Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01938/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01938-4/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)

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORGAN HENDERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LINCOLN SQUARE, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-12-1938 JCS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

RENEWED MOTION FOR A FINDING 

OF CONTEMPT AND AWARD OF 

SANCTIONS 

Re: Docket No. 38 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff brought this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and 

state civil rights laws based on alleged architectural barriers at the Lincoln Square Shopping 

Center, in Oakland California. The parties entered into a settlement agreement under which 

Lincoln Square, LLC (“Lincoln Square”) agreed to make certain modifications. Pursuant to the 

settlement agreement and the stipulation of the parties, the Court dismissed the action with 

prejudice but retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. See Docket No. 30. 

Previously, Plaintiff brought a motion seeking contempt sanctions for failure to timely complete 

the remedial work agreed to under the Settlement Agreement, which the Court denied without 

prejudice on the basis that the parties had not adequately met and conferred with Lincoln Square 

prior to bringing the motion. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion Requesting 

a Finding Against Defendant Lincoln Square, LLC of Contempt of Court and for Sanctions 

(“Renewed Motion”). A hearing on the Renewed Motion was held on Friday, April 24, 2015 at 

9:30 a.m. For the reasons stated below, the Renewed Motion is DENIED. 1

 

11 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Case 3:12-cv-01938-JCS Document 46 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 7
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. Relevant Terms of the Settlement Agreement 

Under the Settlement Agreement, Lincoln Square agreed, inter alia, to install a pedestrian 

ramp from the lower level to the upper level, a new walkway along the lower level and disabledaccessible parking spaces on the lower level. Docket No. 29 (Settlement Agreement), Attachment 

A. The work was to be completed “within twelve months of full execution of the Agreement,” 

that is, by June 11, 2014. Id. at 2, 7-8. However, the Settlement Agreement further provided that 

if there was delay due to “circumstances beyond [Lincoln Square’s] control,” the parties would 

meet and confer to either agree to a new schedule or, if the parties could not agree, bring the 

matter to the Court for resolution. Id. at 2-3. “Circumstances beyond [Lincoln Square’s] control” 

included, but was not limited to “the time needed for governmental approval)(s) (e.g. permits), 

weather, and the contractor’s availability.” Id. at 3. 

B. Compliance Efforts 

In the joint status report filed by the parties on April 10, 2015, Lincoln Square represented 

that all of the work agreed to under the Settlement Agreement is close to completion and will 

likely be complete by May 15, 2015; the pedestrian ramp was projected to be completed on April 

13, 2015. Docket No. 44. Lincoln Square attributes the delay in completion of the project of 

almost a year to a series of difficulties that were beyond its control and asserts that it has diligently 

sought to complete the project since the parties entered into the Settlement Agreement. The 

history of the project is briefly summarized below. 

 First, at the outset of the project, Lincoln Square had difficulty retaining a contractor. See

Clark Decl., Docket No. 34-1 (“First Clark Decl.”). The contractor who had worked with Lincoln 

Square during the litigation significantly increased an earlier estimate and then, after Lincoln 

Square decided to retain that contractor despite the cost, told Lincoln Square it could not perform 

the work. Id. Consequently, Lincoln Square was not able to retain a contractor for the project 

until August 2013. 

 Once the contractor was found, Lincoln Square hired an ADA compliance consulting firm 

to complete a project design and drawings. Id. The design had to be cleared with the new owners 

Case 3:12-cv-01938-JCS Document 46 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 7
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

of Lincoln Square as well.2 The design and plans were completed and a permit application was 

submitted to the City of Oakland (“City”) on February 11, 2014. Id. According to Lincoln 

Square, it believed at that point that it would be able to complete the project by the agreed-upon 

deadline. Id. 

 Lincoln Square did not receive a response from the City until March 11, 2014. The 

comments included “numerous additional requirements, including a requirement for engineered 

drawings.” Id. Lincoln Square therefore retained an engineer and new engineered plans were 

submitted to the City on April 7, 2014. Id. The City asked for significant additional information, 

as well as revisions, and at one point, the City official who was reviewing the project was out of 

the office for approximately a week to 10 days. Id. Ultimately, the permit was issued on July 17, 

2014. The work began in August, when the contractor first became available. Id. 

 Once work began and the contractor broke ground, a buried building footing was 

discovered, requiring that the ramp be moved. Id. Lincoln Square submitted revised drawings to 

the City on September 1, 2014; the revision was not approved until September 25, 2014. Id. In 

addition, moving the ramp required relocating a water meter, which could only be done by the 

East Bay Municipal Utility District (“East Bay MUD”). Id. East Bay MUD began the work on 

November 3, 2014 and completed the work on November 11, 2014. Id. Excavation also revealed 

that water lines needed to be lowered and/or replaced. Id. That work was also completed on 

November 11, 2014. Id. 

 From mid-November until January 2, 2015, construction was halted to minimize disruption 

during the holiday shopping season. Id. Although Lincoln Square had negotiated an agreement 

with the new owner to allow construction to continue on the ramp, as that area was already fenced 

off, tenants objected and threatened litigation if any construction occurred during that period. Id. 

 Starting January 2, 2015 the construction moved forward. Clark Decl., Docket No. 40-1 

(“Second Clark Decl.”). The project was divided into three phases: 1) construction of the ramp 

 

2

After the parties entered into the Settlement Agreement Lincoln Square, LLC sold the property to 

Property Development Centers, LLC, but Lincoln Square retained the obligation to perform the 

remedial work required under the Settlement Agreement. Id. 

Case 3:12-cv-01938-JCS Document 46 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 7
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

between the lower level and the upper level of the shopping center; 2) construction of a new 

walkway and landing along the upper level of the shopping center; and 3) a new walkway along 

the lower level of the shopping center, parking improvements and curb cuts. Id. Lincoln Square 

arranged for these phases to overlap to accelerate construction. Id. As of late January 2015, the 

upper level walkway had been completed. See Smith Decl., Docket No. 40-2. However, 

unforeseen difficulties arose in connection with the lower level walkway. In particular, during the 

initial demolition for the lower level walkway, it was found that the supports for the upper level 

stores were not tied to sufficient footings in the lower level walkway. Id. Until this problem was 

resolved, the demolition for the lower level walkway could not proceed. Id. 

Lincoln Square’s engineers did not have the expertise to design the replacement footings, 

so it was required to retain structural engineers to design the new footings for the support posts. 

Id. The design for the new footings was approved by the City of Oakland on February 23, 2015. 

Id. On March 5, 2015, however, the City informed Lincoln Square that it would need a building 

permit before it could proceed with work on the support posts. See Docket No. 44. According to 

Lincoln Square, “[t]he City required that [the] building permit application include the total area of 

the work to be completed, the square footage of the concrete sidewalk to be removed and replaced, 

and certification from Lincoln Square’s engineer that the previously-approved footing can apply to 

each of the six posts.” Id. Lincoln Square submitted the application and obtained the building 

permit on March 23, 2015. Id. It is now in the process of installing the new footings. Id. This 

process involves two City inspections and time to allow the poured cement to cure (according to 

the City inspector, between 7 and 21 days); it cannot be completed on all six posts 

simultaneously, and the walkway cannot be built until the shoring is removed from the six new 

posts. Id. 

The difficulties with the footings has also delayed the completion of the accessible parking 

and curb cuts, which were to be located in an area that overlapped with the lower level walkway. 

As the walkway had to be replaced and regraded, the curb cuts and accessible parking could not be 

completed until the lower level walkway was completed. Smith Decl. 

At the Motion hearing, Lincoln Square’s counsel represented that the ramp was complete 

Case 3:12-cv-01938-JCS Document 46 Filed 04/24/15 Page 4 of 7
5 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

and that the shorings had been removed from all of the posts; he again projected that the entire 

project would be complete by May 15, 2015. 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Legal Standard on Contempt

In a civil contempt proceeding, “[t]he moving party has the burden of showing by clear and 

convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court.” 

F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). The court may exercise its civil 

contempt power for one or both of two purposes: “to coerce the defendant into compliance with 

the court’s order, and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.” United States v. United 

Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 303-304 (1947). A party may be held in contempt even if 

its conduct was not willful. Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1156, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2006) (citations omitted). There is no good faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a 

court order. Go-Video v. Motion Picture Ass’n of America, 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). 

However, substantial compliance is a defense to an action for civil contempt. Balla v. Idahoe State 

Board of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461,466 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, once it has been demonstrated that 

a party has violated a specific and definite court order, the burden shifts to the party sought to be 

held in contempt to prove that it “took all reasonable steps within [its] power to insure 

compliance.” Hook v. Arizona Dep’t of Corrections, 107 F.3d 1397 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing 

Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 544 F.2d 396, 403-404 (9th Cir. 1976)). Where a party has taken all 

reasonable steps to comply, technical or inadvertent violations of the order will not support a 

finding of civil contempt. General Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d at 1379. 

B. Discussion 

In the Renewed Motion, Plaintiff’s primary basis for asking the Court to find Lincoln 

Square in contempt is its failure to provide disabled parking and curb cuts well after the 12-month 

deadline for completing the remedial work has passed. Renewed Motion at 2-3. It is Plaintiff’s 

position that Lincoln Square should have installed temporary parking and curb cuts while the other 

construction was being completed, as was suggested by Plaintiff’s counsel to Lincoln Square’s 

Case 3:12-cv-01938-JCS Document 46 Filed 04/24/15 Page 5 of 7
6 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

counsel.3 The Court concludes that Lincoln Park’s failure to install temporary parking and curb 

cuts does not support a finding of contempt. 

First, assuming violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement amounts to a violation 

of the Court’s order dismissing the case (an issue the Court need not decide), Plaintiff has not 

offered clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Although the Settlement Agreement set a 

twelve-month deadline for completion, it also provided the parties would meet and confer where 

circumstances outside of Lincoln Square’s control resulted in delay, thus implicitly recognizing 

that Lincoln Square might not be able to meet that deadline. The record shows that Lincoln 

Square encountered a series of circumstances outside of its control, including not only difficulty 

scheduling contractors and delays associated with obtaining governmental approvals (which were 

expressly referenced in the Settlement Agreement as the types of delays that would constitute 

circumstances outside of Lincoln Square’s control) but also the discovery of major structural 

issues that vastly broadened the scope of the project as compared to what was originally 

envisioned. It also reflects that from the outset, Lincoln Square’s counsel has informed Plaintiff’s 

counsel of the reasons for the delays and provided extensive supporting documentation to 

Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the progress of the project. 

Second, there is nothing in the Settlement Agreement that required Lincoln Square to 

install temporary curb cuts and disabled parking in an area that was going to have to be regarded 

to complete other required modifications. Thus, failure to do so does not demonstrate a violation 

of the Settlement Agreement. This point is highlighted by the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel did not 

even suggest that this should be done until February 2015. Nor does counsel offer any specific 

design plans or evidence showing that such a plan would have been safe or feasible. In any event, 

Lincoln Square’s apparent rejection of this suggestion is not sufficient to justify a finding of 

contempt. 

Finally, even if the Court were to find that Lincoln Square violated the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement by failing to install temporary disabled parking and curb cuts, Lincoln 

 

3

 It appears that this possibility was first raised by Plaintiff’s counsel on February 13, 2015, in a 

conversation between Mr. Rein and defense counsel Nate Smith. See Smith Decl., ¶ 12. 

Case 3:12-cv-01938-JCS Document 46 Filed 04/24/15 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court 

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 

Squ

Ag

IV

Co

Da

uare has pre

greement. 

. CONC

For the 

nference to 

ated: April 2

sented evide

LUSION 

reasons stat

address the s

24, 2015 

ence that it s

ted above, th

status of the

7

ubstantially 

he Renewed 

project is se

complied w

Motion is D

t for May 1

__

Jos

Ch

with the term

DENIED. A C

15, 2015 at 2

___________

seph C. Sper

hief Magistr

s of the Settl

Case Manag

2:00 p.m. 

__________

ro 

rate Judge 

lement 

gement 

____ 

Case 3:12-cv-01938-JCS Document 46 Filed 04/24/15 Page 7 of 7