Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01222/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01222-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAGNOLIA HEALTH CORPORATION

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01222-DAD-EPG

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED 

CONSENT DECREE 

(Doc. No. 50)

On December 5, 2016, the parties lodged with the court a copy of a proposed consent 

decree pursuant to their negotiated settlement of this action. (Doc. No. 50.) “A consent decree is 

‘essentially a settlement agreement subject to continued judicial policing.’” United States v. 

Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 920 (6th 

Cir. 1983)). Thus, before approving a consent decree, a district court must independently 

determine that the proposed agreement is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. Id.; see 

also Arizona v. City of Tucson, 761 F.3d 1005, 1009-14 (9th Cir. 2014); Davis v. City & Cty. of 

San Francisco, 890 F.2d 1438, 1445 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he district court must balance several 

factors, including but not limited to: strength of the plaintiffs’ case; risk, expense, complexity and 

possible duration of continued litigation; relief offered in settlement; extent of discovery already 

completed; stage of proceedings; experience and views of counsel; governmental participation; 

Case 1:15-cv-01222-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 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

2

and reaction of the class members.”); Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of 

San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Accordingly, the parties are directed to file a noticed motion within twenty one days of the 

date of service of this order, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and the 

Local Rules of this court, seeking court approval of the proposed consent decree.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01222-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 2