Lopez, et al v. SF Unified School, et al

Filing 785

ORDER Terminating Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 10/1/13. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
JAMES M. EMERY, State Bar #153630
Deputy City Attorney
San Francisco City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4682
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]

6
7
8

Attorneys for Defendants
THE SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“SFUSD”),
CARLOS GARCIA, in his official capacity as SUPERINTENDENT,
And the SCHOOL BOARD

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ROXANNE LOPEZ, as guardian ad litem
of L.L.; et al., , on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,

13
Plaintiffs,

Case No. C99-3260 SI
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TERMINATING
JURISDICTION

14
vs.
15
16
17

THE SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, CARLOS
GARCIA, in his official capacity as
SUPERINTENDENT, and the SCHOOL
BOARD, in their official capacities,

18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP & PROPOSED ORDER TERMINATING JURISDICTION

CASE NO. C99-3260 SI

N:\LANDUSE\CPEARSON\Temp Files\00876230.doc

1

STIPULATION

2

WHEREAS, on July 6, 1999, named plaintiffs Hugo and Roxanne Lopez as guardians ad

3

litem of Jason Lopez, and Teresa Gallegos commenced this class action in the United States

4

District Court for the Northern District of California alleging inter alia, discrimination in

5

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

6

of 1973 (“Section 504”) and 42 U.S.C § 1983 regarding physical and program access for persons

7

with mobility and/or vision disabilities in the schools of the San Francisco Unified School

8

District (“School District”);

9
10

WHEREAS, by Order dated May 2, 2001, the Court certified the following two classes:
1.

All persons disabled by mobility and/or visual impairments who have enrolled as

11

students in the San Francisco Unified School District since July 6, 1996 and who

12

have allegedly been denied their rights under Title II of the Americans with

13

Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. section 1983

14

to access to the programs, services, activities and/or facilities of the San Francisco

15

Unified School District as a result of physical barriers.

16

2.

All persons (other than students) disabled by mobility and/or visual impairments

17

who have allegedly been denied their rights under Title II of the Americans with

18

Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. section 1983

19

to access to the programs, services, activities and/or facilities of the San Francisco

20

Unified School District as a result of physical barriers;

21
22
23
24
25
26

WHEREAS, on October 21, 2004, the Court approved a class settlement and entered into
the record a Stipulated Judgment resolving all of the class claims of the certified classes;
WHEREAS, the Stipulated Judgment required the School District, inter alia, to do the
following:
•

Pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment, the School District agreed to renovate 96
school facilities by June 30, 2012 to make those facilities ADA-compliant, plus

27
28

STIP & PROPOSED ORDER TERMINATING
JURISDICTION
CASE NO. C99-3260 SI

1

N:\LANDUSE\CPEARSON\Temp Files\00876230.doc

1

charter schools and county schools that are housed in facilities that the School

2

District owns.

3

•

Pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment , the School District agreed to maintain the

4

access features at each school, including bathrooms, elevators, automatic door

5

openers and paths of travel.

6

•

Pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment, the School District agreed to provide

7

accessible transportation for field trips, and to provide a paraprofessional aide, for

8

field trips and after-school activities, when a student's Section 504 plan or IEP

9

provides for an aide. The School District agreed to provide students with mobility

10

disabilities or vision disabilities equivalent opportunities to participate in athletic

11

programs.

12

•

Pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment, the School District agreed to develop and to

13

maintain an Access Guide, which is available on the District's website, and from

14

the ADA Coordinator. The School District agreed to provide annual training and

15

information to principals and teachers. The School District's ADA coordinator is

16

responsible for responding to physical access concerns of students and parents.

17

•

Pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment, the School District agreed to develop an

18

individualized emergency evacuation plan for each student with a mobility

19

disability or a vision disability.

20

•

Pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment, the School District agreed to provide

21

triannual reports to Class Counsel and to permit Class Counsel to inspect the

22

School District’s facilities to verify compliance with the requirements of the

23

Stipulated Judgment;

24

WHEREAS, Section XVII of the Stipulated Judgment provides: “The Judgment shall

25

continue to be effective and binding upon the parties for a period of eight years after the

26

Effective Date [i.e., until May 31, 2012], or until the access work identified in Section III is

27

completed, whichever is later. At that time, Defendants may move the District Court for an

28

STIP & PROPOSED ORDER TERMINATING
JURISDICTION
CASE NO. C99-3260 SI

2

N:\LANDUSE\CPEARSON\Temp Files\00876230.doc

1

Order terminating its jurisdiction of this matter on the basis that all of Defendants’ obligations

2

under the Judgment have been fully discharged.”;

3

WHEREAS, over the life of the Stipulated Judgment, Class Counsel has received and

4

reviewed the School District’s triannual reports and has inspected representative facilities that

5

the School District has modernized pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment;

6

WHEREAS, the School District represents that it has completed the access work

7

identified in Section III of the Stipulated Judgment and it has fully discharged all its obligations

8

under the Stipulated Judgment;

9

WHEREAS, based on its inspections of the School District’s facilities and its review of

10

the School District’s triannual reports, Class Counsel have concluded that the School District has

11

substantially completed the access work identified in Section III and discharged its other

12

disability access obligations under the Stipulated Judgment;

13

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate that the Court’s jurisdiction over this

14

matter shall be terminated. Pursuant to Section XIV.B. Class Counsel shall prepare a final

15

statement of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in monitoring the performance of the

16

Stipulated Judgment. Such a statement shall be submitted to Defendants by no later than

17

October 31, 2013. If there are any disputes regarding same, those shall be resolved in

18

\\

19

\\

20

\\

21

\\

22

\\

23

\\

24

\\

25

\\

26

\\

27

\\

28

STIP & PROPOSED ORDER TERMINATING
JURISDICTION
CASE NO. C99-3260 SI

3

N:\LANDUSE\CPEARSON\Temp Files\00876230.doc

1

accordance with Section XII of the Judgment, and this Court shall retain jurisdiction for the sole

2

purpose of resolving any such disputes.

3

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

4

Dated: September 27, 2013

5

SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY LLP

6

By:________/s/_________________
GUY B. WALLACE
Counsel for Plaintiff Classes

7
8
9

DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
JAMES M. EMERY
Deputy City Attorney

10
11
12

By:________/s/_________________
JAMES M. EMERY
Deputy City Attorney
Counsel for Defendants

13
14
15

ORDER
16
17

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

18

Court’s jurisdiction over the matter is terminated with the exception of any issues to be resolved

19

regarding any dispute concerning reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs with respect to monitoring

20

as noted above.

21

Oct. 1

Dated: September __, 2013

22
23

HON. SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

STIP & PROPOSED ORDER TERMINATING
JURISDICTION
CASE NO. C99-3260 SI

4

N:\LANDUSE\CPEARSON\Temp Files\00876230.doc