable Federal Access Laws and California Access Laws directing a public entity and/or a state agency to operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities except, for the purposes of this Settlement Agreement, as related to APS.
1.42. "Program Access Improvements" means and refers to Program Access work performed by or on behalf of Defendants necessary to bring Pedestrian Facilities and/or Park and Ride Facilities into compliance with Accessibility Guidelines including but not limited to (i) installation of Curb Ramps where such ramps are missing; (ii) upgrades to existing Curb Ramps; (iii) repair of broken and/or uneven pavement on a Pedestrian Facility; (iv) correction of noncompliant cross-slopes along Pedestrian Facilities; (v) removal of protruding and overhanging objects and/or obstructions that narrow the Pedestrian Facility; and/or (vi) widening of Pedestrian Facilities.
1.43. "Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines" or "PROWAG" means and refers to guidelines which are in the process of being developed by the U.S. Access Board to provide accessibility guidance specific to facilities within pedestrian rights of way. The guidelines, currently in draft form, can be found on the World Wide Web at: http://www.accessboard.gov/rowdraft.htm.
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
6

1

1.44. "Released Claims" means and refers to those claims released pursuant to this

2 Settlement Agreement as set forth herein.

3

1.45. "Settlement Agreement" means and refers to this Settlement Agreement re: Class

4 Action Settlement and all Exhibits hereto.

5

1.46. "State Action" means and refers to the action between Plaintiffs and Defendants

6 filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, entitled Californians for Disability

7 Rights, Inc., et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al., Case No. RG08376549

8 (Superior Court, Alameda County) (Dept. 20, Freedman, J.).

9

1.47. "State Court" means and refers to the State of California Court in which Plaintiffs

10 filed their class action complaint against Defendants in the State Action.

11

1.48. "Temporary Routes" means and refers to pedestrian walkways provided around or

12 through areas known as "Work Zones" when the permanent route is obstructed for any period of

13 time.

14

1.49. "Title 24" means and refers to California Code of Regulations Title 24 (California

15 Building Standards Code).

16

1.50. "Vision Disability" or "Vision Disabilities" means and refers to any impairment

17 or condition that limits a person's ability to see. A person with a Vision Disability may be blind,

18 legally blind, or may have low vision. A person with a Vision Disability may or may not use a

19 cane, a service animal, or other assistive device to aid in navigation along sidewalks.

20

1.51. "Work Zones" means and refers to areas of work that obstruct or close a

21 Pedestrian Facility.

22

2. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY.

23

On August 23, 2006, Plaintiffs brought the Federal Action in the United States Court for

24 the Northern District of California entitled Californians for Disabilities Rights, Inc. et al. v.

25 California Department of Transportation, et al., Case No. C-06-5125 SBA, on behalf of

26 themselves and all others similarly situated. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and all others

27 similarly situated have been discriminated against and denied full and equal access to Pedestrian

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
7

1 Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities due to access impediments throughout the State of

2 California in violation of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

3 (29 U.S.C. § 793), the California Disabled Persons Act (California Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.), the

4 Unruh Act (California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.), and California Government Code §§ 4450, et

5 seq. and 11135, et seq. On September 20, 2007, Defendants asserted sovereign immunity,

6 thereby precluding the state law claims from being resolved in the Federal Court.

7

On March 13, 2008, the Federal Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs' claims

8 arising under state law and granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, thereby certifying

9 the Federal Action as a class action. The class certified consists of "all persons with mobility

10 and/or vision disabilities who are allegedly being denied access under Title II of the Americans

11 with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 due to barriers along sidewalks,

12 crosswalks, pedestrian underpasses, pedestrian overpasses and any other outdoor designated

13 pedestrian walkways throughout the State of California which are owned and/or maintained by

14 the California Department of Transportation." On the same day, Plaintiffs filed the State Action

15 against the same Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, entitled

16 Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al.,

17 Case No. RG08376549, reasserting their claims arising under state law.

18

On March 24, 2009, in the Federal Action, the Parties cross-moved for judgment on the

19 pleadings and for partial summary judgment concerning Defendants' obligations relating to

20 Temporary Routes when Pedestrian Facilities are blocked by construction. The Federal Court

21 held that Defendants are not required to provide Temporary Routes, but when they elect to do so,

22 they are obligated to make such Temporary Routes accessible. The Federal Court also held that

23 Defendants are not required to strictly follow ADAAG in the design and/or construction of

24 Temporary Routes.

25

Trial of the Federal Action began on September 16, 2009, before the Honorable Saundra

26 Brown Armstrong, United States District Court Judge. Before the start of trial and during the

27 pendency of the trial the Parties engaged in multiple mediation sessions before the Honorable

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
8

1 (Ret.) Edward Panelli, the Honorable John M. True of the Superior Court of California for the

2 County of Alameda, and Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte of the United States District Court

3 for the Northern District of California. The terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement is the

4 product of arm's length negotiations between the Parties supervised by Magistrate Judge

5 Elizabeth Laporte.

6

3. NATURE AND EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT.

7

3.1. No Admission.

8

In entering into this Settlement Agreement, Defendants do not admit any

9 wrongdoing or liability to Plaintiffs, or any entitlement by Plaintiffs to any relief under any claim

10 upon which relief is sought in any of their Complaints or any other matter. Nor do Defendants

11 admit that Plaintiffs have met or can meet the legal standards for a preliminary or permanent

12 injunction or a declaratory judgment to issue. Moreover, inclusion of obligations or

13 requirements in this Settlement Agreement shall not be construed as a concession or admission

14 by Defendants, nor shall it be construed as a finding or determination by the Court that, absent

15 this Settlement Agreement, Defendants would otherwise have such obligations or requirements.

16 Any references in this Settlement Agreement to policies and/or procedures to be enforced by

17 Defendants shall not be construed as implying any admission that Defendants have failed to

18 abide by any of these policies or procedures in the past. To the contrary, Defendants assert that

19 they are, and have been, in full compliance with both Federal Access Laws and California

20 Access Laws.

21

3.2. Settlement Purpose and Scope.

22

To avoid the cost, expense, and uncertainty of protracted litigation, Plaintiffs and

23 Defendants agree to enter into this Settlement Agreement; that it shall be binding upon

24 Defendants and upon Plaintiffs and all Plaintiff Settlement Class Members. This Settlement

25 Agreement shall extinguish all Released Claims and constitutes the final and complete resolution

26 of all issues addressed herein. The purpose of this Section is to prevent relitigation of any issues

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
9

settled herein. The res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines apply to all named Plaintiffs and all Plaintiff Settlement Class Members.
4. PROCEDURE. 4.1. Court Approval. This Settlement Agreement shall be subject to Court approval. However, nothing
in this Settlement Agreement shall be deemed to authorize the Court to change or vary any of its terms.
4.2. Preliminary Approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement. Within 30 days of the execution of this Settlement Agreement by all Parties, the Parties will jointly move for Preliminary Approval of this Settlement Agreement in the Federal Action, along with a request for an order preliminarily approving this Settlement Agreement, conditionally approving a Plaintiff Settlement Class as defined above, directing notice to the Plaintiff Settlement Class Members and setting forth procedures and deadlines for comments and objections, including scheduling a Fairness Hearing. (See Exhibit 7, Preliminary Approval by Federal Court of Settlement Agreement.) 4.3. Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Within ten days of the date that this Settlement Agreement is filed in the Court for Preliminary Approval, Defendants will provide the notice of this Settlement Agreement as required by the CAFA (28 U.S.C.A. § 1715(b)) to the U.S. Attorney General, the California Governor's Office, the California Attorney General's Office, and the California Division of State Architect. 4.4. Notice to Plaintiff Settlement Class Members. The Parties jointly recommend to the Court that the notice to the Plaintiff Settlement Class be provided as follows: within 30 days after Preliminary Approval, the Parties shall distribute notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement as set forth in the Court's "Preliminary Approval by Federal Court of Settlement Agreement" advising the Plaintiff
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
10

1 Settlement Class of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement and their right to object to

2 the proposed Settlement Agreement. This notice shall be published as follows:

3

4.4.1. Defendants shall pay for publication in newspapers listed herein of

4 a notice of class settlement. This notice will include: A brief statement of the claims released by

5 the class; the date of the hearing on the final approval of the proposed class Settlement

6 Agreement; the deadline for submitting objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement; the

7 web page, address, and phone and fax numbers that may be used to obtain a copy of the NOTICE

8 OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT (attached as Exhibit 8) in the

9 format and language requested. Publication in these newspapers will be every other day for a

10 period of thirty (30) days, no larger than one eighth page, in the legal notice section of the

11 following papers of general circulation: The Los Angeles Times, The San Diego Union Tribune,

12 The San Francisco Chronicle, The Sacramento Bee, The Riverside Press, and The Oakland

13 Tribune. The notice published in the newspapers will contain a statement in Spanish of the web

14 page, e mail address, and phone numbers that may be used to obtain a copy of the NOTICE OF

15 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT in Spanish and alternative

16 accessible formats.

17

4.4.2. Plaintiffs' Attorneys and Defendants' attorneys shall provide the

18 NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT in the manner,

19 format and language requested by any class member, advocacy group, government, or their

20 counsel. Copies of the NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

21 LAWSUIT shall be provided without charge for copying or mailing.

22

4.4.3. Defendants shall establish a web site where a copy of the NOTICE

23 OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT will be available in English

24 and Spanish and in a format that can be recognized and read by software commonly used by the

25 individuals with visual impairments to read web pages. Defendants shall post on the Caltrans

26 website a link to the web site where a copy of the NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF

27 CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT will be available.

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
11

4.4.4. A copy of the NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT shall be mailed to the U.S. Attorney General, to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice, and to the Attorney General for the State of California with a request that each office include a description of the settlement in their publications and post a description of the same on their web pages.
Plaintiff Settlement Class Members shall have an opportunity to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement but may not opt-out.
4.5. Additional Steps. The Parties shall take all procedural steps regarding the Fairness Hearing that may be requested by the Court and shall otherwise use their respective best efforts to consummate this settlement and to obtain approval of this Settlement Agreement and Entry of the Judgment, Final Order and Decree attached hereto as Exhibit 9, and dismissal with prejudice of the Complaints subject to the retention of jurisdiction set forth in Section 4.7. 4.6. Fairness Hearing. The Parties shall jointly request that the Court schedule and conduct a Fairness Hearing to address the fairness of this final settlement of the claims of the Plaintiff Settlement Class against Defendants and to decide whether there shall be Final Approval of the settlement embodied in this Settlement Agreement. At the Fairness Hearing, the Parties shall jointly move for and recommend certification of the Plaintiff Settlement Class and Final Approval of this Settlement Agreement and entry of an Order in substantially the form as attached hereto as Exhibit 9. The Fairness Hearing shall take place at dates allowing for such period of notice to the Plaintiff Settlement Class as the Court may direct. 4.7. Dismissal of the State Action and of the Federal Action.
4.7.1. Upon the Federal Court's Preliminary Approval of this Settlement Agreement and the setting of a date for the Fairness Hearing, Plaintiffs' Attorneys shall request that the State Action be dismissed with prejudice conditional upon the Federal Court's Final Approval of the settlement embodied in this Settlement Agreement at the Fairness Hearing.
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
12

1 Defendants cannot proceed with the Fairness Hearing in Federal Court until the State Court has

2 granted conditional approval of the dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the State Court

3 Action.

4

4.7.2. Upon Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, the Court shall enter

5 final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing the Federal

6 Action with prejudice subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction to resolve any Dispute regarding

7 compliance with this Agreement that cannot be resolved through the meet and confer process

8 detailed herein and to resolve any motion for attorneys fees and costs, as described in detail in

9 Exhibit 6 hereto. The proposed Judgment, Final Order and Decree is attached hereto as Exhibit

10 9.

11

4.8. Duration of the Settlement Agreement.

12

The Settlement Agreement shall be in effect for the duration of the Compliance Period.

13

5. SETTLEMENT RELIEF.

14

The Parties to this Settlement Agreement will request, as part of the settlement approval

15 process, that the Federal Court issue the proposed Judgment, Final Order and Decree attached as

16 Exhibit 9 adopting the substantive terms of the Settlement Agreement as an order of the Court.

17

5.1. Substantive Settlement Terms.

18

5.1.1. Exhibit 1 hereto constitutes the final resolution of all issues relating to

19 Defendants' Annual Commitment for Program Access Improvements. The Parties shall

20 implement and comply with the terms set forth in Exhibit 1.

21

5.1.2. Exhibit 2 hereto constitutes the final resolution of all issues relating to

22 Defendants' reporting obligations on compliance with this Settlement Agreement and the terms

23 relating to the Access Consultant to be engaged by Defendants. The Parties shall implement and

24 comply with the terms set forth in Exhibit 2.

25

5.1.3. Exhibits 3 and 3A hereto constitute the final and complete resolution of

26 issues pertaining to New Construction and Alterations, including Pedestrian Accessibility 27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
13

1 Guidelines for Highway Projects. The Parties shall implement and comply with the terms set

2 forth in Exhibit 3.

3

5.1.4. Exhibit 4 hereto constitutes the final resolution of all issues relating to

4 access through and around Work Zones. The Parties shall implement and comply with the terms
5 set forth in Exhibit 4.
6 5.1.5. Exhibit 5 hereto constitutes the final and complete resolution of all issues
7
8 relating to grievance procedures. The Parties shall implement and comply with the terms set

9 forth in Exhibit 5.

10

5.1.6. Exhibit 6 hereto and Section 5.5 below constitute the final resolution of

11 all issues relating to Plaintiffs' Attorneys fees and costs and the payment thereof by Defendants.

12 The Parties shall implement and comply with the terms set forth in Exhibit 6.

13

5.2. Other Matters.

14

5.2.1. State Court Claims

15

Conditioned upon the Federal Court granting Final Approval of this Settlement

16 Agreement, and the State Court's conditional dismissal of all claims, the Parties hereby stipulate

17 and agree that Defendants consent to the Federal Court exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs'

18 state law claims for purposes of the Parties' Settlement Agreement. Defendants will not, after

19 Final Approval, assert that the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the

20 Settlement Agreement or raise any jurisdictional defense to any such enforcement proceedings.

21

5.2.2. Dispute Resolution

22

5.2.2.1.

Meet and Confer Obligation

23

The Parties shall negotiate in good faith to resolve any .Dispute and agree

24 to strict compliance with the following procedures for dispute resolution. In the event that a

25 Dispute arises between any of the Defendants and any named Plaintiff or Plaintiff Settlement

26 Class Member, the person(s), Party or Parties asserting the Dispute or the person(s), Party's or

27 Parties' designee(s), shall notify counsel for the other person(s), Party or Parties to the Dispute,

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
14

1 as set forth below in Section 5.2.2.2 before seeking judicial resolution of the Dispute.

2 Notification shall be in writing as set forth below in Section 5.2.3.2 and shall be accomplished by

3 mail, facsimile or hand delivery.

4

5.2.2.2.

Mandatory Dispute Resolution Procedures

5

The Party or Parties asserting the Dispute shall provide the other Party or

6 Parties with a detailed statement of the Dispute (hereafter "Statement of Non-compliance") to

7 allow the Parties to attempt to resolve the Dispute. That statement will at a minimum include:

8

a) A description of the term(s) of this Settlement Agreement in dispute and

9 the corresponding section number(s) of this Settlement Agreement;

10

b) Where applicable to the claim, a description of all locations, features,

11 policies, practices and/or conditions at issue in the Dispute, the dates on which any particular

12 locations, features, policies, practices and/or conditions allegedly were in violation of the term(s)

13 of this Settlement Agreement, and the dates that the Party or Parties encountered and/or learned

14 of such locations, features, policies, practices and/or conditions, along with any photos, videos,

15 and diagrams relevant to such locations, features, policies, practices and/or conditions available

16 to the Party or Parties.

17

c) Where applicable to the claim, a detailed statement of how each

18 location, feature, policy, practice and/or condition is in violation of the term(s) of this Settlement

19 Agreement.

20

d) Where applicable to the claim, the specific relief sought by the Party or

21 Parties. For each location or feature, a statement of the change(s) that the Party or Parties

22 demand, or if change to policy, practice or condition is sought the specific policy, practice or

23 condition that the Party or Parties seek to be modified or rectified.

24

e) Within 30 days of receipt of a Statement of Non-compliance with the

25 terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the

26 Dispute. If the parties agree that the disputed matter requires action to bring the responding

27 party into compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the responding party shall be

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
15

given a reasonable opportunity and sufficient time to cure the defect in its performance of the

Settlement Agreement obligations.

5.2.2.3.

Enforcement Proceedings

If the Parties cannot resolve the Dispute within 90 days of the date of the service

of the Statement of Non-compliance as described above, then the Party or Parties asserting the

Dispute may bring a motion in the Federal Court seeking to enforce the terms of the Settlement

Agreement. The Parties agree that any and all such enforcement proceedings will be limited to

the location(s), feature(s), polic(y/ies), practice(s), and/or conditions detailed in the required

Statement of Non-compliance which led to the enforcement proceeding and the relief sought will

be limited to the relief detailed in that statement. A copy of the Statement of Non-compliance

will be submitted with any motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

5.2.3. Construction of Settlement Agreement

5.2.3.1.

Entire Agreement

This Settlement Agreement, when granted Final Approval, expresses and

constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior agreements,

negotiations and discussions between the Parties and/or their respective counsel with respect to

the subject matter of the Federal Action, the State Action, and/or this Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement, when granted Final Approval, supersedes any prior or

contemporaneous oral or written agreement or understanding between and among the Parties

and/or counsel for the Parties regarding the subject matter of the Federal Action, the State

Action, and/or this Settlement Agreement.

5.2.3.2.

Notice to Parties

Wherever in this Settlement Agreement, Defendants are required to

provide notice, copies, or other documents or materials to Plaintiffs' Attorneys, it shall be

sufficient for Defendants to provide such solely to: Laurence W. Paradis, Disability Rights

Advocates (or to a successor designated by either Laurence W. Paradis or the Executive Director

of Disability Rights Advocates in a writing delivered to Defendants), at 2001 Center Street,

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
16

1 Fourth Floor, Berkeley, California 94704-1204, Fax: (510) 665-8511. A copy in accessible

2 format, such as Microsoft Word, shall also be delivered to: California Council of the Blind, 1510

3 J. Street, Suite 125, Sacramento, CA 95814, Attn: CCB President.

4

Wherever in this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' Attorneys are required

5 to provide notice, copies, or other documents or materials to Defendants, it shall be sufficient for

6 Plaintiffs' Attorneys to deliver such items to: Randell Iwasaki, Director of Transportation, 1120

7 N Street, Sacramento, California, 94274 (or to a successor or designee identified by the Director

8 of Transportation in a writing delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel). A copy shall also be delivered

9 to: Ronald Beals, Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation Legal Division, 1120 N Street,

10 Sacramento, California, 94274; Fax: (916) 654-6128, (or to a successor designated by

11 Defendants, in a writing delivered to Plaintiffs' Attorneys).

12

5.3. Effect of Final Approval Order.

13

This Settlement Agreement, when granted Final Approval, shall be binding upon

14 Defendants and upon Plaintiffs, including the named Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff Settlement Class and

15 all Plaintiff Settlement Class Members and, to the extent specifically set forth in this Order, upon

16 Plaintiffs' Attorneys; it shall extinguish all Released Claims and it shall constitute the final and

17 complete resolution of all issues addressed herein. This Settlement Agreement is the complete

18 and final disposition and settlement of any and all Released Claims, as detailed in Section 5.4

19 below.

20

5.4. Released and Unreleased Claims.

21

5.4.1. Released Claims

22

Conditioned upon and subject to (a) the Court granting Final Approval of this

23 Settlement Agreement, (b) Section 5.4.2 below, and (c) Defendants' compliance with the terms

24 of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Settlement Class release Defendants

25 during the Compliance Period from any and all injunctive and/or declaratory relief claims,

26 known or unknown, relating to the subject matter of the Litigation that are alleged or that could

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
17

1 have been alleged in the Litigation that any Plaintiff Settlement Class Member had, has, or will

2 have against Defendants, except as set forth in Section 5.4.2 below.

3

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Settlement Class and agree that, except as

4 set forth in Section 5.4.2 below, by complying with the terms of this Settlement Agreement,

5 Defendants shall have no obligation to do more to comply with Federal Access Laws and/or

6 California Access Laws relating to the subject matter of the Litigation and that Defendants'

7 compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement shall constitute a full and complete

8 defense to any claim for injunctive or declaratory relief asserting that Defendants have failed to

9 comply with any and all federal and state laws, statutes, rules, regulations (including without

10 limitation the self-evaluation and transition plan regulations [28 C.F.R. §§ 35.105 & 35.150(d)]

11 and the access coordinator and grievance procedure regulation [28 C.F.R. § 35.107]), standards

12 and guidelines raised in any or all of the Complaints relating to the subject matter of the

13 Litigation.

14

Except as set forth in Section 5.4.2 below, the Released Claims include all claims

15 for injunctive or declaratory relief relating to Existing, Newly Constructed and Altered

16 Pedestrian Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities, including access to Work Zones, brought

17 under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 793), any regulations promulgated

18 under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, the Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq.),

19 the Unruh Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.), California Government Code Sections 4450 et seq.

20 and 11135 et seq., California Health and Safety Code Section 19953, California Civil Code

21 Section 526a, and the regulations codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the

22 self-evaluation and the transition plan regulations (28 C.F.R. §§ 35.105 & 150(d) and claims

23 related to Program Access.

24

This release applies to declaratory and injunctive relief claims brought either

25 separately (as a claim for just injunctive and/or declaratory relief) or in conjunction with a claim

26 for damages. No further injunctive and declaratory requirements concerning the Released

27 Claims may be imposed on the Department beyond the terms of the Settlement Agreement

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
18

through any later actions brought by any class member. The purpose of this section is to prevent

2 relitigation of the injunctive and declaratory relief issues settled herein.

3

The res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines apply to all named Plaintiffs and

4 all Plaintiff Settlement Class Members. The final entry of the Court's Order approving this

5 Settlement Agreement is a fully binding judgment for purposes of res judicata and collateral

6 estoppel upon all Plaintiff Class Members.

7

5.4.2. Unreleased Claims

8

Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be interpreted as a release of any

9 claims for damages or of any claims of any type concerning APS. Defendants represent that they

10 are not aware of any access lawsuits filed seeking injunctive or declaratory relief for any

11 particular Pedestrian Facilities or Park and Ride Facilities.

12

5.5. Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees and Costs.

13

As noted above in Section 5.1.6, the final resolution of the issue of Plaintiffs' Attorneys

14 fees and costs in this Litigation and the payment thereof by Defendants is contained in Exhibit 6

15 hereto. Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' Attorneys will not seek or recover additional attorneys fees or

16 costs from Defendants in the Federal Action and/or the State Action for work undertaken

17 pursuant to Sections 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2 of this Settlement Agreement. Except as specifically

18 provided therein, no other Plaintiffs' Attorneys fees, expenses, or costs may be recovered in the

19 Federal Action and/or in the State Action and/or for evaluating, monitoring, or enforcing

20 Defendants' compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

21

5.6. Execution by Facsimile and in Counterparts.

22

This Agreement may be executed by the Parties hereto by facsimile and in separate

23 counterparts, and all such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the

24 same agreement.

25

26

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
19

21 Dec 2UU9 12:53PM HP LASERJET FAX

826 8 5 5 83 1

p . 1

1 PLAINTIFFS
2 Plaintiff CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC. ("CDR")
3

4

By:

Name and Title:

5

A.--nA

i2,re e-s 724. 1-1.-7

6 Plaintiff CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND ("CCB")

7

By:

8

Name and Title:

9 Plaintiff BEN ROCKWELL
10

11

12 Plaintiff DMITRI BELSER
13

14

15 Approved as to form and content by Plaintiffs' Attorneys
16 on behalf of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Settlement Class

17

18

Laurence W, Paradis, Esq.

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

19

20

Daniel Kohrman, Esq.

21

Julie Nepveu, Esq.

AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION

22

23 Jose R. Allen, Esq.
24

25

26

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Departinenr of Transportation, Case No.: C 6 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
20

RECEIVED 12-21-'09 12:45 FROM- 6268525831

TO- DRA

P0001/0001

12/21/2009 14:25 9164412188
PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiff CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC. ("CDR") By: Name and Title:
Plaintiff CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND ("CCB") By: Name and Title:
Plaintiff BEN ROCKWELL

PAGE 01/01

Plaintiff DMITRI BELSER

Approved as to form and content by Plaintiffs' Attorneys on behalf of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Settlement Class
Laurence W. Paradis, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
Daniel Kohiman, Esq. Julie Nepveu, Esq. . AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION
Jose R. Allen, Esq.

Californians for Msability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement

20

RECEIVED 12-21-'09 13:13 FROM- 9164412188

TO- DRA

P0001/0001

UCU GI uo

UCH INIAAVVCl/

1 PLAINTIFFS

2 Plaintiff CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC. ("CDR")
3

4

By:

Name and Title:

5

6 Plaintiff CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND ("CCB")

7

By:

8

Name and Title:

9 Plaintiff BEN ROCKWELL
10

11

12 Plaintiff DMITRI BELSER
13

14

15 Approved as to form and content by Plaintiffs' Attorneys
16 on behalf of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Settlement Class

17

18

Laurence W. Paradis, Esq.

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

19

20

Daniel Kohrman, Esq.

21

Julie Nepveu, Esq.

AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION

22

23 Jose R. Allen, Esq.
24

25

26

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125

Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement

RECEIVED 12-21-' 17:18 FROM- 5624320444

TO- DRA

P0001/0001

PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiff CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC. ("CDR") By: Name and Title:
Plaintiff CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND ("CCB") By: Name and Title:
Plaintiff BEN ROCKWELL
Plaintiff DJ,VI BELSER
Approved as to form and content by Plaintiffs' Attorneys on behalf of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Settlement Class
Laurence W. Paradis, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
Daniel Kohrman, Esq. Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION
Jose R. Allen, Esq.
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
20

1 PLAINTIFFS
2 Plaintiff CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC. ("CDR")
3

4

By:

Name and Title:

5

6 Plaintiff CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND ("CCB")

7

By:

8

Name and Title:

9 Plaintiff BEN ROCKWELL
10

11

12 Plaintiff DMITRI BELSER
13

14

15 Approved as to form and content by Plaintiffs' Attorneys
16 on behalf of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Settl„e.7 Class
17

18

Laurence W. Para s, Esq.

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

19

20

Daniel Kohrman, Esq.

21

Julie Nepveu, Esq.

AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION

22

23 Jose R. Allen, Esq.
24

25

26

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
20

1

TIFFS

Plaintiff CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC. ("CDR")

By: Name and Title:

(3 Plaintiff CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND ("CCB")

By: Name and Title:

9 Plaintiff BEN ROCKWELL
10

I I

12 Plaintiff DMITRI BELSER
13

14

15 Approved as to form and content by Plaintiffs' Attorneys
16 on behalf of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Settlement Class

17

18

Laurence W. Paradis, Esq.

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

19 N.

20

Daniel Kuhrman, Esq.

21

Julie Ncpvi,u, Esq.

AARP FOHNDATION LITIGATION

23 Jose R. Allen, Esq.

26
Li
28
Californians JOr Disability Itighis„ liw. v. CuIiJrnia Departmeiif of Transportatwu, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
20

1 PLA1

'

Plaintiff CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC. ("CDR")

By: Name and Title:

Plaintiff CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND ("CCB")

By: Mime and Title:
9 Plaintiff BEN ROCKWELL
10

11

12 Plaintiff DlviITRI BELSER
13

14

15 Approved as to form and content by Plaintiffs' Attorneys
6 on behalf of Plaintiffs and 'Plaintiffs Settlement Class

17

18

Lan.care W. Paradis, Esq.

DISABILITY RIGIITS ADVOCATES

20

Daniel Kohrman, Esq.

21

Julie Nepveu, Esq.

HARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION

22

23 Jose R. Allen, Esq.
24

")6

2$

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 16 512.

Settlemeennt

ement Re Class Action Settlement

20

DEFENDANTS
Defendants CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and WILL KEMPTON /s/
By: Randell Iwasaki, Individually as successor to WILL KEMPTON and acting in his capacity as Director of Transportation Approved as to form and content by Defendants' Attorneys on behalf of Defendants
/s/ Gregory F. Hurley, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
/s/ Ronald W. Beals, Chief Counsel CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LEGAL DIVISION
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
21

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

2 Agreement regarding Annual Commitment for Program Access Improvements

1

3 Agreement regarding Reporting and Hiring of Access Consultant

2

4

Agreement regarding Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects

3

5

Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects (Proposed DIB 82-04)

3A

6

Agreement regarding Work Zones

4

7

8 Accessibility Grievance Procedure

5

9 Agreement regarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees and Costs

6

10 Preliminary Approval by Federal Court of Settlement Agreement

7

11 Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit

8

12 Proposed Judgment, Final Order and Decree

9

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 Settlement Agreement Re Class Action Settlement
22

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 1
ANNUAL COMMITMENT FOR PROGRAM ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS The Parties agree to the following terms as a final and complete resolution of
issues pertaining to the Department’s funding for Program Access Improvements during the Compliance Period. The Department shall allocate a total of $1.1 billion during the Compliance Period for Program Access Improvements.
1. Amount of the Annual Commitment. For the five fiscal years beginning the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the Final Approval is granted, the Department shall allocate $25 million per year. Thereafter, the Department shall allocate $35 million per year for a period of ten years. Thereafter, the Department shall allocate $40 million per year for a period of ten years. Thereafter, the Department shall allocate $45 million per year for a period of five years.
2. Use of the Annual Commitment. The Department’s Annual Commitment shall be used for the following types of expenses: (1) total project development and construction costs for the covered Program Access Improvements, including support costs, (2) costs associated with any newly created staff positions needed, if any, to implement the covered Program Access Improvements; (3) costs of establishing and maintaining the new Accessibility Grievance Procedure as well as a system for processing other Access Requests; (4) costs of further surveying work as described below; and (5) the cost of retaining the Access Consultant. The costs of meeting Accessibility Guidelines in connection with New Construction or Alteration projects relating to Pedestrian Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities will be funded separately
1

when such projects are undertaken for purposes other than Program Access Improvements.
3. Allocation of Annual Commitment. For the duration of the Compliance Period, the Annual Commitment shall be allocated for Program Access Improvements. New Construction and work done pursuant to Section 4.1.3 of DIB 82 (attached as Exhibit 3A to the Settlement Agreement) shall not count towards the Annual Commitment, except as follows: For each year of the Compliance Period, no more than 25% of the Annual Commitment shall be allocated to installation of missing Curb Ramps and upgrading Curb Ramps to the extent necessary for the Curb Ramps to comply with the applicable provisions of the Accessibility Guidelines when CAPM work is performed on a Vehicular Way with adjacent Pedestrian Facilities. Annual costs in excess of the 25% commitment cap (related to installation and/or upgrade of curb ramps for CAPM projects in order to comply with DIB 82 Section 4.1.3) shall be paid from other funds.
4. Third Party Funding. To the extent that additional funding for Program Access Improvements is provided through other non-Federal sources such as third parties, alternate funding streams or other outside sources, such funding will supplement the Department’s commitment of resources. The Department will cooperate with other public entities that wish to undertake Program Access Improvements along Caltrans’ Pedestrian Facilities.
5. Pour-Over Provision. The amounts set forth are the targeted commitment of funds of the Department. If the total commitment is not met each year, the uncommitted portion of that year’s target will be utilized in subsequent years as soon as
2

practical. Excess commitments in any given year will be credited toward the target commitment in future years.
6. Project Prioritization (“Priorities”). The selection of projects for Program Access Improvements will be based on needed Program Access Improvements that have been identified by the Department through Access Requests and other means. These projects will be prioritized as follows:
A. The highest priority will go to Program Access Improvements needed to address the most severe access barriers and most significant safety hazards for class members.
B. The next level of priority will go to Program Access Improvements needed to address Pedestrian Facilities and / or Park and Ride Facilities serving:
1) State and local government offices and facilities; 2) important transportation corridors; 3) places of public accommodation such as commercial and
business zones; 4) facilities containing employers; and 5) other areas such as residential neighborhoods and
undeveloped areas of the State. 7. Access Requests. The Department will consider, in the development of its project Priorities, Access Requests as well as needs identified by the Department. Access requests may be submitted as a grievance pursuant to Exhibit 5. Alternatively, Access Requests may be conveyed, without filing a grievance, to the Department’s Statewide ADA Coordinator, the Department’s District ADA Liaisons, or the Department’s ADA Compliance Office:
• Charles Wahnon Caltrans Statewide ADA Coordinator 1823 14th Street
3

Sacramento, California 95811 Phone (916) 324-1353 or Toll Free (866) 810-6346 FAX (916) 324-1869, TTY 711
• Department District ADA Liaisons, contact information is provided on the Department’s website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/contactus.htm
• Email: ADA_Compliance_Office@dot.ca.gov

This contact information for submitting non-grievance Access Requests will be

posted to the Department’s website under the “Contact Us” link. Such non-grievance

Access Requests do not follow the procedures set forth in Exhibit 5 and may be

addressed by the Department without the subsequent input or participation of the

individual, organization or agency making the non-grievance Access Request. The

Department will explore and, if feasible, implement an online process for submitting

Access Requests.

8. Remaining Funds. To the extent there is funding left over from the

Annual Commitment after addressing projects for Program Access Improvements

discussed above (hereafter “Remaining Funds”), the Department will use the Remaining

Funds (if any) to survey Pedestrian Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities to assist in the

effort of identifying future projects for Program Access Improvements. Program Access

Improvements using the Remaining Funds will be prioritized according to the criteria

above. 9.

Other Considerations. During the development of projects, consideration

will be given to the severity of the Program Access Improvements needed and efficient

methods for delivering such projects. (For example, project scope may be expanded to

address additional severe Program Access Improvements needed nearby, even if such

improvements are not identified as a higher priority, if the Department determines that

this would be an efficient use of funds from the Annual Commitment.) The Department

may also take advantage of partnering opportunities with other public entities or other

4

third parties to maximize the used of the committed funds. The Department will make good faith efforts to follow the priority guidance set forth above. However, the Department retains ultimate discretion in the selection and timing of the projects on which the Annual Commitment funds for Program Access Improvements will be spent. This may result in the use of funds from the Annual Commitment to address lower priority Program Access Improvements before higher priority Program Access Improvements.
5

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2
REPORTING REGARDING COMPLIANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ENGAGEMENT OF ACCESS CONSULTANT
The Parties agree to the following as a final and complete resolution of issues pertaining to reporting by the Department of its compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
1. Annual Reporting By The Department A. Each year until the end of the Compliance Period, the Department
shall complete an Annual Report as described below. The reporting period will be based on the Federal Fiscal Year (“FFY”), October 1 through September 30, of each year. The first Annual Report will cover the first full FFY following the fiscal year in which the Final Approval was granted.
B. The Annual Report shall provide sufficient information to allow Plaintiffs’ Attorneys to evaluate whether the Department is in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement by including the following information:
1) A detailed summary of the Program Access Improvements funded by the Annual Commitment completed by the Department during the reporting FFY. The projects listed will include, but not be limited to:
(a) Projects pursuant to Exhibit 1, including a summary of projects selected pursuant to paragraph 6 of Exhibit 1;
(b) Projects derived from grievances received from the Accessibility Grievance Procedure described in Exhibit 5;
1

(c) CapM projects funded by the Annual Commitment. 2) A detailed summary of the allocation of Annual Commitment of funds for Program Access Improvements for the reporting FFY, including the amount of any funds that will pour over or be credited against the Annual Allocation for the subsequent FFY, if any. The Annual Commitment is described in Exhibit 1. 3) A summary of other access improvements (see Settlement Agreement, Section 1.42 for examples) relating to Pedestrian Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities not funded by the Annual Commitment completed by the Department during the reporting FFY. The projects listed will include a summary of:
(a) access improvements undertaken in conjunction with New Construction or Alterations, including 2R and 3R projects during the reporting FFY.
(b) access improvements undertaken in conjunction with CapM Projects funded by sources other than the Annual Commitment during the reporting FFY.
4) A summary of any other Pedestrian Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities Newly Constructed or Altered during the reporting FFY.
5) A summary of training and monitoring efforts undertaken during the reporting FFY to ensure that Temporary Routes, when provided through and around Work Zones, are accessible to pedestrians with disabilities.
6) Revisions to Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects (DIB 82) including copies of updated versions of written guidelines that apply statewide.
2

7) Identification of the Program Access Improvements planned for the next FFY.
8) The estimated dollar amount of funding to be allocated to Program Access Improvements planned for the future FFYs.
9) A summary of grievances received from the Accessibility Grievance Procedure described in Exhibit 5, during the reporting FFY.
10) A description of the status of the resolution of grievances received during the reporting FFY.
C. It is the intent of Paragraphs B.7 and 8 that the Department make a good faith effort to provide Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Settlement Class with advance notice of its prospective project planning and funding decisions for Program Access Improvements. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys acknowledge that prospective plans can change.
D. The Annual Report shall be provided to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Settlement Class in a manner consistent with Settlement Agreement Section 5.2.3.2 within 180 days after the end of the FFY.
2. Access Consultant A. Term. For the first seven (7) years of the Compliance Period
following Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, the Department shall retain an Access Consultant.
B. Compensation. The Department shall pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Access Consultant up to a maximum of $75,000 per year, paid out of the Annual Commitment set forth in Exhibit 1.
C. Selection Process and Hiring Authority
3

1) The Department will hire, pursuant to this Settlement Agreement and consistent with State contracting requirements, an Access Consultant with substantial experience in evaluating and/or assisting public entities in evaluating the accessibility of programs, services, activities and facilities under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The selected consultant shall be knowledgeable in current Federal and State accessibility standards and shall have a minimum of five (5) years experience in providing ADA consulting services related to highway pedestrian facilities. Candidates must be licensed in California either as an Architect and/or as a Registered Civil Engineer.
2) In consultation with Plaintiffs’ Attorneys, the Access Consultant shall be selected by the Department, consistent with State contracting requirements. The statement of duties for the Access Consultant will be based, in part, on the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
3) The Access Consultant contract will be consistent with State contracting requirements and the Access Consultant shall be directed by the Department to produce the deliverables described in Paragraph 2.D. below.
D. General Scope of Duties. The Access Consultant will report to the parties concerning the Department’s compliance with this Settlement Agreement. The activities performed by the Access Consultant shall include, and be limited to, the following:
1) Reviewing Program Access Improvements annually for compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
4

2) Consulting, as needed, with appropriate Department employees such as the contract manager and the author of the Department’s Annual Report to obtain any information concerning compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
3) Conducting field spot checks of Pedestrian Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities, as needed, to verify that (i) completed Program Access Improvements; (ii) completed New Construction or Alterations; (iii) completed CapM projects; and/or (iv) the provision of accessible Temporary Routes, when provided through and around Work Zones, are in compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
4) Reviewing a random sample of grievances and the Department’s response.
5) Providing an annual written report. The written report shall be delivered to the contract manager and to the parties in a manner consistent with the Settlement Agreement Section 5.2.3.2. within sixty (60) working days of receipt of the Department’s Annual Report. The written report shall document and analyze:
(a) The Department’s compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement; and
(b) The Department’s Annual Report.
5

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS The Parties agree to the following as a final and complete resolution of issues
pertaining to New Construction and Alterations, including Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects.
1. The Department shall revise DIB 82 to provide that CapM projects adjacent to Pedestrian Facilities must include installation of Curb Ramps where they do not exist and upgrades to Curb Ramps existing at the time the CapM work is performed to comply with Accessibility Guidelines.
2. The Department shall revise DIB 82 by adding the following sentence to the end of Section 4.2 of DIB 82: “Where vehicular lanes and shoulders are intended by the Department for pedestrian use, thus rendering them walkways, they shall be made accessible.”
3. A copy of the DIB 82 that the Parties have revised to incorporate the revisions described in the Paragraphs above, with certain additional agreed upon changes, is attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit 3A.
4. The Department shall adopt and implement the revised DIB 82, and shall notify all relevant Caltrans employees that DIB 82 is superseded.
5. The Department will ensure that the Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects are followed. The Department shall comply with the Accessibility Guidelines, as defined in Section 1.3 of the Settlement Agreement, for all New Construction or Alterations relating to Pedestrian Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities under the Department’s jurisdiction. To the extent DIB 82 does not address design
1

features that are otherwise covered by legally enforceable State or Federal access standards, the Department will comply with those standards with regard to New Construction and Alterations for Pedestrian Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities.
6. The parties recognize that FHWA, USDOJ and DSA and possibly others may require further modifications and refinements to the revised DIB 82 during a review and comment process. In addition, as federal and state standards, guidelines and best practices evolve, DIB 82 will be revised to synthesize and reflect the design standards current at the time of publication. The Department shall promptly notify plaintiffs, pursuant to Settlement Agreement Section 5.2.3.2, when changes have been made to the Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects (currently designated as DIB 82).
2

EXHIBIT 3A

DESIGN INFORMATION BULLETIN NUMBER 82-04
Department of Transportation Division of Design
Office of Geometric Design Standards
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR
HIGHWAY PROJECTS
APPROVED BY:
Original to be Signed By
________________________________ TERRY L. ABBOTT DIVISION CHIEF
DIVISION OF DESIGN
Date To Be Determined

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

Table of Contents
1.0 Background 2.0 Definitions 3.0 Procedures
3.1 Applicability and Review Process 3.2 Rail and Transit Stations
3.2.1 Filing Fees for Rail and Transit Station Projects 4.0 Design Guidance and Best Practices for Pedestrian Facilities
4.1 Pedestrian Accessibility 4.1.1 New Construction 4.1.2 Alterations 4.1.3 Accessibility Requirements on 2R, 3R, and CAPM Projects 4.1.4 Minimum Accessibility 4.1.5 Historic Preservation 4.1.6 Program Accessibility
4.2 Placement of Pedestrian Facilities 4.3 Accessibility Design Standards
4.3.1 Surface 4.3.2 Vertical Clearance 4.3.3 Clear Width 4.3.4 Grade 4.3.5 Cross Slope 4.3.6 Grates and Railroad Tracks 4.3.7 Ramps 4.3.8 Curb Ramps 4.3.9 Medians and Islands 4.3.10 Handrails 4.3.11 Warning Curb and Guardrail 4.3.12 Wheel Guides 4.3.13 Landings 4.3.14 Detectable Warning Surface
i

Page Number
1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 11 12 12 13 13 14

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

Table of Contents (Continued)
4.3.15 Grooves 4.3.16 Bus Stops 4.3.17 Parking 4.3.18 Trails 4.3.19 Protruding Objects 4.4 Shared Facilities 4.5 Alternate Standards 4.6 Temporary Traffic Control

Page Number
14 14 14 16 16 16 17 17

Attachment

Exception to Accessibility Design Standards

A-1

Tables

TABLE 4.3.7

Helical Radius Requirements

10

TABLE 4.3.8

Curb Ramp Runs for Sidewalks with 2% Cross Slopes

11

TABLE 4.3.17

Off Street Accessible Parking Space Requirements

15

ii

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

1.0 BACKGROUND
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, along with its implementing regulations, and the California Government Code Sections 4450 et seq. prescribe that facilities shall be made accessible to persons with disabilities. To comply with the ADA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has recommended that the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) shall apply to the design of the California Department of Transportation (Department) facilities. Although the current ADAAG is not specifically written for public rights-of-way projects, some of the ADAAG provisions can apply to the highway environment and are included in this Design Information Bulletin (DIB).
In addition to ADAAG, other Federal documents on designing accessible pedestrian facilities in public rights-of-way were used to develop this DIB. For example, the publication Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access is referred to several times and is available on the Internet at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/tranmemo.htm. Also, certain portions of the Draft Guidelines for Public Rights-of-Way (DGPROW) released by the US Access Board are used in this DIB.
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24) is similar to the ADAAG in that it prescribes accessibility design standards for the State of California; in Part 2, the California Building Code. The Department of General Services - Division of the State Architect (DSA) oversees California Building Code compliance; however, for transportation facilities on the State highway system, the Department (in addition to DSA) is authorized to certify, on a project-by-project basis, that a project complies with State pedestrian accessibility design standards. Rail and transit stations are the exception. Rail and transit stations are to be reviewed and require an approval from DSA that they comply with the State pedestrian accessibility code.
Please note, this DIB has been written to provide general design guidance on how to comply with the various Federal laws and State codes on pedestrian accessibility. The accessibility “requirements” typically associated with projects constructed in public rights-of-way have been presented in this DIB as “accessibility design standards” only to facilitate the creation of Departmental processes and procedures. It is not the intent of this DIB to discuss all of the various Federal laws and State codes that apply to making buildings and public facilities accessible; nor is it the intent of this DIB to diminish the importance of and the requirement to comply with those accessibility standards not specifically mentioned in this DIB and as may be required on a project-by-project basis. See Section 3.1 of this DIB for further guidance on the review process for projects.
2.0 DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases that are shown in bold text are used in this DIB and are defined as shown. As appropriate, reference documents are mentioned within the brackets to indicate the source of the definition.
Accessible Route: A continuous, unobstructed path connecting all accessible elements and spaces of a building or facility [ADAAG].
Element: An architectural or mechanical component of a building, facility, space, site, or public right-ofway [DGPROW].
Facility: All or any portion of buildings, structures, improvements, elements, and pedestrian or vehicular routes located in a public right-of-way [DGPROW].
1

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

Historic Property/Historical Resources: Under Federal law [36 CFR 800.16(l)] the term used is “Historic Property” and includes any building, structure, site, object or district that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Under State law [CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and California Public Resources Code 5020] the term used is “Historical Resources” and includes any building, structure, site, object or district that meets one of the following:
• Listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places,
• Listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources,
• Has been identified as significant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the lead agency because it meets the eligibility criteria of the California Register,
• Is listed in a local register of historical resources or has been identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the California Office of Historic Preservation’s standards.
Path or Pathway: A track or route along which people are intended to travel [Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access].
Pedestrian: A person who travels on foot or who uses assistive devices, such as a wheelchair, for mobility [Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access]. This includes a person with a disability.
Person with Disability: An individual who has a physical impairment, including impaired sensory, manual or speaking abilities, that results in a functional limitation in gaining access to and using a building or facility [California Code of Regulations Title 24].
Public Right-of-Way: Public land or property, usually in interconnected corridors, that is acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes [DGPROW].
Sidewalk: A surfaced pedestrian way contiguous to a street used by the public [California Code of Regulations Title 24]. Also, see the discussion in Section 4.3.1, “Surface” of this DIB.
State Highway: A traversable highway adopted as or designated in the Streets and Highways Code as a state highway.
Structurally Impracticable: Rare circumstances when the unique characteristics of terrain or the potential of removing or altering a load-bearing structure prevent the incorporation of accessibility features [ADAAG].
Technically Infeasible: An alteration that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility [ADAAG].
Transition Plan: The Department’s written commitment to accomplish ADA compliance in its services, programs, and activities. Modifications to the State highway infrastructure is part of the commitment.
Vehicular Way: A route intended for vehicular traffic, such as a street, driveway, or parking lot [ADAAG].
Walk or Walkway: An exterior pathway with a prepared surface intended for pedestrian use, including general pedestrian areas such as plazas and courts [ADAAG].

2

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

3.0 PROCEDURES
3.1 Applicability and Review Process
Every highway project (Capital and Maintenance; including all Encroachment Permit projects) within the State highway right-of-way, regardless of the project sponsor, that proposes to construct pedestrian facilities [See Section 4.1], must be designed in accordance with the policies and standards of this DIB. Documentation of project compliance with this DIB will be at Ready-to-List (RTL) Certification (by checking the appropriate box on Section 4c of the RTL Certification Form), or at encroachment permit issuance, whichever is applicable. If it is found that an accessibility design standard cannot be fully incorporated in a design, an accessibility design exception will be required. For an accessibility design exception to be approved, it will be necessary to document that, in the case of alterations to existing facilities, it is technically infeasible to do so because existing physical structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member which is an essential part of an existing structure; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility. For new construction, the accessibility design standard must be structurally impracticable and only in those rare circumstances when the unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of the accessibility standard. Approval of accessibility design exceptions shall occur prior to approval of the project initiation document or as soon as the recommended alternative is identified. Accessibility design exceptions shall be submitted, using the Exception to Accessibility Design Standards document format [See Attachment], to the Design Reviewer for comments and are ultimately approved by the Design Coordinator. The Division of Engineering Services – Office of Transportation Architecture (OTA) will determine the compliance with accessibility design standards related to building projects. Please note, the related site work not part of the building will be subject to the procedures in this DIB. OTA will provide ADA site design assistance for the Districts on building projects that they are responsible for designing.
3.2 Rail and Transit Stations
Approval authority for accessibility design of rail and transit stations rests with DSA and must occur by RTL or encroachment permit issuance. The appropriate filing fees [See Section 3.2.1] and a completed application form [See www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/forms/DSA-1_08-23-04.pdf] need to be transmitted to DSA along with the title sheet and pertinent project plans that show the details of the rail or transit station facilities being altered or newly constructed. DSA’s office locations are listed on their website at www. dsa.dgs.ca.gov/ContactDSA/default.htm. An Exception to Accessibility Design Standards document [See Attachment] must also be submitted as supplemental information when an exception is being requested to the accessibility design standards listed in Section 4.3 of this DIB. The DSA Regional Office will need to be contacted to discuss these details and confirm their specific requirements. Early submittal to DSA is recommended once enough design information, such as layouts, cross sections, profiles, construction details, etc. are developed and it is certain that the pedestrian facility design will not change. In the event of disagreement with the DSA Regional Office, DSA has an appeal process, which may invoke the involvement with their Headquarters DSA Office; the Headquarters Division of Design ADA Technical Specialist should be contacted immediately to assist with the negotiations and to contact the FHWA California Division Office for their assistance in resolving the issue(s). The DSA Regional Office review process is expected to take between 30 and 60 days from application submittal until receipt of their approval letter. Approval letters will be sent by DSA to the Project Engineer for incorporation into the

3

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

project history files. DSA will stamp copies of the plan sheets that have been sent to them for their use during the project review and will retain them for their records.
3.2.1 Filing Fees for Rail and Transit Station Projects
Filing fees are to be calculated according to the fee schedule as prescribed in Part 1, Title 24, Chapter 5, Article 1, Section 5-104 of the California Building Code - -
“The filing fee for project applications is 0.2 percent of the first $500,000 of estimated construction cost, plus 0.1 percent of the estimated cost between $500,000 to $2,000,000, plus 0.01 percent of the estimated cost over $2,000,000. The minimum fee in any case is $200.00.”
The DSA website provides a fee calculator to determine the filing fee. The Internet site address for the DSA fee calculator is: www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/eTrackerWeb/Calinput.asp. The fees to be paid by the Department can be authorized by completing the “Request for Revolving Fund Check” form (FA0017). This form should indicate that the “Vendor” is DSA and that the expenditure is to be charged against the Project EA and the appropriate Agency Object Code. The check can be mailed directly to the DSA Regional Office, if requested on the form. On the form, under “Purpose,” indicate that this payment is for the DSA filing fee and reference the District and EA. The District and EA will then be referenced on the check for identification purposes. The completed form FA-0017 should then be mailed to Mail Station 25 (MS 25) or faxed (916-227-8766) to the Division of Accounting, Service Payables Branch, Alpha G. The completed DSA application form for the project must be sent with this form to substantiate payment. It is anticipated that it should not take more than 5 working days to obtain this check.
4.0 DESIGN GUIDANCE AND BEST PRACTICES FOR PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
4.1 Pedestrian Accessibility
All pedestrian facilities on all projects are to be accessible in accordance with State and Federal laws. The following guidance and best practices are an attempt to capture the lessons learned through the years since the passage of the ADA and to document the Federal and State regulatory standards that apply. Early consultation with the Design Reviewer or Design Coordinator is recommended to discuss pedestrian accessibility issues and their resolution.
4.1.1 New Construction
Federal regulations require that each facility or part of a facility constructed on State right-of-way shall be designed and constructed in such a manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
4.1.2 Alterations
Federal regulations require that each facility or part of a facility altered in the State right-of-way in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of the facility or part of the facility shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be altered in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
Where existing elements or spaces are altered, each altered element or space within the limits or scope of the project shall comply with the applicable requirements for new construction to the maximum extent feasible. The limits of the project refers to the work that will physically impact a pedestrian feature and the
4

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

scope of the project refers to the work on a pedestrian feature identified in the project initiation document or the project report.
The following types of highway work are considered to be alterations of existing facilities:
1. Pavement focused (2R) and resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (3R) work needs to be evaluated for pedestrian accessibility and comply with the guidance in Section 4.1.3 of this DIB. When determining the scope of a 2R and 3R project, the curb ramps immediately adjacent to the 2R and 3R pavement work are assumed to be within the scope of the project. For additional guidance see DIB 79 – “Design Guidance and Standards for Roadway Rehabilitation Projects [Pavement Focused (2R) and Reurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects] . . .”.
2. Traffic signalization work that will physically impact or is scoped to address sidewalks, curb ramps and crosswalks are to comply with the pedestrian accessibility guidance in this DIB.
3. Any other work that will physically impact or is scoped to address a pedestrian facility requires that the pedestrian facilities comply with the pedestrian accessibility guidance in this DIB.
Preventive maintenance and routine maintenance work are not considered alterations. Preventive maintenance and routine maintenance projects may be designed following the guidance in this DIB, but they are not required to unless the work physically affects a pedestrian facility. However, Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) projects [see DIB 81 – “Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) Guidelines”] must be evaluated for pedestrian accessibility and comply with the guidance in Section 4.1.3 of this DIB.
4.1.3 Accessibility Requirements on 2R, 3R, and CAPM Projects
The accessibility needs of the communities and highway users, in particular the needs of users with disabilities, need to be considered on each 2R, 3R, and CAPM project. Early stakeholder participation, as appropriate, to identify accessibility deficiencies is recommended.
2R and 3R projects require reconstructing the affected existing pedestrian facilities to the accessibility design standards discussed in this DIB (see Section 4.3) to the maximum extent feasible, unless doing so is shown to be “technically infeasible” (see Section 2.0 “Definitions”). The Design Coordinator must agree with the finding that the work is technically infeasible and then approve a supporting Exception to Accessibility Design Standards document. Cost cannot be a consideration in justifying technically infeasible. On CAPM projects that are adjacent to existing sidewalks within the State highway right-ofway where curb ramps do not currently exist (at any intersection having curbs from a street level pedestrian walkway) new curb ramps shall be installed. On CAPM projects that are adjacent to existing sidewalks within the State highway right-of-way with existing curb ramps, the curb ramps must be evaluated and upgraded where necessary to meet the accessibility design standards discussed in this DIB (see Section 4.3).
Any pedestrian facility work that needs to be completed outside of the scope of a 2R, 3R, or CAPM project should be added to the Transition Plan through the following process. The pedestrian facility needing accessibility improvements must be specifically identified and documented by memorandum to the project history file. The District ADA Coordinator needs to be contacted and involved in submitting this information to the Headquarters Division of Civil Rights. The District ADA Coordinators (Liaisons) are identified on the Department’s Intranet site at: http://onramp.dot.ca.gov/eo/eo_ada.htm. Externally
5

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

sponsored work that is not being designed by the Department is not exempt from this requirement. The Department representative that is working with the external sponsor for the work is required to contact the District ADA Coordinator and assist them in submitting any work to the Headquarters Division of Civil Rights for inclusion in the Department’s Transition Plan.
4.1.4 Minimum Accessibility
Newly constructed or altered (see Section 4.1.2) streets, roads, and highways must contain curb ramps or other sloped areas at any intersection having curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway.
To the maximum extent feasible, at least one accessible route must be provided from one facility to another. If a more direct route exists that is not an accessible route, the accessible route must be in the same vicinity as the other route.
Whether the project is for new construction, for an alteration of an existing facility, or a CAPM project, full compliance with the design standards contained herein are not required where it can be demonstrated that it is structurally impracticable (for new construction) or technically infeasible (for alterations and CAPM projects) to meet the requirements. Any portion of the new facility that can be made accessible to persons with disabilities shall comply to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable. Also, any elements or features of the facility that are being altered and can be made accessible shall be made accessible within the scope of the alteration.
4.1.5 Historic Preservation
In meeting the aforementioned requirements of “Minimum Accessibility,” a design that would alter or destroy the historic significance of a historic property/historical resource should not be constructed. Historic property/historical resource is any property listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or properties designated as historic under State or local law. In order to comply with Public Resources Code 5024 and CEQA, the District Heritage Resources Coordinator should be contacted as early as possible in the planning process in order to initiate the required consultation. Non-construction strategies may be an option. See Section 4.1.6, “Program Accessibility” of this DIB.
The fourth item under Section 4.3.7 in this DIB may be used to maintain historic preservation of a historic property/historical resource based on the California State Historic Building Code, which is the mandatory code for State-owned historical resources. An approved accessibility design exception must be obtained to use this standard. Additionally, consultation with the State Historical Building Safety Board is required
4.1.6 Program Accessibility
In some situations, an operational solution may achieve accessibility without the need for construction. Existing facilities do not have to be made accessible if other methods of providing access are effective. Non-construction approaches may include alternate accessible routings, relocating services or activities to accessible locations, or taking the service or benefit directly to the individual. Coordination with local agencies, transit agencies, or other affected entities may be required to achieve these strategies.
4.2 Placement of Pedestrian Facilities
Vehicular lanes and shoulders are not required to be designed as accessible pedestrian routes just because it is legal for a pedestrian to traverse along a highway. Where vehicular lanes and shoulders are intended by the Department for pedestrian use, thus rendering them walkways, they shall be made accessible.
6

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

Deciding to construct pedestrian facilities and elements where none exist is an important consideration. In built-up urban areas with pedestrians present, pedestrian facilities should be constructed. In rural areas where few or no pedestrians exist, it would not be reasonable or cost effective to construct pedestrian facilities. For situations between these two extremes the designer should consult with the affected local agency, and special interest groups. Any decision made should be clearly documented in the project files.
All pedestrian facilities proposed within the State highway right of way shall follow the guidance in Chapter 31 “Non-motorized Transportation Facilities” in the Project Development Procedures Manual. Pedestrian facilities proposed by non-Departmental entities within State highway access controlled rightof-way shall also comply with Chapter 17 “Encroachments in Caltrans’ Right of Way,” also in the Project Development Procedures Manual.
4.3 Accessibility Design Standards
The most current version of the Standard Plans for Curbs and Driveways A87A, Curb Ramp Details A88A, Curb Ramp and Island Passageway Details A88B, Accessible Parking Off-Street A90A, and Accessible Parking On-Street A90B should be used for designing accessible facilities. Modifying the features shown on the Standard Plans or designing pedestrian facilities not covered by the Standard Plans shall be in accordance with the following standards and best practices. Following each accessibility design standard is a reference to the applicable Federal and/or State regulation.
4.3.1 Surface
(1) All surfaces on an accessible route shall be stable, firm, and slip resistant. [ADAAG 4.5.1 and Title 24 1124B.1]
(2) Changes in level up to ¼ inch may be vertical and without edge treatment. [ADAAG 4.5.2 and Title 24 1124B.2]
(3) Changes in level between ¼ inch and ½ inch shall be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2 (50%). [ADAAG 4.5.2 and Title 24 1124B.2]
(4) Changes in level greater than ½ inch shall be accomplished by means of a ramp. [ADAAG 4.5.2]
Surface types on State right of way can vary due to the type of facility served. Normally, sidewalks are made of Portland cement concrete, or in some situations asphalt concrete. Surface type selection is a decision made by the designer. Design factors to consider for surface materials are discussed in Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access published by the United States Department of Transportation.
The use of paving units, stamped concrete, or stamped asphalt concrete, although within the surface uniformity requirements of an accessible route, could lead to a vibration effect causing repeated jarring to a wheelchair user. No roughness index exists for walkways, as it does for roadway surfaces. Until such guidance becomes available, engineering judgment must be used; the Design Reviewer or Traffic Operations Liaison can be consulted for further assistance. As a general rule, cobblestone or similar treatments should not be used.
If paving units are used, they must meet the specification requirements of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C936.
7

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

All walkway surfaces shall have a broom finish texture or an equivalent. A broom finish surface is described in Section 73 of the current Standard Specifications. Regardless of surface type, if the walkway encroaches onto a roadway, as in the case of a crosswalk, the surface must have a coefficient of friction not less than 0.35 as determined by using California Test Method 342.
At present, no particular color requirement is prescribed in Federal guidelines. However, material used to provide contrast on detectable warnings on walkway surfaces should have a contrast by at least 70%. This is intended to assist the visually impaired pedestrian. This contrast is calculated by [(B1-B2)/B1] x 100, where B1=light reflectance value (LRV) of the lighter area, and B2=light reflectance value (LRV) of the darker area. Visual contrast can be quantified with a luminance meter that measures the amount of light reflected by each subject (where zero is total darkness and 100 is theoretical complete light reflection). This contrast may be used to distinguish elements of a walkway, such as to differentiate a curb ramp from the sidewalk, or the crosswalk from the rest of the pavement. Also, crosswalk or sidewalk surfacing shall not cause glare to the user. Colored pavement or paving units are not to be used in lieu of striping for marked crosswalks.
4.3.2 Vertical Clearance (1) Walks shall have 80 inches minimum clear headroom. [ADAAG 4.4.2 and Title 24 1133B.8.6.2]
It should be noted that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires a vertical clearance at pedestrian pathways to the bottom of signs to be at least 7 feet. This will cover most pedestrian vertical clearance needs. Pedestrian pathways that are part of a shared facility, i.e., bicyclists and equestrians, shall follow the appropriate guidance in the Highway Design Manual. See Section 4.4, “Shared Facilities” of this DIB for further information.
4.3.3 Clear Width Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 105.1 states, as an Advisory Design Standard, that “the minimum width of a sidewalk should be 5 feet.” In many locations, local agency sidewalk standards will require greater widths; which can provide even greater accessibility than the minimum standard stated in the HDM. If for a specific project this is the case, the local agency standard should be used. Street furniture, signs, above ground utilities and poles, business frontage needs, street landscaping, etc. should all be placed outside of the “clear width zone” of a sidewalk.
In addition to the standards referenced above, the following Accessibility Design Standards are to be followed:
(1) If an accessible route has less than 60 inches clear width, then passing spaces at least 60 inches by 60 inches shall be located at reasonable intervals not to exceed 200 feet. [ADAAG 4.3.4]
(2) The typical walkway minimum width of an accessible route shall be at least 48 inches. [Title 24 1133B.7.1]
(3) When, because of right-of-way restrictions, natural barriers or other existing conditions, the enforcing agency determines that compliance with the 48-inch clear sidewalk width would create an unreasonable hardship, the clear width may be reduced to 36 inches. [Title 24 1133B.7.1 Exception Statement]
Regarding (3) above, an unreasonable hardship must be concurred with by the Design Coordinator and documented using the Exception to Accessibility Design Standards format (see attached). In the exception
8

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

document under Reason for Exception, the following factors for an unreasonable hardship are to be discussed for each location: 1) the cost of providing access, 2) the impact of proposed improvements on financial feasibility of the project, 3) the nature of the accessibility which be gained or lost, and 4) the nature of the use of the facility under construction and its availability to persons with disabilities.

4.3.4

Grade
(1) All walks with continuous gradients shall have level areas at least 5 feet in length at intervals of at least every 400 feet. [Title 24 1133B.7.6]
(2) Where the walkway of a pedestrian access route is contained within a street or highway border, its grade shall not exceed the general grade established for the adjacent street or highway. [DGPROW R301.4.2]

The accessibility standard in (1) above does not apply to sidewalks, but (2) does. The grade or slope of an accessible route should be as flat as possible. Since exterior facilities must drain, a walkway can be at 2% and still be considered level. The practical use of the accessibility standard in (1) above is thus applied for grades exceeding 2%. Any part of an accessible route with a slope greater than 1:20 (5%) shall be considered a ramp, and must comply with the standards of a ramp. See Section 4.3.7 of this DIB, “Ramps,” for further information.

A profile of the pedestrian pathway should be developed to ensure compliance with grade and other design parameters.

4.3.5 Cross Slope
(1) No more than a 1:50 (2%) cross slope shall be constructed on a walkway that is an accessible route. [ADAAG 4.3.7 and Title 24 1133B.7.1.3]
Drainage is always a design consideration for exterior facilities. Walkways shall be designed so that water will not accumulate on the surface.

4.3.6 Grates and Railroad Tracks
(1) If gratings are located in walks, then they shall have spaces no greater than ½ inch in one direction. If gratings have elongated openings, then they shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the dominant direction of travel. [ADAAG 4.5.4 and Title 24 1133B.7.2]
(2) Where a path crosses tracks, the opening for wheel flanges shall be permitted to be 2-½ inches maximum. [ADAAG 10.3.1(13)]
Walks shall be free of grating whenever possible.

4.3.7

Ramps
(1) Slopes that are greater than 1:20 will be considered ramps and must not exceed a 30 inch rise without landings. [ADAAG 4.8.2 and Title 24 1133B.5.1, 1133B.5.4.1]
(2) The maximum slope of a ramp shall not exceed 1:12 (8.33%). [ADAAG 4.8.2 and Title 24 1133B.5.3]

9

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

(3) The cross slope of ramp surfaces shall be no greater than 1:50 (2%). [ADAAG 4.8.6 and Title 24 1133B.5.3.1]
(4) In the case of a historic property/historical resource, ramps greater than 1:12 (8.33%), but no greater than 1:10, cannot exceed a horizontal distance of 12 feet. Or, ramps of 1:6 slope cannot exceed a horizontal distance of 13 inches. Signs shall be posted at upper and lower levels to indicate steepness of the slope. [Title 24 8-603.5]
This standard should only be used with an approved exception.

It should be noted that a sidewalk is not bound by the requirements of a ramp. Curved (or helical) ramps shall be subject to the same design standards as straight ramps. However, because of the complexity, curved ramps should not be constructed if a straight ramp can accomplish the same accessibility. If a curved ramp is sloped at the maximum 1:12 (8.33%), then the minimum radius needed is 50 feet; otherwise, a smaller radius will provide a path that exceeds the maximum 2% cross slope. Table 4.3.7 shows the minimum radius required for a given ramp slope:

TABLE 4.3.7 – HELICAL RADIUS REQUIREMENTS

Slope
5% 8.33%

Minimum Radius Required to Inner
Side of Ramp
30 feet 50 feet

4.3.8 Curb Ramps
(1) Curb ramps shall be a minimum of 4 feet in width and shall lie, generally, in a single sloped plane, with a minimum of surface warping and cross slope. [Title 24 1127B.5.2]
(2) Transitions from ramps to walks, gutters, or streets shall be flush and free of abrupt changes. Maximum slopes of adjoining gutters, road surface immediately adjacent to the curb ramp, or accessible route shall not exceed 1:20 (5%) within 4 feet of the top and bottom of the curb ramp. [ADAAG 4.7.2 and Title 24 1127B.5.3]
(3) In general, for the flare, a maximum slope of 1:10 (10%) parallel to curb is used. However, if the level landing at the top of the curb ramp is less than 4 feet, the slope of the flares shall not exceed 1:12 (8.33%). [ADAAG 4.7.5 and Title 24 1127B.5.3, 1127B.5.4]
(4) In the case of a single (diagonal) curb ramp with flared sides, it shall have at least a 24 inch long segment of straight curb located on each side of the curb ramp and within the marked crossing, if the crosswalk is marked. [ADAAG 4.7.10 and Title 24 1127B.5.10]
(5) In the case of a marked crosswalk, the bottom of diagonal curb ramps shall have a clearance to the crosswalk marking of 48 inches minimum. [ADAAG 4.7.10 and Title 24 1127B.5.10]
10

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

Regarding (4) above, this standard applies only on flared sides; the Caltrans Case C curb ramp and others without flares are not subject to this standard. Curb ramps are the most common type of ramp. Different types of curb ramps have been approved and are contained in the Standard Plans. Standard Plan A88A shows the illustration of curb ramps that may apply to curved alignments on a corner or on a tangent. The ramp width shall be consistent with the width of an accessible route. Flares are needed if the curb ramp is located where pedestrians may traverse across the ramp.
Curb ramps placed within crosswalk markings do not have to be aligned in the direction of the crosswalk marking. The Federal recommendation found in Part II of Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access is for curb ramps to be aligned perpendicular to curb face.
In addition to the curb ramp slope, the cross slope of a sidewalk will determine the horizontal length of the curb ramp run, since anything more than a flat surface (no slope) will require more length to intercept the sidewalk surface. Table 4.3.8 can be used as a design aide when the sidewalk has a 2% cross slope.

TABLE 4.3.8 – Curb Ramp Runs for Sidewalks with 2% Cross Slopes

Height of Curb Face
4 inches 5 inches 6 inches 7 inches 7-½ inches 8 inches

Curb Ramp Run (Horizontal Length)
63 inches 78 inches 95 inches 111 inches 118-½ inches 126 inches

4.3.9 Medians and Islands
(1) Raised medians or islands in street crossing paths shall be either cut through level with the street or have curb ramps and a level area at least 48 inches long between curb ramps. [ADAAG 4.7.11]
The width of the cut through raised medians or islands should be consistent with the widths required in Section 4.3.3 in this DIB. Since the cut for the path through the raised median or island is adjacent to traffic and without a “barrier,” it must have a detectable warning surface as described in Section 4.3.14 in this DIB. The detectable warning surface width and placement shall follow the details in Standard Plan A88B.

11

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

4.3.10 Handrails
Handrails are not required on curb ramps or along sidewalks. In all other situations, the following applies:
(1) If a ramp run has a rise greater than 6 inches or a horizontal projection greater than 72 inches, then it shall have handrails on both sides. [ADAAG 4.8.5 and Title 24 1133B.5.5.1]
(2) Handrails shall be provided along both sides of ramp segments. Handrails shall be continuous within the full length of each stair flight or ramp run. [ADAAG 4.8.5(1) and Title 24 1133B.5.5.1]
(3) The clear space between the handrail and the wall (if any) shall be 1-½ inches. [ADAAG 4.8.5(3) and Title 24 1133B.5.5.1]
(4) Gripping surfaces shall be continuous. [ADAAG 4.8.5(4)]
(5) Top of handrail gripping surfaces shall be mounted between 34 inches and 38 inches above ramp surface. [ADAAG 4.8.5(5) and Title 24 1133B.5.5.1]
(6) Handrails shall not rotate within their fittings. [ADAAG 4.8.5(7)]
(7) The grip portion shall not be less than 1-¼ inches nor more than 1-½ inches, or the shape shall provide an equivalent gripping surface and all surfaces shall be smooth with no sharp corners. [Title 24 1133B.5.5.1]
4.3.11 Warning Curb and Guardrail
Guardrail as used in this section is defined from the California Building Code [Title 24 208-G] as a vertical barrier erected along the open edges of a floor opening, wall opening, ramp, platform, runway or other elevated area to prevent persons from falling off the open edge.
(1) Abrupt changes in level, except between a walk or sidewalk and an adjacent street or driveway, exceeding 4 inches in a vertical dimension, such as at planters or fountains located in or adjacent to walks, sidewalks or other pedestrian ways, shall be identified by curbs projecting at least 6 inches in height above the walk or sidewalk surface to warn the blind of a potential drop off. [Title 24 1133B.8.1]
(2) When a guardrail or handrail is provided, no curb is required when a guide rail is provided centered 3 inches plus or minus 1 inch above the surface of the walk or sidewalk, the walk is 5 percent or less gradient or no adjacent hazard exists. [Title 24 1133B.8.1]
(3) Where the edge of a pedestrian path, including ramps, has a drop off of more than 30 inches, the path shall be protected by a guardrail. [Title 24 509.1, 1133B.5.7]
(4) The top of guardrails shall not be less than 42 inches in height. [Title 24 1133B.5.7.3]

12

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

(5) Open guardrails shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that a sphere 4 inches in diameter cannot pass through. [Title 24 1133B.5.7.4]
Chain link fence Type CL-1.2 satisfies the requirements of a guardrail, see the Standard Plans for details. As a good practice, if the above-mentioned 4 inches and 30 inches drop off occurs within a horizontal distance of 24 inches from the edge of the pedestrian path, this path should still require the warning curb/guardrail.
4.3.12 Wheel Guides Where the ramp surface is not bounded by a wall or fence and the ramp exceeds 10 feet in length, the ramp shall comply with one of the following requirements:
(1) A guide curb a minimum of 2 inches in height shall be provided at each side of the ramp [Title 24 1133B.5.6.1]; or,
(2) A wheel guide rail shall be provided, centered 3 inches plus or minus 1 inch above the surface of the ramp. [Title 24 1133B.5.6.2]
These requirements are not applicable to sidewalks or on curb ramps.
4.3.13 Landings A level landing is allowed to be sloped up to 2% to accommodate drainage. For curb ramp landing guidance, see Section 4.3.8 of this DIB. This DIB does not discuss the situation where a door opens onto a landing at a building entrance. For this situation, as well as with any building egress design, refer to California Building Code Section 1003.3.4.4 and confer with the Office of Transportation Architecture in the Division of Engineering Services.
Landings shall be designed as following:
(1) Ramps shall have level landings at bottom and top of each ramp and each ramp run. [ADAAG 4.8.4 and Title 24 1133B.5.4.1]
(2) The landing shall be at least as wide as the ramp run leading to it. [ADAAG 4.8.4(1) and Title 24 1133B.5.4.5]
(3) The landing length shall be at least 60 inches. [ADAAG 4.8.4(2) and Title 24 1133B.5.4.2, 1133B.5.4.7]
(4) Top landings shall be not less than 60 inches wide and shall have a length of not less than 60 inches in the direction of the ramp run. [Title 24 1133B.5.4.2]
(5) If ramps change direction at a landing, the landing shall be at least 60 inches by 60 inches. [ADAAG 4.8.4(3)]
(6) Intermediate and bottom landings at a change of direction in excess of 30 degrees shall have a dimension in the direction of the ramp run of not less than 72 inches to accommodate the handrail extension. [Title 24 1133B.5.4.6]
4.3.14 Detectable Warning Surface 13

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

(1) If a walk crosses or adjoins a vehicular way, and the walking surfaces are not separated by curbs, railings or other elements between the pedestrian areas and vehicular areas, the boundary between the areas shall be defined by a continuous detectable warning which is 36 inches wide. [ADAAG 4.29.5 and Title 24 1133B.8.5]
Detectable warnings shall consist of raised truncated domes as shown on Standard Plans A88A, A88B, A90A, and A90B. Curb ramps shall contain detectable warning surfaces according to these Standard Plans.
4.3.15 Grooves
(1) Grooves shall consist of indentations at the top of a curb ramp as shown on Standard Plan A88A. The grooves shall form a 12 inch border at the level surface of the sidewalk. [Title 24 1127B.5.7]
4.3.16 Bus Stops
(1) Where new bus stop pads are constructed at bus stops, bays or other areas where a lift or ramp is to be deployed, they shall have a firm, stable surface; a minimum clear length of 96 inches (measured from the curb or vehicle roadway edge) and a minimum clear width of 60 inches (measured parallel to the vehicle roadway) to the maximum extent allowed by legal or site constraints. [ADAAG 10.2.1(1)]
(2) Where provided, new or replaced bus shelters shall be installed or positioned so as to permit a wheelchair or mobility aid user to enter from the public way and to reach a location, having a minimum clear floor area of 30 inches by 48 inches, entirely within the perimeter of the shelter. [(ADAAG 10.2.1(2) and Title 24 1131B.4]
(3) Newly constructed bus stop pads must provide a square curb surface between the pad and road or other detectable warning [Title 24 1131B.4].
Caltrans Type A or B curb, will satisfy the square curb requirement.
(4) Bus stop pads shall be at same slope as the roadway in direction parallel to roadway profile grade, and maximum of 2 percent slope perpendicular to roadway. [ADAAG 10.2.1(1) and Title 24 1131B.4]
4.3.17 Parking
(1) For off street parking, Table 4.3.17 establishes the number of accessible parking spaces required. [ADAAG 4.1.2(5)(a) and Title 24 1129B.1]
(2) Where single spaces are provided, they shall consist of a 9 foot wide parking area and a 5 foot loading and unloading access aisle on the passenger side of the vehicle. When more than one space is provided, a 9 foot wide parking area on each side of a 5 foot loading and unloading access aisle in the center may be allowed. The minimum length of each parking space shall be 18 feet. [Title 24 1129B.4.1]
14

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

(3) One in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall be served by an access aisle that is, at a minimum, 96 inches wide and placed on the side opposite the driver’s side of the vehicle when the vehicle is driven forward into the parking space; the space shall be designated van accessible. [ADAAG 4.1.2(5)(b) and Title 24 1129B.4.2]
(4) Surface slopes of accessible parking spaces shall be the minimum possible and shall not exceed 1 unit vertical to 50 units horizontal (2% slope) in any direction. This applies to parking spaces and access aisles. [ADAAG 4.6.3 and Title 24 1129B.4.4]
Accessible parking spaces serving a particular building shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. In parking facilities that do not serve a particular building, accessible parking shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel to an accessible pedestrian entrance of the parking facility. In buildings with multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances.
In each parking area, a bumper or curb shall be provided and located to prevent encroachment of cars over the required width of walkways. Also, the space shall be so located that persons with disabilities are not compelled to wheel or walk behind parked cars other than their own. Pedestrian ways which are accessible to persons with disabilities shall be provided from each such parking space to related facilities, including curb cuts or ramps as needed. Ramps shall not encroach into any accessible parking space or the adjacent access aisle.

TABLE 4.3.17 – OFF STREET ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS

Total Number of Parking Spaces in Lot or Garage
1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-150 151-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501-1,000 1,000 and over

Minimum Number of Spaces Required
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 See Note 1 See Note 2

Notes: 1. Two percent of total.

2. Twenty plus one for each 100, or fraction over 1,001.

Signing and striping for on and off street parking shall conform to the design details shown on Standard Plans A90A and A90B. Consult with the Headquarters Traffic Liaison regarding proposed signing and striping changes.

15

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

4.3.18 Trails Trails within the State Highway right of way are considered to be pedestrian facilities if pedestrians may traverse the path, either for their exclusive use or shared with other users. Trails that are intended for nonpedestrian use only, e.g., equestrian or for mountain bikes, are not subject to the guidance in this section.
(1) This DIB adopts the trail guidance provided in Section 16 and in Sections 16.1 through 16.4.10 of the Federal Guide on “Outdoor Developed Areas” as found on the US Access Board website: www.access-board.gov/outdoor/outdoor-rec-rpt.htm. The provisions found on this website shall be regarded as enforceable design standards. [Draft ADAAG 16]
Any proposed exception to the design standards in the “Outdoor Developed Areas Guide” must make reference to those applicable sections in the exception request. The conditions described in Section 16.1.1 “Extent of Application” may be used, as specified in the provisions, to support an exception.
The sign referenced in Section 16.2.10, “Signs,” of the “Outdoor Developed Areas Guide” shall be the disabled persons sign, MUTCD Code RM-080.
4.3.19 Protruding Objects
(1) Objects protruding from walls (for example, telephones) with their leading edges between 27 inches and 80 inches above the finished floor shall protrude no more than 4 inches into the walk. [ADAAG 4.4.1 and Title 24 1133B.8.6.1]
(2) Objects mounted with their leading edges at or below 27 inches above the finished floor may protrude any amount. [ADAAG 4.4.1 and Title 24 1133B.8.6.1]
(3) Free-standing objects mounted on posts or pylons may overhang 12 inches maximum from 27 inches to 80 inches above the ground or finished floor. [ADAAG 4.4.1 and Title 24 1133B.8.6.1]
(4) Protruding objects shall not reduce the clear width of an accessible route or maneuvering space. [ADAAG 4.4.1 and Title 24 1133B.8.6.1]
In general, street furniture or any item placed within the pedestrian environment must be cane detectable. Objects that protrude over a pedestrian pathway above a height of 27 inches are not considered detectable by cane. A critical zone, which is not considered detectable, is between 27 inches and 80 inches above the pedestrian pathway surface. Many transportation elements within the pedestrian pathway are cane detectable, such as electrical systems hardware, and these are specified in the Caltrans Standard Plans.
Where it is decided to prohibit pedestrian crossings at an intersection or ramp crossing, a pedestrian barricade per Standard Plan ES-7P should be used. Consult with your Traffic Operations Liaison for further guidance.
4.4 Shared Facilities
Pedestrian facilities that are part of nonmotorized transportation facilities must be designed in accordance with the Highway Design Manual for the appropriate bikeway classification, and the Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access for best practice equestrian design.
16

DIB 82-04

Date To Be Determined

Designers of pedestrian-shared facilities must consider the geometric requirements that are most critical for the intended users. In some cases designing for pedestrians may govern the geometric features. For example, a designated Class 1 bikeway may legally be used by pedestrians and bicycles. But, it may not be practical to design for both users at certain segments of the path. In such cases, a design exception will either be needed for a bicycle standard in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual or for a pedestrian accessibility standard in this DIB.
4.5 Alternate Standards
Federal regulations allow the use of other accessibility standards, if they provide substantially equivalent or greater access to the facility system, as the minimum Federal accessibility standards. Similarly, the California Building Code allows the enforcing agency to make design judgments as to equivalent designs. Local Agency standards that provide equivalent or greater accessibility than the Federal ADAAG and the California Building Code may be used in lieu of the minimum standards in this DIB. Those standards not in this DIB should be discussed with the Design Coordinator and the justification documented in the project files. In the case of a historic property/historical resource, use of the California State Historical Building Code is mandatory for State-owned facilities as well as consultation with the State Historical Building Safety Board.
4.6 Temporary Traffic Control
Temporary traffic control zones can impact a wide range of State highway users, including persons with disabilities. On a project-by-project basis, a decision must be made to either include the provisions of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) as part of the construction contract documents or that they must be discussed with the Contractor prior to the beginning of work during the preconstruction meeting. In either case, if it is elected to close any sidewalk(s) due to construction and it is elected to provide a temporary route for use by the public, the various provisions for pedestrian safety as set forth in the CA MUTCD Part 6, Chapter 6D “Pedestrian and Worker Safety” shall apply.

17

DIB 82-04
Date To Be Determined

ATTACHMENT
Dist – Co – Rte KP(PM)
Project EA or Encroachment Permit Number

EXCEPTION TO ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN STANDARDS

Prepared by:

(Name), Registered Civil Engineer 3

Submitted by: (Name), Design Engineer

Date:

Recommended by: (Name), Project Manager

Date:

Concurrence 1 by: (Name), Office Chief Or District/Region Division Chief of Design

Date:

Approved 2 by:

Date:

(Name), Design Coordinator

Notes:

1. Must be a Supervising Transportation Engineer or higher Civil Service Engineering Classification.

2. Delete this signature line for Rail or Transit Station projects (DSA is the approving entity).

3. A Licensed Architect or Licensed Landscape Architect may prepare this document and sign and seal it in lieu of

a Registered Civil Engineer, provided the same Licensed Architect or Licensed Landscape Architect designed

the on-site improvements. Use the seal of the appropriate licensed person in responsible charge.

A-1

DIB 82-04
Date To Be Determined

ATTACHMENT
Dist – Co – Rte KP(PM)
Project EA or Encroachment Permit Number

This documentation shall be filed in the district project history files. A copy shall be sent to Headquarters Division of Design, attention Design Report Routing. Attach, as necessary, the information discussed in Item Number 3. At a minimum, the Exception to Accessibility Design Standards should contain the following sections:
1. Project Description Describe the overall project scope and the proposed pedestrian facility design portion. Provide geographic project limits and lengths. Also, describe the existing highway facility as well as the existing pedestrian facilities.
If using an accessibility standard not listed in DIB 82-04, describe the accessibility standard and its reference of origin.
2. Project Costs Provide the total capital cost estimate of the project. Also, provide an estimate of the capital cost of the proposed pedestrian features.
3. Nonstandard Features Describe the nonstandard accessibility feature(s) to be constructed or to be maintained in an alteration. Provide sufficient information in written and graphic (layouts, cross sections, profiles, details, etc.) format to convey the extent of noncompliance with accessibility standards.
4. Standards From Which an Exception is Requested State the accessibility standard from DIB 82-04.
5. Reason for Exception The request for exception to accessibility design standards must state the reason why the facility or element is in whole or in part structurally impracticable (for new construction) or technically infeasible (for alterations) to comply with DIB 82-04 standards. Exceptions must be based on factors which may include historical significance, existing terrain, environmental issues, right of way constraints, conflicts with other design standards, and/or other significant considerations. Excessive cost may be supplemental information but cannot be used to support an exception related to a structural impracticability or technical infeasibility.
The four (4) factors for unreasonable hardships related to Clear Width, discussed in Section 4.3.3 of DIB 82-04, are to be documented in this section.
6. Work Required to Make Standard Provide a description of the additional work in excess of the proposed project work required to meet the subject accessibility standard.
7. Reviews and Concurrence As appropriate, provide the names of the Headquarters Design and District personnel who have discussed and concurred with this document; plus, the date of their concurrence.

A-2

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 4
WORK ZONES The Parties agree to the following as a final and complete resolution of issues pertaining to Work Zones. The Department agrees to make its best efforts to ensure that Temporary Routes, when provided through and around Work Zones, are accessible to pedestrians with disabilities. In meeting this obligation, the Department will do the following: 1. Guidance for Pedestrian Accommodation. The Department shall develop a summarized informational document for workers in the field for the accommodation of pedestrians with disabilities through and around Work Zones within one hundred eighty (180) working days following Final Approval. To develop this document, the Department will investigate procedural models utilized by other entities, including but not limited to Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s work procedure entitled “Path of Travel Encroachments and Pedestrian Safety” and/or the Federal Highway Administration / American Traffic Safety Services Association’s Guidance Sheet entitled “Temporary Traffic Control Zone Pedestrian Access Considerations.” The content of this document developed by the Department will reference and be consistent with Part 6 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“CA MUTCD”). A copy of this informational document shall be promptly delivered to Plaintiffs Attorneys and to the Access Consultant when it is ready for dissemination to employees, contractors, and individuals/companies/entities requesting temporary encroachment permits. 2. Revisions to DIB 82. In addition to the changes made to DIB 82 pursuant to Exhibit 3 of this Settlement Agreement, DIB 82 has been revised (See Exhibit 3A,
1

Section 4.6) to reference that the CA MUTCD Part 6, Chapter 6D (PEDESTRIAN AND WORKER SAFETY) procedures should be followed in the event the Department elects to close any sidewalk(s) due to construction, including those instances, if any, when the Department elects to provide Temporary Routes for use by the public.
3. Training of Caltrans Personnel. The Department shall provide training to personnel responsible for the development, approval and implementation of Work Zones, including Temporary Routes for use by the public. Within 180 one hundred eighty (180) working days following Final Approval, the Department will provide to Plaintiffs Attorneys and to the Access Consultant training documents to be used for the development, approval and implementation of Work Zones, consistent with the informational document prepared and the existing training conducted on Part 6 of the CA MUTCD.
5. Revised Design and Construction Procedures. The Department shall revise its current procedures for construction contract development and enforcement as follows:
A. Caltrans’ Construction Manual and specifications shall be revised to require that pre-construction meetings with the contractor include a discussion regarding Work Zones, including Temporary Routes for use by the public, if any, and how the contractor will meet their contractual obligations and applicable guidance in the CA MUTCD. Contractors’ participation in these pre-construction meetings shall constitute certification that they have reviewed and understand said contractual obligations and CA MUTCD guidelines.
2

B. The Department shall require the review of all contract plans and specifications as part of the normal project development review process to ensure that when Temporary Routes for use by the public are provided, they are accessible to pedestrians with disabilities.
C. As part of routine construction safety inspections performed on every project, inspections of any Temporary Routes that are provided for use by the public will be performed to ensure compliance with contract plans and specifications. Safety inspection checklists, to the extent they are used, will be revised to include a category regarding accessible Temporary Routes.
3

EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 5
ACCESSIBILITY GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE This Grievance Procedure is established to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It may be used by anyone who wishes to file a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of services, activities, programs, or benefits by the Department. It is intended and designed to provide prompt and equitable resolution of grievances alleging noncompliance with, or any action prohibited by, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. §794). This procedure applies to all Title II ADA-related grievances regarding facilities owned and controlled by the Department, including Pedestrian Facilities and Park and Ride Facilities. The Department’s Personnel Policy governs employment-related complaints of disability discrimination. Information about the Accessibility Grievance Procedure shall be posted to the Department’s website under the “Contact Us” link. The grievance should be submitted by the grievant and/or his/her designee as soon as possible but no later than 60 calendar days after the alleged violation to any of the following Departmental contacts, who have been designated to coordinate Section 504/ADA compliance efforts:
• Charles Wahnon Caltrans Statewide ADA Coordinator 1823 14th Street Sacramento, California 95811 Phone (916) 324-1353 or Toll Free (866) 810-6346 FAX (916) 324-1869, TTY 711
1

• Department District ADA Liaisons, contact information is provided on the Department’s website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/contactus.htm
• Email: ADA_Compliance_Office@dot.ca.gov The grievance should be submitted to the Department in writing (by mail, email, or fax) and contain information about the alleged discrimination, condition, policy or practice at issue, such as name, address, phone number of the grievant and location, date, and description of the problem. Alternative methods of filing such as personal interviews or a tape recording of the grievance will be made available for persons with disabilities upon request. Within 15 working days the Department will respond to the receipt of the grievance in writing or where appropriate, in a format accessible to the grievant (such as large print, Braille, or audio tape). The response will acknowledge receipt of the grievance, provide documentation of the grievance, as understood by the Department, and will include an offer to meet with the grievant to clarify the circumstances of the alleged discrimination, condition, policy or practice at issue. In the event it is determined that the grievance involves a facility not owned and controlled by the Department, the Department will facilitate the notification of the grievance to the appropriate entity, as expeditiously as possible but in any event within 120 working days. The time it will take the Department to respond to a grievance will depend on the scope and complexity of the request. However, no later than 180 working days following the date the Department acknowledges receipt of the grievance, the Department will provide a response to the grievant in writing, and, where appropriate, in a format accessible to the grievant. This response will explain the position of the Department and
2

offer a resolution responsive to the grievance. The response will also inform the grievant/complainant of their right to appeal.
The Department will proceed with the implementation of its proposed resolution unless the grievant files (i.e., by sending an e-mail or fax, or by depositing with a delivery service, or by postmarking a submission via regular mail) a written appeal of the Department’s decision within 15 working days.
Within 15 working days following receipt of an appeal, the Department will meet with the grievant to discuss the grievance and the Department’s response. Within 15 working days following the meeting between the appellant and the Department, the Department will respond in writing, and where appropriate, in a format accessible to the grievant, with a final resolution of the grievance.
After the recommended resolution is implemented and completed, the Departmental ADA designee will provide notification to the grievant, in writing, and, where appropriate, in a format accessible to the grievant, of completed resolution.
All grievances received by the Department, including any appeals, will be retained by the Statewide ADA Program until the subject matter of the grievance has been fully resolved or for at least three years, whichever is later.
3

EXHIBIT 6

EXHIBIT 6
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS With respect to the issue of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ fees and costs and the payment thereof by Defendants, the following is agreed to as a complete resolution of the issue. 1. No fees or costs incurred by the Plaintiff Class in connection with the Federal Action and/or the State Action may be claimed except as expressly set forth herein. 2. The Parties agree that conditioned on the Federal Court granting Final Approval of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs’ Attorneys reasonable attorneys fees and costs for work pursuing the claims pleaded in the Federal Action and the State Action (“Fees” and “Costs”), subject to the limits set forth herein. 3. The Parties agree that they will attempt in good faith to reach an agreement as to the amount of Fees and Costs and a schedule for payment. If agreement is reached, Plaintiffs’ Attorneys will submit a motion in the Federal Action requesting that the Federal Court approve the agreed amount of Fees and Costs, and Defendants will stipulate to that amount as fair and reasonable. 4. If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement as to the amount of Fees, Plaintiffs’ Attorneys will file a motion for Fees in the Federal Action requesting that the Federal Court determine the amount of Fees to be awarded, subject to the following agreement: Defendants agree to pay Fees of no less than $3.75 million and no more than $8.75 million for all work related to claims pleaded in the Litigation, settlement, and future monitoring of all claims in the Litigation, including any Fees for time spent preparing a fee motion. Plaintiffs agree not to seek more than $8.75 million for all Fees related to the Litigation, settlement, and future monitoring of these claims including any Fees for time spent preparing a fee motion. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys expressly waive any claim for Fees in excess of $8.75 million. The only additional Fees available for any work by Plaintiffs’ Attorneys related to these claims would be any Fees ordered by the Court in future enforcement proceedings as provided for in Section 5.2.2.3 of the Settlement Agreement.
1

5. If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement as to the amount of Plaintiffs’ Costs, Plaintiffs’ Attorneys may seek to recover Costs by filing a motion in the Federal Court. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys shall not seek more than $391,477 in total for all Costs related to the Litigation, settlement, and future monitoring of claims. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys expressly waive any claim for Costs in excess of $391,477, and agree that their recovery shall not exceed that amount. The only additional Costs available for any work by Plaintiffs’ Attorneys related to claims pleaded in the Litigation would be Costs ordered by the Court in future enforcement proceedings as provided for in Section 5.2.2.3 of the Settlement Agreement.
6. Upon dismissals of both the Federal Action and the State Action with prejudice, the Federal Court’s Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, and the Parties reaching agreement(s) and/or the Federal Court determining the amounts of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Fees and/or Costs, Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Fees and Costs in the amount(s) agreed upon by the Parties, or if the Parties were unable to reach agreement(s), in the amount(s) determined by the Federal Court (the “Payment”). In the event the Federal Court is asked to determine the amount of Fees and/or Costs, the time for Payment shall be as ordered by the Court. Plaintiffs understand that Defendants intend to ask the Court that the Fees be paid over several years. Defendants understand that the Plaintiffs intend to ask the Court to order Payment of the total amount of Fees and Costs within sixty (60) days and/or to order interest on any delayed Payments.
7. The Payment is in full and complete satisfaction of any and all claims for Fees and Costs incurred in the Federal Action and/or in the State Action against Defendants, and for all claims released in this Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff Settlement Class Members expressly waive any right to recover any additional Fees that they may incur in monitoring or evaluating Defendants’ compliance with this Settlement Agreement, except for Fees and/or Costs ordered by the Court in future enforcement proceedings as provided for in Section 5.2.2.3 of the Settlement Agreement.
2

EXHIBIT 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18

19

CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, ) Case No.: C06-5125 SBA

20 INC. (“CDR”), CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF )

THE BLIND (“CCB”), BEN ROCKWELL and ) ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY

21 DMITRI BELSER, on behalf of themselves, and ) APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

) SETTLEMENT

22

)

Plaintiffs,

)

23

)

v.

) Judge: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong

24

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

) Date Action Filed: August 23, 2006

25 TRANSPORTATION (“Caltrans”) and WILL )

KEMPTON, in his official capacity.

)

26

)

Defendants.

)

27

)

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125 ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1

WHEREAS, trial of the above-captioned case began before this Court on September 16,

2 2009;

3

WHEREAS, the Parties have advised the Court that they have settled the Litigation, the

4 terms of which have been memorialized in a Settlement Agreement;

5

WHEREAS, this Court has reviewed and considered the Settlement Agreement entered into

6 among the Parties in this Litigation, together with all exhibits thereto, the record in this case, and

7 the arguments of counsel;

8

NOW THEREFORE, for good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered as follows:

9

1. All capitalized terms and definitions used herein have the same meanings as set forth

10 in the Settlement Agreement.

11

2. The proposed settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement is hereby

12 preliminarily approved as being within the range of reasonableness such that notice thereof should

13 be given to Plaintiff Settlement Class Members.

14

3. The contents of the class notice, which are attached to the Settlement Agreement as

15 Exhibit 8, are hereby approved as to form.

16

4. The proposed Plaintiff Settlement Class is hereby conditionally certified subject to

17 Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement.

18

5. The Parties are hereby authorized to issue the class notice as follows:

19

Within 30 days after Preliminary Approval, the Parties shall distribute notice of the proposed

20 Settlement Agreement advising the Plaintiff Settlement Class of the terms of the proposed Settlement

21 Agreement and their right to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement. This notice shall be

22 published as follows:

23

(a) Defendants shall pay for publication in newspapers of a notice of class

24 settlement. This notice will include: A brief statement of the claims released by the class; the date of

25 the hearing on the final approval of the class settlement; the deadline for submitting objections to the

26 settlement; the web page, address, and phone and fax numbers that may be used to obtain a copy of the

27 NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT (attached as Exhibit 8 to

28 the Parties’ Settlement Agreement) in the format and language requested. Publication in these

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125

1

ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 newspapers will be every other day for a period of thirty (30) days, no larger than one eighth page, in

2 the legal notice section of the following papers of general circulation: The Los Angeles Times, The San

3 Diego Union Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Sacramento Bee, The Riverside Press, and

4 The Oakland Tribune. The notice published in the newspapers will contain a statement in Spanish of

5 the web page, e-mail address, and phone numbers that may be used to obtain a copy of the NOTICE OF

6 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT in English, Spanish and alternative

7 accessible formats.

8

(b) Plaintiffs’ Attorneys and Defendants’ attorneys shall provide the NOTICE OF

9 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT in the manner, format and language

10 requested by any class member, advocacy group, government, or their counsel. Copies of the NOTICE

11 OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT shall be provided without charge

12 for copying or mailing.

13

(c) Defendants shall establish a web site where a copy of the NOTICE OF

14 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT will be available in English and

15 Spanish, and in a format that can be recognized and read by software commonly used by the individuals

16 with visual impairments to read web pages. Defendants shall post on the Caltrans website a link to the

17 web site where a copy of the NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

18 LAWSUIT will be available.

19

(d) A copy of the NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

20 LAWSUIT shall be mailed to the U.S. Attorney General, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights

21 Division, and the Attorney General for the State of California with a request to each office that they

22 consider publishing a description of the settlement in their newsletters and web pages.

23

(e) Plaintiffs’ Attorneys shall post NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF

24 CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT on the website of Disability Rights Advocates and shall make good faith

25 efforts to distribute it through disability-related listservs and other internet postings.

26

(f) Counsel for the Parties shall send by first class mail the NOTICE OF

27 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT to the last known address for each

28 member of the proposed Plaintiff Settlement Class whose declaration Counsel submitted in this action.

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125

2

ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1

6. The Court finds that the forms of notice to Plaintiff Settlement Class Members

2 regarding the pendency of the Litigation and of this settlement, including the methods of

3 dissemination to the proposed Plaintiff Settlement Class Members in accordance with the terms of

4 this order, constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances.

5

7. Any Plaintiff Settlement Class Member may enter an appearance in the Litigation

6 and/or may seek to intervene in the Litigation, individually or through the counsel of their choice at

7 his or her expense. Plaintiff Settlement Class Members who do not enter an appearance will be

8 represented by Class Counsel.

9

8. Objections by any Plaintiff Settlement Class Member to: (a) the proposed settlement

10 contained in the Settlement Agreement and described in the class notice; (b) the payment of fees

11 and reimbursement of expenses to Plaintiffs’ Counsel up to the negotiated maximum amounts set

12 forth in the Settlement Agreement; and/or (c) entry of the Judgment shall be heard, and any papers

13 submitted in support of said objection shall be considered by the Court at the Fairness Hearing only

14 if, on or before _______________2010, such objector files with the Clerk of the United States

15 District Court for the Northern District of California: (1) a notice of his, her or its objection and a

16 statement of the basis for such objection; (2) if applicable, a statement of his, her or its intention to

17 appear at the Fairness Hearing. Copies of the foregoing must also be mailed or delivered to counsel

18 for the Parties identified in the class notice. In order to be considered for hearing, all objections

19 must be submitted to the Court and actually received by the counsel identified in the class notice on

20 or before _______________, 2010. A Plaintiff Settlement Class Member need not appear at the

21 Settlement Hearing in order for his, her or its objection to be considered.

22

9. No later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing, the Parties shall file all papers

23 in support of the Application for Final Approval of the Settlement and/or any papers in response to

24 any valid and timely objection with the Court, and shall serve copies of such papers upon each other

25 and upon any objector who has complied with the provisions of Paragraph 8 of this Order.

26

10. A hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) shall be held by the Court on April 27, 2010 at

27 ____.m., in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay street,

28 Oakland, California 94612-5212, to consider and determine whether the proposed settlement of the

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125

3

ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 Litigation on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement should be approved as fair, just,

2 reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Plaintiff Settlement Class; whether Plaintiffs’

3 Counsels’ attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and whether the

4 Order approving the settlement and dismissing the Litigation on the merits and with prejudice

5 against the Plaintiffs and all Settlement Plaintiff Class Members, subject to the Court retaining

6 jurisdiction to administer and enforce the Settlement Agreement, should be entered.

7

11. The Fairness Hearing may, from time to time and without further notice to the

8 Plaintiff Settlement Class Members (except those who have filed timely and valid objections or

9 entered an appearance), be continued or adjourned by order of the Court.

10

12. Reasonable costs incurred in identifying and notifying Plaintiff Settlement Class

11 Members shall be paid by Defendants. In the event that the Settlement Agreement is not approved

12 by the Court, or otherwise fails to become effective, neither the Plaintiffs nor any of Plaintiffs’

13 Counsel shall have any obligation to repay the amounts actually and properly disbursed to

14 accomplish such notice and administration.

15

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

18 DATED: 19 20

____________________________________________ HONORABLE SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, Case No.: C 06 5125

4

ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

EXHIBIT 8

EXHIBIT 8
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
ATTENTION: All persons with a mobility and/or vision disability who currently or in the future will use or attempt to use (1) Caltrans sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian overcrossings, pedestrian undercrossings, other outdoor pedestrian walkways; (2) Caltrans Park and Ride facilities; and/or (3) other Caltrans’s facilities in the public right of way, such as certain highway shoulders or temporary routes through and around work zones, owned and/or maintained by the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”). You may be a member of the proposed settlement class affected by this lawsuit."
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION.
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION
The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the proposed settlement in two pending class action lawsuits brought on behalf of people with mobility and/or vision disabilities. The class action settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”), which must be approved by the Court, was reached in connection with two lawsuits, Californians for Disability Rights, et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. C 06-5125 SBA and Californians for Disability Rights, et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al., Alameda County Superior Court No. RG08376549. The lawsuits, filed in 2006 and 2008 respectively, allege that the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) has discriminated against persons with mobility and/or vision disabilities by denying them access to sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian overcrossings, pedestrian undercrossings, other outdoor pedestrian walkways (“pedestrian facilities”) and Park and Ride facilities owned or maintained by Caltrans. The Defendants deny any liability or wrongdoing.
THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
If you are a person with a mobility and/or vision disability, and you currently or in the future will use or attempt to use (1) Caltrans sidewalks, cross-walks, pedestrian overcrossings, pedestrian undercrossings, other outdoor pedestrian walkways; (2) Caltrans Park and Ride facilities; and/or (3) other Caltrans’s facilities in the public right of way, such as certain highway shoulders or temporary routes through and around work zones, owned and/or maintained by the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”). You may be a member of the proposed settlement class affected by this lawsuit. Please read this notice carefully because your rights may be affected.
1

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Access Barrier Removal in Existing Facilities The settlement agreement provides that Caltrans will spend $1.1 billion over the next 30 years to remove access barriers along existing pedestrian facilities and within existing Park and Ride facilities. Caltrans will allocate funding to access barrier removal work according to the following schedule: $25 million per year for the first five years; $35 million per year for the following ten years; $40 million per year for the following 10 years; and $45 million per year for the last five years. The annual allocations will come from dedicated federal and state transportation funding.
Access Requests and Priority Guidelines For Removal of Access Barriers The $1.1 billion fund for removal of existing access barriers along pedestrian facilities and within Park and Ride facilities will be distributed as follows:
First, Caltrans will consider, in the distribution of the funds, access requests as well as needs identified by the Department. Individuals, organizations, public agencies, cities, and/or local government entities may submit access requests relating to Caltrans pedestrian facilities and Park and Ride facilities by: (1) filing a grievance or (2) submitting a non-grievance access request. Filing a grievance triggers a formal process which requires the grievant to submit a written grievance and which sets deadlines for Caltrans to act. Alternatively, access requests may be submitted to Caltrans, without filing a grievance, in order to report an access barrier. Access barriers identified through access requests and access barriers already identified by Caltrans will be removed according to the following general order of priorities: (i) access barriers that are the most severe and most significant safety hazard for class members; (ii) access barriers along pedestrian facilities and/or within Park and Ride facilities serving State and local government offices and facilities, (iii) access barriers along pedestrian facilities and/or within Park and Ride facilities serving important transportation corridors; (iv) access barriers along pedestrian facilities and/or within Park and Ride facilities serving places of public accommodation such as commercial and business zones; (v) access barriers along pedestrian facilities and/or within Park and Ride facilities serving facilities containing employers; and (vi) access barriers along pedestrian facilities and/or within Park and Ride facilities serving other areas such as residential neighborhoods and undeveloped areas.
Second, to the extent additional funds are available after removing access barriers identified through access requests and access barriers already identified by Caltrans, Caltrans will then survey its existing facilities to identify other existing access barriers. Caltrans will use the same prioritization listed above for the removal of access barriers identified through Caltrans’ surveys.
Access to Newly Constructed and Altered Facilities In addition to the $1.1 billion fund for removal of access barriers in existing facilities, Caltrans has agreed that when it resurfaces its roadways, it will upgrade existing but noncompliant curb ramps and/or install new curb ramps where they are lacking along the sidewalks adjacent to the resurfacing project. Caltrans will also ensure that it follows
2

federal and state accessibility guidelines when undertaking new construction or alterations of pedestrian facilities and/or Park and Ride facilities.
Access to Temporary Routes Through and Around Construction Caltrans will provide access at Temporary Routes and access at Work Zones as specified in the Settlement Agreement. Caltrans will make its best efforts to ensure that Temporary Routes, when provided through and around Work Zones, are accessible to pedestrians with disabilities
Resolution of Claims This Settlement Agreement resolves all claims for injunctive relief. The Settlement Agreement does not provide for any monetary relief to be paid to any plaintiffs or members of the class or release any damage claims such class members may have.
Attorneys Fees The class was represented by Disability Rights Advocates, AARP Foundation Litigation and Jose R. Allen, Esq. (“Class Counsel”). The settlement agreement provides that the Court will decide the amount of fees and costs that should be awarded to Class Counsel. The parties have agreed that the award may range between $3.75 million and $8.75 million for reasonable attorneys fees and costs for time expended and costs incurred during the course of the two lawsuits. The parties may agree upon an amount within this range through further negotiations or alternative dispute resolution, but any such agreement will be subject to Court approval.
Fairness of Agreement The class representatives and Class Counsel have concluded that the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. In reaching this conclusion, the class representatives and Class Counsel have considered the benefits of the settlement, the possible outcomes of continued litigation of these issues, and the expense and length of continued litigation and possible appeals.
OBJECTIONS TO THE SETTLEMENT
The Court has given preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, and has scheduled a hearing for April 27, 2010 in the Courtroom of the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and should be finally approved. Although you are not required to attend, as a Class Member, you have the right to attend and be heard at this hearing. This hearing date may be changed by the Court without further notice to the entire class. If you wish to be on the service list to be informed of any changes to the schedule, please file a notice of appearance or objection with the Court.
Any Class Member may object to the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement described above by filing a written, signed objection with the Court. If you wish to
3

object, you must send a written statement, postmarked on or before [DATE], specifying the reason(s) for your objection to the settlement and, stating whether you intend to appear at the above-referenced hearing to object to the settlement. Your written objection must be sent to each of the following:
The Court:
Clerk of the United States District Court Northern District of California 1301 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612 Reference: Californians for Disability Rights, et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al., Case No. C 06-5125 SBA
Class Counsel Representing Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Settlement Class:
Mary-Lee Kimber, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center St., Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704
Counsel representing the California Department of Transportation: Gregory F. Hurley GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612
_________________________________________
IF YOU DO NOT TIMELY SUBMIT AN OBJECTION AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED YOUR OBJECTION AND SHALL BE FORECLOSED FROM MAKING ANY OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT.
IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THIS SETTLEMENT, YOU NEED NOT APPEAR OR FILE ANYTHING IN WRITING.
BINDING EFFECT
The proposed Settlement Agreement, if given final approval by the Court, will bind all members of the Settlement Class. This will bar any person who is a member of the Settlement Class from seeking different or additional relief regarding all issues resolved in the Settlement Agreement for the term of the settlement.
4

FURTHER INFORMATION
The federal and state lawsuits and the terms of the settlement are only summarized in this Notice. More detailed information concerning the settlement or a copy of the Settlement Agreement may be obtained from Class Counsel at the following address:
Disability Rights Advocates Attn: Mary-Lee Kimber 2001 Center St., Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510-665-8644 (Voice) 510-665-8716 (TTY) E-mail: mkimber@dralegal.org
Or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the Clerk at the following address:
For the federal case: Clerk of the United States District Court Northern District of California 1301 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612 Reference: Californians for Disability Rights, et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al., Case No. C 06-5125 SBA
For the state case: Clerk of Alameda County Superior Court Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse 1225 Fallon St. Oakland, CA 94612 Reference: Californians for Disability Rights, et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al., No. RG08376549
Please do not direct questions to the Court.
To obtain copies of this Notice in alternative accessible formats, please contact Class Counsel listed above.
5

EXHIBIT 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10

CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, ) Case No. : C06-5125 SBA

11 INC. (“CDR”), CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF )

THE BLIND (“CCB”), BEN ROCKWELL and ) JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER AND

12 DMITRI BELSER, on behalf of themselves, and ) DECREE

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

)

13

)

Plaintiffs,

)

14

) Judge: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong

v.

) Date Action Filed: August 23, 2006

15

) Trial Date: September 16, 2009

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

)

16 TRANSPORTATION (“Caltrans”) and WILL )

KEMPTON, in his official capacity.

)

17

)

Defendants.

)

18

)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER AND DECREE

1

This matter came on for hearing on _______________, 2010. The Court has considered the

2 Settlement Agreement, objections and comments received regarding the proposed settlement, the

3 record in the Litigation, the evidence presented, and the arguments and authorities presented by

4 counsel. Good cause appearing,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

6

1. The Court, for purposes of this Judgment, Final Order and Decree (“Judgment”)

7 adopts the terms and definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

8

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Litigation and over all

9 Parties to the Litigation and the Plaintiff Settlement Class Members.

10

3. Defendants consent to the Federal Court exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state

11 law claims for purposes of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement.

12

4. The Court finds that the notice to the Plaintiff Settlement Class of the pendency of

13 the Litigation and of this settlement pursuant to the Order Re: Preliminary Approval of Class Action

14 Settlement (“Preliminary Approval Order) constitute the best notice practicable under the

15 circumstances to all persons within the definition of the Plaintiff Settlement Class and fully

16 complied with the requirements of due process of all applicable statutes and laws.

17

5. The Court hereby adopts and approves the Settlement Agreement, and finds that it is

18 in all respects fair, reasonable, adequate, just, and in the best interests of the Parties and the Plaintiff

19 Settlement Class. The objections have been considered and are overruled. Accordingly, the Court

20 directs the Parties and their counsel to implement and consummate this settlement in accordance

21 with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.

22

6. The Court certifies a Plaintiff Settlement Class as defined in the Settlement

23 Agreement.

24

7. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby

25 dismisses on the merits and with prejudice and without costs (except as otherwise provided in the

26 Settlement Agreement) the Litigation, subject to Paragraph 9 below. The terms of the Settlement

27 Agreement re: Class Action Settlement are hereby incorporated into this Final Judgment.

28

-1-

JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER AND DECREE

1

8. The Court rules that Defendants’ compliance with the terms of the agreed-upon

2 resolution set forth in the Settlement Agreement shall constitute a full and complete defense to any

3 claim for injunctive or declaratory relief asserting that Defendants have failed to comply with any

4 and all state and federal laws, rules, regulations, standards and guidelines relating to the subject

5 matter of the Litigation. Damage claims and Claims, of any kind, relating to APS (accessible

6 pedestrian signals) are not being released. Defendants shall not be required in any proceedings

7 brought by any Plaintiff Settlement Class Members to take any action beyond those set forth in the

8 Settlement Agreement relating to the subject matter of the Litigation.

9

9. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, the Court hereby enters

10 final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b), dismissing the Federal Action with prejudice, subject

11 to retaining jurisdiction to resolve any Dispute regarding compliance with the Agreement that

12 cannot be resolved through the meet and confer process set forth therein.

13

10. As more fully addressed by separate order, Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ application for an

14 award of attorneys’ fees and expenses has been submitted to the Court and fees and expenses are

15 allowed in the amount of $________ for fees and $ ______ for expenses, and shall be paid by

16 Defendants in the time and manner set forth in such separate order.

17

11. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to enter this Judgment forthwith.

18

19

Final Judgment is hereby entered on this __________ day of _______________, 2010.

20

21

HONORABLE SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER AND DECREE

 
 NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 22, 2009
CONTACTS:
Larry Paradis or Mary-Lee Kimber, Disability Rights Advocates, (510) 665-8644 Mark Beach, AARP, (916) 952-8569
SWEEPING LANDMARK CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT PAVES THE WAY FOR IMPROVED SIDEWALK ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In an unprecedented settlement announced today, two individuals with disabilities, two disability rights organizations, and the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) have reached a comprehensive plan that will provide access for persons with mobility and vision disabilities to 2,500 miles of sidewalk and Park and Ride facilities across the State of California that are owned or maintained by Caltrans. The settlement resolves two hard fought class action lawsuits that spanned over several years, alleging a denial of access for persons with mobility and vision disabilities to Caltrans sidewalks and Park and Ride facilities due to barriers such as curbs without curb ramps, a lack of detectable warnings (i.e. yellow truncated domes), sidewalks that are too narrow, and sidewalks with uneven and broken pavement. This is the largest single settlement reached on the issue of architectural access for persons with disabilities nationwide.
The class representatives – Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. (“CDR”) and the California Council of the Blind (“CCB”), Ben Rockwell, an individual with a mobility disability, and Dmitri Belser, an individual with a vision disability – are represented by Disability Rights Advocates (“DRA”), a nonprofit law center that specializes in high-impact cases on behalf of persons with disabilities in Berkeley, California; Jose Allen, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom LLP in San Francisco, California; and AARP Foundation Litigation (AFL), the legal advocacy unit of the AARP.
Under the settlement, Caltrans has committed to a comprehensive plan for improving access to its sidewalks and Park and Ride facilities for persons with mobility and vision disabilities. The plan includes a financial commitment of $1.1 billion for the next 30 years. Caltrans will allocate $25 million per year for the first five years (beginning with the fiscal year in which the Agreement becomes effective). For the next ten years, Caltrans will allocate $35 million per year. Thereafter, Caltrans will allocate $40 million per year for a period of ten years. Finally, Caltrans will allocate $45 million per year for the next five years. The annual allocations will come from dedicated federal and state transportation funding and will be used solely to remove existing access barriers along Caltrans’ sidewalks and within Caltrans’ Park and Ride facilities. The public will be able to report any such existing access barriers to Caltrans. This $1.1 billion fund will result in the removal of tens of thousands of access barriers throughout Caltrans’ sidewalk system and Park and Rides.
In addition, Caltrans has agreed that when it resurfaces one of its roadways (an ongoing activity statewide), it will upgrade existing but non-compliant curb ramps and/or install new curb ramps where

they are lacking along the sidewalks adjacent to the resurfacing project. Many thousands of additional access barriers will be remedied through this commitment. The settlement agreement also requires that Caltrans follow federal and state accessibility guidelines when undertaking new construction or alterations of sidewalks and/or Park and Ride facilities.
“This landmark settlement recognizes the essential need to provide access for persons with disabilities,” said Laurence Paradis, Executive Director of Disability Rights Advocates and lead counsel for the Plaintiffs. “We are pleased that Caltrans has embraced its obligation to ensure that people with disabilities will have full and equal access to Caltrans sidewalks and Park and Ride facilities.”
The sidewalks covered by this settlement include cross-walks, pedestrian overcrossings, pedestrian undercrossings and other walkways designated for pedestrian use that are owned or maintained by Caltrans. These sidewalks are usually located along state highways that become “streets” as they pass through cities and towns.
“AARP Foundation Litigation chose to represent the class members because with 77 million aging Baby Boomers in this country, we need to make sure our communities are places where everyone can live and get around,” said Julie Nepveu, a senior attorney with the AARP Foundation Litigation. “This unprecedented settlement helps move us toward that goal. Every trip begins and ends with a sidewalk, so it is vital that we include safe and accessible sidewalks in all street renovations.”
Jeff Thom, president of the California Council of the Blind, an organizational plaintiff in the lawsuit, stated, “This settlement is a milestone for thousands of blind and low vision people as it will lead to changes that enable them to safely navigate Caltrans sidewalks.”
“Millions of people with disabilities across the state of California will benefit from this settlement,” stated Laura Williams, president of Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., an organizational plaintiff in the lawsuit. “It will also serve as a model for other public entities across the state and the nation for providing safety and equal access.”
Dmitri Belser, an individual with a vision disability and a named plaintiff in the case, explained, “The settlement acknowledges the needs of the disability community. For me personally, it will ensure that I can commute to work and travel around my community safely.”
Ben Rockwell, an individual with a mobility disability and a named plaintiff in the case, expressed his praise of the settlement. “This is a great day for people with mobility disabilities. People like myself who are wheelchair users look forward to the day when we do not have to travel in the street with vehicular traffic because sidewalks are inaccessible.”
Mary-Lee Kimber, an attorney at Disability Rights Advocates, stated, “This settlement recognizes the importance of accessible sidewalks and Park and Ride facilities for persons with mobility and vision disabilities. This is a long-term investment in California’s future which will afford persons with disabilities the opportunity to participate more fully in society.”
The settlement agreement includes provisions for ongoing reporting by the Department and monitoring by an access consultant and plaintiffs’ attorneys. The federal court will maintain its jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
# # #