Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

1

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

DANNY CHOU, State Bar # 180240

Chief of Complex and Special Litigation 

JAMES M. EMERY, State Bar #153630

ELAINE M. O'NEIL, State Bar #142234

Deputy City Attorneys 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market Street, Seventh Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-4261 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3985 

E-Mail: jim.emery@sfgov.org 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IVANA KIROLA, MICHAEL KWOK, and 

ELIZABETH ELFTMAN, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO ("the CITY"); GAVIN 

NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Mayor; 

AARON PESKIN, in his official capacity as 

President of the Board of Supervisors; JAKE 

MCGOLDRICK, MICHELA ALIOTOPIER, ED JEW, CHRIS DALY, SEAN 

ELSBERND, BEVAN DUFTY, TOM 

AMMIANO, SOPHIE MAXWELL, ROSS 

MIRKARIMI, AND GERARDO 

SANDOVAL, in their official capacities as 

members of the Board of Supervisors, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C07-3685 SBA 

CLASS ACTION 

 ORDER DENYING IN PART AND 

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Trial Date: July 12, 2010 

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to dismiss Plaintiff Michael Kwok and add in 

his place a new Plaintiff, Linda Pillay. In addition, Plaintiffs seek to modify and narrow the 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 238 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 4
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

2

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

definition of the proposed class. Finally, Plaintiffs seek to add language stating that their claim under 

California Government Code section 11135 includes a claim that the City has failed to prepare and 

implement an adequate transition plan under 11135 and its implementing regulations, California Code 

of Regulations §§ 98251, 98254, 98257, 98258. 

Having read and considered the papers submitted by the parties in support of and in 

opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, and having heard oral argument on the matter, THE COURT 

FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Plaintiffs' motion to amend to dismiss Plaintiff Michael Kwok is granted. Counsel for 

the City stated that it has no objection to his dismissal. Accordingly, the Court Orders 

that Mr. Kwok is dismissed from this action. 

2. Likewise, the City has no objection to the proposed amendment to narrow the class 

definition alleged in the complaint, and the Court grants leave to amend the class 

definition. The City will address any objections to the new proposed class definition 

in its response to Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification. 

3. As to the proposed addition of Ms. Linda Pillay as a party Plaintiff, the motion is 

denied. The addition of Ms. Pillay to this action at this late date would necessarily 

require a modification of the scheduling order previously issued by the Court in this 

case. Accordingly, the good cause standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

16(b) applies. Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause to amend the complaint to 

add Ms. Pillay as a party. Further, the record shows that Plaintiffs have delayed in 

filing the motion and that the City would be prejudiced by the addition of Ms. Pillay to 

the action. Finally, as at least one of the remaining Plaintiffs is in a position to seek to 

represent the proposed class, the addition of Ms. Pillay is not necessary at this time to 

protect the interests of the class. The denial of Plaintiffs’ motion in this respect is 

without prejudice, however, in the event Plaintiffs are able to demonstrate good cause 

based on future events. 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 238 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 4
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

3

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for leave to clarify its allegations concerning a self 

evaluation and transition plan pursuant to section 11135 and the regulations 

promulgated under the statute. California Code of Regulations §§ 98251 and 98258 

provide that responsible state agencies "should" require a local government entity 

receiving state funds for a program, service or activity to prepare a self-evaluation and 

transition plan as necessary to assure access to the state-funded program, service or 

activity. The regulations do not themselves impose a mandatory legal duty on local 

entities to prepare self-evaluation and transition plans. This Court, however, does not 

sit as a court of law. Sitting as a court of equity, this Court has jurisdiction and 

authority to provide such equitable relief should it find in favor of Plaintiffs on their 

claims under Government Code section 11135. “California administrative agencies 

routinely adopt quasi-legislative regulations under express statutory authority. For 

such regulations to be valid in this state, they must be consistent with the terms or 

intent of the authorizing statute." Esberg v. Union Oil Co., (2002) 28 Cal.4th 262, 269 

(internal citations and quotations omitted); see Gov.Code, § 11342.2 (agency 

regulation adopted pursuant to statutory authorization must be “consistent and not in 

conflict with the statute and reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the 

statute.”). “[A]gencies do not have discretion to promulgate regulations that are 

inconsistent with the governing statute, or that alter or amend the statute or enlarge its 

scope.” Slocum v. State Bd. Of Equalization, (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 969, 974 

(citation omitted). "If the court determines that a challenged administrative 

[regulation] was not authorized by or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature, that 

[regulation] is void." Terhune v. Superior Court, (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 864, 846 

(citation omitted). Here, the City's argument that the agency regulations can be 

interpreted in such a manner that would deprive parties of a right clearly accorded by 

§ 11139 is unsupported and illogical. Accordingly, the City’s argument that the 

amendment to add the transition plan allegations would be futile is overruled. Further, 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 238 Filed 04/12/10 Page 3 of 4
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiffs have met their burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) to demonstrate "good 

cause" for this amendment, and the City has not demonstrated prejudice arising there 

from. 

For the foregoing reasons, leave to amend the Complaint and file a First Amended Complaint 

is GRANTED for the following purposes: (1) to dismiss Michael Kwok as a Plaintiff; (2) to narrow 

the class definition as Plaintiffs have proposed; and (3) to add their theory requiring self-evaluation 

and transition plans pursuant to state regulations promulgated pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 11135. 

In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 12_, 2010 

_____________________________________ 

HON. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Untied States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 238 Filed 04/12/10 Page 4 of 4