Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled et al v. Bloomberg et al
| Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York, Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled and Tania Morales |
| The City of New York and Michael R. Bloomberg |
| 1:2011cv06690 |
| September 26, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Kings |
| Richard J. Holwell |
| Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12112 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
199
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth within, the Court will take an intermediate approach and grant Plaintiff's request for an interim order requiring Defendants to comply with the settlement, subject to modification or re jection following notice to the class members and a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e). It is hereby ORDERED that, no later than October 7, 2014, the parties shall confer and submit a joint proposed order consistent with this Memorandum Opin ion and Order. The proposed order should include, among other things, the parties' proposed procedures for giving notice to the class (along with the proposed notice(s)) and a proposed schedule for (1) providing notice; (2) filing a motion (joint or on consent, as the case may be) for approval of the settlement; and (3) the fairness hearing. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/1/2014) (ab)
|
|
Filing
159
OPINION AND ORDER: As noted above, the trial in this case was limited to the question of liability. Having found that the City violated the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the NYCHRL in several respects, the Court will proceed to consider the issue of how to remedy those violations. Given the complexity and potential expense involved, there is no question that crafting an appropriate remedy would be better accomplished by those with expertise in such matters and through negotiation, whether cou rt-supervised or otherwise, than by Court order. Further, the United States has indicated that it is able and willing to assist the parties and, if necessary, the Court in addressing the question of remedy. (Statement of Interest of the United States 1 n.2). The parties are therefore directed to meet and confer - in person and with representatives of the Department of Justice, if they elect to participate - about the most productive means of resolving the question of remedies through alternativ e dispute mechanisms. At the same time, mindful that the Court will impose remedies if the parties cannot agree on them, the parties shall discuss the process and schedule for the remaining litigation, including but not limited to whether there is a need for additional discovery, whether the parties anticipate motion practice, and whether there is a need for another trial on remedies. The parties shall submit a joint status letter with respect to these matters and any other information that the parties believe may assist the Court in advancing the case to settlement or trial no later than November 26, 2013. They shall then appear for a conference with the Court on December 3, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York. (Status Conference set for 12/3/2013 at 03:15 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/7/2013) (tn)
|
|
Filing
66
OPINION AND ORDER re: 35 MOTION to Certify Class NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York, Brooklyn Center for In dependence of the Disabled, Tania Morales, Gregory D. Bell. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion for class certification is hereby GRANTED as modified and subject to comment from the parties. Absent objections, the Court will certify a plaintiff class consisting of the following: All people with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, who are within the City of New York and the jurisdiction served by the City of New York's emergency preparedness progra ms and services. The parties shall have until November 13, 2012, at 12:00 p.m., to submit letter objections, not to exceed three pages, regarding the Court's proposed class definition. It is further ORDERED that defendants have until November 19, 2012, to respond to plaintiffs' motion to seal, showing good cause why maintaining the relevant materials under seal is consistent with the presumption of access created by both the common law and the First Amendment. See, e.g., Lugosch v. P yramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). In any such response, defendants shall also address whether there is a basis to maintain the unredacted version of this Opinion and Order under seal. Absent a response, the Court will publicly file the unredacted version of this Opinion and Order and deny plaintiffs' motion to seal without further notice to the parties. In the meantime, the Clerk of Court is directed to maintain the unredacted version of this Opinion and Order under seal. It is important to note that the fact that plaintiffs have carried their burden at this stage, and class certification is appropriate, is not to say that the plaintiff class is entitled to the relief it ultimately seeks. It may be, as defendant s vigorously assert, that the plaintiffs' claims are "patently false" and that the City has "carefully developed sophisticated operational and logistical plans and supporting resources that effectively serve the health and safety needs of all New Yorkers during emergencies, including those with disabilities." (Defs.' Opp'n Mem. at 1- 2). The fact that plaintiffs have carried their present burden is only to say that they have satisfied the requirements for proceeding by way of a class action. Whether they ultimately prevail will be determined at the trial scheduled to begin on December 10, 2012. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/7/2012) (lmb)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
