Moeller v. City of Santa Rosa

Filing 23

FULL CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beeler on 4/29/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2011)

__________________________________/

&himzsch C19w Offices
2
3
4

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, ESQ. (No.
GENE FARBER, ESQ. (No. 44215)
158 Hilltop Crescent
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Direct: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
timclthimeschlaw. corn
genefarbergrnail corn

—

148213)
Of Counsel

.

6

10
11
12

Attorney for Plaintiff FRANCIE MOELLER
CAROLINE L. FOWLER, City Attorney (SBN 1:0313)
JOHN J. FRITSCH, Assistant City Attorney (SBN 172182)
City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 8
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile; [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF SANTA ROSA

13
14

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

FRANCIE MOELLER,

17

Case No.

Plaintiff,

Civil Rights

18
19

CVO9-1IOOLB

EProposed] FULL CONSENT DECREE
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
7
CITY OF SANTA ROSA and DOES
1 through 50, Inclusive,

20

Defendant.
21
22

23
24
25

FULL CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JVDGMENT

26

1.

Plaintiff

FRANCIE

MOELLER

is

a

person

with

a

27

disability condition that requires the use of a scooter or cane

28

for

hIn,ach ‘by, Off es
‘58 HILLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUTCREEK,

mobility.

Defendant

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

CITY

OF

SANTA

ROSA

owns,

operates,

______________________________

1
2

garages

3

following public parking lots and

controls and/or maintains the

Downtown Parking Services map

within

city

and described at

limits

City of

Rosa

Santa

(Attachment 1)
th
4

4

A.

Lot L-D at 9

S

B.

Lot L-2 at 521

S

C.

Lot L-7 at 769

7

D.

th
5
st.
Lot L-lO at 730

8

E.

Lot L-ll at 540

th
5

9

F.

Lot L-13 at 200

th
4

10

G.

Lot L-14 at 200 5 St.

11

H.

Garage G-l at 521 7” St.

12

I.

Garage G-3 at 735

13

J.

Garage C-S at 635 3X

14

K.

Garage G-9 at 97 D St.

15

L.

Garage G-l2 at 555

Hereafter,

16
17

the

foregoing

be referred to as the
Plaintiff

2.

18

th
5

st.

th
5

Public

St.

ls St.

Parking

Areas

shall

“Subject Parking Lots”.)
FRANCIE

MOELLER

filed

this

action

for

19

herself and all other similarly situated members of the public,

20

and

21

vindicate

22

with

23

seq.;

24

§794;

25

Government

26

Sections

27

California Code of Regulations.

28

against

Defendant

the

public

Disabilities
Section
and

3.

504

Code
51,

rights

Act
of

through

CITY

of
the

,

II

42

Rehabilitation Act

alleges

and

et

seq.;

that

the

of

U.S.C.

of

California

11135

54.1,

(“Defendant”),

ROSA

Title

(“ADA”)

corresponding

and

Plaintiff

SANTA

under

1990

Sections

54

OF

Defendant

Americans
12101

et

1973,

29 U.S.C.

law,

including

4450-4456;
and

§

to

Title

Civil
24

violated

Code

of

the

these

Thinwwfj ‘Iw Offices
58 HILLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUT CREEK,

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

—2—

______________________________

their

and

statutes

2

provide

3

Areas.

4

deficiencies

5

inspection of

6

by

regulations

corresponding

1

to

failing

Defendant of her expert’s report.

full

Specific

alleges

S
9

full

areas,

with

10

altered

11

imposed

12

government

13

additionally

14

11135

and

15

1973,

which

16

that receive federal,

on

these

and

a

regulated
to

pursuant

joint

since

imposes

Title

by

504

similar

of

obligations

in

of

is

qualified

the

ADA,

Code

government

and

Section
Act

Rehabilitation
on

the

obligation
is

II

of

requirement

City

Government

the

Parking

regulations

the

to

provision

Public

programmatic

California

Section

federal

through the

Subject

federal

further

facilities

entity

their

Plaintiff’s

the

that

state

that

and

through

and

construction triggering the

Areas have undergone
compliance

and

Parties

Parking

Public

facilities

the

of

identified by Plaintiff

has been
the

Subject

the

to

access

identification

Plaintiff

4.

7

equal

and

of

entities

state and/or local public funds.

17
18

STIPULATIONS

19

5.

20

qualified

21

the

22

Plaintiff’s
individual

is

Plaintiff

Disability.

Qualified
with a

physical

disability.

of

scooter,

cane

She

a

requires

mobility.

near

fuiltime

use

Plaintiff’s

a

Residence

23

6.

24

Potentially

25

She

lives

26

the

this downtown portion of

27

and

government

28

does

not

Plaintiff

Aggrieved.

in

the

same

county

facilities

admit

all

of

and

the

that
the

Status

and

alleges

she

as
she

approximately

City,

device

for

Aggrieved

and

other

or

has
20

standing.
miles

from

which is near businesses

frequents.

specifics

of

While
the

the

City

foregoing

ojjk..

&hImsck ‘Ifl.
158 HILLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUT CREEK,

Consent Decree Judgment nnd Order:
Cnse No. CV 09-1100 LB

—3—

______________________________

1

allegations,

it

2

undisputed

facts

3

“aggrieved

and

4

statutes,

5

U.S.

and

agrees
to

that

support

aware

is

Plaintiff’s

support

potentially

to

it

sufficient

qualification

under

aggrieved”

her

of

the

standing under Article

as

relevant
III

of

the

Constitution.
7.

6

Ownership,

7

the

Subject

8

owns,

9

Operation

operates,

controls

Receipt

8.

of

Parking Areas.

Maintenance

and/or

of

Federal,

OF

purposes

12

that

13

additionally

14

and

15

Parking

16

SANTA ROSA

that

9.

federal,
such

the

Areas,

and

Subject

Local

funding

including

has

the

Public

Funding.

local

been

used

of

admits

build,

Subject

vehicular

parties

alter
Public

roadways

stipulate

that

alteration

20

level

21

of Title

22

the Americans With Disabilities Act Access Guidelines published

23

in

24

Full

25

paragraph 10.

26

10.

of

compliance
24,

1992.

facilities

28
WALNUT CREEK,
CA 94597-3452
[phone]

The

Consent

27

Judgment:

ElhimncR 1.iw ojJk
153 HILLTOP CRESCENT

Part

Scope

2,

scope
Decree

of

with
of

of

the
the

of

California Code

facilities

Order

by

require

requirements

Facilities

affected

to

this

and

in

to

be

Issue.

Full

1998

are

The

Consent

some

Edition

Regulations

corrected

Judgment

recent

least

at

the

of

and

all

19

construction

sufficient

and

facilities

new

undergone

ROSA

funding,

to

the

adjoining

The

SANTA

For

18

and/or

have

OF

and

portions

History.

issue

CITY

state

relevant

Construction
in

Defendant

the

passing under the undercrossing.

receives

maintain

17

decree,

CITY

maintains

State

11

it

this

and/or

Defendant

of

Parking Areas.

10

Public

Control,

under

and

this

identified

in

following are

the

Decree

and

Order

The Subject Public Parking Areas.

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

—4—

11.

1

Settlement
and

between

Agreement

2

America

3

Americans with Disabilities Act:

4

Department

5

City

6

December

19,

7

programs

with

8

of

9

part,

The

of

Justice

entered

1990

42

the

City

a

into

of

the

of

Rosa,

Santa

United

the

the

stipulate that

the

and

the

Settlement)

on

of

States

agreement

settlement

under

California

The parties

United

of

States

America

(DOJ

relating to compliance of City facilities and

2009

Title

II

U.S.C.

of

Americans

the

10

subject

to

II

survey,

remediation

12

proposed

:3

to

subject

the

In

2)

(Attachment

§512131-12134.

facilities

Disabilities

with

Consent

instant

Act

relevant

Decree

are

approval.
The

settlement

DOJ

plan

12.

14

the

of

and

via

is

renediation

parties

In

relevant

subject

to

compliance.

have

of

and mandated plans

City,

with

investigated

the

consultant

part,

review

DOJ

and

in

the

allegations

Karl

City’s

15

Complaint

16

consultant certified access specialist Kim Riackseth.

plaintiff’s

Danz

and

City’s

17
18

flRISDICTION

19

13.

The

facts

admitted.

requisite

to

jurisdiction and venue

federal

20

are

21

U.S.C.

22

§5

23

the Plaintiff’s

24

Subject

25

state

26

proper.

27
28

12101,

et

14.

seq.

Parking

claims

Venue

This

Article

III

jurisdiction

is

42

28

proper

U.S.C.
due

continued exposure and proximity for use of

Public

law

jurisdiction

for the alleged violations of the ADA,

1331

§

has

Court

pursuant

to

property in issue is located in Sonoma County.

This

arises

Pendant

Areas.
from

a

and intra-district

Full

Consent

common

jurisdiction

nucleus

jurisdiction

Decree

Order

of

fact

of

to
the
the

and

is proper as the

and

Judgment

1himcsck ‘Igw Off ic’s

I5 HILLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUTCREEK.

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

is

—5—

is

1
2

the

3

of

contingent upon Court approval and acceptance

and

its terms,

terms.

normal

15.

4

The

agree

parties

Order

jurisdiction

of

retention

in order

and Judgment

5

Decree

6

allegations

7

March

8

Full

9

adjudication of any issues of

10

12,

in

raised

the

of

they agree

the

with

filed

to

enforce

Consent
listed

below

this

on

Court

entry of

the

Consent Decree Order and Judgment without

and

Full

this

to resolve

Complaint

Accordingly,

2009.

entry

to

interpret

to

this

trial or further

fact or law concerning the

issues

specified herein.
WHEREFORE,

11

entry

the

12

Court’s

13

hereby

agree

Consent

parties

and

Decree

stipulate

which provides as follows:

of

Full

this

and

the

to

Order

Judgment,

14
15

FULL RESOLUTION OF ISSUES:

16.

16

Full

This

full,

Consent
and

final

have

complete,

Order

and

Judgment

disposition

and

settlement

Decree

been

17
18

below

19

Complaint,

including

20

statutory

and

22

bodily

22

attorney

23

Consent

24

negotiations

25

jurisdiction

26

Consent

27

they or any of them seek Court enforcement of

28
6ThimncI. ‘lsw

a

Decree

claims

that

and

fees,

Order

Order

between
of

this
Order

and

the

and

The

to

enforce

Judgment.

Judgment,

any

and

The

such

in

the

personal

through

reached
shall

interpret

parties

Full

This

Court

enforcement

retain

this

agree

this

and

statutory

reasonable

was

Judgment

the

declaratory relief,

costs.

and

parties.

action

for

claims

be

of

alleged

including

expenses

and

been

relief,

damages,

Plaintiff’s

litigation

Decree

have

could

injunctive

compensatory

injury,

Decree

for

or

shall

Full

that

Full Consent
will

be

Officn

158 HILLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUT CREEK,

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

if

—6—

by

______________________________

application,

motion,

1

noticed

2

respect

3

this

4

provisions

5

With

citation.

contempt

or

Code section 1542 which reads:

to

relief

injunctive

the

the

of

parties

and

Order,

any benefits

A

7

WHICH

THE

a

EXIST

IN

9

EXECUTING

OR

HIS

RELEASE,

THE

MATERIALLY

HAVE

MUST

AFFECTED

10

HER

11

OF

TIME

KNOWN

IF

WHICH

TO

SUSPECT

THE

AT

FAVOR

HER

Civil

CLAIMS

TO

OR

KNOW

NOT

DOES

CREDITOR

EXTEND

NOT

DOES

the

waive

they

conferred by

be

may

that

by

resolved

claims

that

acknowledge

RELEASE

GENERAL

6

damage

and

BY HIM OR
HER

OR

HIS

SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.

12
13

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
17.

14

a

As

SANTA ROSA

OF

compromise

a

of

part

that

agrees

[“City”]

global

of

has

it

15

CITY

16

all

17

the

liability,

perform

or will

with following exceptions and clarifications:

work

identified

19

related

20

12.22;

21

of

report

Dariz

Karl

Attachment 3

at

City will provide an accessible pay station and

A.

18

the

in

in

travel

(Danz

report

items

13.31;

garage.

each

14.18;

15.4;

15.5)

path
12.23;

of

B.

22

12.28;

12.26;

Garage

consistent

G-3,

G-5

the

and

G-9

height

Department

resolved

24

determination

25

accessible on-street parking with no height

26

design.

27

accessible

28

vicinity of Garage G-9.

Part
on

of

City’s

that

street

presently

proposal
parking

pending

includes
location

shall

issues

Justice

of

23

of

with

13.30;

13.29;

proposal

review
to

be
and

furnish

restrictions with a
provision

the
on

D

(Danz report items 13.2;

Street
14.4;

an

of
in

the

15.2)

3flrnw ‘Lgw OJJ

‘58 K[LLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUTCREEK,

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

—7—

City

3

Consent

4

and

L-6

lot

the

the

on

employee-only

are

Hall

2

L-4;

Lots

C.

1

lots

and

report

items

3.0,

subject

not
et

side

west

to

this

seq.)

7

Rosa,

City

E.
and

accessible
7.1;

and

maintained

or

Plaza are not
City

by

et

4.0,

of

Santa

and are not subject to this Consent Decree.

S

10

controlled,

operated,

owned,

seq.

Lots and the garage at Santa Rosa

0.

6

9

(Danz

Decree.

5

will
parking

van

the

furnish

proper
report

(Danz

spaces.

of

number
items

1.1;

9.1)
In

11

to

addition

the

of

City

forgoing,

Santa

survey and furnish accessible

it will

12

agrees that

13

Rosa

further

facilities at

the following locations:

14

i.

Pay kiosks at parking lots

is

ii.

Gutter-swale at head of spaces at Lot L-7

16

iii.

Landings at elevator doors at Garage G-12

17

iv.

Path

18

of

southwest

at

travel

of

corner

Garage G-9
18.

19

remedial

forgoing

the

Obligations.

Statutory

of

Compromise

20

stipulate

that

21

paragraph

17

22

programmatic

services

23

the

USC

24

“Existing

25

shall

26

§35.151

27

parties

The

in

specified

work

(“alterations and structural repairs”).

28

ADA

not

19.

[42

strictly

is

§

12132

Facilities”
be

obligations

28

treated as

(“alterations”)

Performance

and
CFR

Section

under

12134]

,

§35.150,

triggering
or

shall
and

any

All

be

thus

the

202

Code

of

City’s
204

of

deemed work

to

its

additional

Government

Standards.

of

compromise

a

and

performance
duties

under

Section

4456

the

foregoing

&himcsck ‘L*v otr

I5SHIULTOPCRESCENT

WALNUTCREEK.
CA 94597-3452
[phone]

of

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

—8—

______________________________

1

facilities specified in paragraph 17

2

and

3

construction of

4

(2008)

S

strict

compliance

and

,

Guidelines,
20.

6

the

with

the

California

Americans

performance
Code

with

Conflict
that

in

1992.
Standards.

“barriers

10

Americans

11

corresponding

12

conflict

13

proceeding

14

protection and accessibility to the disabled shall apply.

to

regulated

disabled

with

in

access”

under

Disabilities

statutory

between the

sets
the

parallel

both

Act

remedies.

two

paragraph,

near

features

parties

in

is

architectural

The

9

Title

24

and

Guidelines,

However,

in

regulations

of

specified

fashion

provisions

the

as
the

and

the

event

of

a

identified

in the

supply

maximum

that

15

21.

16

modification

17

by

18

such

facility

19

shall

not be

20

disabled access pursuant to the terms of paragraph 17.

this

22.

21

Option

to

Facilities.

any

particular

decree,

the

Defendant

or

Time

23

DOJ

settlement,

24

Justice

25

together

26

to

27

City’s

28

and

the

with
City

list

with

determine

shall

is

public

issues

use

lieu

of

amenity

to

issues

actions

called

permanently

use.

Such

and

facilities

Paragraph

report

identified

to

outstanding

48

himcwk ‘bw og

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

compliance.

2011

of

the
of

Paragraph

17

dates
at

City’s

proposed

that

that the Department of Justice shall
and

full

Department

in

completion

for

close

without provision of

under

and

remaining

remediation

making

No later than December 19,

survey

access

or

choose

obligations

corrective

any

intent

of

may

for public

its

In

facility

from

for Compliance.

consistent

resolve

amenity

reopened

and

I5SHILLTOP CRESCENT

Close

to

22

CA 94597-3452
[phone]

24-2

Accessibility

Act

8

WALNUT CREEK,

new

Title

acknowledge

177

the

full

for

7

paragraph

of

Regulations,

of

Performance

each

standards

Disabilities

effective January 26,

into

shall be brought

date.

supervise

obligations

1

under

this

2

expiration of

3

fully described in Paragraph 11.
23.

4

Consent

Decree

City’s

shall

obligations

Should

Enforcement.

expire

under

concurrently
DOJ

the

Plaintiff

in

with

Settlement

the

future

more

become

5

aware of any facts or conditions relating to the Subject Public

6

Parking Areas

7

failed

8

set

9

from this

to

that may give

comply

with

forth herein,
Court,

any

rise
of

Plaintiff

the

to

the

provisions

City Attorney’s Office.

The Defendant

11

such notification to undertake

to correct

12

and/or

allegations.

13

by

14

counsel,

Tim Thimesch of

15

current

address

16

counsel

17

given

18

If

19

constrained by

20

that

21

Plaintiff

22

current

23

Full

Consent Decree Order and Judgment.

24

such

motion

25

entitled

to

26

expenses

and

27

prevailing party standards

28

rights statutes before entry of this decree.

Defendant

to

Plaintiff’s

shall

agrees

the

in

be

the

to

determines,
the

good

matter(s)

these
her

number

are

of

State

own

not

this

action

such

to

three

made

Plaintiff’s
at his

Bar.

faith

then

Plaintiff’s
hours

in any

efforts.

discretion,

imposed by Rule
Defendant’

seeking

reasonable

for

by

of

as
11,

response,

file a noticed motion under the

an

of

response

negotiation

good

resolved

whether

costs

to

informal

proceedings,
award

Any

faith requirements

shall be permitted to

case

the

receipt

alleged violation

Thimesch Law Offices,
with

in

the

addressed

contribute pro bono up
toward

following

days,

(60)

writing,

registered

calendar year

Plaintiff

sixty

relief

has

prior to seeking enforcement

10

respond

have

claim that Defendant

injunctive

shall,

provide notice

shall

to a

in

motion,

enforcement

of

this

The prevailing party in

full

or

attorney
i.e.,

in

part,

fees,

pursuant

that applied under the

may

litigation
to

normal

subject civil

hLnn4 ‘Liw OlDen

58 HILLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUTCREEK,
CA 94597-3452
[phone]

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

be

—

10—

1

DECLARATORY RELIEF
24.

2

By

this

Full

consideration

Consent

3

in

4

defendants

5

correction,

at paragraph 17,

supra,

6

violations

of

Plaintiff’s

rights

7

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

8

12101

Section

of

9

29

et

of

stipulate

seq.;

§794;

U.S.C.

the

Decree

global

that

504

and

Government

the

including

11

Code

12

and

compromise

barriers

Judgment,
on

and

liability,

identified

herein

for

constitute past and present
under

of

1990

the

thru

10

Order

Title

II

of

42

(“ADA”),

the

U.S.C.

Rehabilitation Act

§

1973,

California

corresponding

of

law,
Civil

California Code of Regulations.

Sections

51,

Code

54

Plaintiff

Sections

has

and

4450-4456;

54.1,

and

11135
seq.,

and

Title

13

25.

filed

14

lawsuit,

15

Complaint

16

other

17

that,

18

binding

19

to

20

permitted by law,

shall have

21

and/or

estoppel.

22

Service,

this

specifically alleging
that

she brings

similarly
this

situated

Consent

upon

all

Plaintiff,

collateral

the

Decree

to

399 F.3d 1047

on

and

with

be

in

action as
page

action

disabled

persons

found

et

1

a

public

lines

21

“on behalf

persons”.
Order

privity with

interest
of

her

herself

and

parties

similarly
and

intend

Inc.

v.

be

situated
thus,

the binding effect of res

(9th Cir.

the

additionally

her,

See Headwaters.

of

22

-

of

The

shall

disabilities

24

to

judicata

U.S.

Forest

2005)

23
24
25

RESOLUTION OF CLAIM FOR REASONABLE STATUTORY DAMAGES:
26.

Defendant

26

(twenty

five

27

Plaintiff’s

28

statutory

agrees

thousand

claims

damages

for
under

to

pay

dollars)
bodily
Title

the
in

and
II

of

amount

full
personal
the

ADA,

of

$25,

000

satisfaction
injury
and

and

Civil

of
for
Code

1hiniesck ‘1s,w Offas
158 HILLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUT CREEK,
CA 94597-3452
[phone]

Consent Decree Judgment nnd Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

—11—

52

and

Sections

2

check

3

MOELLER,”

4

plaintiff’s counsel within

5

conditions

6

Persons

and

8

intended

to

9

no

of

shall

deposited

set

27.

part

amount

this

in

out

be
it

paid

the

form

stipulate
full

in

shall

toward

be

be

to

compensation

11

statutory attorney fees,

payable
mail

U.S.

of

Consent

that

A

and

by

addressed

and

claim

litigation expenses,

the

by

City

amount

understand

Plaintiff’s

separate

to

the terms and

foregoing

the

“FRANCIE

to

Decree

Plaintiff,

received

Plaintiff’s

10

made

10 days of approval of

this

parties

The

into

(Disabled

Act).

Council of the City of Santa Rosa.

(Unruh

for

7

Act)

54.3

1

for

is

that

Counsel

in

reasonable

and costs.

12

28.

FRANCIE MOELLER agrees to pay any and all present or

13

future liens,

claims or demands arising as a result of the

14

circumstances giving rise to this Action,

15

will defend,

16

herein from any loss,

17

of any kind or character through the assertion by any assignee

18

or transferee of a claim,

19

matter of this Consent Decree.

and FRANCIE MOELLER

indemnify and save harmless City of Santa Rosa
claim,

expense,

demand or cause of action

or claims connected with the subject

20
21

RESOLUTION OF CLAIM FOR REASONABLE STATUTORY ATTORNEYS FEES,

22

LITIGATION EXPENSES AD COSTS:

23

29.

Defendant agrees to pay the amount of $99,000

(ninety

in full satisfaction of Plaintiff’s

24
25

claims for interim and final claims for reasonable statutory

26

attorney fees,

27

under Section 505 of the ADA

28
Thimnch

nine thousand dollars)

Sections 52,

litigation expenses and costs,

54.3,

and 55;

[42 USC 12205] ;

including claims,
Civil Code

Health & Safety Code Section 19953;

‘L Offas

158 HILLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUTCREEK,
CA 945973452
[phone]

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

—

12—

A check for this

1

and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.

2

amount shall be made payable to “TIM THIMESCH,

3

deposited into the U.S.

4

counsel within 10 days of approval of the terms and conditions

5

set out in this form of Consent Decree by the City Council of

6

the City of Santa Rosa.

and addressed to plaintiff’s

mail

of the aforementioned sum between

if any,

A division,

30.

7

IN TRUST,” and

8

TIM THIMESCH and anyone else shall,

9

validity of this Consent Decree.

affect the

in no way,

TIM THIMESCH will defend,

10

indemnify and save harmless City of Santa Rosa herein from any

11

loss,

12

character as a result of such division.

or cause of action of any kind or

demand,

expense,

claim,

13
14

FULL CONSENT DECREE ORDER AND JUDGMENT:

This

31.

15
16
17

matters

18

and

19

fees,

20

promise,

2:

the

22

contained

23

Judgment,

24

the

constitutes

entire

the

between

agreement

Judgment

and

Order

Decree

Consent

Full

parties

on

the

herein.

Plaintiff’s

of

litigation

expenses

agreement,

or

parties

or

agents

shall

be

any

written

this

in

written

either
of

and

costs,

and

of

Full

enforceable

relief,

injunctive
reasonable

and

injury damages,

personal

for

claims

or

the

statutory attorney

made

oral,

the

by

any

of

is

not

Order

and

that

parties,

regarding

statement,

other

no

Consent

statutory

Decree
matters

described

25
26

FULlS

CONSENT

DECREE

ORDER

AND

27

32.

BINDING

ON

AND

PARTIES

SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST:

28

JUDGMENT

The

parties

agree

and

represent

that

they

have

himnch ‘Iw Off Len

58 HILLTOP CKSC ENT
wALNuICREEK.

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1 100 LB

—

13

—

1

entered

into

2

voluntarily,

3

judgment,

4

this

5

Order

and

received full advice from counsel.

Full

no

and

on

Full

binding

8

SANTA ROSA;

9

of

Consent

and

knowledge

as

Order

FRANCIE

Decree

wholly

and

Judgment,

and

Order

MOELLER,
in

and

10

have a duty to so notify all

11

existence

12

Judgment

13

Judgment
their

own

related

after

to

having

Judgment

shall

be

Defendant

and

CITY

OF

During

interest.

Order

upon

matters

all

to

Decree

and any successors

Full

Decree

duress,

Consent

Plaintiff

7

Consent

Decree

Consent

This

this

Full

under

belief,

33.

6

this

Judgment,

the
the

period
parties

in interest of the

Full Consent Decree Order and Judgment.

and

terms

during

the

of

such successors

this

period of

Full
the

Decree

Consent

Order

jurisdiction of

Court’s

and
this

14
15

JOINT PREPARATION AND SEVERABILITY:
34.

16

This

Full Consent Decree Order and Judgment

17

jointly

18

construed

against

any

19

this

Consent

Decree

20

any

21

Consent

22

is deemed

full force and effect.

prepared

Full
court

to

Decree

be

by

all

parties

and

shall

not
If

as

its

drafter.

Order

and

Judgment

unenforceable,

the

other

Order

party

and

Judgment

shall

is

terms

be

strictly

any

term

of

determined

by

of

this

Full

nonetheless

remain

the

represent

in

23
24

SIGNATORIES BIND PARTIES:
35.

25

Signatories

on

the

behalf

26
27

‘12w

parties

parties

Consent Decree Order and Judgment.

28
7Nfl1flCl

that

of

/11/

they

are

authorized

to

bind

the

to

this

Full

Offkn

Isg HII±TOP CRESCENT
WALN1Jr CREEK,

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

—14—

_
__
___
__
___

O4/E/2SØ1

14:39

1

ADA COPFLIANCE

779912@@

PAGE

1

SIGNflORIES BIND PARtIES:

This

Decree

Consent

Full

2

36.

3

executed

in counterpart

4

attached

in

5

original,

6

instrument.

Such

7

signatures,

which

S

Order

Judgment

and

may

be

original signatures.

1:

counterparts,

each

and which together

of

shall

shall

have

and such
which

the

signatures may be
be

shall

constitute one
may

counterparts

same

force

an

and the

same

as

faxed

signed

be

deemed

and

effect

as

Dated:

ca41a&
Plaintiff FRANCIE

12

14

signatures,

Wod6L
MOELLER

Dated:

Print Name:

16

1
h

c

ci
ev—
9
t’la-vc
Title:
CITY CF SANTA ROSA

17
16

19

////

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ic

FIILLTOPCN.SCENr

WNUTCF&R&

Coiiscnt Pence Judgment sitd Order
(:e No. CV 09-{ 100 LB

—

—

-I-

APPROVED AS TO FORM and AS TO PARAGRAPHS 29 and 30:

2
3

Dated:

April

,

2011

4

THINESCH LAW OFFICES
S. THIMESCH, ESQ
FARBER, ESQ.
f

5
6

jt

At
FRANCIE MOELLE

7
8

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

9

Dated:

intiff

April

,

201:

CAROI:NE
FOWLER
C:TY ATTORNEY
.

C
JOHN J. FRITSOH
ASS
TANT CITY TORNEY

1]
12

13

Attqfrneys to
D tendant
CITY OF SANTA ROSA

14
15
16
17
ORDER

18
IT

19

IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22
23
24

RT

H

ER

Consent Decree Judgment and Order:
Case No. CV 09-1100 LB

R NIA

LI

NO

lhtwofr
WALNUT CREEK,
CA 94597-3452
[phone]

ERED

I-ION. lAUREl 3EE:ER
Magistrate Judgeeler
e
aurel B
Judge L
U.S. District Court

28
58 HILLTOP CRESCENT

O ORD
IT IS S

FO

April 29, 2011

A

27

Date:

UNIT
ED

26

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

RT
U
O

S

25

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

—16—