Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-69/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGIE CHERRY and ESTORIA CHERRY,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO

(“City College”) LAWRENCE WONG, in his

official capacity as President of the Board of

Trustees, MILTON MARKS, III, in his official

capacity as Vice-President of the Board of

Trustees, DR. NATALIE BERG, JOHNNIE

CARTER, JR., DR. ANITA GRIER, JULIO J.

RAMOS, RODEL E. RODIS, in their official

capacities as members of the Board of

Trustees, and DR. PHILIP R. RAY, JR., in his

official capacity as Chancellor,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04981 WHA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

ENFORCE AMENDED

STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND

CONSENT DECREE

INTRODUCTION

In this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, plaintiffs move to enforce the

stipulated amended judgment and consent decree. Pursuant to the judgment, defendant City

College of San Francisco was required to make three facilities on its Ocean Avenue campus

fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, or

California’s Title 24 disability access code, whichever is stricter, by April 1, 2007. Defendants

have failed to meet that deadline, and thus have not complied with the consent decree. 

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 773 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the amended judgment is GRANTED. Defendants are

ordered to file a comprehensive list of barriers that need to be fixed no later than OCTOBER 18,

2007, a list that should have been done months ago and which should be close to completion by

now. Defendants must fix those barriers no later than DECEMBER 11, 2007. 

STATEMENT

The lengthy history of this action is fully recounted in prior orders. It was originally

filed as a putative class action on November 24, 2004, alleging that some of City College’s

facilities were not in compliance with federal and state disability non-discrimination laws. In

June of 2005, a class was certified for injunctive relief on behalf of all students disabled by

mobility impairments who enrolled at City College since November 23, 2001, who sought

access to its services, programs, or activities. 

The case settled on the eve of trial in February 2006. The parties entered into a

stipulated judgment and order which was approved by this Court on April 17, 2006, after a

fairness hearing. Among other items, it required City College to remove access barriers from its

facilities. For new construction projects, it stated that “Defendants shall ensure that all future

new construction and alteration work at SFCCD fully complies with ADAAG or Title 24,

whichever standard is the most stringent with regard to disability access requirements” (Wallace

Decl Exh. A, 10). It also required that Rosenberg Library, the Extended Opportunity Programs

and Services building (“EOPS”), and the stadium press box and snack bar be made compliant

no later than April 1, 2007 (id. at 11). April 1, 2007, is the earliest construction deadline set

forth in the consent decree. Other construction deadlines fall within the next three years. 

The stipulated judgment also addressed the topic of access surveys to determine the

scope of work. It stated (id. at 11–12):

Defendants shall retain the services of access expert Gary K.

Waters AIA, to review all new construction and alteration plans

for ADAAG and Title 24 compliance before any new

constructions or alterations are scheduled and/or performed. The

expert will also be responsible for review of plans prior to final

approval by the Division of the State Architect. The expert shall

also review the as-built conditions prior to project closeout so as

to determine that the project and work was performed in

accordance with the plans and specifications. 

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 773 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

The stipulated judgment made clear that although defendants could rely on the advice of access

experts, the facilities in question must comply with Title 24 or ADAAG irrespective of any

access expert’s opinion. Also, the facilities could not be made compliant by fixing only those

barriers listed in the stipulated amended judgment (id. at 5–6). 

City College agreed to retain Gary Waters, plaintiffs’ access expert, to serve as their

own access expert (Goldstein Decl. ¶ 2). It also hired Howard Cameron, an additional project

manager, on November 1, 2006 (Cameron Decl. ¶ 3). Despite these measures, defendants failed

to make arrangements with Waters to conduct a comprehensive access survey. Defendants sent

Waters a letter asking him to sign off on a list of barriers without conducting a survey on

December 22, 2006 (Wallace Decl. Exh. B). He responded, stating that he could not sign off on

any proposed modifications without first conducting a survey (id. at Exh. C). He offered to

either do a survey before defendants began work or after they had completed the items on the

list (ibid.). 

Leilani Battiste, City College’s ADA Compliance Director, agreed to have Waters

perform a survey after work was completed, but by then, the deadline of April 1, 2007, was

quickly approaching (Battiste Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14). A number of the improvements to EOPS,

Rosenberg Library, and the stadium press box and snack bar had been completed, others had

not. City College claims now that it thought work would be completed on time, so they

attempted to schedule a survey with Waters. Because of scheduling conflicts, no inspection was

conducted until April 17 and April 23, 2007 (id. at ¶¶ 16–18). Waters did not give defendants

findings of any additional deficiencies until May 25, 2007 (id. at ¶ 19). 

In late March, defendants became aware of problems with renovations to the third- and

fouth-floor bathrooms in the Rosenberg Library. The contractor was having problems finding

supplies, but still insisted that it could meet the deadline (Cameron Decl. ¶¶ 10–11). Eventually

that contractor refused to return to the work site (id. at ¶10). Thereafter, defendants replaced

the contractor in early May (id. at ¶ 11). 

Plaintiffs and defendants met in an advance of a hearing to prepare a joint status report. 

Defendants admitted that work on the third- and fourth-floor bathrooms of the Rosenberg

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 773 Filed 10/01/07 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Library was not completed (Wallace Decl. Exh. F, 5). Moreover, Waters performed inspections

and found additional deficiencies that had not been identified or addressed (id. at Exh. H). 

Parties also met thereafter to discuss progress in completing the renovations. In a letter dated

June 21, 2007, defendants represented that the work would be substantially completed by July

6, 2007 (id. at Exh. I). The work was not completed by that date. Parties also attended

mediation on July 30, 2007, but were unable to resolve the matter. This motion was filed by

plaintiffs on August 9, 2007, and a hearing was held on September 13, 2007. 

ANALYSIS

Courts have the inherent authority to enforce their orders by exercising their contempt

powers. “Because of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and

discretion.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). In a contempt proceeding, the

moving party has the burden of showing that by clear and convincing evidence that the

contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court. Stone v. City and County of San

Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden then shifts to contemnors to

demonstrate why they were unable to comply. Ibid. Failure to comply with a court order

consists of not taking all reasonable steps within contemnor’s power to comply with the order. 

Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1989). 

1. NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS. 

First, defendants argue that they did not receive proper notice of plaintiffs’ motion for

contempt. Although this motion is styled as a motion to enforce an amended judgment, the

Court previously stated at a hearing on August 15, 2007, that defendants would be facing

contempt if they failed to comply with the deadlines in the amended stipulated judgment

(Johnson Reply Decl. Exh. A, 7:14–16; 8:9–10). In their motion, plaintiffs argue that

defendants should be held in civil contempt because of the nature of the relief sought here.

 Civil contempt sanctions “are considered to be coercive and avoidable through

obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an

opportunity to be heard.” International Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994). 

For some contempt motions involving complex injunctions, fact finding may be necessary. See

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 773 Filed 10/01/07 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

id. at 833–34. “The more punitive the nature of the sanction, the greater the [procedural]

protection to which an individual is entitled.” F.J. Hanshaw Enter., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev.,

Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Here, defendants argue that because plaintiffs did not actually bring a motion for

contempt or serve defendants with an order to show cause, they did not receive sufficient notice

to be held in contempt. Defendants cite Florida Ass’n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Bush,

246 F.3d 1296, 1298 (11th Cir. 2001), for the proposition that an order to show cause is the

general form of notice for civil contempt motions. No authority from this circuit, however, has

been found that requires an order to show cause for civil contempt proceedings. Only notice

and an opportunity to be heard are needed. 

 Defendants have clearly had adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. The

deadline of April 1, 2007, was explicitly clear in the consent decree. Defendants participated in

a number of mediations and meetings with plaintiffs, so they knew plaintiffs were aware of the

shortcomings in achieving compliance at least after the deadline had passed. They attended two

hearings in this Court at which the subject of contempt was discussed. Plaintiffs then filed their

motion, requesting contempt-style sanctions. Defendants put far too much stock in the fact that

this motion was not called a motion for contempt. They were well aware of the risks of not

meeting the deadlines. Defendants then filed an opposition to the motion. Both sides filed

numerous declarations regarding compliance efforts. Finally, a hearing was held on this motion

at which defendants had an adequate opportunity to be heard. It is hard to see what defendants

would have said or done differently had the form of the paper said “order to show cause” rather

than “motion to enforce.” Accordingly, defendants had adequate notice of this motion and an

opportunity to be heard. 

2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMENDED STIPULATED JUDGMENT. 

As to compliance with the stipulated judgment, neither side disputes that the work on

EOPS, the stadium press box and snack bar, and Rosenberg Library was not completed by April

1, 2007. Instead, defendants argue that they substantially complied with the amended stipulated

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 773 Filed 10/01/07 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

judgment. Admittedly they fell short, but they protest that they should not be penalized here

because they used their best efforts to meet the deadlines. 

City College first attempts to rely on the list of barriers set forth in the stipulated

amended judgment. In effect they argue that since they at least attempted to fix the items on the

list, they were in substantial compliance. The list itself made clear that it is not exhaustive as to

all the things that needed to be fixed. At the fairness hearing, it was made abundantly clear that

the list was only a starting point, not the ending point, i.e., defendants had to find and to fix all

the shortfalls, not just those on the list. Moreover, defendants failed to timely arrange with an

access expert to conduct a comprehensive survey to define the scope of work. Defendants

argue that even that would not guarantee that the facilities would be in compliance because the

access experts would not certify that the facilities were in compliance. This argument ignores

the fact that it was City College’s decision to sign on to the consent decree. They did not have

to do so. They could have negotiated with plaintiffs to have some other measure of the scope of

work. They could have taken their chances at trial. Absent a motion to amend the judgment,

defendants must live with the consent decree they asked the Court to impose.

City College also attempts to blame the access experts themselves. Defendants could

not coordinate schedules with plaintiffs’ access expert, Gary Waters, so they could not arrange

to have a comprehensive access survey performed until after the deadline had expired. This

argument is belied by the fact that defendants attempted to rely on the list of barriers in the

stipulated amended judgment by trying to get Waters to sign off on the list. The stipulated

amended judgment makes clear that the scope of work is not defined by the barrier list; the

facilities must be made ADAAG or Title 24 compliant (Wallace Decl. Exh. A, 10–11). 

Defendants also contend that they had one of their employees, Larry Lauser, conduct a survey. 

No evidence is presented on the scope or amount of barriers found by Lauser, so it is impossible

at this time to determine whether or not the work he identified could bring the facilities into

compliance. Even then, defendants did not conduct a comprehensive access survey by any

access expert until the deadline had passed. Nothing in the stipulated amended judgment

required them to use Gary Waters to determine the scope of work, or to conduct a survey at all. 

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 773 Filed 10/01/07 Page 6 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

The fact remains, however, that defendants did not even complete work removing the barriers

on the list by the deadline. In the face of all of this, defendants’ arguments that they

substantially complied with the judgment or used their best efforts to do so simply ring hollow. 

Defendants also point the finger at contractor and supply problems. City College argues

that it had every intention of complying with the judgment, but uncontrollable construction

delays derailed its efforts. Defendants claim to have been unaware of these problems until

April 1, 2007, the deadline for work to be done. As of that time, the only problem defendants

knew of was the issues with conducting an access survey and determining the scope of work. 

Thereafter, they did not inform plaintiffs’ counsel of the problems until late in May because

they were “focused on rectifying the problem with the untimely contractor in the restrooms in

Rosenberg Library” (Opp. 20). Again, they fault Waters for not alerting them to additional

barriers in the stadium press box and snack bar until May 25, 2007. If defendants had

conducted an access survey early on in the process, that additional roadblock could have been

eliminated. 

Despite this, defendants still did not fulfill their obligations under the stipulated

amended judgment. If they had known of problems, they should have informed plaintiffs’

counsel once they knew of them instead of waiting months to do so. If they knew they could

not meet their obligations under the stipulated amended judgment, they should have not agreed

to it. Defendants should have organized themselves so as to learn of compliance roadblocks in

time to remove them rather than to drift along in a casual style, claiming to be surprised by

events after the fact. Accordingly, defendants’ arguments that they substantially complied with

the judgment, or that they used their best efforts are unavailing. 

City College also argues that it has met all deadlines in the consent decree excepting this

one. This is so. This is the first deadline, however, that required City College to undertake

construction and actually remove barriers. All others that came before dealt with things like

posting an access guide on the internet, hiring a full-time ADA compliance director, and

establishing written access policies and complaint procedures (Wallace Decl. Exh. A, 18–20). 

Defendants have met those deadlines, but many more construction deadlines remain. Their

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 773 Filed 10/01/07 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

complete failure to meet the first construction deadline does not bode well for meeting the other

construction deadlines. 

Finally, defendants argue that this motion is not necessary. There is no dispute between

plaintiffs and defendants as to City College’s obligations, so no interpretation of the consent

decree is needed. It is correct that defendants have never disputed that the work was to be done

by April 1, 2007. The mere fact that this is not in dispute does not excuse defendants’ failure,

several months after the deadline has passed, to complete the necessary work. Their promises

to fix all the barriers identified by both access experts ring hollow because they failed to meet

the obligations to which they agreed in signing the stipulated amended judgment. Similarly,

defendants’ contention that plaintiffs have just brought this motion in an attempt to rack up

attorney’s fees is without merit. They contend that there was no reason to bring this motion

because plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the motion will have any effect on class members. 

Again, the district’s agreement to comply with the judgment is not enough. Moreover, plaintiffs

do not need to identify specific people that have been harmed by defendants’ failure to meet the

deadlines. Defendants simply did not hold up their end of the deal. Accordingly, plaintiffs’

motion to enforce the stipulated amended judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART.

CONCLUSION

For all of the above-stated reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the amended stipulated

judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

No later than OCTOBER 18, 2007, defendants must create a comprehensive list of

barriers to be fixed in order to make the EOPS, the stadium press box and snack bar, and

Rosenberg Library compliant with ADAAG or Title 24, whichever is stricter. This list must be

filed with the Court by October 18, 2007. No proceedings will be held regarding the adequacy

of list. Filing the list is not intended to constitute any kind of approval, nor does this estop

defendants against having to defend the adequacy of the list. 

Defendants are ordered to hold in-person meetings of the compliance task force each

Monday morning until compliance is complete with all provisions of the consent decree. All

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 773 Filed 10/01/07 Page 8 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

members must attend in person unless they are ill. The task force must make specific, concrete

plans regarding how compliance is to be achieved, monitor progress, identify shortfalls and

obstacles in achieving compliance, and how they are to be overcome. Minutes must be kept of

the meetings, and the minutes should be filed with the Court on the first business day of each

month, accompanied by a declaration describing the progress made in achieving compliance. 

The minutes must state who attended. 

Defendants are to pay all reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by plaintiffs in filing this

motion. Parties should follow the procedure set out in the accompanying order. This order

reserves on any further remedial action pending satisfactory progress by defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 773 Filed 10/01/07 Page 9 of 9