Carter v. City of Los Angeles
169 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- ADA/Section 504/Unruh/Cal. Disabled Persons Act prohibit discrimination and require accessible public facilities.
- Carter and Fahmie brought state-law claims for curb cut/sidewalk access; Willits action brought federal claims alleging systemic disability access violations.
- Settlement proposed injunctive relief only; class certified for injunctive/declaratory relief with no opt-out; statutory damages released.
- Carter/Fahmie settled (April 2011) covering curb ramp installations and remediation with budget caps and long-term funding contingent on funds.
- Trial court approved settlement as fair; appellants objected, arguing underfunding, lack of opt-out, and insufficient protection for damages claims.
- Appellants appealed, challenging class certification and settlement terms; appellate court reversed the order certifying the settlement class and approving settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certifying a non-opt-out Rule 23(b)(2) class violated due process | Appellants contend non-opt-out deprives due process | City argues settlement/class mechanics fit Rule 23(b)(2) and no opt-out is required | Non-opt-out certification violated due process |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate for a settlement with potential monetary claims | Damages claims are not incidental to injunctive relief | Damages claims fall within incidental relief | Rule 23(b)(2) not appropriate for class with monetary claims; notice/opt-out required |
| Whether the claimed damages under Unruh Act/Disabled Persons Act were incidental to the settlement | Damages were asserted as possible remedies for the class | Damages deemed incidental due to low likelihood of recovery | Damages not incidental; due process required notice/op-out |
| Whether the settlement and its disclosure/notice procedures were fair to the class | Settlement undervalues relief and lacks opt-out; inadequate notice | Settlement was at arm's length with extensive investigation | Settlement approval reversed due to due-process concerns about non-opt-out class |
| Whether the district court properly certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class given the need for individualized relief | Individualized relief may be required for monetary claims | Injunctive/declaratory relief can support 23(b)(2) class | Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) improper for this case; due process concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (monetary claims require notice/opt-out where they predominate; but context-dependent)
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (2004) (class action certification requirements in California)
- Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Cal.App.4th 1794 (1996) (abuse of discretion standard for settlements; presumption of fairness)
- Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Illinois Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 834 F.2d 677 (7th Cir. 1987) (settlement fairness requires careful inquiry when certification deferred to settlement)
- Schonfeld v. City of Carlsbad, 978 F. Supp. 1329 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (compliance with ADA precedents when evaluating settlements)
- Beauchamp v. City of Long Beach, S213420 (Cal. Sup. Ct.) (issue of whether California may adopt federal guidance on class actions on point for review)