Notice of Proposed Settlements of Callbox Case

Notice Regarding Caltrans and California Highway Patrol:

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS of Munoz et al. v. Sacramento Council of Governments, et al., Case No. C-05 01525 JSW, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

 

TO:       DEAF OR HARD-OF-HEARING PERSONS USING CALIFORNIA ROADS AND HIGHWAYS IN ALL COUNTIES WHERE EMERGENCY ROADSIDE CALL BOXES ARE LOCATED

 

              Plaintiffs in a class action brought on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing motorists (“Plaintiffs”) have entered into class action settlements with defendants the California Department of Transportation and the California Highway Patrol involving access to call boxes.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class, as defined below, you must act to preserve your right to sue these defendants for injunctive or declaratory relief regarding access to call boxes, or to be heard at the settlement hearing of the above-entitled class action.

              The above-entitled class action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing motorists against the California Department of Transportation  and Will Kempton, Director of Caltrans (collectively “Caltrans”), the California Highway Patrol  and Mike Brown, Commissioner of the CHP (collectively “CHP”), and nine local government agencies called Service Authorities for Freeway Emergencies (“SAFEs”), alleging a denial of equal access to California highways and roads, and alleging discrimination and civil rights violations relating to roadside call boxes.  This class action alleges that roadside call boxes must be equipped with TTYs, or comparable two-way communication devices, to provide full and equal access to deaf and hard-of-hearing persons under applicable federal and California law.  The primary relief sought by this class action is for all roadside call boxes to include TTYs or comparable two-way communication devices.  The class action lawsuit is entitled Munoz et al. v. Sacramento Council of Governments, et al., Case No. C-05 01525 JSW, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“Munoz lawsuit”).  To date, no class has yet been certified in the Munoz lawsuit, and the proposed settlements contemplate class certification for settlement purposes only.

              Defendants Caltrans and the CHP deny all liability and allegations of wrongdoing asserted against them in the Munoz lawsuit.  Among other defenses, Caltrans and the CHP assert that roadside call boxes are the legal responsibility of, and programs operated by, the SAFEs, not Caltrans and the CHP.  However, after arms-length negotiation and mediation conducted before a magistrate judge, the settling parties agree that the proposed class action settlements are the best way to resolve the Munoz lawsuit between Plaintiffs and Caltrans and the CHP.  Counsel for Plaintiffs have determined that the proposed settlements are fair, reasonable and adequate, and the relief obtained from Caltrans and the CHP via the settlements constitutes important and valuable changes in those defendants’ conduct which otherwise might not be obtained through continued litigation against them.  The “Settlement Class” in each proposed class action settlement is defined as all deaf or hard-of-hearing motorists using California roads or highways that have roadside call boxes and cannot fully use the call boxes unless they have TTYs (text telephones or teletypewriters for the deaf).  If you are a member of the Settlement Class, then any claims you may have for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding hearing disability-based discrimination and civil rights violations by the CHP or Caltrans related to equal access to and effective communication at call boxes will be affected by these proposed settlements of the Munoz lawsuit.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

              The main terms of the proposed class action settlement with Caltrans are that Caltrans shall adopt and implement written policies and procedures to:

          The main terms of the proposed class action settlement with the CHP follows.  The parties intend that compliance with the terms of the settlement will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act and applicable California law regarding deaf and hard-of-hearing persons’ access to and use of call boxes.  The parties further intend for this settlement to establish the CHP’s standards of conduct regarding the subject matter of the Munoz lawsuit for seven years from the effective date of this settlement.  Under this settlement, the CHP shall adopt and implement written policies and procedures to:

(a)          Ensure that the CHP will not approve of any SAFE implementation plans or systems changes for emergency roadside call boxes unless those call boxes are equipped with TTYs and any audible alerts or communications systems also use a visual alert or communications system.  CHP must receive assurances from the requesting SAFE that the call boxes will be accessible no later than June 30, 2007.

(b)          Ensure that for defendants San Bernardino County SAFE and Riverside County SAFE, the CHP will not approve any SAFE implementation plans or system changes requested by these SAFEs unless the requesting SAFE provides a written assurance that either:  1) its call boxes are in compliance with any agreement entered into between the SAFE and Plaintiffs, or 2) its call boxes are in compliance with any Court order or judgment in the Munoz lawsuit, or 3) the requesting SAFE is still in litigation with the Plaintiffs in the Munoz lawsuit.

(c)          The CHP will continue to maintain equipment and systems, and will train its staff and dispatchers so that all of its communications centers will have the capability to handle TTY calls so as to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing people equal opportunity to receive the same information and services as hearing people.

(d)          The CHP will revise the Motorist Aid Guidelines to specify that call boxes must comply with the ADA and must provide the same level of service for deaf and hard of hearing motorists as is provided to hearing motorists.

(e)          The CHP will notify Plaintiffs’ Counsel of any proposed future changes in the CHP/Caltrans Guidelines that may impact deaf access to Call Boxes, for a period of seven (7) years from the Effective Date of Settlement.

(f)           For a period of seven years from the date of this settlement, the CHP will notify plaintiff’s counsel of any changes in the motorist aid system, or any requests for approval of plans by any SAFE that would impact deaf access to the emergency roadside call boxes.  Additionally, for the seven year period, the CHP will provide a written update every six months of any significant activities or changes to the motorist aid system that may impact deaf and hard of hearing access to roadside call boxes.

Also, as part of the proposed class action settlements, CHP and Caltrans have agreed that each will pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing the Munoz lawsuit in the amount of $30,000 to Class Counsel, who will file a request with the Court to award these amounts if it grants final approval to the proposed settlements.

OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS

 

           The Court has given preliminary approval to these proposed settlements of the Munoz lawsuit.  A final approval hearing will be conducted by the Court on July 6, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor of the Courthouse for the Northern District of California located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco to evaluate the fairness of the proposed settlements, consider arguments in favor of and against the settlements, and decide whether to give final approval.

             

            If you believe that you may be a member of the Settlement Class (as defined above), please contact Class Counsel identified below IMMEDIATELY to receive the complete SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS or view copies on the Internet at www.deaflaw.org.  If you wish to object to the proposed settlements or to speak at the fairness hearing, you must advise Class Counsel identified below in writing no later than 5:00pm on June 15, 2007.  If the Court grants final approval of the settlements, THOSE SETTLEMENTS WILL BE BINDING ON ALL SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHT TO BRING A LAWSUIT AGAINST CALTRANS AND THE CHP WITH RESPECT TO DEAF AND HARD-OF-HEARING PERSONS’ ACCESS TO CALL BOXES WILL BE AFFECTED.  HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS DO NOT AFFECT ANY INDIVIDUAL DAMAGES CLAIMS THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS MAY HAVE AGAINST THE CHP AND CALTRANS.

HOW TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION

              If you have a question regarding the Munoz lawsuit or the proposed settlements of the case, you should contact Class Counsel at:

California Center for Law and the Deaf

14895 E. 14th Street, Suite 220,

San Leandro, CA 94578

(510) 483-0922 TTY and Voice telephone

 

              You may also find more information on the Internet website www.deaflaw.org, or inspect the Court’s file regarding this case during business hours at the office of the Clerk of the Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT REGARDING THIS CASE

 

Link to full Settlement Agreement with the California Highway Patrol 

Link to full Settlement Agreement with CalTrans  

 

Notice Regarding San Bernardino County:

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT of Munoz et al. v. Sacramento Council of Governments, et al., Case No. C-05 01525 JSW, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

 

TO:       DEAF OR HARD-OF-HEARING PERSONS USING ROADS AND HIGHWAYS IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY WHERE EMERGENCY ROADSIDE CALL BOXES ARE LOCATED

 

              Plaintiffs in a class action brought on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing motorists (“Plaintiffs”) have entered into class action settlement with Defendant San Bernardino Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (“Defendant”or “SB SAFE”) involving access to call boxes.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class, as defined below, you must act to preserve your right to sue the defendant for injunctive or declaratory relief regarding access to call boxes, or to be heard at the settlement hearing of the above-entitled class action.

              The above-entitled class action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing motorists against the California Department of Transportation  and Will Kempton, Director of Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol and Mike Brown, Commissioner of the CHP, and nine local government agencies called Service Authorities for Freeway Emergencies, alleging a denial of equal access to California highways and roads, and alleging discrimination and civil rights violations relating to roadside call boxes.  This class action alleges that roadside call boxes must be equipped with TTYs, or comparable two-way communication devices, to provide full and equal access to deaf and hard-of-hearing persons under applicable federal and California law.  The primary relief sought by this class action is for all roadside call boxes to include TTYs or comparable two-way communication devices.  The class action lawsuit is entitled Munoz et al. v. Sacramento Council of Governments, et al., Case No. C-05 01525 JSW, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“Munoz lawsuit”).  To date, no class has yet been certified in the Munoz lawsuit, and proposed settlements with the defendants contemplate class certification for settlement purposes only.

               Defendant denies all liability and allegations of wrongdoing asserted against it in the Munoz lawsuit.  However, after arms-length negotiation and mediation conducted before a magistrate judge, the settling parties agree that the proposed class action settlement is the best way to resolve the Munoz lawsuit between Plaintiffs and Defendant.  Counsel for Plaintiffs have determined that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and the relief obtained from Defendant via the settlement constitutes important and valuable changes in the Defendant’s conduct which otherwise might not be obtained through continued litigation against it.  The “Settlement Class” for the proposed class action settlement is defined as all motorists who travel on, or who are likely to travel on highways, freeways, and other roads where there are call boxes under the administration of Defendant, and whose deafness or hearing and speech impairment prevents them from fully using, accessing, or communicating via call boxes that are not equipped with TTY’s.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class, then any claims you may have for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding hearing disability-based discrimination and civil rights violations by the Defendant related to equal access to and effective communication at call boxes will be affected by the proposed settlement of the Munoz lawsuit.

 

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

               The main terms of the proposed class action settlement with Defendant are that it has agreed to install TTY’s in all of its call boxes by June 30, 2011, according to the following schedule.  Defendant will install TTY’s in at least 392 call boxes on its system no later than June 30, 2007.  Those TTY’s will be installed along State Route 330 and Interstate 15 (from north of Victorville north to the Nevada State Line).  Defendant will have at least 645 TTY’s installed on its call box system no later than June 30, 2008.  The additional 253 TTY’s will be installed along State Route 18, State Route 38, Interstate 15 (from north of Victorville south to the interchange of Interstate 15 and State Route 138), and State Route 210.  Defendant will have at least 1,035 TTY’s installed onits call box system no later than June 30, 2009.  The additional 390 TTY’s will be installed along State Route 95, State Route 62, State Route 247, State Route 127, State Route 58, State Route 395, State Route 138, State Route 2 and Interstate 40 (from Barstow to 8 miles west of US 95).  All call boxes on Defendant’s system will have TTY’s no later than June 30, 2011.  In addition to the locations described above TTY’s will be installed along State Route 30, State Route 60, State Route 71, State Route 259, Interstate 10, Interstate 40 (from 8 miles west of US 95 to the Arizona border), and Interstate 15 (from the interchange of Interstate 15 and State Route 138 south to the Riverside County line).

         Defendant has agreed to provide written progress reports to Plaintiffs’ counsel on June 30, 2007, June 30, 2008, June 30, 2009, and June 30, 2011, stating the number of TTY’s currently installed and the number of call boxes currently installed on Defendant’s system, identifying the locations of any call boxes in which TTY’s have not been installed according to the schedule set forth above, the reasons for any such delays and the expected dates they will be eliminated.

         Further, Defendant has agreed to promptly request the CHP, during the interim period of time when Defendant is installing TTY’s in its call boxes, to treat tapping calls as “CHP Action Urgent” response items upon receiving notification of a tapping call from Defendant’s private call answering center.

          Also, as part of the proposed class action settlement, Defendant has agreed to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing the Munoz lawsuit in the amount of $40,000 to Class Counsel, who will file a request with the Court to award this amount if it grants final approval to the proposed settlement.

OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

 

          The Court has given preliminary approval to the proposed settlement of the Munoz lawsuit.  A final approval hearing will be conducted by the Court on July 6, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor of the Courthouse for the Northern District of California located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco to evaluate the fairness of the proposed settlements, consider arguments in favor of and against the settlements, and decide whether to give final approval.

          If you believe that you may be a member of the Settlement Class (as defined above), please contact Class Counsel identified below IMMEDIATELY to receive a copy of the complete Settlement Agreement or view a copy on the Internet at www.deaflaw.org.  If you wish to object to the proposed settlement or to speak at the fairness hearing, you must advise Class Counsel identified below in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 15, 2007.  If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, THE SETTLEMENT WILL BE BINDING ON ALL SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHT TO BRING A LAWSUIT AGAINST SB SAFE WITH RESPECT TO DEAF AND HARD-OF-HEARING PERSONS’ ACCESS TO CALL BOXES WILL BE AFFECTED.  HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT ANY INDIVIDUAL DAMAGES CLAIMS THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS MAY HAVE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.

HOW TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION

              If you have a question regarding the Munoz lawsuit or the proposed settlements of the case, you should contact Class Counsel at:

California Center for Law and the Deaf

14895 E. 14th Street, Suite 220

San Leandro, CA 94578

(510) 483-0922 TTY and Voice telephone

 

              You may also find more information on the Internet at www.deaflaw.org or inspect the Court’s file regarding this case during business hours at the office of the Clerk of the Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT REGARDING THIS CASE

 

 

Link to full Settlement Agreement with San Bernardino County 

Notice Regarding Riverside County:

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT of Munoz et al. v. Sacramento Council of Governments, et al., Case No. C-05 01525 JSW, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

 

TO:       DEAF OR HARD-OF-HEARING PERSONS USING ROADS AND HIGHWAYS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHERE EMERGENCY ROADSIDE CALL BOXES ARE LOCATED

 

              Plaintiffs in a class action brought on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing motorists (“Plaintiffs”) have entered into class action settlement with Defendant Riverside County Transportation Commission (“Defendant”or “RCTC”) involving access to call boxes.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class, as defined below, you must act to preserve your right to sue the defendant for injunctive or declaratory relief regarding access to call boxes, or to be heard at the settlement hearing of the above-entitled class action.

              The above-entitled class action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing motorists against the California Department of Transportation  and Will Kempton, Director of Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol and Mike Brown, Commissioner of the CHP, and nine local government agencies called Service Authorities for Freeway Emergencies, alleging a denial of equal access to California highways and roads, and alleging discrimination and civil rights violations relating to roadside call boxes.  This class action alleges that roadside call boxes must be equipped with TTYs, or comparable two-way communication devices, to provide full and equal access to deaf and hard-of-hearing persons under applicable federal and California law.  The primary relief sought by this class action is for the installation in all roadside call boxes administered by RCTC of TTYs or comparable two-way communication devices.  The class action lawsuit is entitled Munoz et al. v. Sacramento Council of Governments, et al., Case No. C-05 01525 JSW, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“Munoz lawsuit”).  To date, no class has yet been certified in the Munoz lawsuit, and proposed settlements with the defendants contemplate class certification for settlement purposes only.

          Defendant denies all liability and allegations of wrongdoing asserted against it in the Munoz lawsuit.  However, after arms-length negotiation and mediation conducted before a magistrate judge, the settling parties agree that the proposed class action settlement is the best way to resolve the Munoz lawsuit between Plaintiffs and Defendant.  Counsel for Plaintiffs have determined that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and the relief obtained from Defendant via the settlement constitutes important and valuable changes in the Defendant’s conduct which otherwise might not be obtained through continued litigation against it.  The “Settlement Class” for the proposed class action settlement is defined as that class of persons including all persons who travel on, or who are likely to travel on California highways, freeways, and other roads where there are motorist aid systems of call boxes under the administration of RCTC and whose deafness or hearing and speech impediments prevents them from using the two way voice communications of the call boxes.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class, then any claims you may have for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding alleged hearing disability-based discrimination and alleged civil rights violations by the Defendant related to equal access to and effective communication at call boxes will be affected by the proposed settlement of the Munoz lawsuit.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

          The main terms of the proposed class action settlement with Defendant are that it has agreed to install TTY’s in all its call boxes over a three (3) year period commencing on March 20, 2007, according to the following schedule.  During the first year, RCTC will focus on TTY upgrades in rural areas, including Interstate 10, east of Banning, State Route 62, State Route 86, State Route 86S, and State Route 111.  By the end of the first year, RCTC will have installed TTY’s in at least one third (1/3) of its then-existing call boxes.  By the end of the second year, RCTC will have installed TTY’s in at least two-thirds (2/3) of its then-existing call boxes.  By the end of the third year, RCTC will have installed TTY’s in all (100%) of its then-existing call boxes. 

At the end of the first, second and third years, RCTC will provide a written progress report to Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the status of its installation of TTY’s on its call box system. 

          Within 30 days of March 20, 2007, RCTC will request the CHP, during the 3-year period, to implement a protocol for treating signals originating from call boxes not enabled with a TTY.  Specifically, the CHP would treat signals from non-TTY call boxes where the caller is using the “tapping” method (i.e., physically tapping on the mouthpiece of the callbox handset) as an “Urgent Action” call, and respond accordingly. 

Also, as part of the proposed class action settlement, Defendant has agreed to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing the Munoz lawsuit in the amount of $40,000 to Class Counsel, who will file a request with the Court to award this amount if it grants final approval to the proposed settlement.

OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

 

          The Court has given preliminary approval to the proposed settlement of the Munoz lawsuit.  A final approval hearing will be conducted by the Court on July 6, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor of the Courthouse for the Northern District of California located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco to evaluate the fairness of the proposed settlements, consider arguments in favor of and against the settlements, and decide whether to give final approval.

          If you believe that you may be a member of the Settlement Class (as defined above), please contact Class Counsel identified below IMMEDIATELY to receive a copy of the complete Settlement Agreement or view a copy on the Internet at www.deaflaw.org.  If you wish to object to the proposed settlement or to speak at the fairness hearing, you must advise Class Counsel identified below in writing no later than 5:00pm on June 15, 2007.  If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, THE SETTLEMENT WILL BE BINDING ON ALL SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHT TO BRING A LAWSUIT AGAINST RCTC WITH RESPECT TO DEAF AND HARD-OF-HEARING PERSONS’ ACCESS TO CALL BOXES WILL BE AFFECTED.  HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT ANY INDIVIDUAL DAMAGES CLAIMS THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS MAY HAVE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.

HOW TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION

              If you have a question regarding the Munoz lawsuit or the proposed settlements of the case, you should contact Class Counsel at:

California Center for Law and the Deaf

14895 E. 14th Street, Suite 220

San Leandro, CA 94578

(510) 483-0922 TTY and Voice telephone

 

              You may also find more information on the Internet at www.deaflaw.org or inspect the Court’s file regarding this case during business hours at the office of the Clerk of the Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT REGARDING THIS CASE

 

Link to full Settlement Agreement with Riverside County