Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. City of L. A.

• Decision Date: 02 November 2022
• Docket Number: 12-CV-00551 FMO (PJWx)
• Parties: INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, and COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, and COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendants.

No. 12-CV-00551 FMO (PJWx)

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division

November 2, 2022

EXHIBIT 1 TO EXHIBIT A TO JOINT MOTION

MICHAEL G. ALLEN, PRO HAC VICE JENNIFER I. KLAR, PRO HAC VICE RELMAN COLFAX PLLC, CHRISTOPHER H KNAUF DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER DAVID GEFFEN, DARA SCHUR, AUTUMN ELLIOTTATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT AND FREE

LAW OFFICES OF ODION L. OKOJIE, DAVID IYALOMHE & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY

AMENDED CORRECTED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. RECITALS............1

II. DEFINITIONS............6

1. “Accessible,”............6

2. “Accessible Housing Development”............6

3. “Accessible Housing Units”............6

4. “Accessibility Laws”............6

5. “Accessibility Standards”............6

6. “Alternative Accessibility Standard”............7

7. “Assistance Animals”............7

8. “Auxiliary Aids”............8

9. “Certification of Compliance with Accessibility Standards”............8

10. “Certification of Adoption of Housing Policies”............8

11. “City”............8

12. “Covered Housing Development”............8

13. “Effective Date”............9

14. “LAHD”............9

15. “Housing Development”............9

16. “Housing Policies”............9

17. “Housing Unit”............9

18. “Housing Unit with Hearing/Vision Features”............9

19. “Housing Unit with Mobility Features”............10

20. “Judgment”............10

21. “Owner”............11

22. “Person with a Disability”............11

23. “Program Access”............11

24. “Property Management Agent”............11

25. “Reasonable Accommodation”............11

26. “Reasonable Modification”............11

27. “Registry”............11

28. “Settlement Coordinator”............12

29. “Settlement Term”............12

30. “Subrecipient”............12

31. “Substantial Rehabilitation”............12

32. “Target Number of Accessible Units”............12

33. “Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards”............12

III. SCOPE AND TERMS OF THE AMENDED AGREEMENT............13

1. Recitals............13

2. Jurisdiction............13

3. Binding Effect............13

4. Purpose of Settlement............13

5. Approval by the District Court............13

6. Continuing Jurisdiction............14

7. City's Commitment to Provide Affordable, Accessible Housing............14

8. City's Compliance............15

9. Reporting of Activities to Ensure Compliance............15

10. Specific Commitments to Achieving Accessibility............15

(a) Architectural Accessibility............15

(b) Expert Architect............15

(c) Accessible Housing Unit Plan............16

(d) Implementation of Accessible Housing Unit Plan............16

(e) Flexibility in Meeting Target Number of Accessible Units............17

(f) Accessibility of Future Housing Developments............19

(g) Accessibility in Existing Buildings to be Remediated............19

(h) Credit for Early Performance............20

(i) Enhanced Accessibility Program for Individuals with Disabilities............21

(j) Ensuring Program Accessibility............22

(k) Management Policies to Ensure Accessibility............22

(1) Ensuring Compliance with Management Policies............23

(m) Internet-based Accessible Housing Registry (“Registry”)............27

(n) Coordination of Registry and Coordinated Entry System............29

(o) Training and Education............30

(p) Provision of Funding and Staffing............31

(q) Flexibility in Use of Funding............31

11. Semi-Annual Reporting Requirements............32

12. Semi-Annual Report Contents............32 13. Quantitative Data............34

14. Quarterly Reporting Requirements............35

15. Appointment of Settlement Coordinator (“Settlement Coordinator” or “Coordinator”)............35

16. ADA Coordinator............36

17. Qualifications of Settlement Coordinator............36

18. Responsibilities and Authority of the Settlement Coordinator............36

19. Settlement Coordinator Responsibilities for Registry............39

20. Grievance and Complaint System............39

21. Plaintiffs' Rights With Respect to Testing............40

22. Training regarding this Amended Agreement to Supervisory Employees. ............40

IV. MONITORING............41

1. Court Appointment of Monitor............41

2. Monitor Qualifications............41

3. Monitor Responsibility and Authority............41

4. Records and Other Information Available to Monitor............44

5. Confidentiality............45

6. Meetings with Monitor............46

7. Cost of Monitor............46

8. Periodic Status Conferences............49

V. RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING............49

1. Record Keeping and Reporting............49 2. City's Duty to Retain Documents............50

VI. MUTUAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS............50

1. Plaintiffs' Release of Claims............50

2. City's Release of Claims............51

3. Waiver of Civil Code Section 1542............52

VII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION............54

1. Meet and Confer Obligation............54

2. Decision by Monitor............54

3. Resolution by the District Court............54

VIII. COMPENSATION AND FEES............54

1. Compensation to Plaintiffs............54

2. Attorneys' Fees............54

3. Prospective Monitoring Fees and Costs for Plaintiffs' Counsel............54

4. Payment of Monitoring Fees and Costs............55

5. Disbursement of Monitoring Fees and Costs............56

6. Monitoring Fees for ILCSC and CALIF............56

IX. COURT'S RETENTION OF JURISDICTION............58

X. MISCELLANEOUS............58

1. Entire Agreement; Severability............58

2. Modification of Amended Agreement............58

3. Claims Against CRA/LA............59

4. Conditions Precedent............59

5. Notice to the Parties............60

6. Opportunity to Consult with Counsel............62

7. Amended Agreement Binding on Successors and Assigns............63

8. Titles............63

9. Weekends and Holidays............63

10. Counterparts and Facsimiles............63

11. Parties Agree to Cooperate............63

12. Construction............63

13. Deadlines............63

14. Sanctions............64

AMENDED CORRECTED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS

The Corrected Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “CSA” or “Agreement”) was entered into between the City of Los Angeles (the “City”), a municipal corporation, and Independent Living Center of Southern California (“ILCSC”) Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley (“FHC”), and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”) (collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”). The City and the Plaintiffs are referred to herein collectively as “the Parties.” The CSA was adopted and entered as the Judgment of this Court on December 13, 2017. The Parties enter into this Amended CSA (“Amended Agreement”) to reflect the Parties' modifications to the CSA with the concurrence of the Monitor and to incorporate the substance of this Court's orders since entry of the CSA.

I. RECITALS

This Amended Agreement is made and entered into with reference to the following facts:

1. On January 13, 2012, Plaintiffs commenced litigation against the City and CRA/LA, A Designated Local Authority, Successor to Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (“CRA/LA”) known as Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., filed on January 13, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-00551-FMO-PJW (the “Litigation”). The Litigation concerns multifamily apartment buildings that received or will receive any Federal financial assistance from the City after July 11, 1988, and/or (2) was or will be designed, constructed, altered, operated, administered, or financed, in whole or in part, in connection with a program administered in whole or in part by the City since January 26, 1992. Plaintiffs also joined, for Rule 19 purposes, a total of 61 owners of multifamily properties that had been assisted by the City or CRA (“Owner Defendants”). The CRA/LA and Owner Defendants are not Parties to this Agreement.

2. On August 20, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which remains the operative complaint in this proceeding. The SAC alleges that the City and CRA/LA engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against people with disabilities-in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; and California Government Code Section 11135, et seq. (“Section 11135”)-by failing to ensure that multifamily housing funded, developed, or significantly assisted by the City or CRA is accessible and made meaningfully available to people with disabilities. The SAC names the City as a defendant in its own capacity and in its capacity as the successor housing agency under the Redevelopment Dissolution Law, following dissolution of the former Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, as further described in the SAC, Paragraph 35 et seq.

3. On November 29, 2012, the Hon. S. James Otero denied the City's and CRA/LA's motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under Section 504, the ADA and Section 11135.

4. Plaintiffs sought by this...