Kirola et al v. City & County of San Francisco, The et al

Filing 626

ORDER re 608 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Elizabeth Elftman, Ivana Kirola, 604 Trial Brief filed by Elizabeth Elftman, Ivana Kirola. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 7/19/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

OAKLAND DIVISION

9
10 IVANA KIROLA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

11
12

vs.

Case No: C 07-3685 SBA
ORDER
Docket 604, 608

13 THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,
14

Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Presently before this Court for consideration are the parties’ post-trial briefs and
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court finds it necessary to order supplemental
briefing with regard to the specific scope of the injunctive relief which Plaintiffs seek.
In their conclusions of law, Plaintiffs set forth conclusions pertaining to their
entitlement to injunctive relief. Dkt. 608 ¶¶ 57-61 at 38-39. However, Plaintiffs do not set
out the terms of the specific injunctive relief to which they believe they are legally entitled.
Id. The Court directs Plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief and supplemental conclusions
of law setting forth the specific injunctive relief they seek, which, as noted by Plaintiffs is
“‘dictated by the extent of the violations.’” Dkt. 608 ¶60 at 41 (quoting Lewis v. Carey,
518 U.S. 343, 360 (1996)); see also Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 10721073 (2010) (“‘[I]f injunctive relief is premised upon only a few isolated violations
affecting a narrow range of plaintiffs, its scope must be limited accordingly.’ However, ‘if

1

the injury is the result of violations of a statute . . . that are attributable to policies or

2

practices pervading the whole system (even though injuring a relatively small number of

3

plaintiffs),’ then ‘[s]ystem-wide relief is required.’”) (internal citations omitted); Stormans,

4

Inc. v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Injunctive relief . . . must be tailored to

5

remedy the specific harm alleged.”); Cal. for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Caltrans, C 06-5125

6

SBA, 2009 WL 2982845, *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009) (Armstrong, J.) (stating that

7

injunction requiring defendants to survey facilities to ensure compliance with the

8

Americans With Disability Act could be legally available depending on the scope of the

9

violations).

10

Plaintiffs are to set forth the specific terms of the injunction that they request the

11

Court to issue with citations to the record and legal authority showing their entitlement to

12

the proposed terms. With regard to their contention that they are entitled to system-wide

13

injunctive relief, Dkt. 608 ¶ 60 at 41, Plaintiffs shall set forth the numbers of all findings of

14

fact in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Dkt. 608, that they maintain

15

support their contention that Defendants’ alleged violations are attributable to policies or

16

practices pervading the entire system such that they are entitled to system-wide relief. See

17

Armstrong, 622 F.3d at 1072-73. They shall organize the numbers of the findings of fact

18

into the categories listed in their post-trial brief at pages 23 and 24 of Docket 604, including

19

(1) pedestrian right of way; (2) parks; (3) unique parks and “special destinations”; (4)

20

libraries; (5) barriers that constitute safety hazards; (6) complaint system and barrier

21

removal requests; and (7) monitoring. Dkt. 604 at 23-24.

22

Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental brief of no more than ten (10) pages and

23

supplemental conclusions of law of no more than ten (10) pages by no later than July 27,

24

2011. Defendants shall file any responsive supplemental brief of no more than ten (10)

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
-2-

1

pages and any responsive supplemental conclusions of law of no more than ten (10) pages

2

by no later than August 3, 2011.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: July 19, 2011

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-