article: On July 13, 2017, elderly and dependent residents with physical or cognitive impairments who lived in assisted living facilities, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and state law against the corporation that owned the facilities. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's California facilities and services failed to meet accessibility and usability requirements of persons with disabilities. The plaintiffs also asserted that the California facilities are understaffed, which resulted in insufficient care and services. On August 25, 2017, the complaint was amended to include additional plaintiffs. On September 28, 2017, the defendant filed motions to dismiss, strike, and compel arbitration. Among other things, the motions requested that the Court (Judge James Donato) dismiss any claims against communities operated by the defendant in which the plaintiffs had never lived. The defendant also claimed that their residential communities were not covered under Title III of ADA, and thus the plaintiffs' claims failed as a matter of law. If not dismissed, the defendant requested language regarding the understaffing allegations be stricken as the understaffing did not suggest discrimination under ADA. The defendant sought that class allegations be stricken due to a lack of factual allegations, and alternatively sought limitations to the class definition. Additionally, the defendant sought compelled arbitration of various plaintiffs based on arbitration agreements signed by the plaintiffs or their legal representatives. On March 29, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The amended complaint limited the scope of the injunctions sought to residents with mobility or visual disabilities class, and to residents with disabilities class. On April 16, 2018, the case was reassigned to Judge Haywood Gilliam. On April 19, 2018, the defendants’ renewed their motion to compel arbitration and motioned to dismiss/strike portions of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On January 25, 2019, the court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, but partially granted their motion to dismiss, which compelled the plaintiffs to submit a third amended complaint on February 15, 2019 (ECF #90). The defendants moved for an interlocutory appeal concerning the decision to deny arbitration to the 9th Circuit. On March 7, 2019, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Beeler for discovery purposes. On May 2, 2019, the defendants moved for a protective order, which was granted. The court denied the defendants’ motion for an interlocutory appeal on June 5, 2019. Since July 25, 2019 discovery has been ongoing and the case has continued.
summary: On July 13, 2017, plaintiffs, elderly or dependent residents with physical or cognitive impairments who lived in the defendant's assisted living facilities, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and state law against the corporation that owned the facilities. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's California facilities and services fail to meet accessibility and usability requirements of persons with disabilities. The plaintiffs also asserted that the California facilities are understaffed, which resulted in insufficient care and services. Currently, the case has been in discovery since July 25, 2019 ad the case has continued.