On March 15, 1999, individuals with mobility and/or vision disabilities filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the City of Sacramento and the city’s Director of the Department of Public Works under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs, represented by Disability Rights Advocates, likely sought monetary and injunctive relief (assumed from outcome of case). The plaintiffs alleged that sidewalks in Sacramento were inaccessible or dangerous to those with mobility and/or vision disabilities. The plaintiffs asserted that newly constructed or altered sidewalks and curb ramps must be accessible to those with mobility and/or vision disabilities and that Sacramento is obligated to provide access to existing sidewalks and curb ramps.
The plaintiffs sought class certification of those with mobility and/or vision disabilities who regularly use the pedestrian rights of way in Sacramento. District Judge Milton L. Schwartz certified the class on July 11, 2000.
On March 7, 2001, Judge Schwartz granted partial summary judgement in favor of the defendants. The parties had already stipulated to the entry of an injunction regarding curb ramps but could not reach an agreement as to the City’s obligation to remove barriers to accessibility on sidewalks. The Judge Schwartz ruled that sidewalks were not service, program, or activity within the meaning of the ADA. The plaintiffs appealed.
On June 21, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District held that the District Court had erred and that sidewalks were in fact subject to program accessibility regulations under the ADA. The case was remanded. 292 F.3d 1073. This was appealed by the the City, but the Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 27, 2003. 539 U.S. 958.
On January 22, 2004, District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. approved a settlement agreement between the parties. The settlement involved monetary and injunctive relief. The City agreed to dedicate 20% of its Transportation Fund annually to the installation of accessible curb ramps and removal barriers on sidewalks. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement for the entirety of the agreement’s 30-year compliance period. The City was also required to retain an outside monitor for three years. During that period, the City was to set aside up to $30,000 each year for monitoring costs, with up to 10% of that amount dedicated to class counsel for review of monitoring materials. The eight named plaintiffs were each awarded $10,000 and class counsel was awarded $745,000.
On March 8, 2013, the class moved for the payment of monitoring costs after the three-year outside monitor period. On June 3, 2013, Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd denied the motion. Judge Drozd found that the agreement did not require the City to pay for class counsel’s de minimis monitoring tasks after the initial three-year period. 2013 WL 2421741.
In his June 3, 2013 order, Judge Drozd noted that the City was in full compliance with the agreement, except for failure on occasion to timely send reports to class counsel. The City of Sacramento is still subject to the settlement.
Ashton Dubey - 11/13/2019
compress summary
