On December 17, 2002 plaintiffs, California residents with disabilities that required them to rely on wheelchairs or scooters for mobility, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton) against Taco Bell Corporation. Plaintiffs, represented by the Impact Fund and private counsel, claimed the Defendant denied them, on the basis of disability, full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim they had encountered barriers to accessibility including "queue lines" that were too narrow to navigate in a scooter or wheelchair, self-serve soda machines that were too high to access from a wheelchair or scooter; and inaccessible parking, doors, and seating.
On December 23, 2004, the Court (Judge Hamilton) certified a class of: "[a]ll individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or after December 17, 2001, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of disability, full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of California Taco Bell corporate restaurants."
Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 220 F.R.D. 604 (N.D. Cal. 2004). On October 5, 2004, the Court (Judge Hamilton) appointed a Special Master, Bob Evans, as an expert in the Department of Justice Standards For Accessible Design, (28 C.F.R. part 36, app. A, and Title 24 of the 2002 California Building Code) to visit Taco Bell sites, determine compliance with these regulations, and recommend how to remove barriers to accessibility, although he would not determine whether such modifications were "feasible" for purposes of the ADA and other statutes. The parties agreed to each pay half of the Master's fees.
On December 7, 2004, the Court (Judge Hamilton) denied the defendant's motion to modify the class definition.
Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 02-5849, 2004 WL 5669683 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2004). The defendant argued that the class should be modified as to state law damages claims because of problems with commonality and typicality. On January 12, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to adopt the findings of the special master. They sought partial summary judgment as to three architectural elements: the queue lines; the force needed to open doors; and the knee clearance of seating areas. On August 8, 2007, the Court (Judge Hamilton) denied in part and granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 02-5849, 2007 WL 2301778 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2007). The Court denied the motion as to the queue lines, finding that auxiliary lines could be equivalent facilitation. But the Court held that almost 400 conditions in more than 160 Taco Bell restaurants violated the ADA and/or the state access laws.
On November 7, 2008, the Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, which argued the statute of limitations. On December 23, 2009, the Court denied another of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, with little commentary.
On April 4, 2010, the parties stipulated to a bifurcated trial regarding an individual exemplary store. A bench trial was held in June 2011, and in the resulting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the district court found for the plaintiffs, and ruled that classwide injunctive relief was appropriate. In particular, the court found that the evidence established violations with respect to each of the 12 elements at issue, covering physical access to parking, parking signage, door accessibility, queue accessibility, access to tables and drinks, and restroom access.
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for settlement. However, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), prompted the defendants to move for decertification of the class and the plaintiffs to move for a modification of the class certification order. On July 26, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion Taco Bell's motion, and denied the plaintiff's motion, in light of Dukes. The court granted decertification with respect to damages claims but not with respect to injunctive relief. The court argued that "Dukes mandates decertification of the damages portion of the class as certified" because "no claim for individualized relief may be combined with a class injunction under Rule 23(b)(2)." With regard to injunctive relief claims, the court found that "there are sufficient 'questions of law or fact common to the class' to warrant certifying a class for injunctive relief."
On Mar. 4, 2013, the defendants moved for partial summary judgment "on whether the four named plaintiffs may proceed with claims regarding barriers encountered by them at stores not disclosed in the first amended complaint." The court granted the motion Aug. 5, 2013, arguing that the plaintiffs may not proceed on claims not raised in the first amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Nov. 21, 2013 and moved for permanent injunction on Jan. 15, 2014 to compel Taco Bell to comply with accessibility protocols.
On May 20, 2014, the parties jointly moved for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, which the court granted on June 4. The Settlement Agreement required Taco Bell restaurants to be in compliance with accessibility statutes for two years. Specifically, Taco Bell was to (1) instruct managers to inspect each store for accessibility issues daily, (2) have a compliance monitor check all establishments semiannually, (3) have a construction monitor inspect any new establishment for accessibility compliance, (4) ensure any subsequently acquired restaurants are in compliance, (5) provide annual training regarding accessibility statutes to individuals involved with facility maintenance, construction, and engineering, and (6) maintain records of its monitoring efforts. The Agreement was valid for two years.
After a fairness hearing, the court granted final approval of the settlement agreement on Sept. 24, 2014. The court granted class counsel $5,175,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs the same day. The case was dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 29.
The case is now closed.
Elizabeth Daligga - 07/17/2012
Virginia Weeks - 11/07/2017
compress summary
