 |
| U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr |
California Superior Court Public Entity Is Gutting The ADA Statute
While Pleas To U.S. Department Of Justice
[DOJ] To Intervene Remain Un-Responded To, Even When U.S. DOJ Is Statutorily
Required To Act.
February
11, 2016
The federal ADA [Americans with
disabilities] lawsuit that began four years ago against the public entity
California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, is scheduled for trial
commencing from March 14, 2016.
The Defendant California Superior
Court has conceded on all elements of the ADA claim and its only defense is contending
that two pro se disabled Plaintiffs, including an 86 year old, disabled widow’s multiple
written ADA requests for
accommodations that sought ADA accommodations “beginning from x date” does not
conform to California Rules of Court 1.100 as ADA requests can only be made for
one specific date vs. beginning from the first specific court date. [Seriously?]. This late, first time raised excuse made by California Superior Court’s counsel is not
borne out by the Defendant California Superior Court’s own produced evidence on ADA responses, which reject Plaintiffs’ ADA accommodation request on completely different grounds, outside of
the excuse supra.
Plaintiffs’ in their initial and
operative complaint, named United States of America, through its U.S Attorney
General, and U.S Department of Justice as a real party of interest, on among
other things, including asserting that: “U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL” is a proper and
generally a necessary party to proceedings, for instance, affecting the
validity, administration, constitutionality, enforcement [42. U.S.C. §12117,
§12188, 15 U.S.C. 1125], duty to investigate and undertake periodic compliance
reviews, even commence its own civil action, impose civil penalties to
vindicate public interest, promulgating regulations [42 U.S.C. §12134] of ADA,
the Civil Rights, and other statutes implicated in this SAC [Second Amended
Complaint]”
In fact the United States should have
an interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §517 because this litigation implicates the
proper interpretation and application of the ADA, Section 504, and the
Department of Justice’s regulations implementing Title II of the ADA, 28 C.F.R.
pt. 35, and Section 504, 28 C.F.R. pt. 42, subpt. G.2
In particular, the Department has primary
responsibility for enforcement of Title II with respect to the services,
programs, and activities relating to state and local courts and the
administration of justice. 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b)(6). Further, the Defendants
receive federal financial assistance from the Department. Accordingly, the
United States has a strong interest in the resolution of this matter.
Yet Plaintiffs pleas to the multiple
individuals at the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Solicitor General’s Office,
U.S. Attorney General’s Office has fallen to deaf ears.
TO U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL and U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL and zillions of
attorneys at the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
KNOCK! KNOCK! ANYBODY HOME? ARE YOU LISTENING?
 |
| U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch |
 |
| U.S. Dept. of Justice, acting assistant attorney general Vanita Gupta |
