IVANA KIROLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, THE, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 07-cv-03685-AMO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 29, 2025
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SYSTEMIC INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Re: Dkt. No. 872
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ivana Kirola filed this class action on July 17, 2007, alleging the City and County of San Francisco, the Mayor of San Francisco, and members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (“City“) systemically failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA“) and related regulations. Dkt. No. 1. On June 24, 2010, Kirola filed a first amended complaint, alleging discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504“); the California Disabled Persons Act,
The Court certified a class on June 7, 2010, noting that the City did not contest “that this case satisfies . . . Rule 23(b)(2), since the relief plaintiffs seek includes class-wide injunctive relief as to San Francisco‘s policies and practices regarding access to City faсilities and programs for persons with mobility disabilities.” Dkt. No. 285. A bench trial took place from April 4, 2011, to May 5, 2011. See Dkt. No. 542-581. On November 26, 2014, the Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment in favor of the City on all claims. Dkt. No. 686.
On December 23, 2014, Plaintiff appealed, challenging certain of the Court‘s rulings, including that Kirola lacked standing, the Court‘s ruling on her new construction and alterations claims (as to the pedestrian right-of-way, Recreation and Parks (“RecPark“) facilities, swimming
On August 16, 2018, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law, Dkt. No. 751, which the Court granted on March 12, 2021, Dkt. No. 776. The Court found certain ADAAG violations at three facilities: the Main Library, St. Mary‘s Playground, and a restroom in Golden Gate Park (the “Phase I facilities“). See id. The Court concluded injunctivе relief was not warranted because Kirola had not satisfied her burden of demonstrating that she was actually injured as a result of the ADAAG violations identified by the Court. Id. at 50. The Court further found “the fact that the Court has identified some ADAAG violations at three facilities does not suggest . . . that the violations are pervasive or of a systemic nature.” Id. at 51.
On April 5, 2021, Plaintiffs appealed anew. Dkt. No. 779. On April 10, 2023, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision reversing in part and affirming in part, and remanding with instructions. Kirola v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 21-15621, 2023 WL 2851368, at *3 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2023) (”Kirola II“), cert denied, 144 S. Ct. 185 (2023). The Ninth Circuit held that “[a]lthough thе district court appropriately found that the plaintiffs’ evidence did not warrant the sweeping class-wide relief that the plaintiffs sought, the district court abused its discretion in denying relief for the ADAAG violations found.” Id. On remand, the Ninth Circuit charged this Court “to determine injunctive relief” tailored to the ADAAG violations that this Court found at the Main Library, St. Mary‘s Playground, and a restroom in Golden Gate Park. Id. The Ninth Circuit further directed this Court to evaluate the evidence of alleged violations in certain facilities
On March 28, 2024, this Court ordered injunctive relief as to the Phase I facilities and ordered completion within 180 days. Dkt. No. 822. On April 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for permanent injunction regarding additional facilities (the “Phase II facilities“). Dkt. No. 825. On August 19, 2024, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, granting injunctive relief as to conditions at seven of the Phase II facilities – the Botanical Gardens, Bernal Heights Recreation Center, Tenderloin Recreation Center, Woh Hei Yuen Recreation Center, Minnie & Lovie Ward Recreation Center, Upper Noe Recreation Center, and the Martin Luther King Jr. Swimming Pool – and finding there was insufficient evidence to establish violations at four other facilities.1 Dkt. No. 852. In the August 19 Order, the Court also ordered the parties to provide additional briefing on the need for broader injunctive relief (“Phase III“). The ordered briefing took the fоrm of the instant motion, which was filed on November 1, 2024. Dkt. No. 872. The City‘s opposition followed on December 13, 2024 (Dkt. No. 874), and Plaintiff replied on January 11, 2025 (Dkt. No. 876).
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs move for systemic injunctive relief, seeking an order requiring Defendants to (1) fully comply with current federal and state accessibility standards when performing new construction or alterations to City facilities going forward, and (2) develop and implement a remedial plan for bringing the City‘s newly constructed or altered facilities, within the meaning of the ADA, into сompliance. Plaintiffs’ Motion (Dkt. No. 872, “Mot.“) at 9. Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right.” Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate “(1) that it has suffered irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for
A. Systemic Injunctive Relief
As a threshold matter, Defendants assert that this Court should not consider ordering systemic injunctive relief because the Ninth Circuit has аlready found it inappropriate. Opp. at 11. Not so. On the first appeal, the Ninth Circuit directed that “[o]nce the scope of any ADAAG violations at facilities used by Kirola and all other class members has been determined, the district court shall revisit the question of whether injunctive relief should be granted in light of the scope of violations determined by the district court . . . .” Kirola I, 860 F.3d at 1185. On the second appeal, the Ninth Circuit found the Court abused its discretion on remand in denying relief for the ADAAG violations found and held the Court “appropriately found that the plaintiffs’ evidence did not warrant the sweeping class-wide relief that the plaintiffs sought.” Kirola II, 2023 WL 2851368, at *2. However, it noted that “[i]f the district court finds any further ADAAG violations, [it] should revisit the question of injunctive relief that is systemwide or tailored to any additional violations found.” Dkt. No. 798 at 8. Having found violations at seven additional facilities in Phase II, the Court now considers whether to issue systemwide injunctive relief. The
First, because Kirola and the class members have encountered and continue to encounter ADAAG violations in the City‘s facilities and are at risk of encountering ADAAG violations in any future facility that is constructed or altered, they have suffered irreparable injury. Kirola II, 2023 WL 2851368, at *1; Kirola I, 860 F.3d at 1175-76. Where a defendant violates a civil rights statute, courts “presume that the plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury from the fact of the defendant‘s violation.” Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, 251 F.3d 814, 827 (9th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases). The second part of the test is satisfied, as well, because remedies at law are inadequate to compensate for these civil rights violations. Monetary damages cannot provide access to the City‘s non-compliant new and altered facilities. Defendants do not contest that Plaintiffs meet the first two elements necessary for a permanent injunction.
Third, Plaintiffs argue the balance of hardships weighs in their favor because they have established hardship – lack of access to public facilities – and Defendants have no legitimate interest in maintaining inaccessibility to City facilities. Mot. at 33. The Court agrees; moreover, Defendants put forward no specific hardship argument about any cost or burden imposed by Plaintiffs’ proposed relief, only vaguely referencing hardship related to the proposed “overhaul” required in carrying out the “unprecedented” survey of the City‘s newly constructed or altered facilities that Plaintiffs seek as part of their proposed remedial plan. See Oрp. at 11-12. While the proposed overhaul may prove laborious, the balance of hardships tilts in Plaintiffs’ favor because their civil rights violations should be remedied. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 996 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir. 1983)) (“Faced with such a conflict between financial concerns and preventable human suffering, we have little difficulty concluding that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in plaintiffs’ favor.“) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, Plaintiffs argue the public interest would be greatly served by the issuance of injunctive relief requiring compliance with the ADA and parallel California laws. Mot. at 33. Defendants argue that the “lack of evidence establishing deficiencies in the City‘s policies and practices does not support that the public would be well served by overhauling policies and
Despite this conclusion, Defendants resist the availability of systemic injunctive relief on a handful of additional bases, which the Court takes up in turn.
1. Violations Attributable to Policies or Practices
Defendants also argue that systemic injunctive relief is not merited because there is no evidence that the additional ADAAG violations found in Phase III are attributable to City policies or practices or that the isolated additional violations justify an “overhaul” of the system. Opp. at 5. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs’ injuries – both those found in Phase II and аt other times in this litigation – are attributable to a systemwide City policy. See Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 870. Procedure 9.8.24 – titled “ADA & Accessibility Compliance” – sets forth the City‘s written policy regarding compliance with the ADA in newly constructed or altered facilities. Wallace Decl., Ex. E (Dkt. No. 872-1) at 276. It is “a procedure for identifying the scope of work required to attain accessibility compliance on all Department of Public Works projects and to ensure that construction documents and completed facilities meet all аpplicable requirements and policies.” Id. Kevin Jensen, Disability Access Coordinator for the Department of Public Works, prepared the Procedure, which was approved by Director of Public Works Edward D. Reiskin and adopted by the City in January 2010. Id. at 276-82; 286. Through the course of the litigation, the City‘s position was that ADAAG does not apply to pedestrian rights of way, parks, playgrounds, and other outdoor recreational facilities, and the Procedure does not require ADAAG complianсe with those facilities and locations. The Court found that Jensen followed Procedure 9.8.24, Kirola I, 74 F. Supp. 3d at 1217, and Jensen and the City‘s Director for Physical Access, John Paul Scott, testified they did not use ADAAG for parks, playgrounds, outdoor recreation facilities, and the pedestrian rights of way. However, as the Ninth Circuit already made clear in this case, ADAAG does apply to public rights-of-way, parks, and playgrounds. Kirola I, 860 F.3d at 1179, 1181. Moreover, the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection job card, which must be signed аnd approved by the Department of Public Works Disability Access Compliance at the end of a
2. Factual Findings in Support of Systemwide Injunctive Relief
In addition to showing that violations of a statute or the constitution that are attributable to policies or practices pervading the whole system wаrrant systemwide relief, Plaintiffs must also establish that factual findings support the relief sought. See id. at 871. If there is evidence of “only a few isolated violations affecting a narrow range of plaintiffs,” the relief granted by the Court “must be limited accordingly.” Id. at 870. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have only shown a “handful” of “isolated” violations that fail to justify Plaintiffs’ requested relief. Opp. at 10-11.
The Court disagrees, as it found dozens of violations at ten facilities throughout San Francisco that had undergone new construсtion or alterations since 2000: the Main Library, St. Mary‘s Playground, a restroom in Golden Gate Park, the Botanical Gardens, the Bernal Heights Recreation Center, the Tenderloin Recreation Center, the Woh Hei Yuen Recreation Center, the Minnie & Lovie Ward Recreation Center, the Upper Noe Recreation Center, and the Martin Luther King Jr. Swimming Pool.2
The City insists that Plaintiffs are not entitled to their requested relief as they have “only” shown ten facilities contain ADAAG violations out of the hundreds of City facilities. But the City‘s focus on the number of violations is misplaced. For one, using the total number of City
3. Evidence of a Systemwide Deficiency
Systemwide injunctive relief is appropriate where plaintiffs present evidence that the challenged practice caused a “‘systemwide violation’ [that] would justify ‘systemwide relief.‘” Melendres, 784 F.3d at 1264, 1258 (affirming permanent injunction requiring various remedial actions applying “to all law enforcement activity within the [sheriff‘s office] where plaintiffs mostly presented evidence related to ‘saturation patrols,’ and some evidence suggesting the poliсies and practices were implemented during regular patrols, as well) (citations omitted).
Here, the Court finds that the systemwide deficiency – the City‘s policies failing to require ADAAG compliance – coupled with the evidence in the record demonstrating violations across various facilities are sufficient to justify systemwide relief. Plaintiffs have presented more
Because the injury is attributable to policies or practices pervading the whole system, and because the unlawful policies affect such a broad range of plaintiffs that an overhaul of thе system is the only feasible manner in which to address the class‘s injury, the Court thus finds systemic injunctive relief is appropriate to remedy Plaintiffs’ harms.
B. Appropriateness of Proposed Injunctive Relief
Next, the Court must determine if the specific systemic injunctive relief sought is appropriate. The Court‘s remedy “must of course be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 357 (quoting Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995)). Here, Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring that Defendants fully comply with the requirements of the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Standards (
First, as to Plaintiffs’ request to require Defendants to fully comply with applicable law, Plaintiffs request that Defendants be required to adopt pоlicies that clearly specify that the 2010 ADAS and the most recent iteration of the CBC will be used as the accessibility standard for all aspects of newly constructed or altered parks, playgrounds, outdoor recreation areas, and pedestrian pathways, and that bidding documents and contracts for construction projects should require that all work be done in compliance with those authorities as well. Mot. at 28. Further,
Second, Plaintiffs’ proposed remedial plan would require Defendants to survey the City‘s parks, playgrounds, outdoor recreational facilities, and pedestrian rights of way that were newly constructed or altered after January 26, 1992, for ADAAG violations. Mot. аt 29. Plaintiffs seek to be permitted to review, comment on, and object to the scope of the survey, as well as the survey instrument and procedures. Mot. at 29-30. Defendants would share the results of the survey with Plaintiffs and the Court. Defendants would next prepare a proposed remedial plan with Plaintiffs’ input, which would be submitted to the Court for its review and approval, with Plaintiffs again permitted to comment and object. Mot. at 30. Defendants argue this plan is improper because Plaintiffs “skip[] the nеcessary step of establishing pervasive and systemic ADA violations throughout the City.” Opp. at 14. Because the Court has found that systemwide relief is required, however, Plaintiffs are entitled to systemic relief. For this reason, Defendants’ argument that this proposal improperly shifts the burden of showing a lack of ADAAG violation onto the City, when plaintiffs in an ADA case bear the burden of showing violations, is also unavailing. Opp. at 15 (citing Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008)).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. The parties SHALL meet and confer and file a joint proposed form of injunction, with a Word version emailed to amopo@cand.uscourts.gov, by no later than October 20, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 29, 2025
ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN
United States District Judge