Gray v. Golden Gate National Recreational Area
279 F.R.D. 501
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) for a class of mobility/vision-impaired individuals denied access at GGNRA parks.
- Class defined as all persons with mobility/vision disabilities denied programmatic access due to barriers at GGNRA park sites.
- GGNRA/NPS admit numerosity and adequacy but contest commonality/typicality and the ability to fashion a universal injunction.
- NCA conducted phased accessibility assessments; July 2010 draft self-evaluation identified about 30 system-wide deficiencies.
- Plaintiffs allege system-wide policies and practices failed to remedy barriers; defense argues need for barrier-by-barrier analysis.
- Court notes centralization of decision-making within GGNRA and a potential to craft a class-wide remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class is ascertainable | Gray satisfies an identifiable mobility/vision class | Class definition may be too broad/ill-defined | Yes; class identifiable and ascertainable |
| Whether commonality is satisfied | System-wide policies/deficiencies affect all class members | Different barriers/disabilities require individualized inquiries | Common questions exist; commonality satisfied |
| Whether typicality is satisfied | Named plaintiffs share injury of denied access; typical of class | Disparate barriers/disabilities undermine typicality | Typicality satisfied |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(2) certification is proper | Injunctive relief can remedy systemic barriers class-wide | Injunctions must be specific to each barrier; issue-wide relief uncertain | Rule 23(b)(2) certification appropriate |
| Whether a universal injunction is feasible under Rule 65 | Possible to craft narrowly tailored, specific injunctions addressing systemic failures | Broad, multi-barrier injunctions risk non-compliance and vagueness | Injunctions can be specified; feasible |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.2001) (systemic policy or practice can satisfy commonality for disabilities)
- Californians for Disability Rights v. Caltrans, 249 F.R.D. 334 (N.D. Cal.2008) (certified class of thousands of barriers based on centralized policy failure)
- Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal.1994) (commonality in public accommodations where design features are challenged)
- Castaneda v. Burger King Corp., 264 F.R.D. 557 (N.D. Cal.2009) (denial of class certification where barriers are not under a common blueprint)