Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685-28/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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IVANA KIROLA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 07-03685 SBA 

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 317, 320] 

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 17, 2007. Defendants answered Plaintiffs' 

complaint on September 6, 2007. On February 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to 

amend their complaint. By order dated April 12, 2010, this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for 

leave to amend in the following respects: (1) to dismiss Michael Kwok as a plaintiff; (2) to 

narrow the class definition; and (3) to clarify, with respect to Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action 

(for violations of Cal. Gov. Code §§ 11135 et seq.), Plaintiffs' theory requiring self-evaluation 

and transition plans pursuant to state regulations promulgated under section 11135. (Docket 

No. 238.) The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion in all other respects. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on June 24, 2010. (Docket No. 294.) On July 8, 

2010, Defendant City and County of San Francisco ("the City") filed a Motion to Dismiss 

Claims in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 317), along with an Ex Parte 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 324 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Application to Obtain Hearing Date for Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 320) seeking a motion 

hearing date after the May 18, 2010 motion cut-off date. Plaintiffs have opposed the City's 

Application. 

By its motion to dismiss, the City seeks an order "dismissing plaintiffs' federal and state 

claims relating to self-evaluation and transition plans, and ... an order dismissing plaintiffs' 

claims relating to maintenance of accessible features." (Docket No. 317, p. 1.) 

 Two of the City's grounds for seeking dismissal are directed to allegations that have 

been part of this case, in identical form, since the original complaint was filed on July 17, 2007. 

Specifically, the City challenges Plaintiffs' allegations concerning the City's obligations under 

the federal self-evaluation and transition plan regulations, as well as Plaintiffs' allegations 

regarding the City's failure to maintain accessible features and its parks, pools, libraries, and 

other facilities. These allegations remain unchanged from the original complaint, yet the City 

previously had not moved for dismissal or to strike them from the complaint. The City has not 

provided any reason as to why it did not move to dismiss these allegations earlier. 

 The City also challenges the newly added allegations in the Amended Complaint 

regarding the City's obligations under Cal. Gov. Code §§ 11135 et seq. In particular, the City 

argues that Title 22, sections 98251(a) and 98258 of the California Code of Regulations are 

merely hortatory and impose no mandatory duties. However, this argument -- which the City 

previously put before this Court in opposing Plaintiffs' motion to amend -- was specifically 

rejected by this Court in granting Plaintiffs' motion to amend. 

 For these reasons, the City has not shown good cause as to why the May 18, 2010 

hearing cut-off should be extended. Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City and County of San Francisco's Ex 

Parte Application to Obtain Hearing Date for Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, and Defendant 

City and County of San Francisco's Motion to Dismiss Claims in Plaintiffs' First Amended 

Complaint is STRICKEN as untimely and unauthorized. 

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 317 and 320. 

/// 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 324 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 12, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 324 Filed 07/13/10 Page 3 of 3