Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01525/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01525-18/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)

---

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

VICTORIA MUNOZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-01525 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 20, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action

Settlement Agreement, Class Certification for Purposes of Settlement and Approval of Proposed

Notice to Class and tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and

Costs to Class Counsel. 

Case 3:05-cv-01525-JSW Document 131 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 2
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

The parties shall have 10 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Although the motion for certification and approval was filed jointly and Plaintiffs’

motion for award of attorneys’ fees tracks the settlement agreements and remains

unopposed, does any party oppose the pending motions?

2. Some of the settlement agreements refer to Magistrate Judge LaPorte to address

potential disagreements (i.e., Settlement with Defendants California Department of

Transportation and Will Kempton, Ex. A at ¶ XVII) while others refer to the

undersigned (i.e., Settlement with Defendant San Bernadino Service Authority for

Freeway Emergencies, Ex. D at ¶ 15). Under the settlement agreements, this Court will

retain jurisdiction over the implementation plans for a period of up to seven years. 

Should the parties have disagreements over the implementation or the enforcement of

the terms of the settlement agreements, the parties should return to this Court and the

Court will, if appropriate, refer any matter to a Magistrate Judge, including, if requested,

Magistrate LaPorte. Does this scheme comport with the parties’ agreement?

3. Is the Settlement Agreement with Defendants California Department of Transportation

and Will Kempton valid without an explicit waiver of California Civil Code § 1542?

4. What schedule do the parties propose for holding the Fairness Hearing? What dates do

the parties propose for submission of objections and Class Counsel’s summary

declaration as well as further submissions in support of the request for final approval of

the settlement agreements? 

5. Do the parties have any further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01525-JSW Document 131 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 2