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

STIPULATION RE ALLEGED BARRIERS SELECTED FOR FIRST TRIAL – CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK)

733612.19

Guy B. Wallace (SBN 176151)

gwallace@schneiderwallace.com

Mark T. Johnson (SBN 76904)

mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com

SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL

 KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400

Emeryville, CA 94608

(415) 421-7100; (415) 421-7105 (Fax)

Linda M. Dardarian (SBN 131001)

ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com

Andrew P. Lee (SBN 245903)

alee@gbdhlegal.com

Katharine L. Fisher (SBN 305413)

kfisher@gbdhlegal.com

GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO

300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 763-9800; (510) 835-1417 (Fax)

Adam B. Wolf (SBN 215914)

awolf@pwcklegal.com 

Catherine Cabalo (SBN 248198)

ccabalo@pwcklegeal.com

PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE

4 Embarcadero Center, 14th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 766-3592; (415) 402-0058 (Fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Certified Classes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ABDUL NEVAREZ and PRISCILLA NEVAREZ, 

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, and SEBASTIAN DEFRANCESCO,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 5:16-cv-07013-LHK (SVK)

STIPULATION REGARDING ALLEGED 

BARRIERS SELECTED FOR FIRST TRIAL

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 341 Filed 04/24/19 Page 1 of 8
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

STIPULATION RE ALLEGED BARRIERS SELECTED FOR FIRST TRIAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK)

733612.19

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Abdul Nevarez, Priscilla Nevarez and Sebastian DeFrancesco 

(“Plaintiffs”) are pursuing this certified class action against Defendants Forty Niners Football 

Company, LLC, Forty Niners SC Stadium Company, LLC, Forty Niners Stadium Management 

Company LLC, City of Santa Clara, and Santa Clara Stadium Authority (“Defendants”), alleging that 

Levi’s® Stadium (“the Stadium”), the Stadium’s parking lots, and the pedestrian right of way 

connecting the Stadium to its parking lots are inaccessible to persons with mobility disabilities;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s case management order (ECF No. 87), the Parties filed 

cross-motions for partial summary judgment on December 20, 2018; oppositions thereto on January 3, 

2019; and replies on January 10, 2019;

WHEREAS, the Court’s February 5, 2019 order (ECF No. 328) denied both motions without 

prejudice and ordered Plaintiffs and Defendants to select six “alleged physical access barriers” each to 

litigate through summary judgment, the pretrial conference, and trial, if necessary;

WHEREAS, Defendants deny any and all liability, and deny that they have violated any laws, 

including without limitation, the ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, pertaining to access for persons 

with mobility disabilities and their companions; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s orders (ECF Nos. 328 and 333), on March 27, 2019, the 

Parties filed a joint case management conference statement (ECF No. 335) identifying six alleged 

barriers each to be litigated through summary judgment, pretrial and trial:

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs selected: (1) the curb ramp located at the Northwest corner of the 

intersection of Democracy Way and Old Ironsides Drive which has excessive slopes; (2) the 

designated accessible seating for Section 112-108 Row 1W which has excessive slopes; (3) the drink 

rail at Levi’s 501 Club South that exceeds accessible height limits and does not provide an accessible 

section; (4) the dining counter/drink rail in the Bourbon Pub that exceeds accessible height limits and 

does not provide accessible spaces; (5) the handrail extensions at the ramp serving the designated 

seating at Sections 112-108 Row 1W that are too short; and (6) the failure to provide the required 

number of accessible car and van parking spaces for Levi’s Stadium (See ECF No. 335 at 3);

WHEREAS, Defendants selected: (1) Accessible seating in the outdoor portion of Levi’s 

Stadium adjacent to suite 517, (2) Stadium ticket sales procedures, (3) Height of countertops in Main 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 341 Filed 04/24/19 Page 2 of 8
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

STIPULATION RE ALLEGED BARRIERS SELECTED FOR FIRST TRIAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK)

733612.19

Team Store at Gate A, (4) Signage on women’s restroom 3.43.02 and men’s restroom 03.44.02, (5) 

Dimensions of accessible seating areas on one single accessible seating platform (Blackseth Report 

page 27), and (6) Relevance of pedestrian rights-of-way to access of Levi’s Stadium (legal issue).

WHEREAS, the Court’s April 3, 2019 case management order (ECF No. 336) instructs the 

parties to “stipulate to the extent possible to the following: (1) whether the selected alleged barriers are 

representative of any other alleged barriers in the instant case; (2) which building code is applicable to 

each selected alleged barrier; and (3) regardless of the applicable building code, what the requirements 

are for each selected alleged barrier;”

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants have met and conferred and have identified, for each of 

the selected alleged barriers, those facts to which they could stipulate falling within the three categories 

identified by the Court, as specified below;

THEREFORE, pursuant to the Court’s case management order (ECF No. 336) Plaintiffs and 

Defendants hereby stipulate to the following:

A. Plaintiffs’ Selected Alleged Barriers

1. Plaintiffs’ First Selected Alleged Barrier – challenging the excessive running, 

counter, and side-flare slopes of the curb ramp located at the northwest corner of 

the intersection of Democracy Way and Old Ironsides Drive.

a. Plaintiffs’ First Selected Alleged Barrier is governed by the following 

building code(s):

The 1991 ADAAG, based on the Parties’ agreement that the selected curb ramp “was 

constructed or altered after July 26, 1992” in their October 8, 2018 Stipulation of Facts Regarding 

PROW Construction or Alteration Dates (No. 36).

b. Under any potentially applicable building code, whether it be the 1991 

ADAAG, the 2010 ADAS, or the 2010 CBC, Plaintiffs’ First Selected 

Condition (along with the slopes of the other curb ramps listed above) is 

subject to the following requirements:

• The running slope of the curb ramp may not exceed 1:12 (or 8.33%) plus 

conventional industry tolerances; 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 341 Filed 04/24/19 Page 3 of 8
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

STIPULATION RE ALLEGED BARRIERS SELECTED FOR FIRST TRIAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK)

733612.19

• The counter slope of the curb ramp may not exceed 1:20 (or 5%) plus 

conventional industry tolerances; and

• The slope of the side flares shall not be steeper than 1:10 (or 10%) plus 

generally accepted construction tolerances, or where there is no top landing, 

shall not be steeper than 1:12 (or 8.33%) plus conventional industry tolerances.

These requirements are the same as those set forth in the 2010 ADAS and all versions of the 

CBC issued since 1982.

2. Plaintiffs’ Second Selected Alleged Barrier – challenging the excessive slopes of 

the designated accessible seating for Section 112-108 Row 1W:

a. Under any potentially applicable building code, whether it be the 1991 

ADAAG, the 2010 ADAS, or the 2010 CBC, Plaintiffs’ First Selected 

Barrier (along with the slopes of the other seating areas listed above) is 

subject to the following requirements:

The 2010 CBC and 1991 ADAAG require that accessible seating spaces “be level.” 

3. Plaintiffs’ Third and Fourth Selected Alleged Barriers – challenging drink rails at 

Levi’s 501 Club South and Bourbon Pub, respectively, as exceeding accessible 

height limits and failing to provide accessible sections:

a. Plaintiffs’ Third and Fourth Selected Alleged Barriers are governed by the 

following building code(s):

The 2010 CBC. The parties do not agree on the applicable federal standards, but the 

requirements regarding this alleged barrier are the same across the 2010 CBC, 1991 ADAAG, and 

2010 ADAS (see below). 

b. Under any potentially applicable building code, whether it be the 1991 

ADAAG, the 2010 ADAS, or the 2010 CBC, Plaintiffs’ Third and Fourth 

Selected Alleged Barriers (along with the other barriers listed above) are 

subject to the following requirements:

• The height of the accessible section of the dining surface must measure 

between 28 inches minimum and 34 inches maximum from the floor. 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 341 Filed 04/24/19 Page 4 of 8
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

STIPULATION RE ALLEGED BARRIERS SELECTED FOR FIRST TRIAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK)

733612.19

• The accessible section of the dining surface must allow for forward 

approach, including knee clearance at least 27 inches high, 30 inches wide, and 

19 inches deep. 

4. Plaintiffs’ Fifth Selected Alleged Barrier – challenging the handrail extensions at 

the ramp serving the designated seating at Sections 112-108 Row 1W as being too 

short: 

a. Plaintiffs’ Fifth Selected Alleged Barrier is governed by the following 

building codes:

The 2010 CBC. The parties do not agree on the applicable federal standards, but the 

requirements regarding this barrier are the same across the 2010 CBC, 1991 ADAAG, and 2010 

ADAS (see below).

b. Under any potentially applicable building code, whether it be the 1991 

ADAAG, the 2010 ADAS, or the 2010 CBC, Plaintiffs’ Fifth Selected 

Alleged Barrier is subject to the following requirements:

Handrails must extend 12 inches beyond the top and bottom of ramps and the top of stairs. 

Bottom handrails on stairs must extend 12 inches plus one tread width beyond the bottom nosing of the 

stairs.

5. Plaintiffs’ Sixth Selected Alleged Barrier – challenging the failure to provide the 

required number of accessible car and van parking spaces for Levi’s Stadium: 

a. Plaintiffs’ Sixth Selected Alleged Barrier is a stand-alone alleged barrier, 

and is based on the Parties’ Stipulation that all of the accessible parking 

spaces they are required to provide are clustered in the Main Lot.

b. Plaintiffs’ Sixth Selected Alleged Barrier is governed by the following 

building codes:

The 2010 CBC. The parties do not agree on the applicable federal standards, but the 

requirements regarding this alleged barrier are the same across the 2010 CBC, 1991 ADAAG, and 

2010 ADAS (see below).

c. Under any potentially applicable building code, whether it be the 1991 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 341 Filed 04/24/19 Page 5 of 8
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

STIPULATION RE ALLEGED BARRIERS SELECTED FOR FIRST TRIAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK)

733612.19

ADAAG, the 2010 ADAS, or the 2010 CBC, Plaintiffs’ Sixth selected issue 

is subject to the following requirements: 

The required number of accessible spaces, when clustered in a single lot, is calculated based on 

the number of spaces required for each parking facility that serves the site, according to the following 

formula:

Total Number of Parking Spaces 

Provided in Parking Facility

Minimum Number of Required 

Accessible Parking Spaces

1 to 25 1

26 to 50 2

51 to 75 3

76 to 100 4

101 to 150 5

151 to 200 6

201 to 300 7

301 to 400 8

401 to 500 9

501 to 1000 2 percent of total

1001 and over 20, plus 1 for each 100, or fraction 

thereof, over 1000

B. Defendants’ Selected Alleged Barriers

1. Defendants’ Fourth Selected Alleged Barrier – Signage on Women’s Restroom 

3.43.02 and Men’s Restroom 3.44.02:

a. Defendants’ Fourth Selected Barrier is governed by the following building 

codes:

The Parties disagree on the applicable Code provisions, but agree the signage requirements for 

restrooms are the same under the 1991 ADAAG, 2010 ADAS, and 2010 CBC. 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 341 Filed 04/24/19 Page 6 of 8
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

STIPULATION RE ALLEGED BARRIERS SELECTED FOR FIRST TRIAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK)

733612.19

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: April 24, 2019

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

By: /s/ Maria M. Lampasona

 MARIA M. LAMPASONA

 Attorneys for Defendants

DATED: April 24, 2019

GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP

By: /s/ Brian P. Maschler

 BRIAN P. MASCHLER

 Attorneys for Defendants

DATED: April 24, 2019

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP

By: /s/ Stuart K. Tubis

 STUART K. TUBIS

 Attorneys for Santa Clara Defendants

DATED: April 24, 2019

GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO

By: /s/ Andrew P. Lee

 ANDREW P. LEE

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Certified Classes

DATED: April 24, 2019

O’HARA ♦ CREECH

By: /s/ Randy Creech

 RANDY CREECH

 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant Turner / Devcon 

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 341 Filed 04/24/19 Page 7 of 8
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

STIPULATION RE ALLEGED BARRIERS SELECTED FOR FIRST TRIAL - CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK (SVK)

733612.19

ATTESTATION OF FILER

I, Andrew P. Lee, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from 

each of the other Signatories, which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on the document. Signed this 

24th day of April, 2019.

/s/ Andrew P. Lee

Andrew P. Lee

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 341 Filed 04/24/19 Page 8 of 8