The opinion of the court was delivered by: SAUNDRA ARMSTRONG, District Judge
FULL CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER
1. Plaintiff MICHAI FREEMAN is a person with a disability whose
quadriplegia requires the full time use a wheelchair for
mobility. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are the owners,
operators and lessors of the building complex comprising the
subject Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, Herrick Campus, also
doing business as the Alta Bates Hospital, located in Berkeley,
California. (Hereafter "Campus".) Located at 2001 Dwight Way in
central Berkeley, the facility has both regional and national
importance. 2. Plaintiff MICHAI FREEMAN filed this action for herself and
all other similarly situated members of the public to enforce
provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and corresponding California
law, including enforcement of Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations, against defendants ALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER;
and ALTA BATES SUMMIT FOUNDATION, et al. ("Defendants").
3. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated these statutes by
failing to provide full and equal access and related facilities,
including accessible entrances, accessible paths of travel,
accessible public restrooms, accessible routes, including from
the public right of way, accessible snack bar and gift shop
facilities, accessible disabled parking, and accessible service
counter facilities.*fn1 Specific identification of the
facilities and their deficiencies has been identified by the
parties through a meeting of experts and exchange of reports.
4. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are also the lessors of
the interior tenant space (housed within the building complex)
occupied by former defendants LIFELONG MEDICAL CARE d.b.a.
BERKELEY PRIMARY CARE, where plaintiff receives her medical care.
5. Plaintiff alleges that the complex has undergone construction triggering the requirement of full compliance with
compliance regulations in the altered areas, and that further
defendants could easily afford to makes its facilities and
services accessible without significant difficulty or expense.
6. For their part, Defendants do not deny that the facility has
undergone "alterations" and "new construction" in each of the
areas embraced by the expert reports. However, Defendants
contend, inter alia, that the areas identified by plaintiff as
"barriers" are not barriers under the code, but are exempted by
regulation and/or were constructed within "tolerances" provided
7. Therefore, Defendants' Answer to the Complaint denied all
liability, and by entering into this Consent Order, defendants do
not admit liability to the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint
filed in this action. The parties hereby enter into this Full
Consent Decree and Order for the sole purpose of resolving this
lawsuit without the need for protracted litigation.
8. Plaintiff's Qualified Disability. Plaintiff is a qualified
person with a physical disability. She has quadriplegia, and
requires the full time use of a wheelchair for mobility.
9. Plaintiff's Residence and Status as Aggrieved and
Potentially Aggrieved. Plaintiff lives in Berkeley less than a
mile from the Medical Campus. She qualifies as "aggrieved and
potentially aggrieved", and regularly uses the clinic Berkeley Primary Care approximately 4 to 6 times per year for her medical
10. Ownership, Operation and Lease of the Medical Campus.
Defendant Alta Bates Summit Medical Center is the owner, operator
and lessor of the building complex comprising the subject Alta
Bates Summit Medical Center, which includes the scope of
facilities identified in paragraph 13, below. Said defendant is
also the lessor of the tenant space occupied Berkeley Primary
Care. (Note: the parties dispute the connection of defendant
separate of parent corporation defendant ALTA BATES SUMMIT
FOUNDATION to the subject property, i.e., as an owner, operator,
and lessor to the property.)
11. Qualified Facilities The Campus qualifies as a "public
accommodation" and "commercial facility" under all applicable
statutes and regulations.
12. Construction History. The parties stipulate that all
facilities in issue have undergone sufficient and recent
alteration and/or new construction to require full compliance
with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act
Access Guidelines published in 1992 as well as the 1998 Edition
of Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations. The
dispute pertains to the interpretation, scope and purpose of the
13. Scope of Facilities in Issue
(a) The path of travel from the public sidewalk to the main
(b) The parking facilities near the main entrance;
(c) The path of travel from the north side of the Campus at Haste Street;
(d) The designated "accessible" parking facilities at the north
side of the Campus and the path of travel to the rear entrance;
(e) The path of travel to the rear entrance at the North side
of the building Complex;
(f) The path of travel thru the give shop and counter
(g) The snack shop near the ...