Dunsmore v. State of California

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE Case No.: 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL ANDRADE, ERNEST 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF ADA 13 ANTHONY EDWARDS, REANNA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER [14] NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, (Doc. No. 907) 15 GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and LAURA ZOERNER, on [16] behalf of themselves and all others 17 similarly situated, [18] Plaintiffs, [19] v. [20] SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 21 DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY [22] PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and 23 DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants [25] Before the Court is a joint motion for final approval of the Americans with [26] Disabilities Act (“ADA”) Settlement as to Plaintiffs’ Third Claim (“Motion for Final [27] Approval”). (Doc. No. 907.) On July 31, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Motion for [28] 1 Final Approval. (Doc. No. 942.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the 2 Motion for Final Approval. (Id.) 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 The facts of this case have been recited in previous orders. (See Doc. No. 219.) 5 Plaintiffs are current or former inmates of San Diego County Jail facilities (the “Jail”), 6 operated by Defendants San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and the County of San 7 Diego. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of “themselves and the approximately 4,000 8 incarcerated people who are similarly situated on any given day” to “remedy the dangerous, 9 discriminatory, and unconstitutional conditions in the Jail.” (Third Amended Complaint 10 (“TAC”), Doc. No. 231, ¶ 4.) Specifically, Plaintiffs contend Defendants’ policies and 11 practices contribute to the high death rates in the Jail, which “has for years exceeded the 12 rates nationally and in other large California jails, [and] it reached chilling heights in 2021 13 when 18 people died, amounting to a death rate of 458 incarcerated people per 100,000.” 14 (Id. ¶ 1.) 15 In the operative complaint, Plaintiffs’ Third Claim alleges a failure to provide 16 reasonable accommodations to incarcerated people with disabilities in violation of the 17 ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and California Government Code § 11135. (See TAC ¶¶ 454– 18 68.) 19 On November 3, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to certify three 20 subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). (Doc. No. 435.) As relevant to 21 this Order, the Court certified a subclass defined as: 22 All adults who have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 , 29 U.S.C. § 705 (9)(B), and California Government Code § 12926(j) and (m), [23] and who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in any of the San Diego 24 County Jail facilities (“Incarcerated People with Disabilities Subclass”). 25 (Id. at 10.) The Court also granted the parties’ request for approval of the proposed class 26 notice (“Class Notice”), ordering that copies of the Class Notice be posted throughout the 27 Jails in English and Spanish; that Defendant Sheriff’s Department read the Class Notice to 28 individuals who are illiterate or have a disability that may affect their ability to read the 1 Class Notice; and that copies of the TAC be provided by Defendant Sheriff’s Department 2 to class members upon request. (Id. at 11.) 3 Between August 25, 2023, and November 20, 2024, the parties participated in 4 seventeen settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner (“Judge 5 Leshner”), including several all-day, in-person conferences. (Doc. No. 907-2, Declaration 6 of Gay Grunfeld (“Grunfeld Decl.”), ¶ 16.) Moreover, in coming to agreement on the ADA 7 Settlement terms, the parties exchanged numerous draft written proposals over six months. 8 (Id.) The San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved the ADA Settlement as to 9 Plaintiffs’ third claim on December 11, 2024. (Id.) On December 12, 2024, the parties filed 10 the ADA Settlement Agreement as a joint motion (the “ADA Settlement” or “Settlement”) 11 (Doc. No. 776), which the Court approved the same day (Doc. No. 777). 12 The parties subsequently filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the ADA 13 Settlement. (Doc. No. 792.) The Court granted the joint motion and entered the order 14 granting preliminary approval (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), which inter alia 15 approved Plaintiffs’ distribution method for class notice, set administrative notice and 16 objection deadlines, and tentatively approved the Settlement. (Doc. No. 828.) The Court 17 ordered Defendants to distribute notice to the Incarcerated People with Disabilities 18 Subclass (“Subclass” or “Subclass Members”) within two business days of the Preliminary 19 Approval Order and set a deadline of 45 days from distribution of notice for objections by 20 Subclass Members. (Id. at 14.) After notice was effectuated, the Court received five 21 objections to the ADA Settlement. (See Doc. Nos. 851; 859-1; 895–897.) 22 On May 6, 2025, the parties filed the Motion for Final Approval. (Doc. No. 907.) In 23 support, Plaintiffs filed the Grunfeld Declaration, (Doc. No. 907-2), including a copy of 24 email correspondence between Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel, confirming 25 that Defendants distributed the Class Notice in accordance with this Court’s Order 26 Granting Preliminary Approval. (Doc. No. 907-2 ¶ 18, see also Doc. No. 828.) 27 On July 31, 2025, the Court held a fairness hearing on the Settlement and on the 28 Motion for Final Approval. Gay C. Grunfeld and Christopher M. Young appeared on behalf 1 on the Subclass and confirmed receipt of five objections to the Settlement Agreement. 2 Elizabeth M. Pappy appeared on behalf of Defendants. No other objectors appeared. 3 II. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 4 The parties have executed the ADA Settlement Agreement (“the “ADA Settlement” 5 or “Settlement”). (See Doc. No. 907-2 at 10–83.) The primary terms of the Settlement are 6 as follows. 7 A. Policies, Procedures, and Practices to Protect ADA Rights 8 To protect the ADA rights of Subclass Members, Defendants will take or will 9 continue taking the following actions: 10 1. Maintaining the ADA Unit created in June 2023 to facilitate the County’s compliance with the ADA; [11] 2. Informing Subclass Members of their rights upon orientation at the Jail; [12] 3. Revising custody and medical policies and procedures, and providing annual 13 training to all relevant staff, including contracted staff; 14 4. Identifying and tracking all incarcerated people with disabilities and the accommodations they require; [15] 5. Housing Subclass Members consistent with their disabilities; 16 6. Providing equal access to programs, services, and activities consistent with the 17 ADA; 7. Providing a means for Subclass Members to request disability accommodations [18] and grieve a denial; [19] 8. Providing effective communication to incarcerated persons with 20 communication disabilities; 9. Providing and maintaining assistive devices for incarcerated people who need [21] them; [22] 10. Providing accommodations in emergency situations; 23 11. Assessing, documenting, and providing accommodations for people with 24 learning, intellectual, and developmental disabilities; 12. Identifying, tracking, and providing accommodations for people with mental [25] health disabilities; and 26 13. Documenting and providing accommodations to Subclass Members in other 27 aspects of incarceration in the Jail, including searches and transportation. 28 / / / 1 B. ADA Facility Modifications 2 In addition to the ongoing ADA facility modifications at San Diego Central Jail 3 pursuant to the 2023 ADA Order (Doc. No. 355), the County agrees to make additional 4 ADA facility modifications at multiple facilities, including at Las Colinas Detention and 5 Reentry Facility, George Baily Detention Facility, Vista Detention Facility, Rock 6 Mountain Detention Facility, and South Bay Detention Facility. Moreover, the County 7 will, within eighteen (18) months of the Settlement Agreement, conduct a comprehensive 8 assessment to determine whether additional housing or other measures are necessary. 9 Within four (4) years of the Settlement Agreement, the County agrees to house every 10 person with a disability with appropriate accessibility features consistent with their 11 individual disability needs. 12 C. Neutral Experts to Issue Reports on Compliance 13 To help ensure compliance with the Settlement Agreement, the County agrees to 14 retain two neutral experts with relevant professional expertise. One neutral expert will be 15 responsible for assessing the physical modifications to the facility, while the other will be 16 responsible for evaluating compliance with policies, practices, procedures, and training 17 under the ADA Settlement. The parties expect to continue working with the same neutral 18 expert currently retained to assess compliance at Central Jail and will choose a second 19 neutral expert for the policy, practice, procedure, and training issues. The neutral experts 20 will conduct site visits of Jail facilities twice per year, interview staff and Subclass 21 Members, and have access to documents, which they will use to issue twice-yearly reports 22 on compliance with the Settlement. The parties will accompany the neutral experts on their 23 site visits and will have the opportunity to provide comments on the neutral experts’ draft 24 reports. (Doc. No. 907-1 at 8–10; see also Doc. No. 907-2 at 11–85.) 25 III. MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 26 The Parties filed the instant Motion for Final Approval, seeking the Court to find [28] 1 (1) the Settlement fair and reasonable and (2) the five objections to the Settlement do not 2 warrant rejecting the Settlement. (Doc. No. 907-1 at 10; 13.) For the reasons set forth 3 below, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Final Approval. 4 A. Legal Standard 5 A class action may only be settled with court approval, “which may be granted only 6 after a fairness hearing and a determination that the settlement taken as a whole is fair, 7 reasonable, and adequate.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 , 946 8 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)). “Courts reviewing class action settlements 9 must ‘ensure[] that unnamed class members are protected from unjust or unfair settlements 10 affecting their rights,’ while also accounting for ‘the strong judicial policy that favors 11 settlements, particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned.’” Campbell v. 12 Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d 1106, 1121 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel 13 Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 556, 568 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc)). 14 B. Subclass Certification 15 Before granting final approval of a class action settlement agreement, the Court must 16 first determine whether the proposed class can be certified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B). 17 However, “[i]f the court has already certified a class [prior to the parties reaching 18 settlement], the only information ordinarily necessary is whether the proposed settlement 19 calls for any change in the class certified, or of the claims, defenses, or issues regarding 20 which certification was granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) advisory committee’s note to 21 2018 amendment. 22 Here, the Court certified the Subclass after full briefing on the matter, prior to the 23 parties reaching a settlement. (See Doc. No. 435.) Because the ADA Settlement does not 24 call for any changes to the certified Subclass, the claims, defenses, or issues, the Court does 25 not disturb its prior certification order and finds that no further analysis is necessary. [26] C. Adequacy of Notice [27] Next, the Court must determine whether the Subclass received adequate notice. See [28] 1 members who would be bound by the proposal[.]”). “Adequate notice is critical to court 2 approval of a class settlement under Rule 23(e).” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 , 3 1025 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 4 U.S. 338 (2011). 5 As mentioned supra § I, the Court approved the proposed Class Notice. (Doc. No. 6 828.) Filed in conjunction with the parties’ Motion for Final Approval, the Grunfeld 7 Declaration states Defendants’ counsel confirmed with Plaintiffs’ counsel that Defendants 8 posted the Class Notice in accordance with the Court’s Order. (Doc. No. 907-2 ¶ 18.) 9 Specifically, pursuant to the notice plan, Defendants (1) posted the Proposed Settlement 10 Notice in English and Spanish throughout the San Diego County Jail facilities (the “Jail”) 11 on white paper and in 16-point font for the Subclass, including in housing units, intake 12 areas, holding cells, and medical units; (2) provided a hard copy of the Class Notice to 13 every individual who entered the Jail for a period of four weeks; (3) provided the Class 14 Notice in English and Spanish on video kiosks in housing units; and (4) read the Class 15 Notice to incarcerated people who have a disability that may affect their ability to read the 16 Class Notice. (See id. at 87–88; see also Doc. No. 828 at 13–14.) 17 Having reviewed the Grunfeld Declaration, the Court finds that Defendants duly 18 effectuated the Court-approved Class Notice and that Subclass Members received adequate 19 notice of the Settlement. 20 D. Fairness, Reasonableness, and Adequacy of Settlement 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires a district court to determine whether 22 a proposed class action settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. See 23 Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). “It is the settlement 24 taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must be examined for 25 overall fairness.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 ; see also Officers for Justice v. Civil Service 26 Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615 , 630 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding a settlement must stand or fall in its 27 entirety because a district court cannot “delete, modify or substitute certain provisions”). [28] 1 Traditionally, courts in this Circuit assess the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of a 2 proposed settlement by balancing the following factors: 3 (1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action [4] status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent 5 of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) [6] the reaction of the class members of the proposed settlement. 7 Kim v. Allison, 8 F.4th 1170 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2021). “The district court’s approval order 8 must show not only that ‘it has explored [these] factors comprehensively,’ but also that the 9 settlement is ‘not[] the product of collusion among the negotiating parties.’” In re 10 Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 947 (quoting In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454 , 458 11 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended (June 19, 2000) (“In re Mego”)). 12 In 2018, Rule 23(e)(2) was amended to require courts to consider whether: 13 (A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class; [14] (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length; 15 (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; [16] (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to 17 the class, including the method of processing class-member claims; [18] (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including 19 timing of payment; and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and [20] (v) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each 21 other. 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). 23 1. Rule 23(e)(2) Factors 24 In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court found that the applicable Rule 23(e)(2) 25 factors weighed in favor of approving the Settlement. (See Doc. No. 828 at 6–9.) Among 26 other criteria, the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ counsel vigorously prosecuted this 27 action on behalf of the entire Subclass, the Settlement was negotiated at arm’s length with 28 the assistance of an experienced mediator, Judge Leshner, and the Settlement’s terms, 1 including policies, procedures, and practices to protect ADA rights, the ADA facility 2 modifications, and the neutral experts to issue reports on compliance, provide adequate 3 relief for the Subclass. (Id.) 4 Five Subclass Members filed objections to the Settlement. (See Doc. Nos. 851; 8595 1; 895–97.) Three of the five objections contend that a damages award is necessary to 6 include in the Settlement based on the members’ treatment at the Jail. (See Doc. Nos. 8597 1; 895; 896.) Two letters raise concerns about inadequate medical care. (See Doc. Nos. 8 895; 896.) One letter objects to the quality and nutritional value of food served at the Jail 9 (Doc. No. 851); and one letter implies that Defendants have impeded Subclass Members’ 10 communications with Plaintiffs’ Counsel (Doc. No. 897). 11 In response, Plaintiffs’ Counsel states that the certified Subclass only seeks 12 declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), (see 13 Doc. No. 907-1 at 13 (citing Doc. No. 231 at 225, 228–29)), and the Settlement does not 14 bar Subclass Members from separately pursuing individual damage claims (id.). 15 Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ Counsel asserts that any medical concerns conveyed by Subclass 16 Members are outside the scope of Plaintiffs’ ADA claim and the instant Settlement, and 17 could be addressed by remaining claims in the case. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiffs’ Counsel 18 represents that it “reached out to the Subclass [M]ember seeking more information” about 19 how the Jail may have impeded the Member’s communications with Plaintiffs’ Counsel. 20 (Id.) At the July 31, 2025, hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Grunfeld, indicated she had 21 spoken to this individual on the phone and he does not oppose the Settlement. (Doc. No. 22 942.) 23 The Court finds that these objections do not merit rejecting the Settlement 24 Agreement. Because “the general rule is that a class action suit seeking only declaratory 25 and injunctive relief does not bar subsequent individual damages claims by class members, 26 even if based on the same events,” Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287, 1291 (9th Cir. 1996), 27 Subclass Members could pursue individual damages in separate proceedings. Additionally, 28 the Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ Counsel that allegations of inadequate medical care fall 1 outside of the scope of resolving Plaintiffs’ Third Claim. Accordingly, the Court reaffirms 2 and incorporates by reference its analysis of the Rule 23(e) requirements as set forth in its 3 Preliminary Approval Order. (See Doc. No. 828 at 6–9); see also Bloom v. City of San 4 Diego, No. 17-CV-02324-AJB-DEB, 2024 WL 4495512 , at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2024) 5 (finding settlement to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate” where case only sought injunctive 6 relief in part because class members were free to independently file suit for damages). 7 2. Additional Ninth Circuit Factors 8 As the amended Rule 23(e)(2) factors were not intended to replace the factors 9 developed by circuits, the Court now turns to analyze the factors traditionally considered 10 by this Circuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) advisory committee’s note to 2018 amendment. 11 i. Experience and Views of Counsel 12 In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court found the experience and views of 13 counsel weighed in favor of approval. (Doc. No. 828 at 7.) As no changes to Plaintiffs’ 14 Counsel have occurred, no relevant facts have changed, and no objections regarding 15 Plaintiffs’ Counsel have been brought to the Court, the Court reaffirms and incorporates 16 by reference its analysis on this factor and finds this factor weighs in favor of Settlement 17 approval. 18 ii. Presence of a Governmental Participant 19 “The presence of a governmental participant in the class action settlement generally 20 weighs in favor of approving the settlement.” Fitzgerald v. Pollard, No. 20CV848 21 JM(MSB), 2024 WL 4596401 , at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2024). 22 Here, Defendants include the County of San Diego, the San Diego County Sheriff’s 23 Department, and the San Diego County Probation Department. Accordingly, this factor 24 weighs in favor of approving the Settlement. See id. (“Defendants are various agents of the 25 State of California and its corrections department who support the Settlement. This factor, 26 therefore, weighs in favor of settlement.”) 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 iii. Reaction of Class Members 2 “Tt is established that the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class 3 || action settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement 4 action are favorable to the class members.” Jn re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 5 || 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting Nat’! Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DIRECTV, □□□□ □ 221 6 || F.R.D. 523, 529 (C.D. Cal. 2004)). 7 Here, the Court reviewed the five Subclass Members’ objections to the Settlement. 8 ||(See Doc. Nos. 851; 859-1; 895-897.) As found above, see Sec. II[(D)(1), supra, the 9 || principal complaint was that the Settlement does not include damages. Yet, the certified 10 Subclass only seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 11 Procedure 23(b)(2), (see Doc. No. 907-1 at 13 (citing Doc. No. 231 at 225, 228-29).) 12 ||Because the Settlement does not bar Subclass Members from separately pursuing 13 ||individual damage claims (id.), the Court finds the objections of Subclass Members, who 14 || can still pursue damages, weighs in favor of approving the Settlement. 15 CONCLUSION 16 Having analyzed the Rule 23(e)(2) factors and the Ninth Circuit’s factors, and 17 ||finding them weigh heavily in favor of approval, the Court finds the Settlement 18 || fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. See Officers for Just., 688 F.2d at 625 (“[I]t 19 || must not be overlooked that voluntary conciliation and settlement are the preferred means 20 dispute resolution[,] especially . . . in complex class action litigation... .”). 21 || Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Final Approval. 22 (Doc. No. 907.) 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: August 4, 2025 © g 2. 25 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 26 United States District Judge