Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. et al v. California Department of Transportation et al

Filing 292

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, DENYING AS MOOT 288 Motion to Strike; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 251 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 259 Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING AS MOOT 274 Motion to Strike. The hearing set for 05/20/09 at 1:00 PM is VACATED (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2009) Modified on 4/1/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court United States District Court For the r the Northern District of California Fo Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS (CDR), CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND (CCB), BEN ROCKWELL and DIMITRI BELSER, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Caltrans) and WILL KEMPTON, in his official capacity, Defendants. /

No. C 06-5125 SBA ORDER [Docket Nos. 251, 259, 274, 288]

The parties appeared before the Court on March 24, 2009, for a hearing on two motions: Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket No. 251] and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 259]. The Court, having considered the arguments presented in the parties' written submissions and at oral argument, GRANTS in PART and DENIES in PART the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and finds: (1) the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent they contend that Defendants are required to provide temporary alternate routes for pedestrians around construction sites or to ensure that such routes are accessible by strict compliance with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (the "ADAAG"), 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36 App. A. (2) the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED to the extent that Defendants contend that such temporary routes need not be readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities to the maximum extent feasible.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court, having considered the arguments presented in the parties' written submissions and at oral argument, GRANTS in PART the Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and finds: (3) to the extent Defendants elect to provide temporary routes for the use of the public, Defendants have a duty to make such routes accessible. Finally, the Court notes that the following pending motions were filed by Defendants in connection with their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: (1) a Motion to Strike Peter Margen's Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket No. 274] and (2) a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Revised [proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Belatedly Submitted Declarations of McElroy, Williams and Skaff In Support of Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 288]. In light of the Court's resolution of the motions, which is based on both the written submissions and the argument of the parties at the hearing, the Court DENIES the pending motions AS MOOT and VACATES the hearing date currently set for May 20, 2009, at 1:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/30/09

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

2