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

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