On January 13, 2012, three non-profit organizations that advocate for independent living for individuals with disabilities filed this civil rights lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs sued the City of Los Angeles, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles ("CRA"), and 34 owners of CRA-funded apartment complexes under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and California Government Code §1135 for failure to ensure that housing was accessible to people with disabilities.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages for the injuries incurred as a result of the defendant's allegedly discriminatory practices. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's actions have frustrated the plaintiffs' missions and undermined the effectiveness of the programs and services they provided, including encouraging community integration of people with disabilities, providing assistance to individuals and families searching for housing or affected by discriminatory housing practices, and eliminating discriminatory housing practices.

After being served, the CRA was dissolved and ceased to exist as of February 1, 2012. Its authority, rights, powers, duties, and obligations were transferred to successor agencies and entities. One of those agencies was the DRA, which was also a named defendant and subsequently sued in a cross-claim by the City of Los Angeles. Another was the CRA/LA, which was operating under the supervision and direction of a newly constituted Oversight Board. On June 1, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint naming the CRA/LA and the Oversight Board as defendants, and adding additional nominal defendants.

In an August 13, 2012 status report, the parties stated that they had conducted preliminary settlement conversations, and that the plaintiffs' lead counsel had attempted to engage the defendants in further discussions for a possible mediation. On August 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint correcting the name of a defendant.

Over the next few months, the defendants individually filed answers to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint, which the Court deemed to be responses to the second amended complaint. On September 20, 2011, the City, CRA/LA, and the Oversight Board filed motions to dismiss.

In a November 29, 2012 meeting in chambers, U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under the FHA as to DLA and the City, and all of the plaintiffs' claims as to the Board. On December 17, 2012, the Court referred the case to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Later that month, the Court entered a scheduling order, giving the parties until September 2013 to complete discovery. The case was transferred to Judge Fernando M. Olguin for all subsequent proceedings.

When the parties failed to meet the September 2013 deadline, Judge Olguin became involved in the process by attempting to work with counsel to forge a plan to proceed with discovery. After that, Judge Olguin held more than thirteen hearings to work through the various discovery issues. The primary area of contention was electronically stored information, the production of which would have resulted in both sides spending tremendous amounts of time and money going through those documents.

Meanwhile, the defendants were involved in a battle of cross-claims. The City of Los Angeles filed a Crossclaim for Contribution, Indemnity, and Declaratory Relief against the owner defendants and the CRA/LA. The CRA/LA subsequently filed a nearly identical crossclaim against the owner defendants.

The owner defendants filed a motion to dismiss the City and the CRA/LA’s crossclaims, which was granted on September 19, 2013. 973 F.Supp.2d 1139. Judge Olguin found that: (1) the owner defendants could not be liable to the government defendants based on plaintiffs’ claims; (2) no express or implied right of contribution or indemnity exists under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act; (3) the comprehensive remedial scheme of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act preempted state-law rights to contribution and indemnity; and (4) the government defendants could not rely on contractual indemnity provisions as an “end run around the unavailability of indemnification or contribution under these civil rights statutes.

On December 17, 2013, CRA/LA filed a motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Amended Cross-Claim for Indemnity and Contribution by the City of Los Angeles, which was granted the following September.

The parties' discovery dispute continued well into 2016. On February 25, 2016, the CRA/LA moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiffs' second amended complaint. This motion was denied in an August 31, 2016 order, in which Judge Olguin held that the CRA/LA could be found liable as a successor to the CRA based on the extensive factual allegations in the second amended complaint. 205 F.Supp.3d 1105.

On July 29, 2016, the plaintiffs and the City of Los Angeles reached a settlement agreement. The agreement provided that over the following 10 years, the City would ensure that at least 4,000 of its affordable housing units met the highly accessible standards required by federal law, and would enforce policies to ensure that those units were inhabited by people who needed the specific accessibility features provided. The city would spend at least $200 million during the life of the agreement. Over the 10 years of the agreement, the plaintiffs were to assist people with disabilities to transition into the newly-accessible units.

In September of 2017, the plaintiffs and CRA/LA reached a separate settlement agreement. 2017 WL 3976623. In it, CRA/LA agreed to take all actions necessary to provide 250 accessible units by no later than January 2021. It also agreed to establish a Housing Accessibility Fund. It committed $8,750,000 to the retrofits necessary to upgrade the 250 accessible units, and committed $160,000 to a court-appointed monitor. The monitor, to be appointed in early 2018, would evaluate CRA/LA’s compliance with the agreement.

A corrected settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the City of Los Angeles was filed on December 13, 2017. It finalized the determination of attorneys fees.

The owner defendants, who were explicitly unaffected by the settlement agreements between the other defendants and the plaintiffs, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on October 5, 2017. In it, they argued that the plaintiffs had no remaining stated claims against the defendants in light of the two settlement agreements, and that the plaintiffs had achieved complete relief absent the owner defendants’ participation. Judge Olguin has yet to rule on the motion as of February 2018.

On January 31, 2018, the court was notified of a related case, 2:11-cv-00974-PSG. This is an action brought by the United States for damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act. The FCA claim does not appear to have affected the outcome of this case.

Saeeda Joseph-Charles - 12/30/2016
Alexandra Gilewicz - 03/06/2018


compress summary