University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Barden v. City of Sacramento DR-CA-0056
Docket / Court 2:99-cv-00497-MCE-JFM ( E.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Case Summary
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 ... read more >
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

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Content of Injunction
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Reasonable Accommodation
Required disclosure
Mobility impairment
Visual impairment
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Defendant(s) City of Sacramento
Department of Public Works
Plaintiff Description Individuals with mobility and/or vision disabilities.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2004 - 2034
Filed 03/15/1999
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Court Docket(s)
E.D. Cal. 2:99-cv-00497-MCE-JFM
DR-CA-0056-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/03/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
E.D. Cal.
Class Action Settlement Agreement
DR-CA-0056-0006.pdf | External Link | Detail
Source: Public.Resource.Org
E.D. Cal.
Stipulation and Order [ECF# 15]
DR-CA-0056-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/28/2000
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Cal.
Order [ECF# 64]
DR-CA-0056-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/20/2000
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Cal.
Stipulation and Injunctive Relief Order Concerning a Transition Plan for Curb Ramps and Program Access Regarding Curb Ramps [ECF# 125]
DR-CA-0056-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/20/2001
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
Opinion (292 F.3d 1073)
DR-CA-0056-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/12/2002
Source: Westlaw
E.D. Cal.
Order (2013 WL 2421741)
DR-CA-0056-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/03/2013
Source: Westlaw
show all people docs
Judges Drozd, Dale Alan (E.D. Cal.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
England, Morrison C. Jr. (E.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
Moulds, John F. (E.D. Cal.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
Schwartz, Milton Lewis (E.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
DR-CA-0056-0001 | DR-CA-0056-0002 | DR-CA-0056-0003
Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (C.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
Plaintiff's Lawyers Daly, Kresta Nora (California) show/hide docs
Kasnitz, Melissa Wendy (California) show/hide docs
DR-CA-0056-0001 | DR-CA-0056-9000
Paradis, Laurence W. (California) show/hide docs
DR-CA-0056-0003 | DR-CA-0056-0006 | DR-CA-0056-9000
Seaborn, Stuart (California) show/hide docs
Defendant's Lawyers Faber, Shana Susan (California) show/hide docs
Hicks, Gerald Charles (California) show/hide docs
DR-CA-0056-0001 | DR-CA-0056-0003 | DR-CA-0056-0006 | DR-CA-0056-9000
Womack, David S. (California) show/hide docs
Other Lawyers Stewart, Thomas Nelson III (California) show/hide docs

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -