Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 1 of 22
CLASAC,MJ CIV PP,NDISPO,TERMED
U.S. District Court − District of Colorado District of Colorado (Denver)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−03111−CMA−KLM

Reiskin et al v. Regional Transportation District Assigned to: Judge Christine M. Arguello Referred to: Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix Cause: 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/18/2014 Date Terminated: 07/11/2017 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Julie Reiskin

represented by Kevin William Williams Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition Legal Program 1385 South Colorado Boulevard Suite 610−A Denver, CO 80222 303−839−1775 Fax: 303−839−1782 Email: kwilliams@ccdconline.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−757−7901 Fax: 303−595−9705 Email: arobertson@creeclaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition Legal Program 1385 South Colorado Boulevard Suite 610−A Denver, CO 80222 303−839−1775 Fax: 303−839−1782 Email: amontoya@ccdconline.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jon Jamie Lewis

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 2 of 22

William Joe Beaver

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Douglas Howey

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Diana Milne

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tina McDonald

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jose Torres−Vega

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 3 of 22

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Randy Kilbourn

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Babcock

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kimberley Jackson

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Paulina Black

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 4 of 22

Plaintiff Ruthie McNair
Plaintiff Vrlina Nozlic
Plaintiff Chris Quinlan
Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan
Plaintiff Elaine Culpepper

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 5 of 22

Plaintiff Kevin Grimsinger
Plaintiff Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition a Colorado nonprofit organization, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Regional Transportation District

represented by Jenifer M. Ross−Amato Regional Transportation District General Counsel's Office 1660 Blake Street Denver, CO 80202 303−299−2343 Email: jenifer.ross@rtd−denver.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Lynn Fuller Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP−Denver 1200 17th Street One Tabor Center Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202−5855 303−623−9000 Fax: 303−623−9222 Email: jfuller@lrrc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 6 of 22

Michael D. Plachy Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP−Denver 1200 17th Street One Tabor Center Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202−5855 303−628−9532 Fax: 303−623−9222 Email: mplachy@lrrc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mindy Marie McNair Regional Transportation District General Counsel's Office 1660 Blake Street Denver, CO 80202 303−299−2654 Fax: 303−299−2217 Email: mindy.mcnair@rtd−denver.com TERMINATED: 10/05/2017

Counter Claimant Regional Transportation District

represented by Jenifer M. Ross−Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mindy Marie McNair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/05/2017

V. Counter Defendant Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition a Colorado nonprofit organization, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
Counter Defendant Douglas Howey
Counter Defendant Jon Jamie Lewis

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 7 of 22

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant Julie Reiskin

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bianca Gamel TERMINATED: 09/09/2015

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/18/2014
11/18/2014 11/19/2014 11/21/2014
11/24/2014 11/24/2014 12/17/2014 12/17/2014 01/20/2015 01/21/2015
01/23/2015 01/26/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Regional Transportation District (Filing fee $ 400, Receipt Number 65801) filed by Julie Reiskin, Douglas Howey, William Joe Beaver, Jon Jamie Lewis, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Williams, Kevin) Modified on 11/19/2014 to add Filing Fee $400.00, Receipt #65801 (jofox ). (Entered: 11/18/2014)
2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. Text Only Entry. (jofox ) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
3 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. Magistrate Judge Consent Form issued pursuant to Magistrate Judge Pilot Project to Assign Civil Cases to Full Time Magistrate Judges. (Attachments: # 1 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (jofox ) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
4 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING/PLANNING CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/21/14. Scheduling Conference set for 2/25/2015 11:00 AM in Courtroom C204 before Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2) (lgale, ) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
5 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Andrew Christopher Montoya on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Montoya, Andrew) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
6 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Julie Reiskin, Douglas Howey, William Joe Beaver, Jon Jamie Lewis, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. All Defendants. (Montoya, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
8 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jenifer M. Ross−Amato on behalf of Regional Transportation District. (Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
9 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 1 Complaint,, by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
10 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/21/15. Notice of Stipulation For Extension of Time to Answer or Respond [#9] is GRANTED. Defendant RTD shall respond to the Class Action Complaint [#1] on or before February 6, 2015. (lgale, ) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
11 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Plaintiffs William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
12 MINUTE ORDER re: the parties' 11 Consent Form Pursuant to Pilot Program to Implement the Direct Assignment of Civil Cases to Full Time Magistrate Judges. IT IS

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 8 of 22

01/26/2015 01/26/2015
02/03/2015 02/05/2015 02/06/2015 02/06/2015 02/06/2015 02/06/2015 02/09/2015 02/17/2015 02/17/2015

HEREBY ORDERED that this case shall be assigned to a district judge under D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(a), by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/26/15. (morti, ) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
13 CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to 11 Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. Consent not achieved. This case is reassigned to Judge Robert E. Blackburn. All future pleadings should be designated as 14−cv−03111−REB−KLM. (Text Only Entry) (morti, ) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
14 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. That pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this matter is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge:(1) To convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), enter a Scheduling Order that satisfies the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, and enter such orders as appropriate to enforce the Scheduling order and resolve discovery matters; provided, further that the scheduling conference, the Magistrate Judge shall advise the parties of Judge Blackburns practice standards found at www.cod.uscourts.gov.;(2) To hear and finally determine non−dispositive matters that have been referred, subject to the exceptions found in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); and(3) To hear and make recommendations on dispositive matters that have been referred as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).Court sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLOLCivR 16.6. On the recommendation or informal request of the magistrate judge or on the request of the parties by motion, this court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/26/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
15 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Mindy Marie Swaney on behalf Regional Transportation District. (Swaney, Mindy) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
16 MOTION to Continue Initial Disclosure Deadline by Plaintiffs William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Montoya, Andrew) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
17 MEMORANDUM regarding 16 MOTION to Continue Initial Disclosure Deadline filed by William Joe Beaver, Julie Reiskin, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/6/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
18 MINUTE ORDER; 16 Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Initial Disclosure Deadline is GRANTED. Plaintiffs deadline to serve its initial Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) disclosures is extended to February 20, 2015, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/6/15.(morti, ) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
19 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
20 ANSWER to 1 Complaint filed by Regional Transportation. COUNTERCLAIM against Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin filed by Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
21 MEMORANDUM regarding 19 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by Regional Transportation District. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/9/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
22 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Class Action 1 Complaint by Plaintiffs William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Kevin W. Williams, # 2 Exhibit Email and Letter to Counsel)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
23 Exhibit − Amended Class Action Complaint in Support of 22 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Class Action 1 Complaint by Plaintiffs William Joe Beaver, Colorado

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 9 of 22

02/18/2015 02/18/2015 02/18/2015 02/18/2015 02/19/2015 02/19/2015 02/19/2015 02/23/2015
02/23/2015
02/23/2015

Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin. (Williams, Kevin) Modified event text on 2/18/2015 (alowe). (Entered: 02/17/2015)
24 Propose Order re: 22 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Class Action 1 Complaint by Plaintiffs William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin, Counter Defendants Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin. (Williams, Kevin) Modified event text on 2/18/2015 (alowe). (Entered: 02/18/2015)
25 MEMORANDUM regarding 22 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Class Action 1 Complaint filed by William Joe Beaver, Julie Reiskin, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/18/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
26 ANSWER/REPLY to 20 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim, by William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kevin W. Williams, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
27 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin, Defendants Regional Transportation District. (Williams, Kevin) Modified filers on 2/19/2015 (alowe). (Entered: 02/18/2015)
28 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/19/15. PLEASE NOTE LOCATION CHANGE ONLY. This matter is before the Court sua sponte. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for February 25, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. will be held in Courtroom A−401, Fourth Floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. Text Only Entry (lgale, ) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
29 ORDER denying as moot 22 Motion for Leave to File Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint is deemed to be the operative complaint as of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs shall file the notice and redline required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(a) on or before 2/26/2015. Defendants' 19 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/19/2015.(alowe) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
30 AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Regional Transportation District filed by Julie Reiskin, Jon Jamie Lewis, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Diana Milne, Tina McDonald, Jose Torres−Vega, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. (alowe) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
31 Exhibit (Red Line Amended Complaint) in Support of 22 Motion for Leave to Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega, Counter Defendants Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin re: 29 Order. (Williams, Kevin) Modified text and linkage on 2/24/2015 (alowe). (Entered: 02/23/2015)
32 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega, Counter Defendants Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin, Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) Modified filers on 2/24/2015 (alowe). (Entered: 02/23/2015)
33 MEMORANDUM regarding 32 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/23/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 10 of 22

02/24/2015 02/24/2015 02/25/2015 02/25/2015 02/25/2015
02/25/2015 03/04/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/10/2015
03/11/2015
03/18/2015 03/23/2015
03/25/2015

34 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/24/15. Stipulated Motion for Entry of Protective Order # 32 is GRANTED.(lgale, ) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
35 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/24/15. (lgale, ) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
36 MINUTE ENTRY for Scheduling Conference held before Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/25/2015. Discovery due by 1/25/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 5/25/2016. FTR: KLM Courtroom A401. (lgale, ) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
37 SCHEDULING ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/25/15. (lgale, ) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
38 TRIAL PREPARATION CONFERENCE ORDER: Motions due by 12/29/2015. 14−Day Jury Trial set for 8/29/2016 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom A1001 before Judge Robert E. Blackburn. Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Preparation Conference set for 8/12/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom A1001 before Judge Robert E. Blackburn. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/25/2015. (alowe) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
70 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Text Only Entry Jury Trial set for 8/31/2016 08:30 AM in Courtroom A1001 before Judge Robert E. Blackburn. Pursuant to TPCO 38 . (mlace, ) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
39 Partial MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
40 MEMORANDUM regarding 39 Partial MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Regional Transportation District. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/5/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
41 MOTION to Stay Discovery by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
42 MEMORANDUM regarding 41 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by Regional Transportation District. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/5/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
43 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega re: 30 Amended Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Red Line Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 3 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
44 MEMORANDUM regarding 43 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/11/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
45 RESPONSE to 43 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Email dated March 5 2015, # 2 Exhibit B − Plaintiffs Disclosures, # 3 Exhibit C − Plaintiffs Privilege Log)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
46 REPLY to Response to 43 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
47 RESPONSE to 39 Partial MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Julie Reiskin, # 2

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 11 of 22

03/26/2015 03/26/2015 03/26/2015 04/08/2015 04/09/2015 04/10/2015 05/21/2015
05/21/2015
06/05/2015

Declaration of Douglas Howey, # 3 Exhibit A: Initial Report, # 4 Exhibit B: Training Materials (will be hand delivered), # 5 Exhibit C: Initial Expert Report (will be hand delivered))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
48 NOTICE re 47 Response to Motion, Conventionally Filed Documents by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega (Williams, Kevin) (Modified on 3/26/2015 Exhibits have been Electronically filed at 49 and NOT Conventionally filed) (evana, ). (Entered: 03/26/2015)
49 Exhibits in Support of 47 Response to Motion,, Exhibit B and Exhibit C parts 1 and 2 by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C: Part 1, # 2 Exhibit C: Part 2)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
50 RESPONSE to 41 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
51 REPLY to Response to 39 Partial MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Swaney, Mindy) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
52 REPLY to Response to 41 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
53 NOTICE of Filing of Regulatory Counsel Complaint by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter and attachment)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
54 MINUTE ORDER; 43 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint is GRANTED and Plaintiffs Second Amended Class Action Complaint [#43−2] is accepted for filing as of the date of this Minute Order. Defendant shall respond to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). 39 Defendant RTD's Motion for Partial Dismissal is DENIED as moot. 41 Defendant RTD's Motion to Stay Discovery is DENIED as moot, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/21/15.(morti, ) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
55 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Regional Transportation District Attorney Andrew Christopher Montoya added to party John Babcock(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Christopher Montoya added to party Randy Kilbourn(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Christopher Montoya added to party Tina McDonald(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Christopher Montoya added to party Diana Milne(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Christopher Montoya added to party Jose Torres−Vega(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin William Williams added to party Kimberley Jackson(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Christopher Montoya added to party Kimberley Jackson(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin William Williams added to party Paulina Black(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Christopher Montoya added to party Paulina Black(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin William Williams added to party Ruthie McNair(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Christopher Montoya added to party Ruthie McNair(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin William Williams added to party Vrlina Nozlic(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Christopher Montoya added to party Vrlina Nozlic(pty:pla), filed by Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin, William Joe Beaver, Jose Torres−Vega, John Babcock, Tina McDonald, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Diana Milne, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Ruthie McNair, Vrlina Nozlic, Paulina Black, Kimberley Jackson.(morti, ) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
56 ANSWER to 55 Amended Complaint,,,,, , COUNTERCLAIM against Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin by Regional Transportation District.(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 06/05/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 12 of 22

06/06/2015 06/15/2015 06/16/2015 06/16/2015 06/18/2015 06/18/2015 06/19/2015
06/19/2015 06/19/2015

57 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaim by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CCDC/RTD Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit RTD's Third Supplemental Disclosures)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 06/06/2015)
58 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Class Action Complaint by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Redlined Proposed Third Amended Class Action Complaint, # 2 Proposed Third Amended Class Action Complaint, # 3 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
59 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 37 Scheduling Order by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
60 MEMORANDUM regarding 58 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jon Jamie Lewis, Paulina Black, Tina McDonald, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Ruthie McNair, Kimberley Jackson, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Vrlina Nozlic, John Babcock, 59 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 37 Scheduling Order filed by Regional Transportation District. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/16/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
61 MINUTE ORDER; 58 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Third Amended Class Action Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. 59 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is GRANTED, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/18/15.(morti, ) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
62 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Class Action Complaint by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Redlined Proposed Third Amended Class Action Complaint, # 2 Proposed Third Amended Class Action Complaint, # 3 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
63 ORDER REFERRING MOTION(S): 62 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jon Jamie Lewis, Paulina Black, Tina McDonald, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Ruthie McNair, Kimberley Jackson, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Vrlina Nozlic, John Babcock, 57 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaim filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jon Jamie Lewis, Paulina Black, Tina McDonald, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Ruthie McNair, Kimberley Jackson, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Vrlina Nozlic, John Babcock. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/19/2015. Text Only Entry (reblc2) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
64 MINUTE ORDER; Plaintiffs' 62 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Action Complaint is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiffs Amended Class Action Complaint [#62−2] for filing as of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Class Action Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3), by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/19/15.(morti, ) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
65 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Regional Transportation District Attorney Kevin William Williams added to party Chris Quinlan(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin William Williams added to party Cheryl Quinlan(pty:dft), Attorney Kevin William Williams added to party Elaine Culpepper(pty:dft), Attorney Kevin William Williams added to party Bianca Gamel(pty:dft), Attorney Kevin William Williams added to party Kevin Grimsinger(pty:dft), filed by Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin, Paulina Black, Vrlina Nozlic, Kimberley Jackson, William Joe Beaver, Ruthie McNair, Jose Torres−Vega,

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 13 of 22

06/29/2015 06/29/2015 06/29/2015 06/30/2015 07/09/2015
07/09/2015
07/09/2015 07/09/2015 07/23/2015 07/24/2015

John Babcock, Tina McDonald, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Diana Milne, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan.(morti, ) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
66 RESPONSE to 57 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaim filed by Counter Claimant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
67 MOTION for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs CCDC, Reiskin, Howey and Lewis by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
68 WITHDRAWN MEMORANDUM regarding 57 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaim filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Jon Jamie Lewis, Paulina Black, Tina McDonald, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Ruthie McNair, Kimberley Jackson, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Randy Kilbourn, Vrlina Nozlic, John Babcock. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/29/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Modified on 2/23/2016 Withdrawn pursuant to the 123 Order)(evana, ). (Entered: 06/29/2015)
69 ANSWER to 65 Amended Complaint,,, , COUNTERCLAIM against Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin by Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
71 WITHDRAWN Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Seeking Declaration that Settlement Agreement and Release Apply Only to Fixed Route Buses by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 2: Defendant RTD's Disclosures, # 3 Exhibit 3: Initial Expert Report, # 4 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) Modified on 8/26/2015 to withdrawal. Pursuant to 89 (mlace, ). (Entered: 07/09/2015)
72 RESPONSE to 67 MOTION for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs CCDC, Reiskin, Howey and Lewis filed by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Defendant Disclosures, # 2 Exhibit 2: Initial Expert Report)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
73 REPLY to Response to 57 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaim filed by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
74 Plaintiffs' ANSWER/REPLY to 69 Answer to Amended Complaint,, Counterclaim, of RTD Against Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Dougley Howey and Jon Jaime Lewis by Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition(a Colorado nonprofit organization, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated), Douglas Howey, Jon Jamie Lewis, Julie Reiskin.(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
75 REPLY to Response to 67 MOTION for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs CCDC, Reiskin, Howey and Lewis filed by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Swaney, Mindy) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
76 SUPPLEMENT/AMENDMENT to 75 Reply to Response to Motion, by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Swaney, Mindy) (Entered: 07/24/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 14 of 22

07/30/2015 08/04/2015 08/04/2015 08/19/2015 08/19/2015
08/19/2015

77 RESPONSE to 71 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Seeking Declaration that Settlement Agreement and Release Apply Only to Fixed Route Buses filed by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
78 REPLY to Response to 71 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Seeking Declaration that Settlement Agreement and Release Apply Only to Fixed Route Buses filed by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Declaration of Vrlina Nozlic)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
79 DECLARATION of Vrlina Norlic (Corrected) regarding Reply to Response to Motion,, 78 by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
80 NOTICE of Conventionally Filed Documents by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
81 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT − Level 1: DECLARATION by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit FF, # 33 Exhibit GG, # 34 Exhibit HH, # 35 Exhibit II, # 36 Exhibit JJ, # 37 Exhibit KK, # 38 Exhibit LL, # 39 Exhibit MM, # 40 Exhibit NN, # 41 Exhibit OO, # 42 Exhibit PP, # 43 Exhibit QQ, # 44 Exhibit RR, # 45 Exhibit SS, # 46 Exhibit TT, # 47 Exhibit UU, # 48 Exhibit VV, # 49 Exhibit WW, # 50 Exhibit XX, # 51 Exhibit YY, # 52 Exhibit ZZ, # 53 Exhibit AAA, # 54 Exhibit BBB, # 55 Exhibit CCC, # 56 Exhibit DDD, # 57 Exhibit EEE, # 58 Exhibit FFF, # 59 Exhibit GGG, # 60 Exhibit HHH, # 61 Exhibit III, # 62 Exhibit JJJ, # 63 Exhibit KKK, # 64 Exhibit LLL, # 65 Exhibit MMM, # 66 Exhibit NNN, # 67 Exhibit OOO, # 68 Exhibit PPP, # 69 Exhibit QQQ, # 70 Exhibit RRR, # 71 Exhibit SSS, # 72 Exhibit TTT, # 73 Exhibit UUU, # 74 Exhibit VVV, # 75 Exhibit WWW, # 76 Exhibit XXX, # 77 Exhibit YYY, # 78 Exhibit ZZZ, # 79 Exhibit AAAA, # 80 Exhibit BBBB, # 81 Exhibit CCCC, # 82 Exhibit DDDD, # 83 Exhibit EEEE, # 84 Exhibit FFFF, # 85 Exhibit GGGG)(Williams, Kevin) Modified on 8/20/2015 to add text(mlace, ). (Entered: 08/19/2015)
82 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT − Level 1: by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John Babcock, # 2 Declaration of William Joe Beaver, # 3 Declaration of Elaine Culpepper, # 4 Declaration of Lauren Haefliger, # 5 Declaration of Kimberley Jackson, # 6 Declaration of John Martinez, # 7 Declaration of Tina McDonald, # 8 Declaration of Andrew Montoya, # 9 Declaration of Vrlina Nozlic, # 10 Declaration of Chris Quinlan, # 11 Declaration of Julie Reiskin, # 12 Declaration of Jose Torres−Vega, # 13 Declaration of Kevin Williams, # 14 Exhibit A, # 15 Exhibit

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 15 of 22

08/19/2015
08/19/2015 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 08/25/2015
08/26/2015 08/26/2015 08/26/2015 08/27/2015 09/01/2015 09/08/2015

B, # 16 Exhibit C, # 17 Exhibit D, # 18 Exhibit E, # 19 Exhibit F, # 20 Exhibit G, # 21 Exhibit H, # 22 Exhibit I, # 23 Exhibit J, # 24 Exhibit K, # 25 Exhibit L)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
83 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT − Level 1: PROPOSED ORDER RE: 82 by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega.. (Williams, Kevin) Modified on 8/20/2015 to add text (mlace, ). Modified on 9/10/2015 to unrestrict pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(e)(mlace, ). (Entered: 08/19/2015)
84 Conventionally Submitted Material : 5 DVDs to Notice (Other), 80 by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. Text Only Entry. (mlace, ) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
100 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs (Public Entry for RESTRICTED Document 82 , filed 8/19/2015) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (evana, ) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
85 MEMORANDUM regarding [#82] Restricted Document referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/20/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
86 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw 71 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Seeking Declaration that Settlement Agreement and Release Apply Only to Fixed Route Buses by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
87 MOTION to Strike 82 Restricted Document − Level 1,,,, Or In the Alternative, For Extension of Time to Respond by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Jenifer Ross−Amato)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
88 SUPPLEMENT/AMENDMENT to 87 MOTION to Strike 82 Restricted Document − Level 1,,,, Or In the Alternative, For Extension of Time to Respond Corrected Exhibit A by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
89 MINUTE ORDER granting 86 Motion to Withdraw 71 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Seeking Declaration that Settlement Agreement and Release Apply Only to Fixed Route Buses by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/26/15. {#71] is deemed withdrawn. Text Only Entry(rebsec) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
90 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 87 RTD's Motion To Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Liability 82 , or in the Alternative, for Extension of Time To Respond. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/27/2015.(mlace, ) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
91 Stipulated MOTION for Leave to Restrict by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
92 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw All Claims of Plaintiff Bianca Gamel With Prejudice by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 16 of 22

09/09/2015 09/21/2015
09/22/2015 10/02/2015 10/02/2015 11/09/2015
11/09/2015
11/09/2015
11/12/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015

McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
93 ORDER granting 92 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion To Withdraw All Claims of Plaintiff Bianca Gamel, Bianca Gamel terminated. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/9/2015. (mlace, ) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
94 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Witness Disclosures and All Motions Pursuant to Rules 702, 703 and 704 by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
95 MINUTE ORDER granting 94 Motion for Extension of Time to File by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/22/15. Expert witness disclosures due 11/25/15; rebuttal expert witness disclosures due 12/24/15; motions raising issues under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, 704 due 1/22/16. With the concurrence of Magistrate Judge Mix, the Scheduling Order [#37] is amended accordingly. The Trial Preparation Conference Order [#38] is also amended accordingly. Text Only Entry(rebsec) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
96 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT − Level 1: ORDER. (mlace, ) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
97 ORDER granting 91 Motion for Leave to Restrict. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/2/2015. Text Only Entry.(mlace, ) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
98 Stipulated MOTION to Stay Discovery and Extend Discovery Deadlines for Sixty (60) Days, with Request for Expedited Ruling by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
99 MEMORANDUM regarding 98 Stipulated MOTION to Stay Discovery and Extend Discovery Deadlines for Sixty (60) Days, with Request for Expedited Ruling filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Chris Quinlan, Kimberley Jackson, Bianca Gamel, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Vrlina Nozlic, Kevin Grimsinger, Elaine Culpepper, Paulina Black, Jon Jamie Lewis, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Cheryl Quinlan, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/9/15. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
101 RESPONSE to 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1−1 Affidavit of Phillip Eberl, # 2 Ex. 1−2 Affidavit of Linda Ober, # 3 Ex. 1−3 Affidavit of Eric Miller, # 4 Ex. 2−1 RTD Policy and Training, # 5 Ex. 2−2 RTD Bicycle Policy, # 6 Ex. 2−3 Selections from Triennial Review Report, # 7 Ex. 3 Expert Report of Geoff Ames, # 8 Ex. 4 Excerpts from Plaintiffs' Deposition Transcripts, # 9 Ex. 5 Video Images from Beaver Dep. Ex. 23)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
102 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Kevin William Williams (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
103 ORDER; 98 Stipulated Motion to Stay Discovery and Extend Discovery Deadlines for Sixty (60) Days, With Request for Expedited Ruling is GRANTED. Discovery in this case is STAYED through 1/8/06. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines listed below are extended as indicated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification is May 25, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/12/15.(morti, ) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
104 WITHDRAWN MOTION to Strike Expert Witness Disclosure and Report by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 17 of 22

12/27/2015
12/29/2015 12/29/2015
01/08/2016 01/11/2016 01/12/2016 01/15/2016 01/18/2016

McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Initial Expert Disclosure, # 2 Exhibit Expert Report, # 3 Exhibit Excerpts Tina McDonald Deposition)(Williams, Kevin) (Modified on 1/19/2016 Withdrawn pursuant to the 116 Order}(evana, ). (Entered: 12/27/2015)
105 WITHDRAWN MOTION for Judgment Declaring the Rights of the Parties by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Compliance with D.C.COLO,LCivR 7.1(a), # 2 Exhibit Settlement Agreement, # 3 Deposition Excerpts CCDC 30(b)(6), # 4 Exhibit Initial Report Pursuant to Settlement Agreement − Part 1, # 5 Exhibit Initial Report Pursuant to Settlement Agreement − Part 2, # 6 Exhibit Initial Report Pursuant to Settlement Agreement − Part 3, # 7 Exhibit Initial Report Pursuant to Settlement Agreement − Part 4)(Williams, Kevin) (Modified on 1/19/2016 Withdrawn pursuant to the 116 Order)(evana, ). (Entered: 12/27/2015)
106 NOTICE of Conventionally Filed Documents by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
107 REPLY to Response to 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kevin W. Williams, # 2 Exhibit A: Powerpoint (filed conventionally), # 3 Exhibit B: Plaintiffs' Fourth Supplemental and Fourth Amended Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiffs, # 4 Exhibit C: SD 160 Inspection Photograph P003161, # 5 Exhibit D: FTA Circular, # 6 Babcock Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 7 Beaver Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 8 Culpepper Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 9 Howey Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 10 Jackson Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 11 Kilbourn Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 12 Lewis Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 13 McDonald Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 14 McNair Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 15 Milne Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 16 Nozlic Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 17 Chris Quinlan Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 18 Torres−Vega Deposition Transcript Excerpts)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
108 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 104 MOTION to Strike Expert Witness Disclosure and Report by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Deposition Notice, # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
109 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/11/16 re: Stipulated Motion to Stay Discovery and Extend Discovery Deadlines for Sixty (60) Days, With Request for Expedited Ruling # 98 and the Court's Order # 103 . Status Report due by 1/18/2016. (lgale, ) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
110 MINUTE ORDER granting 108 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/12/16. By March 2, 2016, Defendant Regional Transportation District may file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion To Strike Defendant's Expert Witness Disclosure [#104]. Text Only Entry(rebsec) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
111 Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
112 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 18 of 22

01/18/2016 01/19/2016 01/19/2016 01/19/2016 01/27/2016
01/28/2016 01/28/2016 02/08/2016

Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Montoya, Andrew) (Entered: 01/18/2016)
113 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw Document re 104 MOTION to Strike Expert Witness Disclosure and Report, 105 MOTION for Judgment Declaring the Rights of the Parties by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Montoya, Andrew) (Entered: 01/18/2016)
114 ORDER REFERRING MOTION(S): 112 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Chris Quinlan, Kimberley Jackson, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Vrlina Nozlic, Kevin Grimsinger, Elaine Culpepper, Paulina Black, Jon Jamie Lewis, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Cheryl Quinlan, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/19/2016. Text Only Entry (reblc2) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
115 Minute Order by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/19/16. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time # 112 is GRANTED. Discovery due by 4/25/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 6/24/2016.(lgale, ) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
116 ORDER granting 113 Motion to Withdraw Document 104 MOTION to Strike Expert Witness Disclosure and Report, 105 MOTION for Judgment Declaring the Rights of the Parties by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/19/16. 104 MOTION to Strike Expert Witness Disclosure and Report and 105 MOTION for Judgment Declaring the Rights of the Parties are withdrawn. Text Only Entry(rebsec) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
117 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Amy Farr Robertson on behalf of John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−VegaAttorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party John Babcock(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party William Joe Beaver(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Paulina Black(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Elaine Culpepper(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Kevin Grimsinger(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Douglas Howey(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Kimberley Jackson(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Randy Kilbourn(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Jon Jamie Lewis(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Tina McDonald(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Ruthie McNair(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Diana Milne(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Vrlina Nozlic(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Cheryl Quinlan(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Chris Quinlan(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Julie Reiskin(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party Jose Torres−Vega(pty:pla) (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
118 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance of Michael D. Plachy by Michael D. Plachy on behalf of Regional Transportation DistrictAttorney Michael D. Plachy added to party Regional Transportation District(pty:dft) (Plachy, Michael) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
119 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance of Jessica L. Fuller by Jessica Lynn Fuller on behalf of Regional Transportation DistrictAttorney Jessica Lynn Fuller added to party Regional Transportation District(pty:dft) (Fuller, Jessica) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
120 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Expert Deadlines by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega.

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 19 of 22

02/08/2016
02/09/2016 02/23/2016
02/25/2016 02/25/2016 03/01/2016 03/01/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/08/2016 03/09/2016 03/15/2016 03/18/2016 03/21/2016 04/28/2016

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Montoya, Andrew) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
121 MEMORANDUM regarding 120 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Expert Deadlines filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Chris Quinlan, Kimberley Jackson, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Vrlina Nozlic, Kevin Grimsinger, Elaine Culpepper, Paulina Black, Jon Jamie Lewis, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Cheryl Quinlan, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/8/16. Text Only Entry (rebsec) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
122 MINUTE ORDER; Plaintiffs' 120 Unopposed Motion to Extend Expert Deadlines is GRANTED, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/9/16.(morti, ) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
123 ORDER That, with the consent of the magistrate judge, the Order of Reference 68 , filed June 29, 2015, is withdrawn; That Plaintiffs Motion To Dismiss Defendant RTDs Counterclaim 57 , filed June 6, 2016, is denied without prejudice; That RTDs Motion for Summary Judgment To Dismiss Plaintiffs CCDC, Reiskin, Howey and Lewis 67 , filed June 29, 2015, is denied without prejudice; and That Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Liability 100 , filed August 19, 2015, is denied without prejudice. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/23/2016.(evana, ) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
124 ORDER OF RECUSAL That the court recuses itself from this case; and That this case shall be reassigned pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(a)., by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/25/2016. (evana, ) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
125 CASE REASSIGNED. pursuant to 124 Order of Recusal. This case is reassigned to Judge Wiley Y. Daniel. All future pleadings should be designated as 14−cv−3111 WYD−KLM. (Text Only Entry) (evana, ) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
126 MEMORANDUM RETURNING CASE by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel. (rkeec) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
127 CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to 126 Memorandum Returning Case. This case is reassigned to Judge Philip A. Brimmer. All future pleadings should be designated as 14−cv−03111−PAB−KLM. (Text Only Entry) (rkeec) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
128 ORDER OF RECUSAL. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/3/2016. (agarc, ) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
129 CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to 128 Order of Recusal. This case is reassigned to Judge Christine M. Arguello. All future pleadings should be designated as 14−cv−03111−CMA−KLM. (Text Only Entry) (agarc, ) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
130 NOTICE of Disclosure by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 03/08/2016. (athom, ) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
131 NOTICE of Disclosure, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. (nmarb, ) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
132 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to All Deadlines by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Ross−Amato, Jenifer) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
133 MEMORANDUM regarding 132 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to All Deadlines filed by Regional Transportation District. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. SO ORDERED by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 3/18/2016. Text Only Entry. (cmalc3) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
134 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/21/16. Joint Motion to Extend All Case Deadlines Pending Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement # 132 is GRANTED. Discovery due by 7/25/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 9/22/2016.(lgale, ) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
135 Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Swaney, Mindy) (Entered: 04/28/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 20 of 22

05/03/2016 06/09/2016
06/09/2016
06/14/2016 07/28/2016 08/01/2016 09/09/2016 09/14/2016 10/14/2016 10/17/2016 10/17/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016

136 MINUTE ORDER re: 135 Joint Status Report. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall, on or before July 29, 2016, file one of the following: (1) a motion relating to preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement; or (2) a further status report detailing their settlement efforts, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/3/16. (morti, ) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
137 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Montoya, Andrew) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
138 MEMORANDUM regarding 137 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Chris Quinlan, Kimberley Jackson, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Vrlina Nozlic, Kevin Grimsinger, Elaine Culpepper, Paulina Black, Jon Jamie Lewis, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Cheryl Quinlan, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 6/9/2016. Text Only Entry (vbarn) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
139 MINUTE ORDER; 137 Joint Motion to Extend All Case Deadlines Pending Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement is GRANTED. Discovery due by 10/24/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 12/21/2016, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/14/16.(morti, ) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
140 Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Swaney, Mindy) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
141 MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' Joint Status Report Regarding Settlement [#140], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall either file a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement or a further Status Report regarding settlement on or before September 9, 2016. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on August 1, 2016. Text Only Entry (klm) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
142 Joint STATUS REPORT by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
143 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 9/14/16 re: 142 Status Report. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before October 14, 2016, the parties shall filed either: (1) a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement; or (2) a further Status Report regarding settlement. (lgale, ) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
144 Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Fuller, Jessica) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
145 MINUTE ORDER that, on or before October 28, 2016, the parties shall file either: (1) a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement; or (2) a further Status Report regarding settlement and the progress of the fee negotiations, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/17/2016. (jgonz, ) Modified text on 10/19/2016 (jgonz, ). (Entered: 10/17/2016)
***Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 10/28/2016 per Minute Order 145 (jgonz, ) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
146 Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Fuller, Jessica) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
147 MINUTE ORDER. In light of the Joint Status report [#146], the parties shall file a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement on or before November 14, 2016. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on October 28, 2016. Text Only Entry (klm) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 21 of 22

11/11/2016 11/14/2016
11/14/2016 11/14/2016
11/15/2016 11/15/2016 11/22/2016 04/03/2017 06/09/2017
06/26/2017
07/10/2017

148 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 11/11/2016)
149 MEMORANDUM regarding 148 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Jose Torres−Vega, Diana Milne, Julie Reiskin, Chris Quinlan, Kimberley Jackson, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Vrlina Nozlic, Kevin Grimsinger, Elaine Culpepper, Paulina Black, Jon Jamie Lewis, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Cheryl Quinlan, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/14/2016. Text Only Entry (vbarn) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
150 MINUTE ORDER granting 148 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement due on November 14, 2016, shall not exceed 35 pages, exclusive of exhibits, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/14/2016.(jgonz, ) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
151 Unopposed MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
152 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT − Level 1: Confidential Opt−Out Agreement by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Fuller, Jessica) Modified on 11/16/2016 to add title of document (athom, ). (Entered: 11/15/2016)
153 Joint MOTION for Leave to Restrict by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (Fuller, Jessica) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
154 ORDER granting 153 Motion for Leave to Restrict. Doc. 152 shall have a Level 1 Restriction. SO ORDERED BY Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/22/2016. Text Only Entry(vbarn) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
155 ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' 151 Unopposed Motion for Certification of a Class for Settlement Purposes Only and Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement. A Final Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval and Motion for Attorney's Fees is scheduled for 7/10/2017, at 02:00 PM in Courtroom A 602 before Judge Christine M. Arguello. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 04/03/2017. (athom, ) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
156 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit A−1, # 4 Exhibit A−2, # 5 Exhibit A−3, # 6 Exhibit A−4, # 7 Exhibit B, # 8 Exhibit B−1)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
157 Unopposed MOTION for Order to Grant Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Entry of Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintiffs John Babcock, William Joe Beaver, Paulina Black, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, Douglas Howey, Kimberley Jackson, Randy Kilbourn, Jon Jamie Lewis, Tina McDonald, Ruthie McNair, Diana Milne, Vrlina Nozlic, Cheryl Quinlan, Chris Quinlan, Julie Reiskin, Jose Torres−Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
158 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Christine M. Arguello: Final Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval and Motion for Attorney's Fees held on 7/10/2017. ORDERED: Granting 156 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees; Granting 157 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order to Grant Plaintiffs'

Case: 1:14-cv-3111 As of: 05/14/2018 09:08 AM MDT 22 of 22

Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Entry of Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice. Written Orders to follow. (Total time: 32 minutes, Hearing time: 2:01 p.m. − 2:33 p.m.)

07/11/2017 07/11/2017 07/15/2017
10/03/2017 10/05/2017 10/05/2017 10/05/2017

APPEARANCES: Kevin Williams, Amy Robertson, and Andrew Montoya on behalf of the Plaintiffs; Jessica Fuller, Jenifer Ross−Amato, and Michael Plachy on behalf of the Defendant. Court Reporter: Darlene Martinez. (swest, ) Text Only Entry (Entered: 07/10/2017)
159 ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' 157 Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Entry of Judgment of Dismissal With Prejudice by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 07/11/2017. (swest) Modified on 7/11/2017 to create linkage. (swest) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
160 ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' 156 Unopposed MOTION for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 07/11/2017. (athom, ) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
161 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on 7/10/17 before Judge Arguello. Pages: 1−27. <br> NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov.<br> Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. (dmart, ) (Entered: 07/15/2017)
162 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Mindy McNair by Defendant Regional Transportation District (Swaney, Mindy) Modified on 10/4/2017 to note that counsel has been informed that this document needs to be re−filed as a motion (athom, ). (Entered: 10/03/2017)
163 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Mindy Marie McNair (McNair, Mindy) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
164 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendant Regional Transportation District. (McNair, Mindy) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
165 ORDER granting 164 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Mindy McNair is permitted to withdraw as counsel for Defendant. The Court notes that Defendant continues to be represented by Jenifer Ross−Amato, Jessica Fuller, and Michael Plachy. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to delete Ms. McNair's email address from future ECF filings and electronic notifications in this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/5/2017. Text Only Entry (cmasec) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: ___________________ JULIE REISKIN, JON JAIME LEWIS, WILLIAM JOE BEAVER, DOUGLAS HOWEY, and COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, Defendant.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby bring this Class Action Complaint against the Regional Transportation District for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.
Introduction

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 27
1. In 1973, Congress enacted Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”). 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. Under this law, recipients of federal financial assistance are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Although many transportation providers are recipients of federal financial assistance, few were accessible to individuals with disabilities who require the use of wheelchairs or other mobility devices at the time the law was passed, and few were accessible long after the law was passed. Individuals with disabilities who require the use of wheelchairs were simply excluded from transportation services otherwise available to the “public.”
2. On July 26, 1990, more than twenty years ago, the ADA was passed, establishing the most important civil rights law for people with disabilities in the nation’s history.
3. The ADA was passed to ensure people with disabilities are not discriminated against by, among other entities, public entities like the Regional Transportation District (“RTD”). 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.
4. Congress found, “discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as . . . transportation . . . and access to public services.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3).
5. One of the purposes of the ADA is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).
6. Title II of the ADA specifically applies to public transportation provided by RTD. 42 U.S.C. § 12141 et seq.
2

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 27
7. Pursuant to the ADA mandate, in 1991, the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) issued regulations to ensure that light rail trains, such as those acquired by RTD, were readily accessible to and usable by passengers who use wheelchairs. 42 U.S.C. § 12164; 49 C.F.R. § 38.71 et seq.
8. According to RTD’s website, the groundbreaking for RTD’s light rail service occurred on January 21, 1997. The first light rail line, the Southwest Light Rail Line open to the public on July 14, 2000.
9. The light rail trains acquired and used by RTD do not meet the minimum accessible requirements set forth by the DOT.
10. As a result, light rail trains are not readily accessible to and usable by passengers who use wheelchairs.
11. RTD passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices have been and continue to be discriminated against because of the inaccessibility of RTD’s light rail trains.
12. As set forth more fully below, RTD discriminates against Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Jon Jamie Lewis, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, and all other RTD light rail passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices on the basis of disability by refusing to provide adequate wheelchair seating areas, allowing passengers who do not need wheelchair seating areas to occupy the spaces designated for wheelchair seating and forcing passengers who use wheelchairs to have to move from their seating locations when other passengers get on and off light rail trains.
3

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 27

13. In some cases, passengers who use wheelchairs have been denied transportation on RTD’s light rail train system because train operators refuse to ask people with strollers and other large objects to move from the designated wheelchair seating area.

14. Plaintiffs seek a court order compelling RTD to comply with the ADA, and Section 504 and the recovery of their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Jurisdiction and Venue

15. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

16. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Parties

17. Plaintiff Julie Reiskin is and was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado.

18. Plaintiff Julie Reiskin is the Executive Director of and a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

19. Colorado.

Plaintiff Jon Jamie Lewis is and was at all times material hereto a resident of

20. Plaintiff Jon Jamie Lewis works for and is a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

21. Plaintiff William Joe Beaver is and was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado.

4

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 27

22. Plaintiff William Joe Beaver works for and is a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

23. Colorado.

Plaintiff Douglas Howey is and was at all times material hereto a resident of

24. Plaintiff Douglas Howey is a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

25. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) is a non-profit corporation and a membership organization whose members are persons with disabilities and their nondisabled allies.

26. Defendant Regional Transportation District (“RTD”) is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, with the “duties, privileges, immunities, rights, liabilities, and disabilities of a public body politic and corporate.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-9-119(1)(a).

27. RTD was created pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-9-105.

28. RTD is a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

29. RTD receives federal financial assistance within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., and its implementing regulations. See 49 C.F.R. § 27.5.

30. RTD has its principal place of business at 1600 Blake Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1399.

5

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 27

31. In addition to other types of transportation systems and services, RTD operates a light rail train system within the meaning of 49 C.F.R. § 37.3.

Facts

32. Plaintiff Julie Reiskin is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service.

33. As a result of multiple sclerosis, Plaintiff Reiskin is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility.

34. week.

Plaintiff Reiskin uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, three to four times each

35. Plaintiff Reiskin does not have a vehicle for any other means of transportation, and RTD’s public transportation service is her regular and usual means of transportation in and around the City and County of Denver and its suburbs.

36. Plaintiff Reiskin will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.

37. Plaintiff Jon Jamie Lewis is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service.

38. As a result of polio and infantile paralysis, Plaintiff Lewis is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility.

39. Plaintiff Lewis uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, ten times per month.

6

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 27
40. Plaintiff Lewis does not have a vehicle for any other means of transportation, and RTD’s public transportation service is his regular and usual means of transportation in and around the City and County of Denver and its suburbs.
41. Plaintiff Lewis will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis. 42. Plaintiff William Joe Beaver is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 43. As a result of post-polio syndrome, Plaintiff Beaver is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. 44. Plaintiff Beaver uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, eight times per week. 45. Plaintiff Beaver does not have a vehicle for any other means of transportation, and RTD’s public transportation service is his regular and usual means of transportation in and around the City and County of Denver and its suburbs. 46. Plaintiff Beaver will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis. 47. Plaintiff Douglas Howey is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 48. As a result of injuries sustained from a car accident, Plaintiff Howey is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a manual or motorized wheelchair for mobility. 49. Plaintiff Howey uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, one to two times per month.
7

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 27
50. Plaintiff Howey does not have a vehicle for any other means of transportation, and RTD’s public transportation service is his regular and usual means of transportation in and around the City and County of Denver and its suburbs.
51. Plaintiff Howey will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis. 52. Defendant RTD acquired vehicles for its light rail service after January 25, 1992. 53. Passengers who use wheelchairs must board RTD’s light rail trains using a ramp that leads to the front door of the first car of each light rail train. 54. When a passenger who uses a wheelchair boards or exits an RTD light rail train, the train operator must get up from his or her seat, open the driver cabin door and manually flip down a bridge plate that enables the passenger uses a wheelchair to enter or exit the train. 55. RTD designates two specific areas as wheelchair locations for passengers who use wheelchairs. RTD designates these two areas with signs saying they are wheelchair locations. 56. The two areas RTD designates as wheelchair locations are located in the front row of seating on the left and right sides of the train. 57. These locations are equipped with two passenger seats, one of which flips up for the purpose of providing sufficient width to allow a passenger who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device to maneuver into the space.
8

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 27
58. In order for there to be sufficient room for an individual who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device to maneuver into the designated wheelchair locations, one of the two seats must be flipped up.
59. RTD’s light rail trains fail to provide sufficient room, as required by the DOT ADA implementing regulations, for at least two individuals who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the doorway to the designated wheelchair seating.
60. RTD’s light rail trains fail to provide sufficient room for at least two individuals who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the doorway to the designated wheelchair seating locations and allow other persons entering and exiting the train using the front doors to have sufficient room to do so.
61. RTD posts signs in the first row of seating on the right and left sides in the front car of each of its light rail trains that say that those seats are priority seats for persons with disabilities and that other passengers should make those seats available to those who wish to use them. In the same seating location adjacent to or near the signs described in the previous sentence, RTD posts signs that say those locations are designated wheelchair seating locations and advise passengers of the need to permit wheelchair users to occupy them.
62. RTD signs on light rail trains fail to distinguish between priority seating for persons with disabilities and designated wheelchair seating.
63. Passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices have only the following options for locations where they can ride light rail trains using their wheelchairs or
9

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 27
mobility devices: (1) the two front designated wheelchair and mobility device seating locations if one of the two seats is flipped up; (2) in the aisle between the seats; or (3) in the front of the train between the doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices to get on and off the train.
64. Because RTD post signs making these front seats available as priority seating for persons with disabilities other than those who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices and also as the designated wheelchair locations, these front row seats are often occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices, making them unavailable for passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
65. RTD allows passengers who do not have disabilities who bring strollers on light rail trains to use the wheelchair ramps at the front of the light rail train to board and exit the train, and allows those passengers to occupy the front row designated wheelchair seating locations, making those designated wheelchair locations unavailable for passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
66. If passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices cannot access the designated wheelchair locations on RTD’s light rail trains, the only options they have for riding the train are to sit in the aisle between the seats or to sit in the front of the train between the two sets of doors that allow access and egress to and from the train by use of the wheelchair ramps.
67. During those times when passengers who use wheelchairs must sit in the aisle in between the seats or in the area in the front of the train between the two sets of doors that allow
10

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 27
access and egress to and from the wheelchair ramps, they are forced to block access and egress of other individuals trying to board or exit the train.
68. During those times when passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices must sit in the aisle in the area in the front of the train between the two sets of doors, they are forced to move every time a passenger needs to board or exit the train using the front doors.
69. During those times when passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices must sit in the aisle area in the front of the train between the two sets of doors, they are forced to move to allow the light rail train operator to enter and exit from the cabin to flip the bridge plate down to allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices and others RTD allows to use the front doors in the wheelchair ramps (e.g., those who use strollers) to get on and off the train.
70. Depending on the size of the wheelchair, mobility device or stroller entering or exiting the light rail train, those passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices and who must sit in the aisle or in the area between the front doors are forced to exit and re-enter the train to allow access to or egress from the train by the person attempting to board or exit.
71. Passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices may simply board the train, select the open seat of their choosing and remain in that seat during the duration of their trip.
11

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 27
72. Passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices are usually not required to move from their seating locations to enable other passengers to board the train or exit the train.
73. RTD has signs that indicate passengers with bicycles who wish to board with their bicycles must not use the front of the train, which is the only area where passengers who use wheelchairs can board.
74. Despite these signs requiring passengers with bicycles not use the front area of the train, some light rail operators allow passengers with bicycles to board the light rail trains using the wheelchair ramp and to keep their bicycles in the front of the light rail train, which is the only place passengers who use wheelchairs can board and exit.
75. When passengers with bicycles are located in the front of the light rail train, which is the only place passengers who use wheelchairs can board and exit, they are in the way of passengers who use wheelchairs boarding or departing from the train, which unduly restricts the movement of passengers who use wheelchairs who are attempting to get on or get off a light rail train.
76. Plaintiff Reiskin has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
77. When Plaintiff Reiskin has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, light rail
12

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 27
operators did not request the people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
78. Plaintiff Reiskin has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit train.
79. When Plaintiff Reiskin has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs board and exit train, Plaintiff Reiskin has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
80. Plaintiff Reiskin has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
81. Plaintiff Lewis has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
82. Plaintiff Lewis has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
13

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 27
83. Plaintiff Lewis has been forced to exit the train to allow other passengers to board or exit the train.
84. Plaintiff Lewis has been denied transportation on light rail trains because the RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
85. Plaintiff Lewis’ access on and off light rail trains has been inhibited by passengers with bicycles blocking access to the front of the train.
86. Plaintiff Beaver has witnessed a passenger who uses a wheelchair being prevented access to a light rail train because there was a bicycle with a child carrier occupying the area in the front of the train on the first car between the two doors.
87. Plaintiff Beaver has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
88. Plaintiff Beaver has been forced to exit the train to allow other passengers to board or exit the train.
89. Plaintiff Howey has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
14

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 27
90. Plaintiff Howey has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
91. Plaintiff Howey has been forced to exit and re-enter the train to allow other passengers to board or exit the train.
92. Plaintiff Howey has been denied transportation on light rail trains because the RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
93. Plaintiff Howey’s access on and off light rail trains has been inhibited by passengers with bicycles blocking access to the front of the train.
94. Each of the Named Plaintiffs has been denied access to light rail trains when there was room on the train to board them.
95. Other CCDC members who use wheelchairs have experienced the same unlawful discrimination described in this Class Action Complaint because RTD’s light rail trains do not comply with the regulations regarding maneuvering clearances, and because of RTD’s policies, practices and procedures which allow people who do not have disabilities to occupy the only spaces on the train where a person who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device can sit, preventing the person who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device from boarding.
15

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 27
96. CCDC is a membership organization having members who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices throughout the RTD’s light rail service area.
97. CCDC has members, including the Named Plaintiffs, who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices who have experienced and/or are likely to experience the same barriers to accessibility using the RTD’s light rail service as described in this Class Action Complaint.
98. CCDC’s purpose is to work for systemic change that promotes independence, self-reliance, and full inclusion for people with disabilities in the entire community. As part of that purpose, CCDC seeks to ensure that persons who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices have equal access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- the use of public transportation.
99. CCDC engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to promote access for, and combat discrimination against, people with disabilities. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by the RTD’s violations of the laws cited herein.
100. As set forth in this Class Action Complaint, RTD’s discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to the full participation of persons with disabilities and, therefore, frustrates CCDC’s ability to achieve non-discrimination for persons with disabilities.
101. CCDC’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are traceable to RTD’s discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
16

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 27
102. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of the RTD is at the core of CCDC’s organizational purpose.
103. The participation of individual CCDC members in the lawsuit is not required either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief.
Class Action Allegations 104. RTD has discriminated against and continues to discriminate against passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices as set forth more fully in this Complaint. 105. RTD trains do not comply with the applicable regulatory dimensional requirements, and therefore RTD discriminates against all passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices. 106. RTD’s placement of signage prevents passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices from having legally required access to seating areas. 107. Because RTD’s trains are designed so that passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices must frequently sit either in the aisle between the front seats or in the front area between the two doors, only passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices are required to move each time someone boards or exits through the front doors. 108. RTD’s policies, practices and procedures regarding allowing people who use strollers to sit in the designated wheelchair seating areas and preventing people who use
17

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 27
wheelchairs and other mobility devices from sitting there discriminate against all passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
109. RTD’s policies, practices and procedures allowing bicycles in the front of trains, which is the only access area for passengers use wheelchairs, discriminate against all passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
110. Plaintiffs seek to maintain this action as a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
111. The class consists of all individuals who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices who have been discriminated against by RTD because the design of RTD’s light rail trains does not comply with the ADA’s regulations and because policies, practices and procedures of RTD concerning seating of passengers use wheelchairs and other mobility devices denies passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices access to its light rail trains as is required under the ADA and its implementing regulations.
First Claim for Relief (Violations of the ADA) 112. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the remainder of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as fully set forth herein. 113. Title II of the ADA provides in pertinent part: “[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination
18

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 27
by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. See also 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(a) (“No entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of transportation service.”).
114. Under the ADA, the term “disability” means an individual who has an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102.
115. Individual Plaintiffs are all individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA.
116. In addition, under Title II, “[i]t shall be considered discrimination for purposes of section 12132 of this title and section 794 of Title 29 for a public entity which operates a fixed route system to purchase or lease . . . a new light rail vehicle, or any other new vehicle to be used on such system, if the solicitation for such purchase or lease is made after the 30th day following July 26, 1990, and if such . . . rail vehicle, or other vehicle is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. 42 U.S.C. § 12142(a) (emphasis added); 49 C.F.R. §37.79 (“Each public entity operating a . . . light rail system making a solicitation after August 25, 1990, to purchase or lease a new . . . light rail vehicle for use on the system shall ensure that the vehicle is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.” (Emphasis added.)) See also 49 C.F.R. §38.71(a) (“New . . . light rail vehicles, to be considered accessible by regulations of part 37 of this title shall comply with this subpart [part 38].)”
19

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 27
117. “[A] vehicle shall be considered to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities if it meets the requirements of this part [37] and the standards set forth in part 38 of this title.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.7(a).
118. Light rail vehicles and systems are covered in part 38, subpart D, section 38.71 through section 38.87.
119. “[A]t each entrance accessible by lift, ramp, bridge plate or other suitable means, . . . passenger seats . . . shall be located so as to allow a route at least 32 inches wide so that at least two wheelchair or mobility aid users can enter the vehicle and position the wheelchairs or mobility aids in areas, each having a minimum clear space of 48 inches by 30 inches, which do not unduly restrict movement of other passengers. Space to accommodate wheelchairs and mobility aids may be provided within the normal area used by standees and designation of specific spaces is not required. Particular attention shall be given to ensuring maximum maneuverability immediately inside doors.” 49 C.F.R. § 38.77(c).
120. RTD designates two specific wheelchair seating locations, which are indicated by signage located in the first row seats nearest the accessible entrance. These areas are the first row of seats nearest to the accessible entrance and require folding up one of the two passenger seats to make room for a person who uses a wheelchair to maneuver the wheelchair into the space.
121. The RTD’s designated wheelchair seating locations do not provide a minimum clear space of 48 inches by 30 inches.
20

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 27
122. RTD’s designated wheelchair seating locations do not provide sufficient room so that they do not unduly restrict movement of other passengers.
123. “Each vehicle shall contain sign(s) which indicate that certain seats are priority seats for persons with disabilities, and that other passengers should make such seats available to those who wish to use them.” 49 C.F.R. § 38.75(a).
124. In addition, “[w]here designated wheelchair or mobility aid seating locations are provided, signs shall indicate the location and advise other passengers of the need to permit wheelchair and mobility aid users to occupy them.” 49 C.F.R. § 38.75(b).
125. The two specific wheelchair seating locations on RTD’s light rail trains are marked with signs that make the same seating areas both priority seating for people with disabilities who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices, and the designated wheelchair seating locations.
126. Because RTD allows persons with disabilities who do not require the use of wheelchairs or other mobility devices to sit in these front seat designated wheelchair seating areas, passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices are precluded from sitting there if people with other disabilities are already seated there.
127. Passengers with other disabilities that do not required the use of wheelchairs or other mobility devices could sit in the seats immediately behind the seats RTD designates for passengers who use wheelchairs, making the designated seating areas for passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices available for passengers use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
21

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 27
128. RTD allows passengers who have strollers to board light rail trains using the wheelchair ramp and allows such passengers with their strollers to use the designated wheelchair seating areas.
129. RTD’s policies, practices and procedures allowing those who use strollers to sit in the designated wheelchair seating sections discriminate against passengers use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
130. RTD light rail operators have failed to ask passengers with strollers to move from the designated wheelchair seating areas when passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices attempt to board light rail trains.
131. Passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices have been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas when passengers with strollers are seated there.
132. Passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices have been told they could not board light rail trains by RTD light rail train operators who have refused to ask passengers with strollers to move from the designated wheelchair locations.
133. RTD does permit passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices to sit in the aisle between the first row of seats and/or in the area between the front accessible doors; however, when a person who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device is located in these areas, maneuverability is limited inside the doors, and passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices must move when a person boards or exits the train through the front doors.
22

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 27
134. RTD’s policy of allowing passengers with bicycles to occupy the space of the front of the light rail train, which is the only place where passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices can board, limits maneuverability inside the doors and makes it very difficult for passengers who use wheelchairs to board or exit the train.
135. RTD’s policies, practices and procedures require passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to have to move from their seating locations and/or exit the train to allow other passengers to board when no other passenger who does not use a wheelchair or other mobility device is required to do the same.
136. In the absence of the injunction sought, Plaintiffs and others who use wheelchairs will continue to be subjected to the discriminatory design of RTD’s light rail trains.
137. In the absence of the injunction sought, Plaintiffs and others who use wheelchairs will continue to be subjected to RTD’s discriminatory policies, practices and procedures as described in this Complaint.
Second Claim for Relief (Violations of Section 504) 138. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the remainder of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as fully set forth herein. 139. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), provides in pertinent part:
23

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 27
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
140. RTD accepts Federal financial assistance.
141. “No qualified person with a disability shall, solely by reason of his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance administered by the Department of Transportation.” 49 C.F.R. § 27.7(a).
142. RTD operates programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation.
143. Discriminatory actions prohibited under Section 504 include, inter alia, making it unlawful for a recipient of Federal financial assistance to do the following:
i. Deny a qualified person with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service;
ii. Afford a qualified person with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not substantially equal to that afforded persons who are not disabled;
iii. Provide a qualified person with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as persons who are not disabled[.]
49 C.F.R. § 27.7(b)(1)(i)-(iii). 144. Plaintiffs and other RTD passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility
devices are qualified individuals with disabilities and have been subjected to discrimination by
24

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 27
RTD as described in this Complaint solely on the basis of their disabilities, including RTD’s failure to provide light rail trains that are readily accessible to and usable by passengers who use wheelchairs, and by continuing to engage in policies, practices and procedures that discriminate against passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
145. Under the Section 504 regulations, Recipients [of Federal financial assistance] . . . shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) including the Department's ADA regulations (49 CFR parts 37 and 38), the regulations of the Department of Justice implementing Title[] II . . . of the ADA (28 CFR part[] 35 . . . )[.] 49 C.F.R. § 27.19(a). 146. As set forth above, RTD light rail trains and policies, practices and procedures do not comply with the ADA. 147. Plaintiffs and others who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices have been, and will continue to be, injured, damaged and aggrieved by RTD’s discrimination.
25

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 27
148. RTD acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ civil rights and the civil rights of passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
149. In the absence of the injunction sought herein, Plaintiffs and others who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices are likely to encounter RTD’s same discriminatory light rail trains.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray:
1. That this Court assume jurisdiction; 2. That this Court issue an Order declaring RTD to be in violation of Title II of the ADA and Section 504; 3. That this Court issue an injunction ordering the RTD to provide compliant wheelchair seating locations on all of its light rail trains and implement policies, practices and procedures that prohibit passengers who use wheelchairs from being discriminated against in using the compliant wheelchair seating locations on its light rail trains once they are provided; 4. That this Court certify a class as set forth in this Complaint; 5. That this Court award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 6. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper and equitable. JURY DEMAND: Plaintiffs request this case be heard by the Court.
26

Case 1:14-cv-03111-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 27

November 18, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Kevin W Williams Kevin W. Williams Andrew C. Montoya Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 839-1775 Facsimile: (720) 210-9819 E-mail: amontoya@ccdconline.org E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org

Address of Plaintiff CCDC:

655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, Colorado 80203

Address of Plaintiff Julie Reiskin:

3645 Milwaukee Street Denver, Colorado 80205

Address of Plaintiff Jon Jaime Lewis:

1135 Broadway, #408 Denver, Colorado 80203

Address of Plaintiff William Joe Beaver:

1430 Nelson St. #410 Lakewood, Colorado 80215

Address of Douglas Howey:

1251 Scranton Street Aurora, Colorado 80011

27

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 78
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03111-REB-KLM
JULIE REISKIN, JON JAIME LEWIS, WILLIAM JOE BEAVER, DOUGLAS HOWEY, DIANA MILNE, TINA MCDONALD, JOSÉ TORRES-VEGA, RANDY KILBOURN, JOHN BABCOCK, KIMBERLEY JACKSON, PAULINA BLACK, RUTHIE MCNAIR, VRLINA NOZLIÇ, CHRIS QUINLAN, CHERYL QUINLAN, ELAINE CULPEPPER, BIANCA GAMEL, KEVIN GRIMSINGER, and COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado nonprofit organization,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT,
Defendant.
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey,
Diana Milne, Tina McDonald, José Torres-Vega, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock,
Kimberley Jackson, Paulina Black, Ruthie McNair, Vrlina Nozliç, Chris Quinlan, Cheryl

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 78
Quinlan, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby bring this Third Amended Class Action Complaint against the Regional Transportation District for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.
Introduction 1. In 1973, Congress enacted Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. Under this law, recipients of federal financial assistance are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. At the time the law was passed, although many transportation providers were recipients of federal financial assistance, few were accessible to individuals with disabilities who require the use of wheelchairs or other mobility devices, and many remained inaccessible long after the law was passed. Individuals with disabilities who required the use of wheelchairs were simply excluded from public transportation services otherwise available to the “public.” 2. On July 5, 1975, people who use wheelchairs and their friends and family members (who became known as the “Gang of Nineteen”) protested in Denver, Colorado regarding the inaccessibility of public transportation, and, as a result, Denver was one of the first cities to begin putting wheelchair lifts on its buses. These protesters blocked access to buses at the intersection of Colfax Avenue and Broadway to demonstrate the
2

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 78
inaccessibility of public transportation. Today, there is a plaque commemorating the event in between the bus stop shelters on the south side of Colfax Avenue between Lincoln Street and Broadway.
3. On July 26, 1990, nearly twenty-five years ago, the ADA was passed, establishing the most important civil rights law for people with disabilities in the nation’s history. That law applies to employment, government services, public accommodations and other areas that previously had not been covered by the law.
4. The ADA was passed to ensure people with disabilities are not discriminated against by, among other entities, public entities like the Regional Transportation District (“RTD”). 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.
5. Congress found “discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as . . . transportation . . . and access to public services.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3). One of the purposes of the ADA is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).
6. Title II of the ADA specifically applies to public transportation provided by RTD. 42 U.S.C. § 12141 et seq.
7. Pursuant to the ADA mandate, in 1991, the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) issued regulations to ensure that all public transportation operators, such as
3

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 78
RTD’s public conveyances, provided accessibility to individuals who use wheelchairs and similar mobility devices. 42 U.S.C. § 12164.
8. The regulations have a specific section addressing light rail trains, such as those acquired by RTD, that require, inter alia, all acquired light rail trains are to be readily accessible to and usable by passengers who use wheelchairs. See Title 49 -Transportation , Subtitle A -- Office of the Secretary of Transportation , Part 38 -Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles, Subpart D -- Light Rail Vehicles and Systems. 49 C.F.R. §§ 38.71- 38.87.
9. According to RTD’s website, RTD light rail began revenue service on October 7, 1994, after the passage of the ADA in 1990. RTD’s first light rail line, the Central Corridor, runs from 30th Avenue and Downing through the Five Points Business District and downtown Denver, by the Auraria campus and then along railroad right-of-way to I-25 & Broadway.
10. The light rail trains acquired and used by RTD do not meet the minimum accessible requirements set forth by the DOT.
11. As a result, light rail trains are not readily accessible to and usable by passengers who use wheelchairs as is required by the ADA.
12. RTD passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices have been and continue to be discriminated against because of the inaccessibility of RTD’s light rail trains.
4

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 78
13. As set forth more fully below, RTD discriminates against Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Diana Milne, Tina McDonald, José Torres-Vega, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock, Kimberley Jackson, Paulina Black, Ruthie McNair, Vrlina Nozliç, Chris Quinlan, Cheryl Quinlan, Elaine Culpepper, Bianca Gamel, Kevin Grimsinger, the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, and all other RTD light rail passengers who use wheelchairs and other similar mobility devices for ambulation on the basis of disability by refusing to provide adequate wheelchair seating areas, by allowing passengers who do not need wheelchair seating areas to occupy the spaces designated for wheelchair seating and by forcing passengers who use wheelchairs to move from their seating locations when other passengers get on and off light rail trains.
14. In some cases, passengers who use wheelchairs have been denied transportation on RTD’s light rail train system because train operators refused to ask people with strollers and other large objects to move from the designated wheelchair seating area.
15. Plaintiffs seek a court order compelling RTD to comply with the ADA, Section 504, any applicable state law and the recovery of their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Jurisdiction and Venue 16. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
5

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 78
17. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Parties
18. Plaintiff Julie Reiskin is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
19. Plaintiff Reiskin is the Executive Director of and became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition in or about 1994.
20. Plaintiff Jon Jaime Lewis is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
21. Plaintiff Lewis works for and became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition in or about 2000.
22. Plaintiff William Joe Beaver is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
23. Plaintiff Beaver works for and became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition in or about 1996.
24. Plaintiff Douglas Howey is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
25. Plaintiff Howey became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition in or about 2013.
26. Plaintiff Tina McDonald is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
6

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 78
27. Plaintiff McDonald became a member of the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition in or about 2015.
28. Plaintiff Diana Milne is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
29. Plaintiff Milne became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition in or about July 18, 2013.
30. Plaintiff José Torres-Vega is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
31. Plaintiff Torres-Vega works for and became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition in or about 2013.
32. Plaintiff Randy Kilbourn is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
33. Plaintiff Kilbourn became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition on February 19, 2014.
34. Plaintiff John Babcock is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
35. Plaintiff Babcock became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition on December 2, 2014.
36. Plaintiff Kimberley Jackson is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
7

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 78
37. Plaintiff Jackson became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition on February 23, 2014.
38. Plaintiff Paulina Black is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
39. Plaintiff Black became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition in or about 2009.
40. Plaintiff Ruthie McNair is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
41. Plaintiff McNair became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition on June 26, 2012.
42. Plaintiff Vrlina Nozliç is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
43. Plaintiff Nozliç became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition on March 6, 2015.
44. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
45. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition on January 2, 2015.
46. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
8

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 78
47. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition on August 9, 2012.
48. Plaintiff Elaine Culpepper is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
49. Plaintiff Culpepper became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition in or about 2011.
50. Plaintiff Bianca Gamel is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
51. Plaintiff Gamel became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition on January 18, 2012.
52. Plaintiff Kevin Grimsinger is and was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado.
53. Plaintiff Grimsinger became a member of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition on June 25, 2012.
54. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) is a non-profit corporation and a membership organization whose members are persons with disabilities and their nondisabled allies.
55. Defendant Regional Transportation District (“RTD”) is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, with the “duties, privileges, immunities, rights, liabilities, and disabilities of a public body politic and corporate.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-9-119(1)(a).
9

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 78
56. RTD was created pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-9-105. 57. RTD is a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 58. RTD receives federal financial assistance within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. and its implementing regulations. See 49 C.F.R. § 27.5. 59. RTD has its principal place of business at 1600 Blake Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1399. 60. In addition to other types of transportation systems and services (bus, high speed rail, intercity rail, paratransit) RTD operates or plans to operate, RTD operates a light rail train system within the meaning of 49 C.F.R. § 37.3.
Facts 61. Plaintiffs Reiskin, Beaver, Howey, Lewis, Milne, Torres-Vega, Kilbourn, Babcock, Jackson, Black, McNair and Nozliç, Chris Quinlan, Cheryl Quinlan, Culpepper, Gamel and Grimsinger will be referred to as the “Individual Plaintiffs.” 62. Defendant RTD acquired vehicles for its light rail service after January 25, 1992. 63. Since Defendant began acquiring vehicles for its light rail service, it has acquired vehicles that do not provide a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space for passengers who use wheelchairs and mobility aids, which does not unduly restrict the maneuvering of other passengers.
10

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 78
64. On information and belief, Defendant intends to continue acquiring vehicles for its light rail service that do not provide a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space for passengers use wheelchairs and mobility aids, which does not unduly restrict maneuvering of other passengers.
65. Passengers who use wheelchairs, including the Individual Plaintiffs, must board RTD’s light rail trains using a ramp that leads to the front door of the first car of each light rail train.
66. When a passenger who uses a wheelchair, including the Individual Plaintiffs, boards or exits an RTD light rail train, the train operator must get up from his or her seat, open the driver cabin door and manually flip down a bridge plate that enables the passenger who uses a wheelchair to enter or exit the train.
67. RTD designates two specific areas as wheelchair locations for passengers who use wheelchairs. RTD designates these two areas with signs saying they are wheelchair locations.
68. The two areas RTD designates as wheelchair locations are located in the front row of seating on the left and right sides of the train.
69. These locations are equipped with two passenger seats, one of which flips up for the purpose of providing sufficient width to allow a passenger who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device to maneuver into the space.
11

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 78
70. There is not sufficient space for an individual who uses a wheelchair or other similar mobility device to use the designated wheelchair locations on RTD’s light rail trains if the seat in the front designated wheelchair seating section is not flipped up.
71. In order for there to be sufficient room for an individual who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device to maneuver into the designated wheelchair locations, one of the two seats must be flipped up.
72. RTD’s light rail trains fail to provide sufficient room, as required by the DOT ADA implementing regulations, for at least two individuals who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the doorway to the designated wheelchair seating.
73. RTD’s light rail trains fail to provide sufficient room for at least two individuals who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the doorway to the designated wheelchair seating locations and allow other persons entering and exiting the train using the front doors to have sufficient room to do so.
74. RTD has placed hand holds along the aisle between the seats where individuals can stand. According to the regulations, these individuals are referred to as “standees.”
75. There is no place on an RTD light rail train that allows an individual who uses a wheelchair or similar mobility device to have a minimum clear floor space of 48 inches by 30 inches, which does not unduly restrict passenger flow either in the designated wheelchair locations or in the areas used by standees.
12

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 78
76. RTD posts signs in the first row of seating on the right and left sides in the front car of each of its light rail trains that say that those seats are priority seats for persons with disabilities and that other passengers should make those seats available to those who wish to use them. In the same seating location adjacent to or near the signs described in the previous sentence, RTD posts signs that say those locations are designated wheelchair seating locations and advise passengers of the need to permit wheelchair users to occupy them.
77. RTD signs on light rail trains have, at times material to this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, failed to distinguish between priority seating for persons with disabilities and designated wheelchair seating.
78. Passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices have only the following options for locations where they can ride light rail trains using their wheelchairs or mobility devices: (1) the two front designated wheelchair and mobility device seating locations, if one of the two seats is flipped up, which does not satisfy the DOT regulations; (2) in the aisle between the seats, which restricts other passengers’ movement; or (3) in the front of the train between the doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices to get on and off the train, which also restricts other passengers’ movement.
79. Because RTD has, at times material to this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, posted signs making these front seats available as priority seating for persons with disabilities other than those who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices and also
13

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 78
as the designated wheelchair locations, these front row seats are often occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices, making them unavailable for passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
80. RTD allows passengers who do not have disabilities that bring strollers on light rail trains to use the wheelchair ramps at the front of the light rail train in order to board and exit the train, and allows those passengers to occupy the front row designated wheelchair seating locations, making those designated wheelchair locations unavailable for passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
81. During those times when passengers who use wheelchairs must sit in the aisle in between the seats or in the area in the front of the train between the two sets of doors that allow access and egress to and from the wheelchair ramps, they are forced to block access and egress of other individuals trying to board or exit the train.
82. During those times when passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices must sit in the aisle in the area in the front of the train between the two sets of doors, they are forced to move their wheelchair or mobility aid every time a passenger needs to board or exit the train using the front doors.
83. During those times when passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices must sit in the aisle area in the front of the train between the two sets of doors, they are forced to move to allow the light rail train operator to enter and exit from the cabin to flip the bridge plate down to allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility
14

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 78
devices and others RTD allows to use the front doors in the wheelchair ramps (e.g., those who use strollers) to get on and off the train.
84. Depending on the size of the wheelchair, mobility device or stroller entering or exiting the light rail train, those passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices and who must sit in the aisle or in the area between the front doors are forced to exit and re-enter the train to allow access to or egress from the train by the person attempting to board or exit.
85. Passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices may simply board the train, select the open seat of their choosing and remain in that seat during the duration of their trip.
86. Passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices are usually not required to move from their seating locations to enable other passengers to board the train or exit the train.
87. RTD has signs that indicate that passengers with bicycles who wish to board with their bicycles must not use the front of the train, which is the only area where passengers who use wheelchairs can board.
88. Despite these signs requiring that passengers with bicycles not use the front area of the train, some light rail operators allow passengers with bicycles to board the light rail trains using the wheelchair ramp and to keep their bicycles in the front of the
15

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 78
light rail train, which is the only place passengers who use wheelchairs can board and exit.
89. When passengers with bicycles are located in the front of the light rail train, which is the only place passengers who use wheelchairs can board and exit, they are in the way of passengers who use wheelchairs boarding or departing from the train, which unduly restricts the movement of passengers who use wheelchairs who are attempting to get on or get off a light rail train.
90. Plaintiff Julie Reiskin is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 91. As a result of multiple sclerosis, Plaintiff Reiskin is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. 92. Plaintiff Reiskin uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, three to four times each week. 93. Plaintiff Reiskin does not have a vehicle or any other means of transportation, and RTD’s public transportation service is her regular and usual means of transportation in and around the City and County of Denver and its suburbs. 94. Plaintiff Reiskin has experienced nearly all of the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months. 95. For example, Plaintiff Reiskin has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to
16

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 78
move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate her when she rides light rail trains.
96. In addition, Plaintiff Reiskin has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections.
97. In addition, Plaintiff Reiskin has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move her wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
98. In addition, Plaintiff Reiskin has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
99. In addition, Plaintiff Reiskin has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where she could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
100. Plaintiff Reiskin will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
17

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 78
101. Plaintiff Reiskin has complained to RTD regarding wheelchair accessibility issues, but RTD has done little to respond to her complaints and/or to bring its services into compliance, even as a result of these complaints.
102. Plaintiff Reiskin has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
103. When Plaintiff Reiskin has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
104. Plaintiff Reiskin has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
105. When Plaintiff Reiskin has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Reiskin has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
106. Plaintiff Reiskin has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to
18

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 78
occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
107. Plaintiff Jon Jaime Lewis is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 108. As a result of polio and infantile paralysis, Plaintiff Lewis is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. 109. Plaintiff Lewis uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, ten times per month. 110. Plaintiff Lewis does not have a vehicle or any other means of transportation and RTD’s public transportation service is his regular and usual means of transportation in and around the City and County of Denver and its suburbs. 111. Plaintiff Lewis has experienced most of the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months. 112. Plaintiff Lewis will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis. 113. For example, Plaintiff Lewis has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate him when he rides light rail trains.
19

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 78
114. In addition, Plaintiff Lewis has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices occupied the designated wheelchair seating sections.
115. In addition, Plaintiff Lewis has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move his wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
116. In addition, Plaintiff Lewis has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
117. In addition, Plaintiff Lewis has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where he could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
118. Plaintiff Lewis has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
119. Plaintiff Lewis has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
20

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 78
120. Plaintiff Lewis has been forced to exit the train to allow other passengers to board or exit the train.
121. Plaintiff Lewis has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
122. Plaintiff Lewis’ access on and off light rail trains has been inhibited by passengers with bicycles blocking access to the front of the train.
123. Plaintiff William Joe Beaver is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 124. As a result of post-polio syndrome, Plaintiff Beaver is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. 125. Plaintiff Beaver uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, eight times per week. 126. Plaintiff Beaver does not have a vehicle or any other means of transportation, and RTD’s public transportation service is his regular and usual means of transportation in and around the City and County of Denver and its suburbs. 127. Plaintiff Beaver has experienced most of the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
21

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 78
128. Plaintiff Beaver will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
129. For example, Plaintiff Beaver has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate him when he rides light rail trains.
130. In addition, Plaintiff Beaver has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices occupied the designated wheelchair seating sections.
131. In addition, Plaintiff Beaver has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move his wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
132. In addition, Plaintiff Beaver has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
133. In addition, Plaintiff Beaver has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where he could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
22

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 78
134. Plaintiff Beaver has witnessed a passenger who uses a wheelchair being denied access to a light rail train because there was a bicycle with a child carrier occupying the area in the front of the train on the first car between the two doors.
135. Plaintiff Beaver has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
136. Plaintiff Beaver has been forced to exit the train to allow other passengers to board or exit the train.
137. Plaintiff Douglas Howey is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 138. As a result of injuries sustained from a car accident, Plaintiff Howey is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a manual or motorized wheelchair for mobility. 139. Plaintiff Howey uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, one to two times per month. 140. Plaintiff Howey does not have a vehicle or any other means of transportation, and RTD’s public transportation service is his regular and usual means of transportation in and around the City and County of Denver and its suburbs. 141. Plaintiff Howey has experienced many of the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months 142. Plaintiff Howey will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
23

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 78
143. For example, Plaintiff Howey has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate him when he rides light rail trains.
144. In addition, Plaintiff Howey has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices occupied the designated wheelchair seating sections.
145. In addition, Plaintiff Howey has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move his wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
146. In addition, Plaintiff Howey has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
147. In addition, Plaintiff Howey has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where he could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
24

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 78
148. Plaintiff Howey has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
149. Plaintiff Howey has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
150. Plaintiff Howey has been forced to exit and re-enter the train to allow other passengers to board or exit the train.
151. Plaintiff Howey has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
152. Plaintiff Howey’s access on and off light rail trains has been inhibited by passengers with bicycles blocking access to the front of the train.
153. Plaintiff Tina McDonald is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 154. Plaintiff McDonald has Meniere's disease, an inner ear disorder which causes her problems with balance, causes her to be unstable and causes her to be substantially limited in the major life activity of walking and requires her to use a mobility device for ambulation. 155. Currently, Plaintiff McDonald uses a mobility device called a Rollator.
25

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 78
156. Plaintiff McDonald uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, four times each month.
157. Plaintiff McDonald does not have her own transportation and relies on public transportation nearly all the time.
158. Plaintiff McDonald has experienced most of the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
159. Plaintiff McDonald has complained to RTD regarding its light rail services, but she has not received a response from RTD that addressed those complaints.
160. Plaintiff McDonald will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
161. For example, Plaintiff McDonald has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate her when she rides light rail trains.
162. In addition, Plaintiff McDonald has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections.
163. In addition, Plaintiff McDonald has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move her mobility device to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver
26

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 78
compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
164. In addition, Plaintiff McDonald has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
165. In addition, Plaintiff McDonald has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where she could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
166. Plaintiff McDonald has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
167. When Plaintiff McDonald has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
168. Plaintiff McDonald has been forced to stand with a walker in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
27

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 78
169. When Plaintiff McDonald has been forced to stand with a walker in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff McDonald has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
170. Plaintiff McDonald has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
171. Plaintiff Diana Milne is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 172. Plaintiff Milne has osteoarthritis in both knees. In the four vertebrae above the tailbone and, in her lower back, she was born without discs. She was also born without cartilage in her knees. As a result, Plaintiff Milne is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking and requires the use of a wheelchair for ambulation. 173. Plaintiff Milne uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, six to eight times per week. 174. Plaintiff Milne does not have her own transportation, and she relies on public transportation most of the time. 175. Plaintiff Milne has experienced most of the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
28

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 78
176. On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff Milne boarded the D-Line at Evans Avenue, headed to Tenth Avenue and Osage. Both of the designated wheelchair seating sections were occupied. One of the wheelchair seating sections was occupied with a person who uses a wheelchair. The other designated wheelchair space was occupied by someone with a stroller and no visible disability of any kind.
177. During this trip, the light rail operator did not ask the person with the stroller to move from the designated wheelchair seating area to allow Plaintiff Milne to sit there.
178. Instead, Plaintiff Milne had no choice but to sit in her wheelchair behind the light rail train operator by the door that opens into the light rail operator cabin in between the front doors that are used by people who choose to board via the cement loading ramp, which is the only place people with mobility devices and wheelchairs can board and get off of light rail trains.
179. Plaintiff Milne has had an experience similar to that described above (people who do not need the use of a wheelchair or mobility device sitting in the designated wheelchair seating sections, and no light rail operator asking them to move) on at least twenty occasions. Plaintiff Milne has experienced this same situation approximately every other time she has boarded RTD light rail.
180. Plaintiff Milne has complained to RTD regarding its public transportation services, but she has not received a response that addressed her complaints.
181. Plaintiff Milne will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
29

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 78
182. For example, Plaintiff Milne has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate her when she rides light rail trains.
183. In addition, Plaintiff Milne has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections.
184. In addition, Plaintiff Milne has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move her wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
185. In addition, Plaintiff Milne has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where she could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
186. Plaintiff Milne has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
187. When Plaintiff Milne has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use
30

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 78
wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
188. Plaintiff Milne has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
189. When Plaintiff Milne has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Milne has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
190. Plaintiff Milne has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
191. Plaintiff José Torres-Vega is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 192. As a result of cerebral palsy, Plaintiff Torres-Vega is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking and uses a motorized wheelchair for ambulation. 193. Plaintiff Torres-Vega uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, ten times per week.
31

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 78
194. Plaintiff Torres-Vega has experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
195. For example, Plaintiff Torres-Vega has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate him when he rides light rail trains.
196. In addition, Plaintiff Torres-Vega has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move his wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
197. In addition, Plaintiff Torres-Vega has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where he could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
198. Plaintiff Torres-Vega will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
199. Plaintiff Torres-Vega has complained to RTD regarding wheelchair accessibility issues on its transportation services, but nothing has changed.
32

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 78
200. Plaintiff Torres-Vega has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
201. When Plaintiff Torres-Vega has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
202. Plaintiff Torres-Vega has been forced to sit in his wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
203. When Plaintiff Torres-Vega has been forced to sit in his wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Torres-Vega has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
204. Plaintiff Randy Kilbourn is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 205. Plaintiff Kilbourn has nerve damage along his spine, acquired because of an accident while driving a truck, which results in chronic pain and the inability to stand
33

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 78
and/or walk for more than about 30 seconds at a time. Plaintiff Kilbourn is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking and uses a motorized wheelchair for ambulation.
206. Plaintiff Kilbourn uses RTD’s light rail system, on average, three to four times per month.
207. Plaintiff Kilbourn does not have a vehicle or any other means of transportation, and RTD’s public transportation service is his regular and usual means of transportation in and around the City and County of Denver and its suburbs.
208. Because of the size of Plaintiff Kilbourn’s wheelchair and the size of the designated wheelchair seating locations on the light rail cars, it is difficult for him to use the designated wheelchair seating locations.
209. As a result, Plaintiff Kilbourn generally sits between the doors at the front of the train in between the doors that passengers who use wheelchairs and other similar mobility devices use to board and get off the train. When this happens, Plaintiff Kilbourne must move his wheelchair into one corner or the other to allow the driver to exit the light rail operator compartment and to let the individual who uses a wheelchair or other similar mobility device get on or off the train.
210. Plaintiff Kilbourn has experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
211. Plaintiff Kilbourn will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 78
212. For example, Plaintiff Kilbourn has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate him when he rides light rail trains.
213. In addition, Plaintiff Kilbourn has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move his wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
214. In addition, Plaintiff Kilbourn has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
215. In addition, Plaintiff Kilbourn has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where he could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
216. Plaintiff Kilbourn has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
35

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 78
217. When Plaintiff Kilbourn has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
218. Plaintiff Kilbourn has been forced to sit in his wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
219. When Plaintiff Kilbourn has been forced to sit in his wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Kilbourn has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
220. Plaintiff Babcock is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 221. Plaintiff Babcock, as the result of a spinal cord injury, is a quadriplegic, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for ambulation. 222. Plaintiff Babcock does not have his own vehicle for transportation, and RTD’s light rail public transportation service is his regular, preferred and usual means of transportation in and around the City and County of Denver and its suburbs.
36

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 78
223. Plaintiff Babcock uses the light rail service approximately fifteen times per week.
224. Plaintiff Babcock has experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
225. Plaintiff Babcock will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
226. For example, Plaintiff Babcock has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate him when he rides light rail trains.
227. In addition, Plaintiff Babcock has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections.
228. In addition, Plaintiff Babcock has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move his wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
229. In addition, Plaintiff Babcock has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move
37

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 78
repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
230. In addition, Plaintiff Babcock has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where he could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
231. Plaintiff Babcock has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
232. When Plaintiff Babcock has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
233. Plaintiff Babcock has been forced to sit in his wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
234. When Plaintiff Babcock has been forced to sit in his wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Babcock has
38

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 78
been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
235. Plaintiff Babcock has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
236. Plaintiff Kimberley Jackson is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 237. Plaintiff Jackson has a progressive neurologic illness that requires her to use a motorized wheelchair because she is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking. 238. Plaintiff Jackson uses RTD’s light rail multiple times each week. She estimates that she uses light rail approximately four round trips per week. 239. Plaintiff Jackson does not have a vehicle and relies exclusively on public transportation for her transportation needs. 240. Plaintiff Jackson has experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months. 241. Plaintiff Jackson will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis. 242. For example, Plaintiff has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from
39

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 78
the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate her when she rides light rail trains.
243. In addition, Plaintiff Jackson has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections.
244. In addition, Plaintiff Jackson has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move her wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
245. In addition, Plaintiff Jackson has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
246. In addition, Plaintiff Jackson has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where she could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
247. Plaintiff Jackson has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
40

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 78
248. When Plaintiff Jackson has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
249. Plaintiff Jackson has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
250. When Plaintiff Jackson has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Jackson has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
251. Plaintiff Jackson has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
252. Plaintiff Paulina Black is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 253. Plaintiff Black is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking as a result of arthrogryposis.
41

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 78
254. Plaintiff Black uses RTD’s light rail service two times per month on average in the winter months.
255. Between 2001 until approximately 6 to 8 months ago, Plaintiff Black was using light rail approximately 4 times each week.
256. In all of the time that Plaintiff Black used light rail, she was not aware until very recently that there were wheelchair areas designated on the light rail trains.
257. Plaintiff Black has never experienced a light rail operator offering to assist her with sitting in the designated wheelchair securement areas.
258. Plaintiff Black has been denied transportation on RTD’s light rail system at least twice, because there were people occupying the front designated wheelchair seating sections, who did not require wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
259. Plaintiff Black has been denied access to the designated wheelchair seating areas on light rail trains by RTD light rail operators when individuals who use strollers have occupied those sections.
260. Plaintiff Black would have preferred to use the designated wheelchair areas on light rail trains, but she has never successfully utilized the designated wheelchair areas because they have not been available, because they’ve been occupied by individuals who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices, and because light rail train operators have not assisted in requesting that people who do not use wheelchairs or
42

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 78
mobility devices move from those areas and/or otherwise assist in lifting the seats to clear the designated wheelchair seating areas so that she may use those areas.
261. Plaintiff Black does not have a vehicle and relies exclusively on public transportation for transportation needs.
262. Plaintiff Black experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
263. Plaintiff Black will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis. 264. For example, Plaintiff Black has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate her when she rides light rail trains. 265. In addition, Plaintiff Black has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections. 266. In addition, Plaintiff Black has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move her wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
43

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 78
267. In addition, Plaintiff Black has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
268. In addition, Plaintiff Black has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where she could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
269. Plaintiff Black has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
270. When Plaintiff Black has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
271. Plaintiff Black has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
272. When Plaintiff Black has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Black has
44

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 78
been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
273. Plaintiff Black has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
274. Plaintiff Ruthie McNair is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 275. Plaintiff McNair requires the use of a motorized wheelchair due to double hip and double knee replacements as well as arthritis in her spine, which make it very difficult to move around without the assistance of a motorized wheelchair. 276. Plaintiff McNair is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking. 277. Plaintiff McNair used light rail approximately 4 to 5 times last year, and estimates that she will use RTD’s light rail service about the same in 2015. 278. Plaintiff McNair prefers to use the designated wheelchair seating areas on light rail trains, but she has had difficulty using those areas. 279. Plaintiff McNair travels with her service dog. 280. On at least one occasion, Plaintiff McNair was unable to utilize the designated wheelchair seating section, because there was an occupant with the stroller in the section. Plaintiff McNair recalls that the light rail operator did not request that the individual with a stroller move from the designated wheelchair seating section so that she
45

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 78
could sit there. On this occasion, Plaintiff McNair’s only option for riding the light rail train was to sit in the area of the train in front of the front seats in between the two sets of doors that are designed to enable a passenger who uses a wheelchair or mobility device to board the train.
281. Plaintiff McNair experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
282. Plaintiff McNair will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
283. For example, Plaintiff McNair has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate her when she rides light rail trains.
284. In addition, Plaintiff McNair has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections.
285. In addition, Plaintiff McNair has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move her wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
46

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 78
286. In addition, Plaintiff McNair has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
287. In addition, Plaintiff McNair has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where she could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
288. Plaintiff McNair has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
289. When Plaintiff McNair has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
290. Plaintiff McNair has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
291. When Plaintiff McNair has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff McNair has
47

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 78
been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
292. Plaintiff McNair has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
293. Plaintiff Vrlina Nozliç is a regular user of RTD’s light rail service. 294. Plaintiff Nozliç is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking as the result of being born without a hip socket, which caused her to use a cane. Then, as the result of a torn rotator cuff, she had to start using a walker and now often uses crutches. 295. Plaintiff Nozliç uses RTD’s light rail service approximately two to three times each month. 296. In the past, Plaintiff Nozliç has used light rail as frequently as every day for a period of about two years until February or March 2010. 297. Plaintiff Nozliç predicts she will use light rail approximately 4 times a week in the next few months. 298. Plaintiff Nozliç has traveled with her mother who uses a wheelchair. 299. Plaintiff Nozliç has been unable to use the designated wheelchair seats when she has her mobility device because patrons using strollers have occupied those spaces.
48

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 78
300. Plaintiff Nozliç has been unable to maneuver her mother in her wheelchair to the designated wheelchair spaces because patrons using strollers have occupied those spaces.
301. Plaintiff Nozliç has had great difficulty navigating her mother’s wheelchair into the designated wheelchair area on RTD’s light rail trains.
302. When Plaintiff Nozliç has been able to navigate her mother’s wheelchair into the designated wheelchair areas on RTD’s light rail trains, there is not sufficient maneuvering clearance for other passengers, even though Plaintiff Nozliç’s mother’s wheelchair fits within the 30 inches wide by 48 inches long dimensions required for clear floor space for wheelchairs on light rail trains.
303. Plaintiff Nozliç has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
304. When Plaintiff Nozliç has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
305. Plaintiff Nozliç has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
49

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 78
306. When Plaintiff Nozliç has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Nozliç has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
307. Plaintiff Nozliç has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
308. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has cerebral palsy and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for purposes of ambulation anytime he is outside of his home.
309. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking.
310. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has used light rail frequently and estimates that he will use RTD’s light rail service about the same in 2015 and beyond.
311. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan prefers to use the designated wheelchair seating areas on light rail trains, but he has had difficulty using those areas.
312. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan is the husband of Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan. 313. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan often uses RTD’s light rail service with his wife Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan.
50

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 78
314. On at least one occasion, which Plaintiff Chris Quinlan believes to have occurred on November 7, 2014 on the W, there was a woman with a stroller in one of the designated wheelchair seating locations. There was insufficient space to enter the other designated wheelchair seating area because there was a person using a wheelchair seated in that area. The light rail operator did not interact with the passengers, and did not ask the woman with the stroller occupying the designated wheelchair seating area to move from that area. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan and his wife, Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan, were required to stay in the area in front of the designated wheelchair seating sections blocking both of the accessible doors.
315. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
316. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
317. For example, Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate him when he rides light rail trains.
318. In addition, Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections.
51

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 78
319. In addition, Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move his wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
320. In addition, Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
321. In addition, Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where he could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
322. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
323. When Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
52

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 78
324. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has been forced to sit in his wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
325. When Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has been forced to sit in his wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
326. Plaintiff Chris Quinlan has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
327. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has extreme difficulty walking as the result of scoliosis and she requires the use of oxygen.
328. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan is substantially limited in the major life activities of walking and breathing. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan requires the use of oxygen, has scoliosis, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for purposes of ambulation anytime she is outside of his home.
53

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 78
329. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan uses light rail frequently and estimates that she will use RTD’s light rail service about the same in 2015 and beyond.
330. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan prefers to use the priority seating area designated for passengers with disabilities or, when possible, to join her husband, Plaintiff Chris Quinlan, who uses a wheelchair in the wheelchair seating areas on light rail trains, but she has had difficulty using those areas.
331. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has difficulty standing. 332. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months. 333. On at least one occasion, which Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan believes to have occurred on November 7, 2014 on the W, there was a woman with a stroller in one of the designated wheelchair seating locations. There were other passengers with no apparent disability of any kind occupying the priority seating section directly behind the designated wheelchair seating section. There was insufficient space to enter the other designated wheelchair seating area because there was a person using a wheelchair seated in that area. The light rail operator did not interact with the passengers, did not ask the woman with the stroller occupying the designated wheelchair seating area to move from that area, and did not ask the passengers in the priority seating section to move to accommodate Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan and her husband, Plaintiff Chris Quinlan, who uses a wheelchair, were required to stay in the area in front of the designated wheelchair seating sections blocking both of the accessible doors.
54

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 78
334. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
335. For example, Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections and do not ask individuals who have no apparent disability of any kind to move from the priority seating areas to accommodate her when she rides light rail trains.
336. In addition, Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections.
337. In addition, Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with no apparent disability were seated in the priority seating area, and light rail operators did not request that anyone move to accommodate her.
338. In addition, Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which is very difficult because it is difficult for her to stand and has caused her to have to move continuously to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
339. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan is the wife of Plaintiff Chris Quinlan. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan would like to sit as close as possible to her husband when she rides light rail
55

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 78
trains, but she has been denied the ability to do that because light rail operators refuse to request that individuals who do not need wheelchair seating area and the priority seating area move from those areas to accommodate the disabilities of Plaintiff Chris Quinlan and Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan.
340. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating and priority seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
341. When Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas and priority seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
342. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has been forced to stand in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
343. When Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has been forced to stand in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
56

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 78
344. Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections, the priority seating area and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
345. Plaintiff Elaine Culpepper is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking.
346. Plaintiff Culpepper requires the use of a motorized scooter for purposes of ambulation outside of her home.
347. Plaintiff Culpepper has used light rail frequently and estimates that she will use RTD’s light rail service about the same in 2015 and beyond.
348. Plaintiff Culpepper refers to use the designated wheelchair seating areas on light rail trains, but he has had difficulty using those areas.
349. Plaintiff Culpepper has experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
350. Plaintiff Culpepper will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
351. For example, Plaintiff Culpepper has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate her when she rides light rail trains.
57

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 78
352. In addition, Plaintiff Culpepper has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections.
353. In addition, Plaintiff Culpepper has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move her wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
354. In addition, Plaintiff Culpepper has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move repeatedly to get out of the way of passengers boarding or alighting from the light rail train.
355. In addition, Plaintiff Culpepper has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where she could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
356. On one occasion, a light rail operator asked Plaintiff Culpepper if she knew what the law said when she complained to the light rail operator that someone who did not have a disability was occupying the designated wheelchair seating areas.
58

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 78
357. Plaintiff Culpepper has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
358. When Plaintiff Culpepper has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
359. Plaintiff Culpepper has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
360. When Plaintiff Culpepper has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Culpepper has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
361. Plaintiff Culpepper has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
59

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 78
362. Plaintiff Bianca Gamel is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking.
363. Plaintiff Gamel requires the use of a wheelchair for ambulation outside of her home.
364. Plaintiff Gamel has used light rail frequently and estimates that she will use RTD’s light rail service about the same in 2015 and beyond.
365. Plaintiff Gamel prefers to use the designated wheelchair seating areas on light rail trains, but she has had difficulty using those areas.
366. Plaintiff Gamel experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
367. Plaintiff Gamel will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
368. For example, Plaintiff Gamel has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate her when she rides light rail trains.
369. In addition, Plaintiff Gamel has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections.
60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 61 of 78
370. In addition, Plaintiff Gamel has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused her to have to move her wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
371. In addition, Plaintiff Gamel has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where she could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.
372. Plaintiff Gamel has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
373. When Plaintiff Gamel has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
374. Plaintiff Gamel has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
375. When Plaintiff Gamel has been forced to sit in her wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that
61

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 62 of 78
allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, she has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
376. Plaintiff Gamel has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
377. Plaintiff Kevin Grimsinger is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking.
378. Plaintiff Grimsinger requires the use of a manual wheelchair for ambulation outside of his home.
379. Plaintiff Grimsinger has used light rail frequently and estimates that he will use RTD’s light rail service about the same in 2015 and beyond.
380. Plaintiff Grimsinger refers to use the designated wheelchair seating areas on light rail trains, but he has had difficulty using those areas.
381. Plaintiff Grimsinger experienced the problems described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, both before and after the last twelve months.
382. Plaintiff Grimsinger will continue to use RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis.
383. For example, Plaintiff Grimsinger has experienced light rail operators who do not ask people with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to
62

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 63 of 78
move from the designated wheelchair seating sections to accommodate him when she rides light rail trains.
384. In addition, Plaintiff Grimsinger has experienced being denied light rail rides when individuals with strollers or who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices were occupying the designated wheelchair seating sections. In addition, Plaintiff Grimsinger has been forced to ride in the front section of the light rail train between the two doors, which has caused him to have to move his wheelchair to accommodate light rail train operators entering and exiting the driver compartment to allow others who use mobility devices to board or alight from the light rail train.
385. In addition, Plaintiff Grimsinger has often not been afforded a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long clear floor space on a light rail train where he could ride without unduly restricting the movement of other passengers.Plaintiff Grimsinger has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
386. When Plaintiff Grimsinger has been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas because they were occupied by persons who do not use wheelchairs, on information and belief, light rail operators did not request that people seated in the designated wheelchair seating areas move to another seat.
387. Plaintiff Grimsinger has been forced to sit in his wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that
63

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 64 of 78
allow passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to board and exit the train.
388. When Plaintiff Grimsinger has been forced to sit in his wheelchair in the aisle between the seats or in the area of the front of the train in between the two doors that allow passengers who use wheelchairs to board and exit the train, Plaintiff Grimsinger has been forced to move out of the way to allow passengers who use strollers to board and/or exit the train.
389. Plaintiff Grimsinger has been denied transportation on light rail trains because RTD has allowed passengers who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to occupy the designated wheelchair seating sections and/or the aisle between the front seats and/or the area between the two front doors.
390. Other CCDC members who use wheelchairs have experienced the same unlawful discrimination described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint because RTD’s light rail trains do not comply with the regulations regarding wheelchair seating location dimensions and maneuvering clearances, and because of RTD’s policies which allow people who do not have disabilities to occupy the only spaces on the train where a person who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device can sit, preventing the person who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device from boarding.
391. CCDC is a membership organization having members who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices throughout RTD’s light rail service area.
64

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 65 of 78
392. CCDC has members, including the Individual Plaintiffs, who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices who have experienced and/or are likely to experience the same barriers to accessibility using RTD’s light rail service as described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
393. CCDC’s purpose is to advocate for social justice on behalf of people with all types of disabilities. As part of that purpose, CCDC seeks to ensure that persons who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices have equal access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- the use of public transportation.
394. CCDC engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to promote access for and combat discrimination against people with disabilities. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by the RTD’s violations of the laws cited herein.
395. As set forth in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, RTD’s discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to the full participation of persons with disabilities and, therefore, frustrates CCDC’s ability to achieve non-discrimination for persons with disabilities.
396. CCDC’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are traceable to RTD’s discriminatory conduct alleged in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
65

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 66 of 78
397. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of RTD, is at the core of CCDC’s organizational purpose.
398. The participation of individual CCDC members in the lawsuit is not required either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief.
Class Action Allegations 399. RTD has discriminated against and continues to discriminate against passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices as set forth more fully in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint. 400. RTD trains do not comply with the applicable regulatory dimensional requirements, and therefore RTD discriminates against all passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices. 401. RTD’s placement of priority seating for the disabled signage and signage in the same section designating seating areas as wheelchair locations has prevented passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices from having legally required access to seating areas. 402. Because RTD’s trains are designed so that passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices must frequently sit either in the aisle between the front seats or in the front area between the two doors, only passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices are required to move each time someone boards or exits through the front doors.
66

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 67 of 78
403. RTD’s policies, allowing people who use strollers to sit in the designated wheelchair seating areas and preventing people who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices from sitting there when passengers with strollers are occupying the area, discriminate against all passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
404. RTD’s policies, practices and procedures that allow bicycles in the front of trains, which are the only access areas for passengers who use wheelchairs to get on and off RTD's light rail trains, discriminate against all passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
405. Plaintiffs seek to maintain this action as a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
406. The class consists of all individuals who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices who have been discriminated against by RTD because the design of RTD’s light rail trains does not comply with the ADA’s regulations and because RTD’s policies concerning seating of passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices denies passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices access to its light rail trains as is required under the ADA and its implementing regulations.
First Claim for Relief (Violations of the ADA) 407. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the remainder of the allegations set forth in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint as fully set forth herein.
67

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 68 of 78
408. Title II of the ADA provides in pertinent part: “[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. See also 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(a) (“No entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of transportation service.”).
409. Under the ADA, the term “disability” means, with respect to an individual, an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102.
410. Individual Plaintiffs are all individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA.
411. In addition, under Title II, “[i]t shall be considered discrimination for purposes of section 12132 of this title and section 794 of Title 29 for a public entity which operates a fixed route system to purchase or lease . . . a new light rail vehicle, or any other new vehicle to be used on such system, if the solicitation for such purchase or lease is made after the 30th day following July 26, 1990, and if such . . . rail vehicle, or other vehicle is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. 42 U.S.C. § 12142(a) (emphasis added); 49 C.F.R. §37.79 (“Each public entity operating a . . . light rail system making a solicitation after August 25, 1990, to purchase or lease a new . . . light rail vehicle for use on the system shall ensure that the vehicle is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.” (Emphasis added.)) See also 49
68

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 69 of 78
C.F.R. §38.71(a) (“New . . . light rail vehicles, to be considered accessible by regulations in part 37 of this title shall comply with this subpart [part 38].)”
412. “[A] vehicle shall be considered to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities if it meets the requirements of this part [37] and the standards set forth in part 38 of this title.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.7(a).
413. Light rail vehicles and systems are covered in part 38, subpart D, section 38.71 through section 38.87 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
414. “[A]t each entrance accessible by lift, ramp, bridge plate or other suitable means, . . . passenger seats . . . shall be located so as to allow a route at least 32 inches wide so that at least two wheelchair or mobility aid users can enter the vehicle and position the wheelchairs or mobility aids in areas, each having a minimum clear space of 48 inches by 30 inches, which do not unduly restrict movement of other passengers. Space to accommodate wheelchairs and mobility aids may be provided within the normal area used by standees and designation of specific spaces is not required. Particular attention shall be given to ensuring maximum maneuverability immediately inside doors.” 49 C.F.R. § 38.77(c).
415. RTD designates two specific wheelchair seating locations, which are indicated by signage located in the first row seats nearest the accessible entrance. These areas are the first row of seats nearest to the accessible entrance and require folding up one of the two passenger seats to make room for a person who uses a wheelchair to maneuver the wheelchair into the space.
69

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 70 of 78
416. RTD’s designated wheelchair seating locations do not provide a minimum clear space of 48 inches by 30 inches.
417. RTD’s designated wheelchair seating locations do not provide sufficient room so that they do not unduly restrict movement of other passengers.
418. “Each vehicle shall contain sign(s) which indicate that certain seats are priority seats for persons with disabilities, and that other passengers should make such seats available to those who wish to use them.” 49 C.F.R. § 38.75(a).
419. In addition, “[w]here designated wheelchair or mobility aid seating locations are provided, signs shall indicate the location and advise other passengers of the need to permit wheelchair and mobility aid users to occupy them.” 49 C.F.R. § 38.75(b).
420. The two specific wheelchair seating locations on RTD’s light rail trains have been marked with signs that make the same seating areas both priority seating for people with disabilities who do not use wheelchairs or other mobility devices, and designated seating for people who use wheelchairs.
421. Because RTD has allowed persons with disabilities who do not require the use of wheelchairs or other mobility devices to sit in these front seats of the designated wheelchair seating areas, passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices have been precluded from sitting there if people with other disabilities are already seated there.
70

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 71 of 78
422. Passengers with other disabilities that do not require the use of wheelchairs or other mobility devices could sit in the seats immediately behind the seats RTD designates for passengers who use wheelchairs, making the designated seating areas for passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices available for passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
423. RTD allows passengers who have strollers to board light rail trains using the wheelchair ramp and allows such passengers with their strollers to use the designated wheelchair seating areas.
424. RTD’s policies, practices and procedures allowing those who use strollers to sit in the designated wheelchair seating sections and preventing passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices from using those areas discriminate against passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
425. RTD light rail operators have failed to ask passengers with strollers to move from the designated wheelchair seating areas when passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices attempt to board light rail trains, making the designated wheelchair seating locations unavailable for passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
426. Passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices have been prevented from using the designated wheelchair seating areas when passengers with strollers are seated there.
71

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 72 of 78
427. Passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices have been told they could not board light rail trains by RTD light rail train operators who have refused to ask passengers with strollers to move from the designated wheelchair locations.
428. RTD light rail operators do permit passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices to sit in the aisle between the first row of seats and/or in the area between the front accessible doors; however, when a person who uses a wheelchair or other mobility device is located in these areas, maneuverability is limited inside the doors, and passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices must move when a person boards or exits the train through the front doors.
429. RTD’s policies, practices and procedures allowing passengers with bicycles to occupy the space at the front of the light rail train, which is the only place where passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices can board, limit maneuverability inside the doors and make it very difficult for passengers who use wheelchairs to board or exit the train.
430. RTD’s policies require passengers who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices to move from their seating locations and/or exit the train to allow other passengers to board when no other passenger who does not use a wheelchair or other mobility device is required to do the same.
431. In the absence of the injunction sought, Plaintiffs and others who use wheelchairs will continue to be subjected to the discriminatory design of RTD’s light rail trains.
72

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 73 of 78
432. In the absence of the injunction sought, Plaintiffs and others who use wheelchairs will continue to be subjected to RTD’s discriminatory policies as described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
Second Claim for Relief (Violations of Section 504) 433. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the remainder of the allegations set forth in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint as fully set forth herein. 434. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), provides in pertinent part: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 435. RTD accepts Federal financial assistance. 436. “No qualified person with a disability shall, solely by reason of his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance administered by the Department of Transportation.” 49 C.F.R. § 27.7(a). 437. RTD operates programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation.
73

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 74 of 78
438. Discriminatory actions prohibited under Section 504 include, inter alia, making it unlawful for a recipient of Federal financial assistance to do the following:
i. Deny a qualified person with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service;
ii. Afford a qualified person with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not substantially equal to that afforded persons who are not disabled;
iii. Provide a qualified person with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as persons who are not disabled[.]
49 C.F.R. § 27.7(b)(1)(i)-(iii). 439. Plaintiffs and other RTD passengers who use wheelchairs and other
mobility devices are qualified individuals with disabilities and have been subjected to discrimination by RTD solely on the basis of their disabilities as described in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint, including RTD’s failure to provide light rail trains that are readily accessible to and usable by passengers who use wheelchairs, and continuing engagement in policies, practices and procedures that discriminate against passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
440. Under the Section 504 regulations,
Recipients [of Federal financial assistance] . . . shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) including the Department's ADA regulations (49 CFR parts 37 and 38), the regulations of the Department of Justice implementing Title[] II . . . of the ADA (28 CFR part[] 35 . . . )[.]
74

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 75 of 78
49 C.F.R. § 27.19(a). 441. As set forth above, RTD light rail trains and policies do not comply with the
ADA. 442. Plaintiffs and others who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices have
been, and will continue to be, injured, damaged and aggrieved by RTD’s discrimination. 443. RTD acted intentionally and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ civil
rights and the civil rights of passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices. 444. In the absence of the injunction sought herein, Plaintiffs and others who use
wheelchairs and other mobility devices are likely to encounter RTD’s same discriminatory light rail trains.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray:
1. That this Court assume jurisdiction; 2. That this Court issue an Order declaring RTD to be in violation of Title II of the ADA and Section 504; 3. That this Court issue an injunction ordering RTD to provide compliant wheelchair seating locations on all of its light rail trains and implement policies that prohibit passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices from being discriminated against in using the compliant wheelchair seating locations on its light rail trains once they are provided;
75

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 76 of 78

4. That this Court certify a class as set forth in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint;

5. and

That this Court award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;

6. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper and equitable.

JURY DEMAND: Plaintiffs request this case be heard by the Court.

Dated: June 15, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

Address of Plaintiff CCDC:

/s/ Kevin W Williams Kevin W. Williams Andrew C. Montoya Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal
Program 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (720) 336-3584 Facsimile: (720) 420-1390 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org E-mail: amontoya@ccdconline.org

655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, Colorado 80203

Address of Plaintiff Julie Reiskin:

3645 Milwaukee Street Denver, Colorado 80205

Address of Plaintiff Jon Jaime Lewis:

76

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 77 of 78
1135 Broadway, #408 Denver, Colorado 80203 Address of Plaintiff William Joe Beaver: 1430 Nelson St. #410 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Address of Plaintiff Douglas Howey: 1251 Scranton Street Aurora, Colorado 80011 Address of Plaintiff Diana Milne: 2420 W. Wesley Ave., #5 Denver, Colorado 80219 Address of Plaintiff Tina McDonald: 11450 Community Center Drive, #413 Northglenn, Colorado 80233 Denver, Colorado 80249 Address of Plaintiff José Torres-Vega: 200 Rampart Way Apt. 262 Denver, Colorado 80230 Address of Plaintiff Randy Kilbourn: 1420 Logan St. #111 Denver, Colorado 80203 Address of Plaintiff John Babcock: 1512. Larimer Street #28 Denver, Colorado 80202 Address of Plaintiff Kimberley Jackson:
77

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 65 Filed 06/19/15 USDC Colorado Page 78 of 78
4567 East Yale Ave, Apt 103 Denver, Colorado 80222 Address of Plaintiff Paulina Black; 4142 Fundy Street Denver, Colorado 80249 Address of Plaintiff Ruthie McNair: 106 WCR 37 Lochbuie, Colorado 80603 Address of Plaintiff Vrlina Nozliç: P.O. Box 460458 Glendale, Colorado 80246 Address of Plaintiff Chris Quinlan: 693 Urban Court, Apt. 907 Lakewood, Colorado 80401 Address of Plaintiff Cheryl Quinlan: 1430 Nelson St., Apt. #401 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Address of Plaintiff Elaine Culpepper: 2868 Heather Gardens Way, Apt 201 Aurora, Colorado 80014 Address of Plaintiff Bianca Gamel: 1865 Larimer St. #312 Denver, Colorado 80202 Address of Plaintiff Kevin Grimsinger: 1955 Arapahoe St. #1108 Denver, Colorado 80202
78

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM
JULIE REISKIN, et al., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado,
Defendant.

REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Representative Plaintiffs, Julie Reiskin, Douglas Howey, Tina McDonald, Randy Kilbourn, and Joe Beaver,1 respectfully submit this Unopposed Motion for Certification of a Class for Settlement Purposes Only and Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement (“Motion”).2 After a year and a half of extensive, arm’s-length negotiations over alleged violations of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”) concerning accessibility for people who use wheelchairs, as defined in the ADA and in the Class

1

The Settlement Agreement provides that, out of the eighteen current Plaintiffs,

five will serve as Representative Plaintiffs of the settlement class for manageability

purposes. All Plaintiffs have agreed to the proposed class settlement.

2

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCIVR 7.1(a), counsel for Plaintiffs certifies that they

have conferred in good faith with counsel for Defendant regarding this Motion.

Defendant does not oppose the relief requested herein.

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 27

Settlement Agreement entered into by the Parties (“Settlement Agreement”),3 Plaintiffs and Defendant Regional Transportation District (“RTD”) have reached a comprehensive settlement that provides substantial benefits to the class.
To implement this Settlement Agreement, as fully explained herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
1. Certify the proposed class for settlement purposes only under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), as detailed herein;
2. Appoint Representative Plaintiffs as the representatives of the class; 3. Appoint Kevin Williams and Andrew Montoya of the Colorado CrossDisability Coalition (“CCDC”) as Class Counsel; 4. Grant preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement attached to this Motion; 5. Set dates for the submission of any objections to the Settlement Agreement or requests for exclusion from the damages release; 6. Grant approval of the Class Notice Procedures detailed in Section IV and Exhibits D, E, and F to the Settlement Agreement, and authorize the proposed notice dissemination plan described therein; 7. Enter an order enjoining class members from initiating or prosecuting any litigation relating to the claims resolved by the Settlement Agreement against RTD pending the Court’s entry of Final Order and Judgment;

3

See 49 C.F.R. § 37.3 and I.19 of the Settlement Agreement. A fully executed

copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

2

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 27
8. Set a deadline for Class Counsel’s Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
9. Set a deadline for Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval; and 10. Set a date for a Final Approval Hearing.
I. BACKGROUND A. Legal Background
Title II of the ADA of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. RTD, a Special Statutory District, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-9-101 et seq., is a “public entity” under the ADA. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal financial assistance, such as RTD. The ADA, Section 504, and their respective implementing regulations, contain broad anti-discrimination mandates as well as specific requirements as to the construction, maintenance, and design of accessible seating on light rail vehicles (“LRVs”). For example, 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(a) states “[n]o entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of transportation service.” Like its statutory counterpart 42 U.S.C. § 12142(a), 49 C.F.R. § 37.79 requires “Each public entity operating a . . . light rail system making a solicitation after August 25, 1990, to purchase or lease a new . . . light rail vehicle for use on the system shall ensure that the vehicle is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.” Under the Section 504 regulations, “[r]ecipients [of Federal financial assistance] . . . shall comply with all applicable requirements of the [ADA] (42 U.S.C. 12101-12213)
3

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 27
including the Department’s ADA regulations (49 CFR parts 37 and 38) the regulations of the Department of Justice implementing Titles II and III of the ADA.” 49 C.F.R. § 27.19(a).
These accessibility designs are necessary to permit people with mobility devices to access public transportation, specifically LRVs. Subpart D of Part 38 of Title 49 pertains to “Light Rail Vehicles and Systems;” see, e.g., 49 C.F.R. §38.77(c) (requiring that “at all doors . . . [all interior features of LRVs] shall be located so as to allow a route at least 32 inches wide so that at least two wheelchair or mobility aid users can enter the vehicle and position the wheelchairs or mobility aids in areas, each having a minimum clear space of 48 inches by 30 inches, which do not unduly restrict movement of other passengers[;]” and 49 C.F.R. §38.83(a)(1) (requiring “[a]ll new light rail vehicles . . . shall provide . . . sufficient clearances to permit at least two wheelchair or mobility aid users to reach areas, each with a minimum clear floor space of 48 inches by 30 inches, which do not unduly restrict passenger flow.”) The regulations implementing the requirements for LRVs also prescribe what LRV operators are required to do when an individual with a disability enters a vehicle and needs to sit in an accessible seating area. The regulations state how and under what conditions the LRV operator shall ask the persons seated in that area to move in order to allow the individual with a disability to occupy the accessibility seating area. 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(j).
In the putative class action that led to the proposed class settlement before the Court, Plaintiffs alleged RTD had violated requirements set forth under the ADA and Section 504 governing the design and construction of light rail vehicles as they are used
4

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 27
by individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs and mobility devices. Plaintiffs alleged that RTD had failed to properly instruct and train its LRV operators to follow regulatory instructions regarding asking passengers to move from the wheelchair and mobility device locations as set forth in the regulations.
RTD denies all of Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding violations of the disability rights laws, but, nevertheless, the Parties have decided to resolve their claims in a Settlement Agreement without proceeding to trial. B. Factual Background
1. Plaintiffs’ Experiences Leading to This Lawsuit. Plaintiffs alleged that CCDC had received complaints from individual members who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices that experienced difficulties getting to and using the designated accessible seating areas on LRVs. They also alleged that LRV operators failed to request that individuals who do not appear to have disabilities to move from the accessibility area. CCDC also received complaints from individuals who use wheelchairs or mobility devices that they blocked traffic flow and other passengers while seated in the aisle or between the doors. CCDC investigated these claims and alleged that it found it had staff members who also have the same problems. CCDC members alleged that they complained to RTD regarding these issues, but nothing happened as a result. The original five Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on November 18, 2014. See Complaint [ECF #1]. As this case continued, a total of eighteen CCDC members who use wheelchairs or mobility devices came forward and alleged similar
5

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 27
complaints against RTD’s light rail operations. See Amended Complaint [ECF #23], Second Amended Complaint [ECF #55] and Third Amended Complaint [ECF #65].
Plaintiffs alleged in these Complaints that these barriers to accessibility prevented individuals who use wheelchairs and mobility devices from access to LRVs and prevented them from having equal access to RTD’s public transportation system.
2. The Litigation Both Parties propounded and responded to extensive written discovery, took and defended a total of 18 depositions, and agreed to and conducted a two-day Rule 34 inspection of the two types of LRVs. Both Parties filed dispositive motions. 3. Negotiation and Settlement The Parties discussed settlement on several occasions before reaching agreement. Both Parties attended a two-day mediation session, which was not ultimately successful, in the Fall of 2015. In early 2016, the Parties began the settlement discussions that would eventually lead to the Settlement Agreement. As the negotiations began to yield fruit, the Parties requested this Court continue proceedings to allow them to complete the drafting process. The Parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding in March, 2016, and have been finalizing settlement negotiations and documents since that time. 4. Summary of Settlement Agreement Terms The following summarizes the Settlement Agreement’s principal terms, although the exact terms and language in the Settlement Agreement control:
6

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 27
Plaintiffs and RTD have negotiated a comprehensive Settlement Agreement for injunctive relief, which requires RTD to make changes to its 172 existing LRVs, to make them more accessible to individuals who use wheelchairs and mobility devices within sixty (60) months from the Final Settlement Date of the Agreement, with several milestones during that period, retrofitting a certain number of LRVs each year until all are completed. See Exhibit 1, Settlement Agreement, at II.A. RTD will provide a status report to Class Counsel on the progress of the Retrofit Project regarding the number of LRVs retrofitted immediately and work expected to be completed in the next 12 months. Id. at II.A.4. Representatives of Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will have the opportunity to view retrofitted LRVs within 12 months from the Final Settlement Date to take measurements and photographs to assess compliance. Id.
With respect to new light rail vehicles, RTD will ensure that the next twenty-nine (29) LRVs that will be put into service after the Settlement Agreement will provide even greater accessibility than the retrofitted vehicles as set forth in Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement. See id. at II.B. Again, representatives of Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will have an opportunity view the vehicles to ensure compliance. Id.
RTD will provide training and retraining to its light rail operators, supervisors of light rail operators, and light rail controllers, and a representative of CCDC will have an opportunity to review training materials. Id. at II.C.
The Parties have agreed to a Pre-Litigation Procedure, under which any further litigation against RTD involving the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members working with or at the behest of any Named Plaintiff involving accessibility issues must comply. Id at
7

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 27

II.D. This procedure will require prior written notice that explains the nature of discrimination under the disability laws that the individuals involved believe violate those laws. The Pre-Litigation procedure requires a meet and confer session between the Parties to attempt to resolve the dispute. Only if this procedure fails may one of the above-referenced individuals bring a lawsuit against RTD. Id. Any person must bring litigation within 180 days of RTD’s written response in accordance with this procedure. Id.
The Settlement Agreement calls for quarterly meetings between RTD and a representative of CCDC regarding light rail service to ensure cooperation and to promote a constructive dialogue concerning issues related to the ADA and light rail service. Id. at II.E. During these quarterly meetings, RTD will report on complaints received, the resolution of those complaints, and any changes to RTD policies and procedures as a result of those complaints from the previous quarter concerning light rail service. In addition, Class Counsel, on behalf of CCDC and the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (“CREEC”),4commit to raise any questions as to which they are considering litigation in one of these meetings or in writing at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to filing except as related to the issues discussed in Section II(D)(6). Id. at II(E)(3).

4

An attorney with CREEC assisted with the settlement process, and thus

committed to provide such notice. CREEC is otherwise not party to the Settlement

Agreement.

8

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 27
Subject to Court approval, RTD will pay Class Counsel $375,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs in certain installments over three years for the work performed by Class Counsel through Final Approval. Id. at VI.A.1.
The Settlement Agreement releases the injunctive claims and claims for actual or other damages of Class members, subject to this Court’s approval of a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class and Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out damages class. Id. at III.A.2, XI. The Settlement Agreement provides that class members may opt-out of the damages release; it is for this reason that Plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) as to that portion of the settlement.
The Settlement Agreement sets forth a Dispute Resolution process relating to the performance or interpretation of the provisions in Section II(A)-(C) of the Settlement Agreement. Id. at X. This process involves written notice of a dispute, a written response, and Class Counsel and RTD’s Counsel meeting and conferring to attempt to resolve the dispute; if the Parties are unable to resolve their dispute, they agree to participate in at least one mediation session to be conducted, if possible, by Magistrate Judge Mix upon a motion under Local Rule 16.6(a). Id. at X.C.
The term of this Settlement Agreement shall be five (5) years from the Final Settlement Date, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, or the date on which all disputes raised pursuant to Section X of the Settlement Agreement are resolved, whichever is latest. Id. at XII.Q.
II. ARGUMENT A. The Proposed Class Should Be Certified for Settlement Purposes Only.
9

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 27
1. Definition of the Proposed Class The Representative Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class of pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3): “all Persons in Colorado who are qualified individuals with disabilities who use Wheelchairs, as that term is defined below, who have used, currently use, or may in the future use RTD’s Light Rail Service.” Id. at II.18. The definition of “Wheelchair” in the Settlement Agreement is: Wheelchair. “Wheelchair” shall have the meaning assigned to it in 49 C.F.R. § 37.3 and shall include all devices used by individuals with mobility impairments specifically to assist with ambulation, by way of example but not limitation, manual and motorized wheelchairs, scooters, and walkers, so long as such devices fit within the definition of Wheelchair provided in 49 C.F.R. § 37.3. Id. at II.19 (emphasis in original). 2. Legal Standard for Class Certification Class certification is appropriate when the class satisfies the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). Here, Plaintiffs seek certification, for settlement purposes, under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). 3. The Proposed Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23. Although RTD does not oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion, this Court must still determine that the proposed class meets all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and at least one of the provisions of Rule 23(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) provides: (1) [T]he class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims
10

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 27
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. See J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1288 (10th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs seek certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), alleging that Defendant “has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); J.B. ex rel. Hart, 186 F.3d at 1288. With respect to the damages release, Plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). These rules reflect the fact that “a district court has both the duty and the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties.” Stransky v. HealthONE of Denver, Inc., 929 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1104 (D. Colo. 2013) (quoting Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1981)). In Gulf Oil, the Supreme Court recognized that “[c]lass actions serve an important function in our system of civil justice[.]” Gulf Oil Co., 452 U.S. at 99. District Courts should favor the procedure of class actions. Colorado Cross-Disability Coal. v. Taco Bell Corp., 184 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D. Colo. Feb. 3, 1999) (citing Esplin v. Hirschi, 402 F.2d 94, 99 & 101 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 928 (1969)).
a. The Class is So Numerous That Joiner of All Class Members is Impracticable.
Rule 23(a)(1) requires a showing that “[t]he class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Plaintiffs are seventeen (17) individuals who meet the class definition; there are many more individuals who meet that definition and ride RTD LRVs on a daily basis who cannot be identified easily.
11

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 27

In class action suits there must be presented some evidence of established, ascertainable numbers constituting the class in order to satisfy even the most liberal interpretation of the numerosity requirement. There is, however, no set formula to determine if the class is so numerous that it should be so certified. The determination is to be made in the particular circumstances of the case. The duty of establishing those particular circumstances rests with the party who asserts the existence of the class and that party must produce some evidence or otherwise establish by reasonable estimate the number of class members who may be involved.
Moore's Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., V. 3B, s 23.05(3), and cases cited. Rex v. Owens ex
rel. State of Okl., 585 F.2d 432, 436 (10th Cir. 1978). “Class actions have been deemed
viable in instances where as few as 17 to 20 persons are identified as the class.” Rex,
585 F.2d at 436 (internal citations omitted).
Here, U.S. Census data indicates that currently 5.4% of the population in
Colorado are individuals with ambulatory disabilities.5 Given that RTD reported
103,377,797 boardings from December 2014 to November 2015,6 it is reasonable to
conclude that the class of individuals who use Wheelchairs who use Light Rail is too
numerous to join in a single suit. “[C]ourts regularly rely on the . . . [census] data
presented by plaintiffs in making numerosity determinations.” Californians for Disability
Rights, Inc. v. California Dep't of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334, 347 (N.D. Cal. 2008);
Colorado Cross Disability Coal. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 765 F.3d 1205, 1215 (10th
Cir. 2014) (relying on reasonable inferences from census data); Colorado Cross-

5

2014 Disability Status Report Colorado, Yang-Tan Institute on Employment and

Disability at the Cornell University ILR School (citing to US Census Bureau’s American

Community Survey), http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/StatusReports/2014-PDF/2014-

StatusReport_CO.pdf (last visited Nov. 14, 2016).

6

Facts and Figures, RTD, http://www.rtd-denver.com/factsAndFigures.shtml (last

visited Nov. 14, 2016).

12

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 27
Disability Coal. v. Taco Bell Corp., 184 F.R.D. 354, 358 (D. Colo. 1999) (“Census data are frequently relied on by courts in determining the size of proposed classes.).
b. There are Questions of Law or Fact Common to the Class And the Claims of the Representative Plaintiffs are Typical of the Claims of the Class.
The requirements of commonality and typicality “tend to merge” and are often addressed together. Colorado Cross Disability Coal. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 765 F.3d 1205, at 1216 (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349 n.5 (2011)). Here, there are numerous questions of law or fact common to the class:
• Whether the access to and usability of the accessible seating areas of the existing LRVs meets the requirements of the ADA and Section 504;
• Whether the access to the planned new LRVs will meet the requirements of the ADA and Section 504; and
• Whether RTD policy regarding ensuring access for class members to the accessible seating areas complies with the ADA and Section 504.
These questions and others form the questions of law or fact that are common to the class in this case.
“A finding of commonality requires only a single question of law or fact common to the entire class.” DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1195 (10th Cir. 2010). “‘[E]very member of the class need not be in a situation identical to that of the named plaintiff’’ to meet Rule 23(a)'s commonality or typicality requirements. Factual differences between class members’ claims do not defeat certification where common
13

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 27
questions of law exist.” Id. (quoting Milonas v. Williams, 691 F.2d 931, 938 (10th Cir.1982)).
Ultimately, the common questions “must be of such a nature that [they are] capable of classwide resolution.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). The Settlement Agreement in this case has amply demonstrated that the putative class meets this standard.
c. Representative Plaintiffs and Class Counsel Will Fairly and Adequately Protect the Interest of the Proposed Class.
Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). “The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997). Courts generally examine the experience of class counsel and whether there are any conflicts between class counsel and representative plaintiffs. See, e.g., In re Crocs, Inc. Sec. Litig., 306 F.R.D. 672, 688 (D. Colo. 2014). In this case, Class Counsel are experienced in the field of disability rights litigation and have litigated and worked on class actions in the past, including those with monitoring provisions and the type of dispute at issue here. Declaration of Kevin W. Williams (“Williams Decl.”), attached as Exhibit 2, at 2 ¶¶ 4,5; Declaration of Andrew C. Montoya (“Montoya Decl.”), attached as Exhibit 3, at 2-3 ¶ 3. With regard to conflicts, Class Counsel are attorneys for a nonprofit organization that has as its mission advocating for social justice for people with all types of disabilities. Williams Decl. at 2 ¶¶ 4, 6. CCDC is a Plaintiff in the case, but not a Representative Plaintiff for purposes of the class settlement. Class Counsel in this case
14

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 27
have worked for many years as counsel following that mission without any conflicts of any kind. Williams Decl. at 2 ¶¶ 4, 7; Montoya Decl. at 2 ¶¶ 5, 7. Adequate representation is usually presumed in the absence of contrary evidence. 216 Robert Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, § 7.24 at 7–80 to –81 (3d ed. 1992); see also Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dep't of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334, at 349 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citations omitted).
The Representative Plaintiffs in this case have common interests with members of the putative class. Representative Plaintiffs are long-time Denver residents who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids. The Representative Plaintiffs are all users of RTD’s light rail service on a regular basis; many use public transportation as their only means of getting around the city. They are all members of the proposed class, and they seek a common remedy, which will be provided through the actions required of RTD in the Settlement Agreement in this case. The Representative Plaintiffs seek to ensure increased accessibility to the accessible spaces on the existing light rail trains and, under this Settlement Agreement, those that will soon be put into service. These interests are all shared with the putative class and consistent with remedying the violations that this class action seeks to address.
Furthermore, the Representative Plaintiffs will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel. Proposed Class Counsel Kevin Williams and Andrew Montoya of CCDC have successfully represented numerous plaintiffs in class actions of individuals with disabilities in state and federal court and across the country, having been found by the relevant courts to meet adequate representation requirements
15

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 27
under Rule 23. Williams Decl. at 2 ¶ 5; Montoya Decl. at 2 ¶ 5. Class counsel are thoroughly familiar with the ADA and the issues concerning the protection of the rights of people with disabilities. They have thoroughly investigated this case, measuring all relevant aspects of the trains at issue, reviewing hundreds of pages of documents, and taking and defending numerous depositions. Class Counsel also have the resources to litigate this case, as demonstrated by the settlement achieved in this case, which provides substantial and important injunctive relief to the class and by all of the other class action cases in which counsel have been involved.
Thus, Plaintiffs have met the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4). d. It is Appropriate to Certify the Class Under Rule 23(b)(2).
A class is proper under Rule 23(b)(2) if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). “Civil rights cases against parties charged with unlawful, classbased discrimination are prime examples” of appropriate Rule 23(b)(2) class actions. Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 614 (1997) (citations omitted). The requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are “almost automatically satisfied in actions primarily seeking injunctive relief.” Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, at 58 (3d Cir. 1994). Accordingly, numerous courts have certified classes consisting of individuals with mobility disabilities seeking removal of barriers or because policies of the defendant were found to apply to a class of individuals with disabilities. See, e.g., Colorado Cross-Disability Coal., 765 F.3d at 1217 (barriers to wheelchair accessibility); Colorado Cross-Disability Coal., 184 F.R.D. at 360
16

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 27
(D. Colo. 1999) (same); Lightbourn v. Cty. of El Paso, Tex., 118 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 1997) (mobility impaired and visually impaired voters brought class action, alleging Texas voting machines did not provide accessibility or privacy); Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (policies barring deaf drivers from working for UPS); Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 864-872 (9th Cir. 2001) (policies that discriminate against disabled prisoners and parolees).
The claims brought in this case are within the type of claims that Rule 23(b)(2) was intended to cover. Here, Plaintiffs seek broad declaratory and injunctive relief – system-wide improvements in RTD’s accessibility to its LRVs and policy changes with respect to the operators – on behalf of a large and amorphous class of all Denver residents and visitors who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices who are being denied meaningful access to RTD’s LRVs based on alleged policy and design violations. Additionally, the proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class seeks only class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief to address the alleged deficiencies and does not seek class damages. Therefore, certification of the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2) is proper.
e. An Opt-Out Class Should be Approved for Settlement Purposes under Rule 23(b)(3) Regarding the Release of Potential Damages Claims.
While Plaintiffs’ lawsuit did not seek damages, the Parties agreed in settlement, that it was reasonable for the class to release damages remedies provided that individual class members could opt-out of that release if they wished to preserve their damages claims under the ADA or Section 504. See Settlement Agreement ¶ V(A)(1).
17

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 27
“Under Rule 23(b)(3) . . . the Court may certify a class if the questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” Nakkhumpun v. Taylor, No. 12-CV-01038CMA-CBS, 2015 WL 6689399, at *3 (D. Colo. Nov. 3, 2015). “The predominance inquiry ‘focuses on the question of liability. . . .[I]f the liability issue is common to the class, common questions are held to predominate over individual questions.’ The purpose is to avoid a class action degenerating into a series of individual trials.” Id. (quoting Maez v. Springs Auto. Grp. LLC, 268 F.R.D. 391, 397 (D. Colo. 2010)).
Here, the key liability issue is common to the class: do the dimensions of LRV cars comply with Title II of the ADA and Section 504. This question predominates over any individual liability questions class members may have.
Certification of a class here is superior to other methods of adjudication as the case raises a single liability question and -- in the proposed Settlement Agreement -implements a single, class-wide injunctive solution. Class members who wish to pursue damages claims will, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), be able to opt-out of the damages release and pursue those claims individually. B. The Class Settlement Should Be Preliminarily Approved.
The purpose of the preliminary approval stage is to ascertain whether there is a reason to notify the class members of the proposed settlement and proceed with the fairness hearing. Lucas v. Kmart Corp., 234 F.R.D. 688, 693 (D. Colo. 2006) (citing Gautreaux v. Pierce, 690 F.2d 616, 621 n.3 (7th Cir. 1982)).
18

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 27

“If the preliminary evaluation of the proposed settlement does not disclose grounds to doubt its fairness or other obvious deficiencies . . . and appears to fall within the range of possible approval, the court should direct that notice under Rule 23(e) be given to the class members of a formal fairness hearing . . . .” Manual for Complex Litigation, § 30.41, at 236–37 (3d ed.1995). The Settlement Agreement in this case easily satisfies this standard.
The terms of the Settlement Agreement are summarized in the Background section above. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval.” Here, the proposed Settlement Agreement satisfies the standard for preliminary approval.
Under F.R.C.P. 23(e)(2),7 a class action settlement must be “fair, reasonable and adequate.” Lucas, 234 F.R.D. at 693 . “Under F.R.C.P. 23[(e)(2)], the trial court must determine whether the settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” In the Tenth Circuit, the following factors are to be analyzed in determining whether this standard is met:
(1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Lucas, 234 F.R.D. at 693 (citing Rutter & Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co, 314 F.3d 1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002).). This settlement meets all of these requirements.

7

Formerly Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(C).

19

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 27
1. The Settlement Agreement was Fairy and Honestly Negotiated. This case has been litigated over the course of a year and a half, during which time both Parties engaged in extensive written and deposition discovery, and filed a number of contested discovery and dispositive motions. See Lucas, 234 F.R.D. at 693. The settlement agreement itself took months to negotiate, and came only after several previous attempts at negotiating -- including a failed mediation. There have been multiple meetings, emails and telephone calls, and both sides have been represented by multiple counsel with expertise in the ADA and complex class action litigation. Both Parties gave up aspects of what they would have attempted to achieve through a trial. In addition, the Parties negotiated at arm’s-length regarding whether the LRVs needed to be accessible according to Plaintiffs’ allegations now or in the future. The Parties also negotiated terms of the Settlement Agreement in exchange for significant relief in redesigning and retrofitting the LRVs -- namely, provisions that require notice and meeting and conferring prior to bringing any further accessibility lawsuits against RTD. The monetary terms are fair and adequate. Representative Plaintiffs are not receiving any incentive payments for representing the class. While class members are releasing claims for damages under the ADA and Section 504, the Parties have agreed -- and Plaintiffs request above -- that the class be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) for purposes of that release, so class members with damages claims can opt-out and bring those claims individually. The Parties reached full agreement on injunctive terms before undertaking negotiations addressing Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs.
20

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 27
Class Counsel’s fees -- which will be the subject of a separate fee petition -- are also fair and adequate for the year and a half of extensive litigation leading up to this Settlement Agreement. Importantly, Class Counsel’s fees do not distract or diminish the extensive injunctive relief afforded to the Class. “The fact that the parties . . . did not discuss attorneys’ fees until all other issues were virtually finalized, is also indicative of a fair and arm's-length process.” Lucas, 234 F.R.D. at 693. See, e.g., Manual for Complex Litig., Fourth § 21.7 at 335 (2004) (“Separate negotiation of the class settlement before an agreement on fees is generally preferable.”). Finally, the Parties have entered into this proposed settlement because they “believe that the settlement is fair and adequate.” Tuten v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 12-CV-1561-WJM-MEH, 2013 WL 8480458, at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2013). Because these facts establish that the Settlement Agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable, preliminary approval should be granted.
2. Serious Questions of Fact and Law Were in Doubt. Serious questions of fact and law were in doubt: Were the existing designs of LRVs in compliance? Were operators asking required questions of those seated in accessibility seating areas when those who needed them boarded? Were changes required to the accessible areas of future LRVs? Was appropriate signage placed in appropriate areas? These are all serious questions of fact and law -- several of which were the subject of pending dispositive motions -- that remained in doubt if this case were to have continued to trial.
21

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 27
3. The Value of an Immediate Recovery Outweighs the Mere Possibility of Future Relief After Protracted Litigation.
The Parties vigorously disagreed on the question whether the LRVs were in compliance with the regulations. Dispositive motions on these questions were pending, but no trial date was in place. However the contested questions were resolved on motion or at trial, they were likely to be appealed, adding cost and time to the existing litigation.
In contrast, the Settlement Agreement will ensure that more accessible LRVs will be in service within a year of Final Settlement Date and that all LRVs will be improved within five years. The Settlement Agreement will ensure more accessible LRVs far sooner than continued litigation and appeal.
4. In the Judgment of the Parties, the Settlement is Fair and Reasonable.
The settlement is fair and reasonable. Williams Decl. at 2 ¶ 8. The settlement “was negotiated by competent counsel during arms-length negotiations,” and serious questions of law exist as to RTD’s compliance with important civil rights laws. Tuten, 2013 WL 8480458, at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2013). “As with any class action, litigation in this case would likely be expensive and time consuming.” Id. The Parties to this litigation have “vigorously advocated their respective positions throughout the pendency of the case.” Wilkerson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 171 F.R.D. 273, 284 (D. Colo. 1997). “Because the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel after significant discovery had occurred, the Court may presume the settlement to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Lucas, 234 F.R.D. at 693; see also, e.g., Wal–
22

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 27
Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir.) (A “‘presumption of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness may attach to a class settlement reached in arm’s-length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery.’” (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation, Third § 30.42 (1995))).
As evidenced by the fully executed Settlement Agreement, approved by both Parties and their counsel, the judgment of the Parties is that the settlement is fair and reasonable. “Counsel’s judgment as to the fairness of the agreement is entitled to considerable weight.” Marcus v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 209 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (D. Kan. 2002). Here, the Parties' counsel -- among whom are attorneys with substantial experience in complex class action litigation and disability class actions -- unanimously support this settlement. Lucas, at 695. C. The Class Notice, Objection, and Exclusion Procedures Should Be
Approved. As part of the settlement of a class action, this Court “must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” Rule 23(e)(1). Because Plaintiffs are requesting certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), such notice must be “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances.” Rule 23(c)(2)(B). The Class Notice Procedures, as defined by the Settlement Agreement, are reasonable and fairly calculated to alert class members of the settlement and inform them of their rights as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the Due Process clause of the United States and Colorado Constitutions.
23

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 27
The Settlement Agreement provides for posted notice, website notice, and
mailed notice:
• RTD shall post notice, in a form substantially similar to Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement, (1) on all mini-high ramps at each station providing Light Rail Service in a location easily visible to passengers; (2) at RTD ticket sales outlets at Denver Union Station, Civic Center, two locations in Boulder, and if these sales outlets are temporarily closed, at the temporary replacement ticket outlet for that location; (3) the Special Discount Card location at 1600 Blake Street (“Posted Notice”). The Posted Notice shall be displayed for no less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. RTD shall bear the costs associated with Posted Notice.
• There shall be appropriate website notice. RTD, CCDC, and CREEC shall post notice, in a form substantially similar to the Posted Notice on their respective websites (“Website Notice”). The Website Notice shall remain posted for no less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. RTD will establish a link to the page on which the Website Notice appears on its Light Rail Service website page (www.rtd-denver.com/lightrail.shtml) as well as its Accessibility website page (www.rtddenver.com/Accessibility.shtml). CCDC and CREEC will each put a link to the page on which the Website Notice appears on their respective main pages (www.ccdconline.org and www.creeclaw.org). RTD, CCDC, and CREEC shall bear the costs, if any, associated with Website Notice on their respective websites.
• RTD shall send via U.S. Mail notice, in a form substantially similar to Exhibit E to the Settlement Agreement (“Mailed Notice”), to no more than ten (10) Colorado disability rights organizations listed in Exhibit F to the Settlement Agreement. As reflected in Exhibit E, the Mailed Notice shall include a request that such notice be posted on the organization’s bulletin boards for at least thirty (30) business days. RTD shall bear the costs associated with Mailed Notice to the addresses, as provided on Exhibit F. CCDC and CREEC shall e-mail notice, in a form substantially similar to the Mailed Notice, to their members (“E-mailed Notice”). CCDC and CREEC shall bear the costs, if any, associated with E-mailed Notice.
Within ten days of the filing of this Motion , RTD will serve on the Attorney
General of the United States and the Attorney General of Colorado the documents listed
in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA Notice”). The Parties
24

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 27
agree that, for purposes of CAFA Notice, it is not feasible to provide the names of all Settlement Class Members pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(7)(A) and, therefore, the procedure set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(7)(B) will be utilized.
“If the proposal would bind class members, the court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). The Parties believe notice in this case comports with fairness and due process. The Class Notice Procedures detailed above and fully defined in Section IV of the Settlement Agreement summarize the proposed settlement, and explain to class members their right to exclude themselves from the damages release portion of the settlement, or object to the settlement and be heard in open court. D. The Parties Hereby Notify the Court of a Confidential Opt-Out Agreement.
Rule 23(e)(3) requires the Parties to “file a statement identifying any agreement made in connection with” the proposed settlement. As set forth in Paragraph V(B) of the Settlement Agreement, the Parties have entered a confidential opt-out agreement that “specif[ies] that if timely requests for exclusion are received from a specified number or percentage of Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Members, Defendant shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to proceed with a Rule 23(b)(2) settlement class only.” Settlement Agreement ¶ V(B)(1). This confidential opt-out agreement “will not provide a basis for Defendant to terminate the Rule 23(b)(2) class settlement.” Id. ¶ V(B)(2). It is being filed under separate cover with a motion to restrict public access.
25

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 27
III. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in this Motion and the attached proposed Settlement Agreement, the Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion, enter the proposed Preliminary Approval Order attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, and grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
/s/ Kevin W. Williams Kevin W. Williams Legal Program Director Andrew C. Montoya Legal Program Attorney Empire Park 1380 S, Colorado Boulevard, Suite 610-A Denver, Colorado 80222 kwilliams@ccdconline,org amontoya@ccdconline.org (720) 336-3584 (720) 336-1036 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 14, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will provide electronic service to the following:
Michael D. Plachy mplachy@lrrc.com
Jessica L. Fuller jfuller@lrrc.com Jenifer Ross-Amato Jenifer.ross@rtd-denver.com Mindy Marie Swaney mindy.swaney@rtd-denver.com
/s/ Kevin W. Williams Kevin W. Williams Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program Director
27

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 60
Exhibit 1

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 60
CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into between Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Diana Milne, Tina McDonald, José Torres-Vega, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock, Kimberley Jackson, Paulina Black, Ruthie McNair, Vrlina Nozliç, Chris Quinlan, Cheryl Quinlan, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and for others similarly situated, and Defendant Regional Transportation District (“RTD” or “Defendant”) (collectively, “the Parties”) as follows:
RECITALS WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, filed the lawsuit of Reiskin et al. v. Regional Transportation District on November 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM (“Litigation”). The Litigation involves claims and defenses relating to Defendant’s compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (“ADA”), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”), with regard to its light rail operations; WHEREAS, Defendant has denied and continues to deny any and all liability or wrongdoing to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class; by entering into this Agreement, Defendant does not admit any impropriety, wrongdoing or liability of any kind whatsoever, including any as to the claims raised in the Litigation, and on the contrary, expressly denies the same. Defendant has entered into this Agreement solely for the purpose of avoiding the expense, inconvenience, distraction and delay of the Litigation, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever,
Page 1 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 60
and without conceding Plaintiffs’ ability to certify the alleged putative Settlement Class on its merits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
WHEREAS, the Parties have conducted a thorough examination and investigation of the facts and law relating to the matters set forth in the Litigation, including ample written discovery and numerous depositions;
WHEREAS, the Parties, through their respective legal counsel, have engaged in extensive, arms-length negotiations;
WHEREAS, based upon extensive analysis of the facts and the law applicable to the claims and defenses in the Litigation, and taking into account the substantial benefits available to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class under the terms of this Settlement Agreement and the extensive burdens and expense of litigation, including the risks and uncertainties associated with protracted trials and appeals, Class Counsel has concluded that this Settlement Agreement provides substantial benefit to the Settlement Class and is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interest of the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have sought only injunctive relief and have not sought damages of any kind, compensatory or punitive, in this case;
WHEREAS, Defendant, although denying fault and liability, has likewise concluded that this Settlement Agreement is desirable to avoid the time, risk, and expense of defending protracted litigation, to fulfill its long-standing commitment to promoting and enhancing the rights of those with disabilities and to ensure compliance with all laws protecting the rights of the disabled, and to resolve completely and finally the pending and potential claims of the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class; and
Page 2 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 60

WHEREAS, the Parties, therefore, desire to settle the claims asserted in the Litigation

and to enter into this class settlement agreement related to the Litigation and the claims giving

rise thereto, in accordance with the provisions and upon the terms and conditions hereafter set

forth.

AGREEMENT

I. DEFINITIONS

In addition to certain terms that may be defined elsewhere in this Settlement Agreement,

the following defined terms are used herein:

1. Agreement or Settlement Agreement. “Agreement” or “Settlement

Agreement” shall mean this Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits hereto, which are an

integral part of the Settlement Agreement and are incorporated herein in their entirety by

reference.

2. Class Counsel. “Class Counsel” shall mean:

Kevin W. Williams, Esq. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 1385 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 610-A Denver, CO 80222 720-336-3584

Andrew C. Montoya, Esq. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 1385 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 610-A Denver, CO 80222 720-336-1036

3. Class Member. “Class Member” shall mean a member of the Settlement

Class, as defined herein.

4. Class Notice and Notice Procedures. “Class Notice and Notice

Procedures” shall mean the notice and procedures to be approved by the Court, as more fully

described in Section IV below.

Page 3 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 60
5. Court. The “Court” shall mean the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in Case No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM.
6. Final Order and Judgment. “Final Order and Judgment” shall mean the order of the Court approving this Settlement Agreement, and the corresponding final judgment, a mutually agreeable form of which will be submitted by the parties prior to final approval.
7. Final Settlement Date. “Final Settlement Date” is the date upon which the Court’s Final Order and Judgment becomes “final,” which shall be as follows:
(a) If no appeal is taken therefrom, the first day after the date on which the time to appeal therefrom expires;
(b) If an appeal is taken therefrom, the first day after the date on which all appeals therefrom, including petitions for rehearing or reargument, petitions for rehearing en banc, petitions for review, and petitions for certiorari or any other form of review, have been finally disposed of in a manner resulting in an affirmance of the Final Judgment and Order; or
(c) On a date after the signing and entry of the Final Judgment and Order that counsel for the Parties agree to in writing.
8. Light Rail Service. “Light Rail Service” shall mean all corridors of the RTD electric railway along a right-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, or in streets using light rail vehicles, including without limitation vehicles, seating configuration on the vehicles, track, operators, station platforms, and mini-high ramps and transit service provided to passengers. Light Rail Service shall specifically not include commuter rail service.
9. Litigation. “Litigation” shall mean the lawsuit styled Reiskin et al. v. Regional Transportation District in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM.
Page 4 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 60
10. Representative Plaintiffs. “Representative Plaintiffs” shall mean Julie Reiskin, Douglas Howey, Tina McDonald, Randy Kilbourn, and William Joe Beaver, individually and as representatives of the Settlement Class
11. Person(s). “Person(s)” shall mean any natural person or individual. 12. Plaintiffs. “Plaintiffs” shall mean Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Diana Milne, Tina McDonald, José Torres-Vega, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock, Kimberley Jackson, Paulina Black, Ruthie McNair, Vrlina Nozliç, Chris Quinlan, Cheryl Quinlan, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, and the Colorado CrossDisability Coalition (“CCDC”). 13. Preliminary Approval Order. “Preliminary Approval Order” shall have the meaning set forth in Section III(B) below, and it shall be substantially in the form and substance of Exhibit A hereto. 14. Release or Released Claims. The “Release” and “Released Claims” shall have the meaning set forth in Section XI below. 15. RTD. “RTD” shall mean Regional Transportation District. For purposes of the Release in Section XI below, references to RTD shall include its past, present, or future officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, brokers, representatives, regional directors, field marketing directors, producers, or shareholders of RTD; and any successors, assigns, or persons acting on behalf of any of the foregoing. 16. RTD Counsel. “RTD Counsel” shall mean:
Jenifer M. Ross-Amato, Esq. Mindy Swaney, Esq. Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street Denver, CO 80202 (303) 299-2479
Page 5 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 60
Michael D. Plachy, Esq. Jessica L. Fuller, Esq. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One Tabor Center, Suite 3000 1200 Seventeenth Street Denver, CO 80202 (303) 623-9000 17. Settlement. “Settlement” shall mean the terms and conditions of settlement set forth in this Agreement and the attached exhibits. 18. Settlement Class, Class, and Settlement Class Members. “Settlement Class” or “Class” or “Settlement Class Member(s)” shall mean all Persons in Colorado who are qualified individuals with disabilities who use Wheelchairs, as that term is defined below, who have used, currently use, or may in the future use RTD’s Light Rail Service. The Settlement Class shall not include any Persons who timely elect to exclude themselves from this Settlement. 19. Wheelchair. “Wheelchair” shall have the meaning assigned to it in 49 C.F.R. § 37.3 and shall include all devices used by individuals with mobility impairments specifically to assist with ambulation, by way of example but not limitation, manual and motorized wheelchairs, scooters, and walkers, so long as such devices fit within the definition of Wheelchair provided in 49 C.F.R. § 37.3. II. BENEFITS TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS A. Retrofit of Existing Light Rail Vehicles. 1. RTD agrees to retrofit its existing 172 light rail vehicles (“LRVs”) in a manner substantially in accordance with Exhibit B attached hereto (“Retrofit Project”). 2. The Retrofit Project will be completed no later than sixty (60) months from the Final Settlement Date; provided, however, that RTD will complete the following milestones during that sixty-month period:
Page 6 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 60
(a) RTD shall retrofit a minimum of 17 LRVs within one (1) year of the Final Settlement Date;
(b) RTD shall retrofit a cumulative total of 39 LRVs within two (2) years of the Final Settlement Date;
(c) RTD shall retrofit a cumulative total of 74 LRVs within three (3) years of the Final Settlement Date;
(d) RTD shall retrofit a cumulative total of 119 LRVs within four (4) years of the Final Settlement Date; and
(e) RTD shall retrofit a cumulative total of 172 LRVs within five (5) years of the Final Settlement Date.
3. If RTD is unable to comply with the provisions in Section II(A)(2) as a result of a “force majeure event,” any such non-compliance will not constitute a breach or violation of this Settlement Agreement. For purposes of this provision, a force majeure event shall mean an event beyond the control of RTD, which prevents RTD from compliance with the schedule above, including, but not limited to: (1) an act of God (fires, explosions, earthquakes, floods, etc.); (2) other exceptionally adverse weather events or conditions; (3) a riot, strike, lock out, work stoppage, labor dispute, or other civil disturbance, whether lawful or not; (4) discontinuation of electricity supply or other necessary utilities; (5) an act or threatened act of terrorism; or (6) a substantial loss of supply of critical parts. In case of such a force majeure event, RTD will inform Class Counsel within one week of the event, describing the event, stating the additional time the event will add to one or more of the deadlines in Section II(A)(2), and providing supporting documentation.
Page 7 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 60
4. Every twelve (12) months from the Final Settlement Date and until completion of the Retrofit Project, RTD will provide a status report to Class Counsel on the progress of the Retrofit Project regarding the number of LRVs retrofitted to date and work expected to be completed in the next twelve months.
5. Two Representative Plaintiffs, one Class Counsel, and one Paralegal will have the opportunity to view one (1) retrofitted LRV pursuant to the Retrofit Project within twelve (12) months from the Final Settlement Date and take measurements and photographs to assess whether the retrofitted LRV complies with Section II(A)(1). The retrofitted LRV will be made available for no more than two (2) hours on a mutually agreeable date, at a station location and time of day that RTD in its sole discretion selects.
B. New Light Rail Vehicles. 1. The next twenty-nine (29) new LRVs that RTD adds to its Light Rail
Service (“New LRV”) will be substantially similar in design to the vehicle depicted in Exhibit C attached hereto.
2. In these New LRVs, the flooring within the designated spaces for passengers using mobility devices will depict the International Symbol of Accessibility.
3. Prior to the delivery of the first of these New LRVs, RTD will facilitate a public meeting to present a video produced by the LRV manufacturer demonstrating the accessibility features of the New LRVs and answer any questions about those features.
4. Two Representative Plaintiffs, one Class Counsel, and one paralegal will have the opportunity to view one (1) New LRV within ninety (90) calendar days of the date the first New LRV is placed into revenue service and take measurements and photographs to assess whether the New LRV complies with Section II(B)(1). The New LRV will be made available
Page 8 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 60
for no more than two (2) hours on a mutually agreeable date, at a station location and time of day that RTD in its sole discretion selects.
C. Policy and Training Concerning Operator Conduct. 1. RTD shall have a policy directing that operators providing Light Rail
Service shall not discriminate against riders who use Wheelchairs in violation of the ADA or Section 504, specifically, and without limitation, in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 37.169(j) and shall include such policy in its training of all such operators.
2. RTD shall provide mandatory refresher training on the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) on an annual basis to its light rail operators, supervisors of light rail operators, and light rail controllers so as to ensure operators providing Light Rail Service are aware of their obligation not to discriminate against riders who use Wheelchairs (“Refresher Training”).
3. If newly employed, these employees will receive this training as part of their initial training and will then be exempt from Refresher Training during their first year of employment.
4. RTD will provide a copy of the materials for the Refresher Training to Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, or a staff member designee of Colorado CrossDisability Coalition who reports to Ms. Reiskin or Mr. Lewis, within thirty (30) calendar days of the Final Settlement Date.
5. Ms. Reiskin, Mr. Lewis or their designee, on behalf of the Class, will have thirty (30) calendar days to provide suggested comments on the Refresher Training materials.
6. Nothing in this Section II(C) shall limit RTD’s ability to seek input from other third parties and organizations regarding the Refresher Training materials.
Page 9 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 60
7. RTD, in its sole discretion, shall make the final determination as to the content of the Refresher Training materials and any future revisions, additions, or updates thereto.
8. If at any time during the Term of this Agreement, RTD materially modifies its policies or training so that they no longer satisfy Section II(C)(1), RTD shall so notify Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, or a staff member designee of CCDC who reports to Ms. Reiskin or Mr. Lewis within thirty (30) calendar days of such modification.
D. Pre-Litigation Procedure. 1. All Named and Representative Plaintiffs, including CCDC and any other
Settlement Class Member working with or at the behest of any Named or Representative Plaintiff, including CCDC (collectively, “Complainant(s)”) must comply with the following provisions as a condition precedent to filing litigation against RTD regarding any claim of alleged non-compliance with the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, or similar law with respect to accessibility for individuals who use Wheelchairs, regardless of whether such claim is related to the claims that were or could have been asserted in the Litigation:
(a) If any Complainant believes that they have a legal claim against RTD concerning accessibility for individuals who use Wheelchairs, as a condition precedent to filing suit, the Complainant will provide written notice to RTD, describing the basis for the claim, including all relevant facts and reasons why it allegedly constitutes discrimination based on a disability or violation of the ADA, in sufficient detail for RTD to assess the claim. Written notice shall be by e-mail to the following e-mail address: adaprelitigation@rtd-denver.com. If RTD receives such a communication (by e-mail or other written notice) from a Complainant that does not provide sufficient detail, RTD will request any additional information it deems
Page 10 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 60
necessary from the Complainant. The Complainant shall cooperate in good faith with RTD during this process.
(b) Within thirty (30) calendar days of RTD’s receipt of the written notice or any additional information provided pursuant to RTD’s request, whichever is later, RTD will contact the Complainant (or their attorney, if represented by counsel), provided that the Complainant has given RTD an accurate means of contacting them, and, within thirty (30) calendar days of contact, make an RTD representative available with authority to resolve the claim to meet and confer in person or by telephone with the Complainant (and/or their counsel) (“Meet and Confer”).
(c) RTD will have a period of thirty (30) calendar days following the Meet and Confer to provide a written response to the Complainant detailing either the measures it has taken to resolve the claim or why it believes no additional action is warranted. Nothing in this Section II(D)(1)(c) shall prevent the Parties from agreeing to further meetings.
2. Only after following all procedures in Section II(D)(1)(a)-(c), or if RTD fails to comply with Section II(D)(1)(a)-(c), may a Complainant file litigation against RTD concerning the matter described in the written notice; provided, however, that such litigation must be filed within 180 days of RTD’s written response under Section II(D)(1)(c), unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing. A Complainant who fails to file litigation within 180 days of RTD’s written response under Section II(D)(1)(c) is not barred from filing such litigation, but must first comply with this Section II(D).
3. If RTD does not respond within thirty (30) calendar days of the Meet and Confer, it will waive its rights under the pre-litigation procedure outlined in Section II(D)(1)(a)-
Page 11 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 60
(c). In that case, the Complainant will be deemed to have complied with the provisions of Section II(D).
4. If the Complainant does not respond to RTD’s efforts to schedule the Meet and Confer within thirty (30) calendar days, or participate in the Meet and Confer, RTD will be deemed to have complied with the provisions of Section II(D).
5. Should a Complainant file litigation without following the procedures in Section II(D)(1)(a)-(c), RTD will provide written notice to the Complainant (or its counsel, if represented) that will include a copy of this Settlement Agreement and request that the Complainant voluntarily dismiss the claim without prejudice and complete the conferral process in this Section II(D). If the Complainant refuses to dismiss the claim following notice by RTD, it shall be dismissed with prejudice by the Court in which the action was filed.
6. During the pendency of the Litigation and negotiation of the Settlement Agreement, certain Plaintiffs raised issues with RTD concerning RTD’s paratransit service called Access-a-Ride and the design of certain vehicles in RTD’s fixed-route bus fleet. The Parties acknowledge and confirm that these matters will be subject to the procedures set forth in this Section II(D); however, the Parties, by written agreement and as part of their ongoing discussions, may shorten or waive any provisions in Section II(D) as it pertains to these issues.
7. The Parties agree that the provisions contained in this Section II(D) are an appropriate and enforceable alternative means of dispute resolution contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §12212.
E. Quarterly Meetings. 1. The Parties agree to cooperate to promote a constructive dialogue
concerning issues related to the ADA concerning Light Rail Service. To this end, RTD agrees to
Page 12 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 60
meet quarterly with Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, or a staff member designee of CCDC who reports to Ms. Reiskin or Mr. Lewis, on behalf of the Class.
2. At the quarterly meetings, RTD will provide an oral status report regarding the types of complaints received, the resolution of those complaints, and any changes to RTD policies and procedures as a result of those complaints during the previous quarter concerning Light Rail Service. Subsequent to the meeting, RTD will produce minutes of the meeting to be shared with all attendees. If Class Counsel would like more information, they may submit a request pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act. The quarterly meetings will occur at CCDC’s office or such other location within the RTD district as CCDC may elect.
3. In addition to its obligations set forth in Section II(D) above, Class Counsel, on behalf of CCDC and CREEC, commit to raise any questions as to which they are considering litigation in one of these meetings or in writing at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to filing except as related to the issues discussed in Section II(D)(6), which are already the subject of ongoing discussions. III. PRELIMINARY COURT APPROVAL
A. Motion for Preliminary Approval. 1. Within ten (10) business days of the complete execution of this Settlement
Agreement, Plaintiffs shall file a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Settlement (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”), which RTD will not oppose.
2. In that Motion, Plaintiffs will request the Court certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Specifically, Plaintiffs will move the Court for certification for settlement purposes of the Settlement Class, which will include a Rule 23(b)(2) class with respect to the injunctive relief described herein and Rule 23(b)(3) optout class with respect to the release of damages claims, which RTD will not oppose.
Page 13 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 60
3. In their Motion for Preliminary Approval, Plaintiffs will also request the Court appoint Class Counsel, grant preliminary approval of the Settlement and Class Notice Procedures, approve and set the deadline for Settlement Class Members to object to the Settlement, enjoin Settlement Class Members from initiating or prosecuting any litigation related to the claims resolved or released by this Agreement against RTD pending the Court’s entry of a Final Order and Judgment, and set a final approval hearing within 90 calendar days of the Preliminary Approval Order, or at the Court’s earliest convenience thereafter.
4. As more fully discussed in Section IX below, all actions associated with preliminary approval and certification are undertaken on the condition that all such certifications and designations are automatically vacated if this Settlement Agreement is terminated or disapproved, in whole or in material part, by the Court, any appellate Court, or any other Court of review, or if the Settlement Agreement is otherwise revoked or terminated, in which event this Agreement shall not be offered, received, or construed as an admission or as evidence for any purpose, including certifiability of any class.
B. Preliminary Approval Order. 1. Plaintiffs shall request the Court enter its Preliminary Approval Order
substantially in the form and substance of Exhibit A attached hereto. IV. CLASS NOTICE PROCEDURES
A. Timing and Reasonableness of Class Notice. 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1), within fourteen (14) calendar days of
the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, notice of this Settlement will be provided to Settlement Class Members, as detailed below in this Section IV (collectively, “Class Notice”).
2. The Parties agree that the Class Notice Procedures agreed to herein are reasonable and fairly calculated to alert Class Members of the Settlement and inform them of
Page 14 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 60
their rights under the Settlement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the Due Process clause of the United States and Colorado Constitutions.
B. Posted Notice. 1. RTD shall post notice, in a form substantially similar to Exhibit D, (1) on
all mini-high ramps at each station providing Light Rail Service in a location easily visible to passengers; (2) at RTD ticket sales outlets at Denver Union Station, Civic Center, two locations in Boulder, and if these sales outlets are temporarily closed, at the temporary replacement ticket outlet for that location; (3) the Special Discount Card location at 1600 Blake Street (“Posted Notice”). The Posted Notice shall be displayed for no less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days.
2. RTD shall bear the costs associated with Posted Notice. C. Website Notice.
1. RTD, CCDC, and CREEC shall post notice, in a form substantially similar to the Posted Notice, on their respective websites (“Website Notice”). The Website Notice shall remain posted for no less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. RTD will establish a link to the page on which the Website Notice appears on its Light Rail Service website page (www.rtddenver.com/lightrail.shtml) as well as its Accessibility website page (www.rtddenver.com/Accessibility.shtml). CCDC and CREEC will each put a link to the page on which the Website Notice appears on their respective main pages (www.ccdconline.org and www.creeclaw.org).
2. RTD, CCDC, and CREEC shall bear the costs, if any, associated with Website Notice on their respective websites.
D. Mailed Notice. 1. RTD shall send via U.S. Mail notice, in a form substantially similar to
Exhibit E (“Mailed Notice”), to no more than ten (10) Colorado disability rights organizations Page 15 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 60
listed in Exhibit F. As reflected in Exhibit E, the Mailed Notice shall include a request that such notice be posted on the organization’s bulletin boards for at least thirty (30) business days.
2. RTD shall bear the costs associated with Mailed Notice to the addresses, as provided on Exhibit F. RTD shall have no obligation to perform any additional search for, or otherwise attempt to verify addresses, including as to any returned, undelivered Mailed Notices.
E. E-mailed Notice. 1. CCDC and CREEC shall e-mail notice, in a form substantially similar to
the Mailed Notice, to their members (“E-mailed Notice”). 2. CCDC and CREEC shall bear the costs, if any, associated with E-mailed
Notice. F. CAFA Notice. Within ten (10) days of the filing of the Motion for Preliminary Approval, RTD will
serve on the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorney General of Colorado the documents listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA Notice”). The Parties agree that, for purposes of CAFA Notice, it is not feasible to provide the names of all Settlement Class Members pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(7)(A) and, therefore, the procedure set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(7)(B) will be utilized. V. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION & OBJECTIONS
A. Exclusions. 1. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any member of the Settlement
Class may exclude him or herself from the portion of the Settlement Agreement that releases claims for damages by sending a written request for exclusion to Class Counsel and RTD’s Counsel within thirty (30) calendar days of the commencement of Class Notice, the specific date and time which will be specified in the Class Notice.
Page 16 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 60
2. The written request for exclusion must include the Settlement Class Member’s name, address, and telephone number; must be signed by the Settlement Class Member; and clearly identify the Settlement Class Member’s desire to be excluded.
3. Class Counsel and their respective organizations agree not to represent or provide legal advice to any person seeking exclusion from the Settlement Class in any claims against RTD related to those claims brought in the Litigation.
B. Confidential Opt-Out Agreement. 1. The Parties will agree to a Confidential Opt-Out Agreement that will
specify that if timely requests for exclusion are received from a specified number or percentage of Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Members, Defendant shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to proceed with a Rule 23(b)(2) settlement class only.
2. The Confidential Opt-Out Agreement will not provide a basis for Defendant to terminate the Rule 23(b)(2) class settlement.
3. The Confidential Opt-Out Agreement will be filed under seal and shall remain confidential, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
C. Objections. 1. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any member of the Settlement
Class may object to the proposed Settlement Agreement by filing written objections with the Court within sixty (60) calendar days of the commencement of Class Notice, the specific date and time which will be specified in the Class Notice.
2. Any such objections must include all grounds, including all bases in law and in fact, for each such objection.
Page 17 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 60
3. Only Settlement Class Members that timely object in compliance with the procedures in this Section V(C) shall have the right to present any objections or arguments at the Final Approval Hearing. VI. CLASS COUNSEL’S FEES AND COSTS
A. Fees and Costs. 1. Subject to Court approval, RTD agrees to pay Class Counsel the following
amounts, inclusive of all attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and gross receipts tax: $125,000 within thirty (30) calendar days of the Final Settlement Date; $125,000 by no later than March 1, 2018; and $125,000 by no later than March 1, 2019. This payment schedule may be amended or modified by written agreement of RTD and Class Counsel without further Court approval.
2. RTD and Class Counsel agree this amount is fair and represents fair compensation for work performed by Class Counsel through Final Approval. Class Counsel is not entitled to any additional remuneration in connection with the Litigation or this Settlement Agreement, from RTD or the Settlement Class, beyond the payment pursuant to this Section VI(A)(1) and any amounts awarded pursuant to Paragraph X(C)(3).
3. A class representative award (incentive award) has not been and will not be requested by, or awarded to, any Named Plaintiff or Representative Plaintiff.
B. Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. At least one (1) week before the deadline for filing objections, Plaintiffs shall file a motion, which RTD will not oppose, requesting an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount agreed to by the Parties in Section VI(A)(1).
Page 18 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 60
VII. FINAL COURT APPROVAL A. Motion for Final Approval. At least two (2) weeks prior to the final approval hearing, Plaintiffs shall file, and
Defendant shall not oppose, a motion seeking the Court’s entry of a mutually acceptable order granting final approval of this Settlement Agreement, responding to any objections to the Settlement, and entering final judgment.
B. Final Approval Hearing. The Parties shall appear at the Final Approval Hearing set by the Court, and shall cooperate in defending this Settlement Agreement and seeking its final approval, including in addressing any timely objections to the Settlement Agreement. C. Final Approval and Certification. Upon the Court’s approval of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties will request the Court, on or after the period provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d), enter a Final Order and Judgment. VIII. SUMMARY OF DEADLINES AND TIMING Table 1, below, summarizes the key deadlines detailed above in Sections III through VII. This table is provided as a summary and visual aid only. The detailed written terms, conditions, and explanations in this Settlement Agreement govern and, in the event of any discrepancy with Table 1, shall be controlling.
Page 19 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 60

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF KEY DEADLINES
Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Preliminary Approval (10 business days from execution of Settlement Agreement)
Completion of CAFA Notice (10 days from Motion for Preliminary Approval)
Preliminary Approval Order

Class Notice Procedures Commence (within 14 days of Preliminary Approval Order)

Deadline for Settlement Class Members to Request Exclusion (30 days from
commencement of Class Notice Procedures)

Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
(1 week prior to objection deadline)
Deadline for Settlement Class Members to Object
(60 days from commencement of Class Notice Procedures)

Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Final Approval
(2 weeks prior to Final Approval Hearing)

Final Approval Hearing (Parties will request hearing within 90 days of Preliminary Approval Order)

Final Order and Judgment (no less than 90 days after CAFA Notice)
Final Settlement Date (after expiration of deadline to appeal)

First Payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (30 days after Final Settlement Date)
Page 20 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 60
IX. THE EFFECT OF DISAPPROVAL OR TERMINATION OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT A. This Agreement is for settlement purposes only, and neither the fact of, nor any
provision contained in this Settlement Agreement or its exhibits, nor any action taken hereunder shall constitute, be construed as, or be admissible as evidence as any admission of the validity of: (1) any claim or any fact alleged by Plaintiffs in the action or of any wrongdoing, fault, violation of law, or liability of any kind on the part of RTD or any admission by RTD of any claim or allegation made by Plaintiffs in this action; or (2) any claim or any fact alleged by RTD in the action or of any wrongdoing, fault, violation of law, or liability of any kind on the part of any of the Plaintiffs or an admission by any of the Plaintiffs of any claim or allegation made by RTD in this action.
B. If the Court fails to approve this Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Agreement shall be null and void, and obligations under this Settlement Agreement shall terminate. Neither this Settlement Agreement nor any communication in the course of this Settlement shall be deemed an admission by either party nor shall this Settlement Agreement be used in any way to subvert or limit the claims or defenses in the Litigation.
C. If the Court materially modifies a provision of the Settlement Agreement or Final Judgment, or if any of the terms of the Settlement Agreement are materially impaired, Plaintiffs and/or RTD, in their sole independent discretion, shall have the option of terminating the Settlement Agreement in writing within thirty (30) calendar days. The Parties shall each have the right to determine materiality in connection with this provision, provided, however, such determination is made in good faith and in compliance with prevailing law regarding materiality.
D. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall prejudice the rights of RTD in any way to: (a) oppose class certification in the Litigation should this Settlement Agreement not be
Page 21 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 60
approved or implemented; (b) oppose class certification in the Litigation should this Settlement Agreement be altered or modified in any material way by the Court; or (c) to oppose certification of any other proposed or existing class arising out of the claims asserted herein. X. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS
A. Scope of Dispute Resolution. 1. The dispute resolution process set forth in this Section X applies solely
and exclusively to enforcement of the terms set out in Section II(A)-(C) herein. Nothing in this Section X is intended to or shall be interpreted to nullify or diminish the Parties’ rights and obligations under the pre-litigation procedures described in Section II(D).
B. Conferral. 1. If any Party believes that a dispute exists relating to the performance or
interpretation of the provisions in Section II(A)-(C) of this Settlement Agreement, it shall notify the undersigned counsel for all other Parties in writing, describing the dispute and clearly identifying that they are invoking the dispute resolution process under this Section X.
2. The Party receiving the notice shall respond in writing to such notice within ten (10) business days of receipt of the notice.
3. Within ten (10) business days of receipt of the response, Class Counsel and RTD’s Counsel shall meet and confer by telephone or in person, and attempt in good faith to resolve the issue informally.
C. Alternative Dispute Resolution. 1. If, after completing the steps set out in Section X(B), either Party believes
that a dispute still exists relating to the performance or interpretation of Section II(A)-(C) of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties shall participate in good faith in at least one mediation session, which the Parties agree should, if possible, be conducted by Magistrate Judge Kristen L.
Page 22 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 60
Mix. The Parties agree to cooperate in filing a motion under Local Rule 16.6(a) requesting that the dispute be referred to mediation before Magistrate Judge Mix, each Party to pay its own attorneys’ fees and costs. If Magistrate Judge Mix is unavailable, the Parties shall request that the Court select an alternative Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to conduct the mediation.
2. If the mediation is unsuccessful, either Party may seek further relief from the Court. However, complete satisfaction of the provisions in this Section X shall be conditions precedent to any Party seeking Court intervention.
3. Should any matter proceed to Court under this Section X, attorneys’ fees and costs will be awarded in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 12205. XI. RELEASES.
A. Release of Claims. 1. Effective upon the Final Settlement Date, Plaintiffs and all Settlement
Class Members shall release, acquit, and forever discharge RTD from any and all liability arising from the Released Claims, and shall not institute, maintain, or assert any claims against RTD based on the Released Claims, which are defined as follows:
(a) If the Court certifies the Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), as requested by the Parties, “Released Claims” shall mean any and all claims or causes of action (including, but not limited to, claims for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, actual or other damages, attorneys’ fees and costs other than specifically provided in Sections VI and X hereof, and any penalty, exemplary or punitive damages, or fine) under Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, including without limitation any regulations implementing all or a portion of the ADA or Section 504 or any similar local or state law, related to or arising out of RTD’s Light Rail Service to individuals who use Wheelchairs, including without
Page 23 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 60
limitation any and all vehicles, platforms (including high blocks, mini-high platforms and ramps thereto), and operator conduct, whether known or unknown, liquidated or unliquidated, accrued or unaccrued, fixed or contingent, that were, or could have been, alleged or asserted, now or in the future, by Plaintiffs or any Settlement Class Member against RTD in the Litigation. The Released Claims specifically do not include: (1) claims under Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that arise from RTD Light Rail station parking lots, ticket vending machines, or an accessible path of travel to the station; (2) tort claims for personal injury arising under common law; or (3) claims for employment discrimination.
(b) The Released Claims do not constitute a relinquishment or waiver of any Settlement Class Member’s right to utilize RTD’s ADA grievance and complaint procedure to report their experiences of RTD’s daily operations, including any specific instances of operator conduct.
(c) If the Court certifies the Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(2) only, “Released Claims” shall have the same meaning as defined above, except that it shall exclude claims or causes of action for actual damages.
(d) Plaintiffs agree not to assert any Released Claim against RTD, or encourage any third party to assert a Released Claim against RTD.
2. Effective upon the Final Settlement Date, RTD shall release, acquit, and forever discharge Plaintiffs from any and all liability arising from RTD’s counterclaim for breach of contract, as detailed in the Litigation.
B. Release of Unknown Claims. In connection with this Release and limited to the Released Claims, Plaintiffs acknowledge, for themselves and the Settlement Class Members, that they are aware that they may hereafter discover claims presently unknown or unsuspected, or facts in addition to or
Page 24 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 60
different from those that they now know or believe to be true with respect to the Released Claims. Nevertheless, it is the intention of Plaintiffs in executing the Release, for themselves and the Settlement Class, that they fully, finally, and forever settle and release all such matters, and all claims relating thereto, which exist or might have existed (whether or not previously or currently asserted in any action or proceeding) with respect to the Released Claims. To the extent that any applicable statutes or principles of law limit the Release of unknown claims, such statutes and principles shall be knowingly and voluntarily waived to the maximum extent permitted by law by Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class.
C. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. The Release shall cover, without limitation, any and all claims for attorneys’ fees, costs, or disbursements incurred by Class Counsel or any other counsel representing Plaintiffs or any Settlement Class Member, or by Plaintiffs or any Class Member in connection with or related in any manner to the Litigation, the Settlement, and/or the Released Claims, except to the extent otherwise specified in this Settlement Agreement. XII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Best Interests of the Class. Class Counsel and Plaintiffs represent that they are seeking to protect the interests of the entire Settlement Class and believe that this Settlement Agreement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs agree not to request exclusion from the Class or to encourage others to do so. B. Choice of Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by federal procedural law and the substantive laws of the State of Colorado, except to the extent otherwise specified in this Settlement Agreement.
Page 25 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 60
C. Communications Regarding Settlement. The Settlement Agreement is not confidential. At a mutually agreeable time after Class Notice, the Parties shall issue a joint press release regarding this Settlement in substantially the form of Exhibit G hereto and the Parties shall ensure that any other mass and/or generalized statements to the media or press will be consistent with this press release or will have the prior approval of the other party. D. Communications with Class Members. Communications relating to this Settlement Agreement with Persons who have received Class Notice will be handled by Class Counsel, provided that nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to prevent RTD from communicating with Settlement Class Members in the normal course of business, or from resolving any given complaint by a Settlement Class Member, even if they otherwise fall within the scope of the Settlement Agreement, before the Settlement Agreement is finally approved. E. Continuing Jurisdiction of the Court. The Parties agree that the Court shall retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction for the limited purpose of resolving disputes that require Court intervention as set forth in Section X. F. Cooperation. The Parties shall take all reasonable action to support and defend this Settlement Agreement and obtain final Court approval of the same. The Parties further commit to a broader partnership to enhance policies for accommodating the needs of passengers on RTD vehicles. To that end, no Party shall publicly take a position contrary to the substance of this Settlement Agreement with respect to access to Light Rail Service for Settlement Class Members. Furthermore, CCDC shall update its website page discussing the Litigation in a manner consistent with the terms and spirit of this Settlement Agreement, including as reflected in
Page 26 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 60
Section IV, and will take any reference to Geoff Ames relating to this Litigation off of its website.
G. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute a duplicate original. H. Effective Date. The effective date of this Settlement Agreement shall be the first day upon which all Parties have executed this Settlement Agreement. I. Entire Agreement. This Settlement Agreement and its exhibits set forth the entire Agreement between the Parties relating to the Settlement of the Litigation and may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by Class Counsel and RTD’s Counsel. Unless such notification or amendment materially alters any portion of Section II(A)-(C), or unless otherwise ordered by the Court, it can be made without notice to Class Members. There are no other representations or warranties between the Settling Parties relating to the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement that are not contained in this Settlement Agreement or that are being relied upon by either party to this Settlement Agreement. J. Extensions. The Parties, through their counsel, may agree to any reasonable extensions of time in connection with provisions of this Settlement Agreement. Such extensions must be in writing to be enforceable. However, to the extent a requested extension of time is material to the rights and benefits of the Settlement Class Members, the Parties shall seek the Court’s approval of any such requested extensions.
Page 27 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 60
K. Further Assurances. The Parties agree that upon the request of any one of them, they will execute and deliver such further documents and undertake such further action as may reasonably be required to effect any of the agreements and covenants contained in this Settlement Agreement. L. Mutually Drafted. This Settlement Agreement is the product of negotiations between the Parties and shall be given fair interpretation. Each of the Parties hereto expressly acknowledges that this Settlement Agreement was, and shall be deemed to have been, mutually prepared, drafted, and negotiated, such that the rule of construction that ambiguities are resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Settlement Agreement. M. No Admissions. This Settlement Agreement shall in no event be construed or deemed to be evidence or an admission or a concession on the part of any Party with respect to any claim of any fault or liability or damages. N. Parties Bound. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, the Class Members, Releasees, and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. O. Postmarks. Whenever a Class Member is required to provide notice or submit materials by a certain date, the notice or submission shall be timely only if it is postmarked on or before the date it is due and is in fact received by the intended recipient within ten days thereafter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, objections to the Settlement Agreement and notices of appearance must be actually delivered to and received by the intended recipient on or before the date they are due.
Page 28 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 60
P. Tax Obligations. By virtue of this Settlement Agreement, RTD and its counsel express no advice, belief, or opinion regarding the tax consequences, if any, of any payment made in connection with this Settlement Agreement. Q. Term. The term of this Settlement Agreement shall be five (5) years from the Final Settlement Date or the date on which all disputes raised pursuant to Section X hereof shall be resolved, whichever is latest. R. Unambiguous Contract. This Settlement Agreement was drafted by counsel for the Parties at arm’s length and its terms are clear and unambiguous. No parol or other evidence may be offered to explain, construe, contradict, or clarify its terms, its intent, or the circumstances under which it was made or executed.
Page 29 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 60
I, the undersigned, have fully read and understand the terms of the foregoing Settlement Agreement, have had ample opportunity to consult with my legal counsel regarding the scope and meaning of this Settlement Agreement, and being fully advised, freely and voluntarily execute and agree to this Settlement Agreement. I represent and warrant that I am authorized and have legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement, and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement that is binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms. JULIE REISKIN
Date: JON JAIME LEWIS
Plaintiff Date: WILLIAM JOE BEAVER
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: DOUGLAS HOWEY
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date:
Page 30 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 60
I, the undersigned, have fully read and understand the terms of the foregoing Settlement Agreement, have had ample opportunity to consult with my legal counsel regarding the scope and meaning of this Settlement Agreement, and being fully advised, freely and voluntarily execute and agree to this Settlement Agreement. I represent and warrant that I am authorized and have legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement, and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement that is binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms.
JULIE REISKIN
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date:
JON JAIME LEWIS
Plainti Date:
WILLIAM JOE BEAVER
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date:
DOUGLAS HOWEY
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date:
Page 30 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 60
I, the undersigned, have fully read and understand the terms of the foregoing Settlement Agreement, have had ample opportunity to consult with my legal counsel regarding the scope and meaning of this Settlement Agreement, and being fully advised, freely and voluntarily execute and agree to this Settlement Agreement. I represent and warrant that I am authorized and have legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement, and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement that is binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms.
JULIE REISKIN
_________________________________________ Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: ___________________________________
JON JAIME LEWIS
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
WILLIAM JOE BEAVER
_________________________________________ Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: ___________________________________
DOUGLAS HOWEY
_________________________________________ Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: ___________________________________
Page 30 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 60

DIANA MILNE

I )- 6- Plaintif
Date:

J
L.C

TINA MCDONALD

Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the §ettl~~ent Class Date:
JOSE TORRES-VEGA

Plaintiff Date:
RANDY KILBOURN

Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date:
JOHN BABCOCK

Plaintiff Date:

Page 31 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 60
DIANA MILNE
Plaintiff Date: TINA MCDONALD
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: 10/28/2016 JOSE TORRES-VEGA
Plain tiff Date: RANDY KILBOURN
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: JOHN BABCOCK
Plaintiff Date:
Page 31 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 60
DIANA MILNE
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
TINA MCDONALD
_________________________________________ Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: ___________________________________
JOSÉ TORRES-VEGA
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: _10/27/2016_________________________
RANDY KILBOURN
_________________________________________ Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: ___________________________________
JOHN BABCOCK
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
Page 31 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 60
KIMBERLEY JACKSON
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
PAULINA BLACK
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
RUTHIE MCNAIR
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
VRLINA NOZLIÇ
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
CHRIS QUINLAN
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
Page 32 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 60

KIMBERLEY JACKSON

Plaintiff Date:
PAULINA BLACK

Plaintiff Date:
RUTHIE MCNAIR

Plaillftiff

'

Date: ///?//V )

VRLINA NOZLI<;

Plaintiff Date:
CHRIS QUINLAN

Plaintiff Date:

Page 32 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 60
CHERYL QUINLAN Plaintiff Date: ELAINE CULPEPPER
Date: KEVIN GRIMSINGER Plaintiff Date: Approved as to Legal Form for Plaintiffs: Class Counsel
Page 33 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 60
CHERYL QUINLAN Plaintiff Date: ELAINE CULPEPPER Plaintiff Date:
Date: Oc+- 3 11 2._ot6
Approved as to Legal Form for Plaintiffs:
Class Counsel
Page 33 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 60
CHERYL QUINLAN _________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________ ELAINE CULPEPPER _________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________ KEVIN GRIMSINGER _________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
Approved as to Legal Form for Plaintiffs: ________________________________ Class Counsel
Page 33 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-2 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Exhibit 2

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-2 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM JULIE REISKIN, et al., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of
Colorado, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF KEVIN W. WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION OF A CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ______________________________________________________________________
I, Kevin W. Williams, declare as follows: 1. I am over eighteen years of age, am familiar with the facts stated below based on my own personal knowledge, and if called upon could and would testify competently about them. 2. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion of a Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only and Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement. 3. I am an attorney in good standing of the State Bar of Colorado, and I am the Legal Program Director of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”), a position I have held for the last twenty years. I am counsel for Plaintiffs in this action. 4. For the last twenty years, I have litigated nothing but disability rights cases. These are the only types of cases I have litigated during that timeframe.

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-2 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
5. I have litigated many class action cases, and I have been appointed class counsel in the following cases: CCDC, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., 09-cv02757-WYD-KMT (U.S. Dist. Ct. of Colo. 2009); Denny v. City and County of Denver, 2016CV030247 (Denv. Dist. Ct. 2016); CCDC et al. v. Henneberry and Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, 2009CV11761 (Denv. Dist. Ct. 2009); Ehman et. al. v. Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Denver, 01-N-1522 (BNB) (U.S. Dist. Ct. Colo. 2001); Farrar-Kuhn et al. v. Conoco, Inc., Civ. Act. No. 99-WM2086 (PAC) (U.S. Dist. Ct. Colo. 1999); Lucas v. Kmart, Corp., Civ. Act. No. 99-K-1923 (CBS) (U.S. Dist Ct. Colo. 1999) Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, et. al., v. City and County of Denver, Colorado et. al. 06-cv-00865-LTB(BNB) (U.S. Dist. Ct. Colo. 2006). Most of these cases in settlement had monitoring provisions similar to those in the instant case.
6. I have worked for twenty years for CCDC, which has as its mission, “CCDC advocates for social justice for people with all types of disabilities.” See CCDC Mission on website: http://ccdconline.org/about/mission (last accessed September 13, 2016).
7. Cases I have litigated in which I have been appointed class counsel have never resulted in any conflict of any kind.
8. Based on my experience litigating disability rights class action lawsuits, I believe this Class Action Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable.
9. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Further the Declarant says nothing.
2

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-2 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

Executed on November 14, 2016.

/s/ Kevin W. Williams____ Kevin W. Williams
Attorney for Plaintiffs

3

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-3 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 3

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-3 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM JULIE REISKIN, et al., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of
Colorado, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF ANDREW C. MONTOYA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION OF A CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ I, Andrew C. Montoya, declare as follows: 1. I am over eighteen years of age, am familiar with the facts stated below based on my own personal knowledge, and if called upon could and would testify competently about them. 2. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion of a Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only and Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement. 3. I am an attorney in good standing of the State Bar of Colorado, and I am an Associate Attorney with the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”), a position I have held for the last six years after working for CCDC as its Legal Program Assistant for a year and a half before going to law school. I then worked as an Assistant for the

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-3 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
Legal Program for one year while in law school, taking the bar exam and prior to being sworn in an attorney in Colorado. I am counsel for Plaintiffs in this action.
4. For the last six years, I have litigated nothing but disability rights cases. These are the only types of cases I have litigated during that timeframe.
5. I have litigated the following case in which I was appointed class counsel: CCDC, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., 09-cv-02757-WYD-KMT (U.S. Dist. Ct. of Colo. 2009).
6. I have worked for six years for CCDC as an attorney, and two and a half years in other capacities in the Legal Program as explained. CCDC has as its mission: “CCDC advocates for social justice for people with all types of disabilities.” See CCDC Mission on website: http://ccdconline.org/about/mission (last accessed September 13, 2016).
7. The case I have litigated in which I have been appointed class counsel has never resulted in any conflict of any kind.
8. Based on my experience litigating disability rights lawsuits, I believe this Class Action Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable.
9. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Further the Declarant says nothing. Executed on November 14, 2016.
/s/ Andrew C. Montoya____ Andrew C. Montoya Attorney for Plaintiffs
2

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 155 Filed 04/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM
JULIE REISKIN, JON JAIME LEWIS, WILLIAM JOE BEAVER, DOUGLAS HOWEY, DIANA MILNE, TINA MCDONALD, JOSÉ TORRES-VEGA, RANDY KILBOURN, JOHN BABCOCK, KIMBERLEY JACKSON, PAULINA BLACK, RUTHIE MCNAIR, VRLINA NOZLIÇ, CHERYL QUINLAN, CHRIS QUINLAN, ELAINE CULPEPPER, KEVIN GRIMSINGER, and COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado nonprofit organization, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Certify
Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement. (Doc. # 151.)

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 155 Filed 04/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

For the reasons set forth in the Motion and below, this Court hereby grants

preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement among the Parties, filed with this

Court as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Motion. (Doc. # 151-1). Given the procedural posture of

this case, the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable, and therefore:

•

This Court certifies the proposed class for settlement purposes only. The

class definition meets all purposes needed for the class in this case.

•

This Court appoints Representative Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Douglas

Howey, Tina McDonald, Randy Kilbourn, and Joe Beaver as the representatives

of the Class. This Court finds the Representative Plaintiffs reflect all necessary

requirements to be representatives of both the other Plaintiffs in this case and

meet the definition of Settlement Class Members set forth in the Settlement

Agreement. This definition meets all Due Process requirements of the United

States Constitution.

•

This Court appoints Kevin Williams and Andrew Montoya of the Colorado

Cross-Disability Coalition as Class Counsel. They each meet the necessary

qualifications of Class Counsel in this case.

•

This Court GRANTS approval of the Notice of Class Settlement,

collectively attached as Exhibits D and E to the Settlement Agreement, and

authorizes the proposed Class Notice and Notice Procedures described therein.

•

For the purpose of preliminary approval, the Settlement Agreement meets

all requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the Due Process requirements of the

United States Constitution.

•

This Court hereby enjoins all Settlement Class Members from initiating or

prosecuting any litigation relating to the claims resolved by the Settlement

Agreement against RTD pending the Court’s entry of Final Order and Judgment.

Accordingly, the Court sets the following deadlines and FURTHER ORDERS that: • The deadline for CAFA Notice was November 24, 2016.

2

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 155 Filed 04/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

• Class Notice Procedures shall commence within 14 calendar days of entry of this Preliminary Approval Order.

• Class members shall submit requests for exclusion no later than 30 days after the commencement of Class Notice Procedures.

• Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is due one week prior to the deadline for objections to the Settlement Agreement.

• Class members shall submit objections, if any, to the Settlement Agreement no later than 60 days after the commencement of Class Notice Procedures.

• Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement is due no later than June 26, 2017.

• A final hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval and Motion for Attorney’s Fees is scheduled for July 10, 2017, at 2:00 PM in Courtroom A602 of the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse.

DATED: April 3, 2017

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge

3

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM JULIE REISKIN et al. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado,
Defendant. ___________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ___________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, hereby submit this Unopposed1 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit challenging the size, locations, and maneuvering clearances of seating for passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices on light rail trains owned and operated by the Defendant Regional Transportation District (“Defendant” or “RTD”). Plaintiffs also challenged RTD’s signage and RTD’s policies regarding light rail operators. After two years of extensive litigation, the Parties resolved the case resulting in the Class
1 Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), counsel for Plaintiffs certifies that they have conferred in good faith with counsel for Defendant Regional Transportation District (“RTD”) regarding this Motion. While RTD has denied, and continues to deny, the wrongdoing and liability alleged by Plaintiffs in this action, and many of Plaintiffs’ related allegations, it does not oppose the relief requested in this Motion pursuant to the Parties’ class action settlement.

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 13
Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) filed with the Court as Exhibit 1 (Doc. # 151-1) to Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Certification of a Class for Settlement Purposes Only and Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement (“Preliminary Motion”) (Doc. # 151).
The Agreement contemplates that RTD will retrofit all existing 172 light rail vehicles (“LRVs”) in accordance with Exhibit B to the Agreement. RTD also agrees that the next 29 vehicles it puts in service will also provide greater accessibility than the current vehicles as set forth in Exhibit C to the Agreement and that RTD will provide training and annual refresher training on the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) for LRV operators, supervisors, and LRV controllers to ensure that riders who use wheelchairs are not discriminated against.
The Agreement contemplates that Plaintiffs’ claims will be resolved on a class action basis. Because the Agreement provides for relief for the accessibility barriers alleged by the Plaintiffs, and because it is the result of extensive arm’s-length negotiations, it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
On April 3, 2017, this Court granted preliminary approval to the Agreement, found that the proposed plan to provide notice to the class and proposed form of notice satisfied the requirements of due process and Rule 23(c)(2), and ordered that Plaintiffs provide notice to the class by means of the Class Notice Procedures defined in the Agreement (Doc. # 155). The Court also set a fairness hearing for July 10, 2017. Id.
Notice was mailed, emailed, and posted in accordance with the Court’s Order and the Agreement. Decl. of Tram Ha (“Ha Decl.”), at 1 ¶ 4; Decl. of Jean Peterson
2

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 13
(“Peterson Decl.”), at 1 ¶ 4; Decl. of Jessica Fuller (“Fuller Decl.”), at 1-2, ¶¶ 3-7. The notice provided that any requests for exclusion regarding damages were to be provided on or before May 17, 2017, and that objections to the settlement were required to be filed with the Court on or before June 16, 2017. No requests for exclusion from the damages provisions were received before (or after) May 17, 2017. Ha Decl., at 2 ¶ 5; Peterson Decl., at 1 ¶ 5; Fuller Decl., at 2 ¶ 8. No objections were received before (or after) June 16, 2016. Ha Decl., at 2 ¶ 5. For these reasons, and the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs respectfully request, pursuant to Rule 23(e), that this Court grant final approval of the Agreement and award Plaintiffs’ counsel $375,000 in fees and costs.
Background I. Legal Background
Plaintiffs -- individuals who use wheelchairs for mobility and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) -- filed suit against the Defendant alleging violations of Title II of the ADA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (“Title II” or “ADA”), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”), with regard to its light rail operations.
Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. RTD, a Special Statutory District, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-9-101 et seq., is a “public entity” under the ADA. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal financial assistance, such as RTD. The ADA, Section 504 and their respective implementing regulations contain broad anti-discrimination mandates as well as specific
3

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 13
requirements as to the construction, maintenance, and design of accessible seating on light rail vehicles (“LRVs”). For example, 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(a) states “[n]o entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of transportation service.” Like its statutory counterpart, 42 U.S.C. § 12142(a), 49 C.F.R. § 37.79, requires “Each public entity operating a . . . light rail system making a solicitation after August 25, 1990, to purchase or lease a new . . . light rail vehicle for use on the system shall ensure that the vehicle is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.” Under the Section 504 regulations, “[r]ecipients [of Federal financial assistance] . . . shall comply with all applicable requirements of the [ADA] (42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) including the Department’s ADA regulations (49 CFR parts 37 and 38), the regulations of the Department of Justice implementing Titles II and III of the ADA . . . .” 49 C.F.R. § 27.19(a).
These accessibility requirements are necessary to permit people with mobility devices to access public transportation, specifically LRVs. Subpart D of Part 38 of Title 49 pertains to “Light Rail Vehicles and Systems;” see, e.g., 49 C.F.R. §38.77(c) (requiring that “at all doors . . . [all interior features of LRVs] shall be located so as to allow a route at least 32 inches wide so that at least two wheelchair or mobility aid users can enter the vehicle and position the wheelchairs or mobility aids in areas, each having a minimum clear space of 48 inches by 30 inches, which do not unduly restrict movement of other passengers[;]” and 49 C.F.R. §38.83(a)(1) (requiring “[a]ll new light rail vehicles . . . shall provide . . . sufficient clearances to permit at least two wheelchair or mobility aid users to
4

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 13
reach areas, each with a minimum clear floor space of 48 inches by 30 inches, which do not unduly restrict passenger flow.”). The regulations implementing the requirements for LRVs also prescribe what LRV operators are required to do when an individual with a disability enters a vehicle and needs to sit in an accessible seating area. The regulations state how and under what conditions the LRV operator shall ask the persons seated in that area to move in order to allow the individual with a disability to occupy the accessibility seating area. 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(j).
In the putative class action that led to the proposed class settlement before the Court, Plaintiffs alleged RTD had violated requirements set forth under the ADA and Section 504 governing the design and construction of light rail vehicles as they are used by individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs and mobility devices. Plaintiffs alleged that RTD had failed to properly instruct and train its LRV operators to follow regulatory instructions regarding asking passengers to move from the wheelchair and mobility device locations as set forth in the regulations.
RTD denies all of Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding violations of the disability rights laws, but, nevertheless, the Parties elected to resolve their claims in a Class Settlement Agreement without proceeding to trial.
A. Summary of the Settlement Plaintiffs and RTD have negotiated a comprehensive Agreement for injunctive
relief, which requires RTD to make changes to its 172 existing LRVs as set forth in Exhibit B to the Agreement, to make them more accessible to individuals who use wheelchairs
5

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 13
and mobility devices within sixty (60) months from the Final Settlement Date of the Agreement, with several milestones during that period, retrofitting a certain number of LRVs each year until all are completed. See Agreement, at II.A (Doc. # 151-1). Every twelve months following the Final Settlement Date, RTD will provide a status report to Class Counsel on the progress of the Retrofit Project regarding the number of LRVs retrofitted to date and work expected to be completed in the next twelve months. Id. at II.A.4. Two Representative Plaintiffs, one Class Counsel, and one paralegal may view one retrofitted LRV within twelve months from the Final Settlement Date to take measurements and photographs to assess compliance. Id. at II.A.5.
With respect to new LRVs, RTD will ensure that the next twenty-nine (29) LRVs added into its service after execution of the Agreement will also provide greater accessibility than current LRVs per the specifications set forth in Exhibit C to the Agreement. Id. at II.B. Again, two Representative Plaintiffs, one Class Counsel, and one paralegal will have an opportunity view the vehicles to ensure compliance. Id.
RTD will provide training and retraining to its light rail operators, supervisors of light rail operators, and light rail controllers, and a representative of CCDC will have an opportunity to review training materials. Id. at II.C.
The Parties have agreed to a Pre-Litigation Procedure, which any Named Plaintiff or any Settlement Class Member working with or at the behest of any Named Plaintiff involving accessibility issues must comply with prior to initiating litigation against RTD. Id. at II.D. This procedure will require prior written notice that explains the nature of
6

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 13
discrimination under the disability laws that the individuals involved believe violate those laws. The Pre-Litigation procedure requires a meet and confer session between the Parties to attempt to resolve the dispute. Id. Only after complying with the steps in this procedure may one of the above-referenced individuals bring a lawsuit against RTD. Id.
The Agreement calls for quarterly meetings between RTD and a representative of CCDC regarding light rail service to ensure cooperation and to promote a constructive dialogue concerning issues related to the ADA and light rail service. Id. at II.E. During these quarterly meetings, RTD will report on complaints received, the resolution of those complaints, and any changes to RTD policies and procedures as a result of those complaints from the previous quarter concerning light rail service. In addition, Class Counsel, on behalf of CCDC and the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (“CREEC”), commit to raise any questions as to which they are considering litigation in one of these meetings or in writing at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to filing except as to the issues discussed in Section II(D)(6). Id. at II(E)(3).
The Parties have further agreed to a detailed dispute resolution process regarding enforcement of the terms described above, which requires a specific conferral process. Id. at X. If the Parties are thereafter unable to resolve their dispute, they agree to participate in at least one mediation session to be conducted, if possible, by Magistrate Judge Mix upon a motion under Local Rule 16.6(a). Id. at X.C.
Subject to Court approval, RTD will pay Class Counsel $375,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs in certain installments over three years for the work performed by Class
7

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 13
Counsel through Final Approval. Id. at VI.A.1. Plaintiffs filed their fee petition on June 9, 2017, setting forth the factual and legal support for such a fee award. See Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. # 156).
The Agreement releases the injunctive claims and claims for actual or other damages of Class members, subject to this Court’s final approval of a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class and Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out damages class. Id. at III.A.2, XI.
The term of the Agreement shall be five (5) years from the Final Settlement Date, as defined in the Agreement, or the date on which all disputes raised pursuant to Section X of the Agreement are resolved, whichever is latest. Id. at XII.Q.
ARGUMENT I. The Notice Procedures Satisfied Rule 23(e) and Due Process.
The Parties provided notice as ordered by the Court. Specifically, Defendant mailed and emailed the notice to ten disability rights organizations throughout Colorado, requesting that they post it widely. Fuller Decl. at 2 ¶ 7. Plaintiff CCDC and co-counsel CREEC posted the notice on their respective websites and distributed it through their email alert systems. Ha Decl. At 1 ¶ 4; Peterson Decl. at 1 ¶ 4 RTD also posted notice on its website and at light rail stations and ticket sales outlets in conformity with the Agreement and this Court’s Order (Doc. #155). Fuller Decl. at 2 ¶ 5. For the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Motion (p. 23-24) and approved by this Court (Doc. # 155), Plaintiffs request that this Court hold that the notice program implemented by the Parties
8

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 13
was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and that it satisfies the requirements of due process and Rule 23. II. The Settlement Agreement is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate.
“The settlement of a class action may be approved where the Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Tuten v. United Airlines, Inc., 41 F.Supp.3d 1003, 1007 (D. Colo. May 19, 2014) (citing Rutter & Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil, 314 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 2002)). “The Court reviews a proposed class action settlement by considering four factors: (1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable.” Id. (citing Gottlieb v. Wiles, 11 F.3d 1004, 1014 (10th Cir. 1993)).
A. The Settlement Agreement Was Fairly and Honestly Negotiated. The settlement negotiations have been fair, honest, and at arm’s-length, and there are numerous examples of this. First, the Parties have “vigorously advocated their respective positions throughout the pendency of the case.” Lucas v. Kmart Corp., 234 F.R.D. 688, 693 (D. Colo. 2006) (quoting Wilkerson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 171 F.R.D. 273, 284 (D. Colo. 1997)). This case has been litigated over the course of over two years, during which time the Parties engaged in extensive motions practice.
9

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 13
In addition, the settlement is the result of a long process of arm’s-length negotiations. Because the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel after both Parties conducted discovery, after a significant number of motions were brought and contested, and after extensive prior settlement discussions failed, the settlement should be presumed to be fair and adequate. Lucas, 234 F.R.D. at 693 (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that a “‘presumption of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness may attach to a class settlement reached in arm’s-length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery.’” (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) § 30.42 (1995)))).
B. Serious Questions of Law and Fact Exist, Placing the Ultimate Outcome of the Litigation in Doubt.
This is a case of first impression. Nowhere are there published decisions regarding the design and construction of LRVs. Plaintiffs also raised novel issues concerning the obligations of LRV operators with respect to requesting that individuals who are in the designated wheelchair and mobility aid areas to move when an individual using a wheelchair or mobility aid boards the vehicle and whether the signage was appropriate. All of these issues are untested in other jurisdictions. As such, the questions were novel. The Defendant’s efforts at having this case dismissed, decided on summary judgment, and its use of expert witness testimony demonstrate its strong belief that Plaintiffs’ positions were incorrect on these issues because they were novel and not interpreted
10

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 13
elsewhere. C. The Value of an Immediate Recovery Outweighs the Mere Possibility of Future Relief After Protracted and Expensive Litigation. Following settlement, Defendant has agreed to retrofit all existing LRVs. This will
be completed no later than sixty months from the Final Settlement Date on a schedule set forth in the Agreement. Had the parties tried the case before this Court on the question of accessibility of the LRVs, it could have taken significantly longer before the case would be resolved.
D. The Judgment of the Parties That the Settlement Is Fair and Reasonable. The settlement “was negotiated by competent counsel during arm’s-length negotiations,” and serious questions of law exist as to RTD’s compliance with important civil rights laws. Tuten, 2013 WL 8480458, at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2013). “As with any class action, litigation in this case would likely be expensive and time consuming.” Id. The Parties to this litigation have “vigorously advocated their respective positions throughout the pendency of the case.” Wilkerson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 171 F.R.D. 273, 284 (D. Colo. 1997). “Because the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel after significant discovery had occurred, the Court may presume the settlement to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Lucas, 234 F.R.D. at 693; see also, e.g., Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir.) (A “‘presumption of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness may attach to a class settlement reached in
11

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 13

arm’s-length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery.’” (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation, Third § 30.42 (1995))).
E. Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorneys’ Fees is Reasonable. Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on June 9, 2017 (Doc. # 156). For the reasons set forth in that motion, Plaintiffs assert their claims for attorneys’ and costs are reasonable.
CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: grant final approval of the Class Settlement Agreement; award Plaintiffs’ counsel $375,000 fees and costs; and enter Final Judgment in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
/s Kevin W. Williams Kevin W. Williams Andrew C. Montoya Empire Park 1385 South Colorado Blvd., Suite 610-A Denver Colorado, 80222 Telephone: (720) 336-3584 kwilliams@ccdconline.org amontoya@ccdconline.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 26, 2017
s/ Amy F. Robertson Amy F. Robertson 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 757-7901 arobertson@creeclaw.org

12

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 157 Filed 06/26/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 26, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email address:

Michael D. Plachy Jessica L. Fuller Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP 1200 17th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 mplachy@lrrc.com jfuller@lrrc.com

Jenifer M. Ross-Amato, Deputy General Counsel Mindy McNair, Assistant General Counsel II 1600 Blake St. Denver, CO 80202 jenifer.ross@rtd-denver.com mindy.mcnair@rtd-denver.com

s/ Tram Ha Tram Ha Legal Program Assistant Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program

13

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM JULIE REISKIN, et al., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AND ENTRY
OF JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Final Motion”) (Doc. # 157) and Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Fees Motion”) (Doc. # 156). Defendant Regional Transportation District (“RTD”) does not oppose either motion. The Court conducted a Final Approval Hearing1 on July 10, 2017. After careful review and consideration of the Class Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) (Doc. # 151-1), the Final Motion, the Fees Motion, the argument and/or evidence presented at the Final
1 In addition to the terms defined in this Order, the Court incorporates by reference all terms defined in the Settlement Agreement (Doc. # 151-1), which shall have the same meaning for purposes of this Order as they do in the Agreement.

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 12
Approval Hearing, all documents filed in this case to date, and the interests of the Settlement Class Members, the Court hereby approves of the Agreement and grants the Final Motion in its entirety.2
BACKGROUND I. Litigation and Proposed Settlement
In this case, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant RTD’s light rail service and light rail vehicles (“LRVs”) did not comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA” or “Title II”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., and their implementing regulations.
In the putative class action that led to the proposed class settlement before the Court, Plaintiffs alleged RTD had violated requirements set forth under the ADA and Section 504 governing the design and construction of light rail vehicles as they are used by individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs and mobility devices. Plaintiffs alleged issues pertaining to signage on the LRVs that are required by the regulations pertaining to individuals who use wheelchairs and mobility devices. Plaintiffs also alleged that RTD had failed to properly instruct and train its LRV operators to follow regulatory instructions regarding asking non wheelchair or mobility aid using riders to move from the wheelchair and mobility device area as set forth in the regulations.
RTD denies all of Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding violations of the ADA and Section 504, but, nevertheless, the Parties resolved their claims in a class settlement
2 This Court also still has pending before it the Fees Motion, which, along with this motion was heard at the July 10, 2017 Final Fairness Hearing and is addressed in this Order below. See Order (Doc. # 155) at 3.
2

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 12
agreement (“Agreement”) without proceeding to trial. The complete terms of the Agreement are set forth as Exhibit 1 to Representative
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Certification of a Class for Settlement Purposes Only and Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement (“Preliminary Motion”) (Doc. #151-1), attached to that motion as Exhibit 1. This Court approved the Preliminary Motion in its Order, entered April 3, 2017 (Doc. #155).
A. Injunctive Relief The Agreement provides a comprehensive scheme for injunctive relief, requiring RTD to retrofit 172 light rail vehicles to be more accessible to individuals who use wheelchairs and mobility devices. See Exhibit 1 to the Preliminary Motion, Agreement, at II.A and Ex. B. The Agreement requires RTD to retrofit a certain number of LRVs over time, so that all existing LRVs are retrofitted within five years of the Final Settlement Date. Id. at II.A. RTD will provide a status report to Class Counsel on the progress of this process. Id. Certain representatives of Plaintiffs and Class Counsel may view retrofitted LRVs within twelve months from the Final Settlement Date to take measurements and photographs to assess compliance. Id. RTD will also ensure that the next 29 LRVs added to its service after execution of the Agreement will also provide greater accessibility than the current vehicles as set forth in Exhibit C to the Agreement. Id. at II.B. Again, certain representatives of Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will have an opportunity view the vehicles to ensure compliance. Id. RTD shall have a policy directing that operators providing Light Rail Service shall not discriminate against riders who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices and the
3

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 12
policy will provide training and retraining to its light rail operators, supervisors of light rail operators, and light rail controllers, and a representative of CCDC will have an opportunity to review training materials. Id.at II.C.
The Parties have agreed to a Pre-Litigation Procedure, which any Named Plaintiff or any Settlement Class Member working with or at the behest of any Named Plaintiff involving accessibility issues must comply with prior to initiating litigation against RTD. Id. at II.D. As part of the pre-litigation framework, RTD will establish a unique email address to receive and respond to written notices from persons who believe they have a legal claim against RTD concerning accessibility for individuals who use wheelchairs or mobility devices. Id.
The Parties agreed to quarterly meetings to promote a constructive dialogue concerning issues related to the ADA concerning Light Rail Service. Id. at II.E.
B. Released Claims The Settlement Agreement defines the class as “All Persons in Colorado who are qualified individuals with disabilities, who use wheelchairs (as that term is defined by 49 C.F.R. § 37.3), and who have used, currently use, or may in the future use the Regional Transportation District’s Light Rail Service (“Class”).” Agreement at 6 ¶ 18. The Court certified this class for settlement purposes only on April 3, 2017. Upon the Final Settlement Date, Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members shall “release acquit, and forever discharge RTD from any and all liability arising from the Released Claims, and shall not institute, maintain, or assert any claims against RTD based on the Released Claims.” Agreement at 23 ¶ 1. The Release of Claims is explained in detail at
4

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 12
Agreement at 23-25, ¶ XI. DISCUSSION
“The settlement of a class action may be approved where the Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Tuten v. United Airlines, Inc., 41 F.Supp.3d 1003, 1007 (D. Colo. May 19, 2014) (citing Rutter & Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil, 314 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 2002)). “The Court reviews a proposed class action settlement by considering four factors: (1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable.” Id. (citing Gottlieb v. Wiles, 11 F.3d 1004, 1014 (10th Cir. 1993)). I. Final Determination as to Whether Agreement is Fair, Reasonable and
Adequate. A. The Agreement was Fairly and Honestly Negotiated The Court finds that the class settlement reflected in the Agreement was fairly and honestly negotiated. In this case, the Parties litigated vigorously and at arm’s length. There is no indication that the settlement was the product of collusion. Additionally, the parties “vigorously advocated their respective positions throughout the pendency of the case.” See Lucas v. Kmart Corp., 234 F.R.D. 688, 693 (D. Colo. 1999) (internal citation omitted). The case involved intensive discovery, including the review of thousands of pages of documents. It also included expert witness reports. Depositions were taken of nearly all of the plaintiffs and both parties took Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Numerous
5

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 12
motions were filed and responded to, including well-briefed dispositive motions. Rhodes v. Olson Associates, P.C., 308 F.R.D. 664, 667 (D. Colo. 2015).
B. There are Serious Questions of Law and Fact that Exist that Could Significantly Impact this Case if it were Further Litigated.
The Court finds that this case involved serious questions of law and fact, which placed the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt. It is clear from the extensive briefing in this case that the Parties believe strongly in their opposing positions regarding a number of legal and factual questions in this case. This is also a case of first impression. No court in this jurisdiction or elsewhere has published an opinion concerning the issues of the size of wheelchair and mobility impairment spaces on LRVs and issues of maneuverability into those spaces. The same is true of the issues regarding the appropriateness of signage and the conduct of LRV operators. In contrast to the risk of moving forward in this case and possibly losing with respect to the issues raised, the Class will benefit immensely by having existing LRVs and certain subsequent LRVs provide the accessibility and maneuverability the Plaintiffs seek. The provisions requiring that RTD provide notice of its progress and that there be meetings between the parties regarding ongoing success of the Agreement also weigh heavily in favor of determining that this Agreement far outweighs the potential of continued lengthy litigation. Plaintiffs did not seek monetary damages, but these questions of injunctive relief could have been decided for or against either Party.
6

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 12
C. Whether the Value of an Immediate Recovery Outweighs the Mere Possibility of Future Relief after Protracted and Expensive Litigation
The Court determines that the value of certain and timely recovery to the Settlement Class Members provided for in the Agreement outweighs the mere possibility of future relief through further litigation. In this case, there remain several undecided motions that could have resulted in the Parties needing to proceed toward trial and, potentially, appeal. As stated above, this case involved many questions that have not been determined by other courts before, leaving the ultimate decisions regarding injunctive relief in question and possibly subject to appeal. In this settlement, Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members will be assured that greater accessibility on the LRVs will begin soon after the Final Approval is granted.
D. The Judgment of the Parties that the Settlement is Fair and Reasonable. The Court agrees with the judgment of the Parties that the class settlement detailed in the Agreement is fair and reasonable. In appraising the fairness of a proposed settlement, “[t]he recommendations of plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness.” Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610, 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979); see also In re Omnivision Techs. Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 87 F.R.D. 15, 18 (N.D. Cal. 1980) (“[T]he fact that experienced counsel involved in the case approved the settlement after hardfought negotiations is entitled to considerable weight”). Class counsel are experienced in class action disability rights litigation. See generally Declarations of Kevin W. Williams and Amy Robertson, attached as exhibits to the Preliminarily Motion. Weight is given to Class Counsel’s favorable judgment as to the merits, fairness and reasonableness of
7

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 12
the settlement. At the hearing, Class Counsel provided their judgment as to the merits, fairness and reasonableness of the settlement. Id. (citing Marcus v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, 209 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (D. Kan.2002); Saunders v. Berks Credit & Collections, Inc., No. CIV. 00–3477, 2002 WL 1497374, at *10 (E.D. Pa. July 11, 2002). In addition, by executing the Agreement, Defendant has demonstrated that it agrees that the settlement is fair and reasonable as well. Furthermore, as noted below, no Settlement Class Member has requested to be excluded from the settlement or objected to the settlement on any basis. II. Approval of Class Notice Procedures
For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), courts must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language:
(i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). Here, the Court finds that the Parties complied with the Class Notice Procedures detailed in the Agreement and approved by this Court in its ruling on the Preliminary Motion. Order on Preliminary Motion at 2. The Parties provided notice of this settlement through numerous physical postings, website postings, mailed letters, and e-mail
8

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 12
communications. No requests for exclusion or objections were received. See Peterson Decl. at 1 ¶¶, 4, 5; Ha Decl. at 1-2, ¶¶ 4, 5; Fuller Decl. at 2, ¶ 8.
Consistent with its prior Order, the Court finds that the Class Notice Procedures employed by the Parties: (1) were reasonable and the best practicable notice under the circumstances; (2) reasonably apprised Settlement Class Members of the pendency of this litigation and the Agreement, including their rights to exclude themselves or object to the Agreement and of the Final Approval Hearing; (3) constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and (4) satisfied the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements of due process under the Colorado and United States Constitutions, and the requirements of any other applicable rules or laws. The Court further finds that, as of the Final Settlement Date, any Settlement Class Member who failed to exclude themselves or object has waived the right to object or otherwise intervene, and is barred from raising any issues as to the Agreement or this final judgment in this or any other proceeding, including on appeal. III. Attorneys’ Fees Determination
Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on June 9, 2017 (Doc. #156) (“Fees Motion”). This Court takes notice that the request for fees was submitted on June 9, 2017, and additional work has been performed by Plaintiffs’ Counsel since that time. In the Fees Motion, Class Counsel provided extensive information regarding the backgrounds of counsel and the other timekeepers in this case. See Fees Motion at 7-8 and see generally Williams Decl. (Doc. #156-2); Robertson Decl. (Doc. #156-7),
9

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 12
attached thereto. Counsel for Plaintiffs provided the Court with detailed breakdowns of the time spent on this case and what their rates are for conducting this sort of practice, which is contingent upon being the prevailing party or reaching a settlement agreement; the Plaintiffs were not paid an hourly rate for this litigation. Id. Counsel for the Plaintiffs kept contemporaneous time records, and then calculated their lodestar rate by multiplying the hours worked by the rates charged; they then exercised billing judgment to reduce charges that may have been unnecessary. Id. at 8 and Declarations to Fees Motion. According to the records submitted, the lodestar fee amounts for Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case were $609,196.20 for CCDC and $49,493 for CREEC for a total of $658,689.20. CCDC also claims $15,186.72 in costs in this case. The Parties have agreed that, subject to this Court’s approval, Defendant will pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $375,000 to resolve these fees and costs to be made in three payments as detailed in the Agreement.
“Attorneys’ fees are properly calculated by determining the ‘lodestar’ -- the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by reasonable hourly rates -- and then adjusting the lodestar figure, if appropriate, by considering one or more of the factors in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974),” (the “Johnson Factors”). In re Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc., No. 12-CV-2074-WJM-CBS, 2015 WL 3582265, at *4 (D. Colo. June 5, 2015) (citing Anchondo v. Anderson, Crenshaw & Assocs., L.L.C., 616 F.3d 1098, 1102–04 (10th Cir. 2010) and Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Mem’l Ctr., 963 F.2d 1352, 1355–56 (10th Cir. 1992)). The lodestar method yields a fee that is presumptively appropriate. See Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559
10

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 12
U.S. 542, 552 (2010). The Fees Motion addressed each of the Johnson factors as applicable to this
case. Fees Motion at 10-14. This Court finds that $375,000, paid as set forth in the Agreement, is eminently reasonable payment for fees and costs in this case. The amount of work that was required of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, coupled with the reasonableness of their proposed rates as set forth in the Fees Motion would likely yield a lodestar payment greater than $375,000. IV. The Proposed Class Is Certified for Purposes of Final Approval.
In the Preliminary Order, this Court certified the proposed class for settlement purposes only and found “the class definition meets all purposes needed for the class in this case.” Preliminary Order at 2. In the Preliminary Motion, Plaintiffs set forth the reasons why this proposed class meets all of the requirements of Rule 23. Also, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Motion, this Court appointed the Class Representatives and appointed Class Counsel. This Court certifies the proposed class for purposes of final approval of the settlement.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the Class Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. For the reasons set forth in the motion submitted (Doc. # 156), Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is also GRANTED, and the Court awards $375,000 to Plaintiffs’ Counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court enters the Settlement Agreement as an Order of
11

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 159 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 12
the Court and, by operation of this entry of final judgment, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice as to all claims and all Parties. Without in any way affecting the finality of this judgment, the Court maintains jurisdiction for the limited purpose of resolving disputes that require Court intervention as set forth in Section X of the Settlement Agreement.
DATED July 11, 2017 BY THE COURT: CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge
12

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 160 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM JULIE REISKIN, et al., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
This matter is before me on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) (Doc. # 156). This Court granted Representative Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion For Certification of a Class for Settlement Purposes Only and Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement (Doc. # 151) in its Order, dated April 3, 2017 (Doc. # 155). This Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion, agrees with the analysis set forth in that Motion, and finds the agreed-upon amount of $375,000 in the settlement agreement to be a fair and reasonable amount to be awarded in this

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 160 Filed 07/11/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

case. For the reasons set forth in that Motion, the Motion is GRANTED.

DATED July 11, 2017

BY THE COURT:

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 60
Exhibit 1

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 60
CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into between Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Diana Milne, Tina McDonald, José Torres-Vega, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock, Kimberley Jackson, Paulina Black, Ruthie McNair, Vrlina Nozliç, Chris Quinlan, Cheryl Quinlan, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and for others similarly situated, and Defendant Regional Transportation District (“RTD” or “Defendant”) (collectively, “the Parties”) as follows:
RECITALS WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, filed the lawsuit of Reiskin et al. v. Regional Transportation District on November 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM (“Litigation”). The Litigation involves claims and defenses relating to Defendant’s compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (“ADA”), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”), with regard to its light rail operations; WHEREAS, Defendant has denied and continues to deny any and all liability or wrongdoing to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class; by entering into this Agreement, Defendant does not admit any impropriety, wrongdoing or liability of any kind whatsoever, including any as to the claims raised in the Litigation, and on the contrary, expressly denies the same. Defendant has entered into this Agreement solely for the purpose of avoiding the expense, inconvenience, distraction and delay of the Litigation, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever,
Page 1 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 60
and without conceding Plaintiffs’ ability to certify the alleged putative Settlement Class on its merits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
WHEREAS, the Parties have conducted a thorough examination and investigation of the facts and law relating to the matters set forth in the Litigation, including ample written discovery and numerous depositions;
WHEREAS, the Parties, through their respective legal counsel, have engaged in extensive, arms-length negotiations;
WHEREAS, based upon extensive analysis of the facts and the law applicable to the claims and defenses in the Litigation, and taking into account the substantial benefits available to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class under the terms of this Settlement Agreement and the extensive burdens and expense of litigation, including the risks and uncertainties associated with protracted trials and appeals, Class Counsel has concluded that this Settlement Agreement provides substantial benefit to the Settlement Class and is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interest of the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have sought only injunctive relief and have not sought damages of any kind, compensatory or punitive, in this case;
WHEREAS, Defendant, although denying fault and liability, has likewise concluded that this Settlement Agreement is desirable to avoid the time, risk, and expense of defending protracted litigation, to fulfill its long-standing commitment to promoting and enhancing the rights of those with disabilities and to ensure compliance with all laws protecting the rights of the disabled, and to resolve completely and finally the pending and potential claims of the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class; and
Page 2 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 60

WHEREAS, the Parties, therefore, desire to settle the claims asserted in the Litigation

and to enter into this class settlement agreement related to the Litigation and the claims giving

rise thereto, in accordance with the provisions and upon the terms and conditions hereafter set

forth.

AGREEMENT

I. DEFINITIONS

In addition to certain terms that may be defined elsewhere in this Settlement Agreement,

the following defined terms are used herein:

1. Agreement or Settlement Agreement. “Agreement” or “Settlement

Agreement” shall mean this Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits hereto, which are an

integral part of the Settlement Agreement and are incorporated herein in their entirety by

reference.

2. Class Counsel. “Class Counsel” shall mean:

Kevin W. Williams, Esq. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 1385 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 610-A Denver, CO 80222 720-336-3584

Andrew C. Montoya, Esq. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 1385 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 610-A Denver, CO 80222 720-336-1036

3. Class Member. “Class Member” shall mean a member of the Settlement

Class, as defined herein.

4. Class Notice and Notice Procedures. “Class Notice and Notice

Procedures” shall mean the notice and procedures to be approved by the Court, as more fully

described in Section IV below.

Page 3 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 60
5. Court. The “Court” shall mean the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in Case No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM.
6. Final Order and Judgment. “Final Order and Judgment” shall mean the order of the Court approving this Settlement Agreement, and the corresponding final judgment, a mutually agreeable form of which will be submitted by the parties prior to final approval.
7. Final Settlement Date. “Final Settlement Date” is the date upon which the Court’s Final Order and Judgment becomes “final,” which shall be as follows:
(a) If no appeal is taken therefrom, the first day after the date on which the time to appeal therefrom expires;
(b) If an appeal is taken therefrom, the first day after the date on which all appeals therefrom, including petitions for rehearing or reargument, petitions for rehearing en banc, petitions for review, and petitions for certiorari or any other form of review, have been finally disposed of in a manner resulting in an affirmance of the Final Judgment and Order; or
(c) On a date after the signing and entry of the Final Judgment and Order that counsel for the Parties agree to in writing.
8. Light Rail Service. “Light Rail Service” shall mean all corridors of the RTD electric railway along a right-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, or in streets using light rail vehicles, including without limitation vehicles, seating configuration on the vehicles, track, operators, station platforms, and mini-high ramps and transit service provided to passengers. Light Rail Service shall specifically not include commuter rail service.
9. Litigation. “Litigation” shall mean the lawsuit styled Reiskin et al. v. Regional Transportation District in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No. 14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM.
Page 4 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 60
10. Representative Plaintiffs. “Representative Plaintiffs” shall mean Julie Reiskin, Douglas Howey, Tina McDonald, Randy Kilbourn, and William Joe Beaver, individually and as representatives of the Settlement Class
11. Person(s). “Person(s)” shall mean any natural person or individual. 12. Plaintiffs. “Plaintiffs” shall mean Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, William Joe Beaver, Douglas Howey, Diana Milne, Tina McDonald, José Torres-Vega, Randy Kilbourn, John Babcock, Kimberley Jackson, Paulina Black, Ruthie McNair, Vrlina Nozliç, Chris Quinlan, Cheryl Quinlan, Elaine Culpepper, Kevin Grimsinger, and the Colorado CrossDisability Coalition (“CCDC”). 13. Preliminary Approval Order. “Preliminary Approval Order” shall have the meaning set forth in Section III(B) below, and it shall be substantially in the form and substance of Exhibit A hereto. 14. Release or Released Claims. The “Release” and “Released Claims” shall have the meaning set forth in Section XI below. 15. RTD. “RTD” shall mean Regional Transportation District. For purposes of the Release in Section XI below, references to RTD shall include its past, present, or future officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, brokers, representatives, regional directors, field marketing directors, producers, or shareholders of RTD; and any successors, assigns, or persons acting on behalf of any of the foregoing. 16. RTD Counsel. “RTD Counsel” shall mean:
Jenifer M. Ross-Amato, Esq. Mindy Swaney, Esq. Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street Denver, CO 80202 (303) 299-2479
Page 5 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 60
Michael D. Plachy, Esq. Jessica L. Fuller, Esq. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One Tabor Center, Suite 3000 1200 Seventeenth Street Denver, CO 80202 (303) 623-9000 17. Settlement. “Settlement” shall mean the terms and conditions of settlement set forth in this Agreement and the attached exhibits. 18. Settlement Class, Class, and Settlement Class Members. “Settlement Class” or “Class” or “Settlement Class Member(s)” shall mean all Persons in Colorado who are qualified individuals with disabilities who use Wheelchairs, as that term is defined below, who have used, currently use, or may in the future use RTD’s Light Rail Service. The Settlement Class shall not include any Persons who timely elect to exclude themselves from this Settlement. 19. Wheelchair. “Wheelchair” shall have the meaning assigned to it in 49 C.F.R. § 37.3 and shall include all devices used by individuals with mobility impairments specifically to assist with ambulation, by way of example but not limitation, manual and motorized wheelchairs, scooters, and walkers, so long as such devices fit within the definition of Wheelchair provided in 49 C.F.R. § 37.3. II. BENEFITS TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS A. Retrofit of Existing Light Rail Vehicles. 1. RTD agrees to retrofit its existing 172 light rail vehicles (“LRVs”) in a manner substantially in accordance with Exhibit B attached hereto (“Retrofit Project”). 2. The Retrofit Project will be completed no later than sixty (60) months from the Final Settlement Date; provided, however, that RTD will complete the following milestones during that sixty-month period:
Page 6 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 60
(a) RTD shall retrofit a minimum of 17 LRVs within one (1) year of the Final Settlement Date;
(b) RTD shall retrofit a cumulative total of 39 LRVs within two (2) years of the Final Settlement Date;
(c) RTD shall retrofit a cumulative total of 74 LRVs within three (3) years of the Final Settlement Date;
(d) RTD shall retrofit a cumulative total of 119 LRVs within four (4) years of the Final Settlement Date; and
(e) RTD shall retrofit a cumulative total of 172 LRVs within five (5) years of the Final Settlement Date.
3. If RTD is unable to comply with the provisions in Section II(A)(2) as a result of a “force majeure event,” any such non-compliance will not constitute a breach or violation of this Settlement Agreement. For purposes of this provision, a force majeure event shall mean an event beyond the control of RTD, which prevents RTD from compliance with the schedule above, including, but not limited to: (1) an act of God (fires, explosions, earthquakes, floods, etc.); (2) other exceptionally adverse weather events or conditions; (3) a riot, strike, lock out, work stoppage, labor dispute, or other civil disturbance, whether lawful or not; (4) discontinuation of electricity supply or other necessary utilities; (5) an act or threatened act of terrorism; or (6) a substantial loss of supply of critical parts. In case of such a force majeure event, RTD will inform Class Counsel within one week of the event, describing the event, stating the additional time the event will add to one or more of the deadlines in Section II(A)(2), and providing supporting documentation.
Page 7 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 60
4. Every twelve (12) months from the Final Settlement Date and until completion of the Retrofit Project, RTD will provide a status report to Class Counsel on the progress of the Retrofit Project regarding the number of LRVs retrofitted to date and work expected to be completed in the next twelve months.
5. Two Representative Plaintiffs, one Class Counsel, and one Paralegal will have the opportunity to view one (1) retrofitted LRV pursuant to the Retrofit Project within twelve (12) months from the Final Settlement Date and take measurements and photographs to assess whether the retrofitted LRV complies with Section II(A)(1). The retrofitted LRV will be made available for no more than two (2) hours on a mutually agreeable date, at a station location and time of day that RTD in its sole discretion selects.
B. New Light Rail Vehicles. 1. The next twenty-nine (29) new LRVs that RTD adds to its Light Rail
Service (“New LRV”) will be substantially similar in design to the vehicle depicted in Exhibit C attached hereto.
2. In these New LRVs, the flooring within the designated spaces for passengers using mobility devices will depict the International Symbol of Accessibility.
3. Prior to the delivery of the first of these New LRVs, RTD will facilitate a public meeting to present a video produced by the LRV manufacturer demonstrating the accessibility features of the New LRVs and answer any questions about those features.
4. Two Representative Plaintiffs, one Class Counsel, and one paralegal will have the opportunity to view one (1) New LRV within ninety (90) calendar days of the date the first New LRV is placed into revenue service and take measurements and photographs to assess whether the New LRV complies with Section II(B)(1). The New LRV will be made available
Page 8 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 60
for no more than two (2) hours on a mutually agreeable date, at a station location and time of day that RTD in its sole discretion selects.
C. Policy and Training Concerning Operator Conduct. 1. RTD shall have a policy directing that operators providing Light Rail
Service shall not discriminate against riders who use Wheelchairs in violation of the ADA or Section 504, specifically, and without limitation, in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 37.169(j) and shall include such policy in its training of all such operators.
2. RTD shall provide mandatory refresher training on the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) on an annual basis to its light rail operators, supervisors of light rail operators, and light rail controllers so as to ensure operators providing Light Rail Service are aware of their obligation not to discriminate against riders who use Wheelchairs (“Refresher Training”).
3. If newly employed, these employees will receive this training as part of their initial training and will then be exempt from Refresher Training during their first year of employment.
4. RTD will provide a copy of the materials for the Refresher Training to Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, or a staff member designee of Colorado CrossDisability Coalition who reports to Ms. Reiskin or Mr. Lewis, within thirty (30) calendar days of the Final Settlement Date.
5. Ms. Reiskin, Mr. Lewis or their designee, on behalf of the Class, will have thirty (30) calendar days to provide suggested comments on the Refresher Training materials.
6. Nothing in this Section II(C) shall limit RTD’s ability to seek input from other third parties and organizations regarding the Refresher Training materials.
Page 9 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 60
7. RTD, in its sole discretion, shall make the final determination as to the content of the Refresher Training materials and any future revisions, additions, or updates thereto.
8. If at any time during the Term of this Agreement, RTD materially modifies its policies or training so that they no longer satisfy Section II(C)(1), RTD shall so notify Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, or a staff member designee of CCDC who reports to Ms. Reiskin or Mr. Lewis within thirty (30) calendar days of such modification.
D. Pre-Litigation Procedure. 1. All Named and Representative Plaintiffs, including CCDC and any other
Settlement Class Member working with or at the behest of any Named or Representative Plaintiff, including CCDC (collectively, “Complainant(s)”) must comply with the following provisions as a condition precedent to filing litigation against RTD regarding any claim of alleged non-compliance with the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, or similar law with respect to accessibility for individuals who use Wheelchairs, regardless of whether such claim is related to the claims that were or could have been asserted in the Litigation:
(a) If any Complainant believes that they have a legal claim against RTD concerning accessibility for individuals who use Wheelchairs, as a condition precedent to filing suit, the Complainant will provide written notice to RTD, describing the basis for the claim, including all relevant facts and reasons why it allegedly constitutes discrimination based on a disability or violation of the ADA, in sufficient detail for RTD to assess the claim. Written notice shall be by e-mail to the following e-mail address: adaprelitigation@rtd-denver.com. If RTD receives such a communication (by e-mail or other written notice) from a Complainant that does not provide sufficient detail, RTD will request any additional information it deems
Page 10 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 60
necessary from the Complainant. The Complainant shall cooperate in good faith with RTD during this process.
(b) Within thirty (30) calendar days of RTD’s receipt of the written notice or any additional information provided pursuant to RTD’s request, whichever is later, RTD will contact the Complainant (or their attorney, if represented by counsel), provided that the Complainant has given RTD an accurate means of contacting them, and, within thirty (30) calendar days of contact, make an RTD representative available with authority to resolve the claim to meet and confer in person or by telephone with the Complainant (and/or their counsel) (“Meet and Confer”).
(c) RTD will have a period of thirty (30) calendar days following the Meet and Confer to provide a written response to the Complainant detailing either the measures it has taken to resolve the claim or why it believes no additional action is warranted. Nothing in this Section II(D)(1)(c) shall prevent the Parties from agreeing to further meetings.
2. Only after following all procedures in Section II(D)(1)(a)-(c), or if RTD fails to comply with Section II(D)(1)(a)-(c), may a Complainant file litigation against RTD concerning the matter described in the written notice; provided, however, that such litigation must be filed within 180 days of RTD’s written response under Section II(D)(1)(c), unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing. A Complainant who fails to file litigation within 180 days of RTD’s written response under Section II(D)(1)(c) is not barred from filing such litigation, but must first comply with this Section II(D).
3. If RTD does not respond within thirty (30) calendar days of the Meet and Confer, it will waive its rights under the pre-litigation procedure outlined in Section II(D)(1)(a)-
Page 11 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 60
(c). In that case, the Complainant will be deemed to have complied with the provisions of Section II(D).
4. If the Complainant does not respond to RTD’s efforts to schedule the Meet and Confer within thirty (30) calendar days, or participate in the Meet and Confer, RTD will be deemed to have complied with the provisions of Section II(D).
5. Should a Complainant file litigation without following the procedures in Section II(D)(1)(a)-(c), RTD will provide written notice to the Complainant (or its counsel, if represented) that will include a copy of this Settlement Agreement and request that the Complainant voluntarily dismiss the claim without prejudice and complete the conferral process in this Section II(D). If the Complainant refuses to dismiss the claim following notice by RTD, it shall be dismissed with prejudice by the Court in which the action was filed.
6. During the pendency of the Litigation and negotiation of the Settlement Agreement, certain Plaintiffs raised issues with RTD concerning RTD’s paratransit service called Access-a-Ride and the design of certain vehicles in RTD’s fixed-route bus fleet. The Parties acknowledge and confirm that these matters will be subject to the procedures set forth in this Section II(D); however, the Parties, by written agreement and as part of their ongoing discussions, may shorten or waive any provisions in Section II(D) as it pertains to these issues.
7. The Parties agree that the provisions contained in this Section II(D) are an appropriate and enforceable alternative means of dispute resolution contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §12212.
E. Quarterly Meetings. 1. The Parties agree to cooperate to promote a constructive dialogue
concerning issues related to the ADA concerning Light Rail Service. To this end, RTD agrees to
Page 12 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 60
meet quarterly with Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin, Jon Jaime Lewis, or a staff member designee of CCDC who reports to Ms. Reiskin or Mr. Lewis, on behalf of the Class.
2. At the quarterly meetings, RTD will provide an oral status report regarding the types of complaints received, the resolution of those complaints, and any changes to RTD policies and procedures as a result of those complaints during the previous quarter concerning Light Rail Service. Subsequent to the meeting, RTD will produce minutes of the meeting to be shared with all attendees. If Class Counsel would like more information, they may submit a request pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act. The quarterly meetings will occur at CCDC’s office or such other location within the RTD district as CCDC may elect.
3. In addition to its obligations set forth in Section II(D) above, Class Counsel, on behalf of CCDC and CREEC, commit to raise any questions as to which they are considering litigation in one of these meetings or in writing at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to filing except as related to the issues discussed in Section II(D)(6), which are already the subject of ongoing discussions. III. PRELIMINARY COURT APPROVAL
A. Motion for Preliminary Approval. 1. Within ten (10) business days of the complete execution of this Settlement
Agreement, Plaintiffs shall file a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Settlement (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”), which RTD will not oppose.
2. In that Motion, Plaintiffs will request the Court certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Specifically, Plaintiffs will move the Court for certification for settlement purposes of the Settlement Class, which will include a Rule 23(b)(2) class with respect to the injunctive relief described herein and Rule 23(b)(3) optout class with respect to the release of damages claims, which RTD will not oppose.
Page 13 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 60
3. In their Motion for Preliminary Approval, Plaintiffs will also request the Court appoint Class Counsel, grant preliminary approval of the Settlement and Class Notice Procedures, approve and set the deadline for Settlement Class Members to object to the Settlement, enjoin Settlement Class Members from initiating or prosecuting any litigation related to the claims resolved or released by this Agreement against RTD pending the Court’s entry of a Final Order and Judgment, and set a final approval hearing within 90 calendar days of the Preliminary Approval Order, or at the Court’s earliest convenience thereafter.
4. As more fully discussed in Section IX below, all actions associated with preliminary approval and certification are undertaken on the condition that all such certifications and designations are automatically vacated if this Settlement Agreement is terminated or disapproved, in whole or in material part, by the Court, any appellate Court, or any other Court of review, or if the Settlement Agreement is otherwise revoked or terminated, in which event this Agreement shall not be offered, received, or construed as an admission or as evidence for any purpose, including certifiability of any class.
B. Preliminary Approval Order. 1. Plaintiffs shall request the Court enter its Preliminary Approval Order
substantially in the form and substance of Exhibit A attached hereto. IV. CLASS NOTICE PROCEDURES
A. Timing and Reasonableness of Class Notice. 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1), within fourteen (14) calendar days of
the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, notice of this Settlement will be provided to Settlement Class Members, as detailed below in this Section IV (collectively, “Class Notice”).
2. The Parties agree that the Class Notice Procedures agreed to herein are reasonable and fairly calculated to alert Class Members of the Settlement and inform them of
Page 14 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 60
their rights under the Settlement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the Due Process clause of the United States and Colorado Constitutions.
B. Posted Notice. 1. RTD shall post notice, in a form substantially similar to Exhibit D, (1) on
all mini-high ramps at each station providing Light Rail Service in a location easily visible to passengers; (2) at RTD ticket sales outlets at Denver Union Station, Civic Center, two locations in Boulder, and if these sales outlets are temporarily closed, at the temporary replacement ticket outlet for that location; (3) the Special Discount Card location at 1600 Blake Street (“Posted Notice”). The Posted Notice shall be displayed for no less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days.
2. RTD shall bear the costs associated with Posted Notice. C. Website Notice.
1. RTD, CCDC, and CREEC shall post notice, in a form substantially similar to the Posted Notice, on their respective websites (“Website Notice”). The Website Notice shall remain posted for no less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. RTD will establish a link to the page on which the Website Notice appears on its Light Rail Service website page (www.rtddenver.com/lightrail.shtml) as well as its Accessibility website page (www.rtddenver.com/Accessibility.shtml). CCDC and CREEC will each put a link to the page on which the Website Notice appears on their respective main pages (www.ccdconline.org and www.creeclaw.org).
2. RTD, CCDC, and CREEC shall bear the costs, if any, associated with Website Notice on their respective websites.
D. Mailed Notice. 1. RTD shall send via U.S. Mail notice, in a form substantially similar to
Exhibit E (“Mailed Notice”), to no more than ten (10) Colorado disability rights organizations Page 15 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 60
listed in Exhibit F. As reflected in Exhibit E, the Mailed Notice shall include a request that such notice be posted on the organization’s bulletin boards for at least thirty (30) business days.
2. RTD shall bear the costs associated with Mailed Notice to the addresses, as provided on Exhibit F. RTD shall have no obligation to perform any additional search for, or otherwise attempt to verify addresses, including as to any returned, undelivered Mailed Notices.
E. E-mailed Notice. 1. CCDC and CREEC shall e-mail notice, in a form substantially similar to
the Mailed Notice, to their members (“E-mailed Notice”). 2. CCDC and CREEC shall bear the costs, if any, associated with E-mailed
Notice. F. CAFA Notice. Within ten (10) days of the filing of the Motion for Preliminary Approval, RTD will
serve on the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorney General of Colorado the documents listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA Notice”). The Parties agree that, for purposes of CAFA Notice, it is not feasible to provide the names of all Settlement Class Members pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(7)(A) and, therefore, the procedure set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(7)(B) will be utilized. V. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION & OBJECTIONS
A. Exclusions. 1. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any member of the Settlement
Class may exclude him or herself from the portion of the Settlement Agreement that releases claims for damages by sending a written request for exclusion to Class Counsel and RTD’s Counsel within thirty (30) calendar days of the commencement of Class Notice, the specific date and time which will be specified in the Class Notice.
Page 16 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 60
2. The written request for exclusion must include the Settlement Class Member’s name, address, and telephone number; must be signed by the Settlement Class Member; and clearly identify the Settlement Class Member’s desire to be excluded.
3. Class Counsel and their respective organizations agree not to represent or provide legal advice to any person seeking exclusion from the Settlement Class in any claims against RTD related to those claims brought in the Litigation.
B. Confidential Opt-Out Agreement. 1. The Parties will agree to a Confidential Opt-Out Agreement that will
specify that if timely requests for exclusion are received from a specified number or percentage of Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Members, Defendant shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to proceed with a Rule 23(b)(2) settlement class only.
2. The Confidential Opt-Out Agreement will not provide a basis for Defendant to terminate the Rule 23(b)(2) class settlement.
3. The Confidential Opt-Out Agreement will be filed under seal and shall remain confidential, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
C. Objections. 1. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any member of the Settlement
Class may object to the proposed Settlement Agreement by filing written objections with the Court within sixty (60) calendar days of the commencement of Class Notice, the specific date and time which will be specified in the Class Notice.
2. Any such objections must include all grounds, including all bases in law and in fact, for each such objection.
Page 17 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 60
3. Only Settlement Class Members that timely object in compliance with the procedures in this Section V(C) shall have the right to present any objections or arguments at the Final Approval Hearing. VI. CLASS COUNSEL’S FEES AND COSTS
A. Fees and Costs. 1. Subject to Court approval, RTD agrees to pay Class Counsel the following
amounts, inclusive of all attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and gross receipts tax: $125,000 within thirty (30) calendar days of the Final Settlement Date; $125,000 by no later than March 1, 2018; and $125,000 by no later than March 1, 2019. This payment schedule may be amended or modified by written agreement of RTD and Class Counsel without further Court approval.
2. RTD and Class Counsel agree this amount is fair and represents fair compensation for work performed by Class Counsel through Final Approval. Class Counsel is not entitled to any additional remuneration in connection with the Litigation or this Settlement Agreement, from RTD or the Settlement Class, beyond the payment pursuant to this Section VI(A)(1) and any amounts awarded pursuant to Paragraph X(C)(3).
3. A class representative award (incentive award) has not been and will not be requested by, or awarded to, any Named Plaintiff or Representative Plaintiff.
B. Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. At least one (1) week before the deadline for filing objections, Plaintiffs shall file a motion, which RTD will not oppose, requesting an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount agreed to by the Parties in Section VI(A)(1).
Page 18 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 60
VII. FINAL COURT APPROVAL A. Motion for Final Approval. At least two (2) weeks prior to the final approval hearing, Plaintiffs shall file, and
Defendant shall not oppose, a motion seeking the Court’s entry of a mutually acceptable order granting final approval of this Settlement Agreement, responding to any objections to the Settlement, and entering final judgment.
B. Final Approval Hearing. The Parties shall appear at the Final Approval Hearing set by the Court, and shall cooperate in defending this Settlement Agreement and seeking its final approval, including in addressing any timely objections to the Settlement Agreement. C. Final Approval and Certification. Upon the Court’s approval of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties will request the Court, on or after the period provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d), enter a Final Order and Judgment. VIII. SUMMARY OF DEADLINES AND TIMING Table 1, below, summarizes the key deadlines detailed above in Sections III through VII. This table is provided as a summary and visual aid only. The detailed written terms, conditions, and explanations in this Settlement Agreement govern and, in the event of any discrepancy with Table 1, shall be controlling.
Page 19 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 60

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF KEY DEADLINES
Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Preliminary Approval (10 business days from execution of Settlement Agreement)
Completion of CAFA Notice (10 days from Motion for Preliminary Approval)
Preliminary Approval Order

Class Notice Procedures Commence (within 14 days of Preliminary Approval Order)

Deadline for Settlement Class Members to Request Exclusion (30 days from
commencement of Class Notice Procedures)

Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
(1 week prior to objection deadline)
Deadline for Settlement Class Members to Object
(60 days from commencement of Class Notice Procedures)

Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Final Approval
(2 weeks prior to Final Approval Hearing)

Final Approval Hearing (Parties will request hearing within 90 days of Preliminary Approval Order)

Final Order and Judgment (no less than 90 days after CAFA Notice)
Final Settlement Date (after expiration of deadline to appeal)

First Payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (30 days after Final Settlement Date)
Page 20 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 60
IX. THE EFFECT OF DISAPPROVAL OR TERMINATION OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT A. This Agreement is for settlement purposes only, and neither the fact of, nor any
provision contained in this Settlement Agreement or its exhibits, nor any action taken hereunder shall constitute, be construed as, or be admissible as evidence as any admission of the validity of: (1) any claim or any fact alleged by Plaintiffs in the action or of any wrongdoing, fault, violation of law, or liability of any kind on the part of RTD or any admission by RTD of any claim or allegation made by Plaintiffs in this action; or (2) any claim or any fact alleged by RTD in the action or of any wrongdoing, fault, violation of law, or liability of any kind on the part of any of the Plaintiffs or an admission by any of the Plaintiffs of any claim or allegation made by RTD in this action.
B. If the Court fails to approve this Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Agreement shall be null and void, and obligations under this Settlement Agreement shall terminate. Neither this Settlement Agreement nor any communication in the course of this Settlement shall be deemed an admission by either party nor shall this Settlement Agreement be used in any way to subvert or limit the claims or defenses in the Litigation.
C. If the Court materially modifies a provision of the Settlement Agreement or Final Judgment, or if any of the terms of the Settlement Agreement are materially impaired, Plaintiffs and/or RTD, in their sole independent discretion, shall have the option of terminating the Settlement Agreement in writing within thirty (30) calendar days. The Parties shall each have the right to determine materiality in connection with this provision, provided, however, such determination is made in good faith and in compliance with prevailing law regarding materiality.
D. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall prejudice the rights of RTD in any way to: (a) oppose class certification in the Litigation should this Settlement Agreement not be
Page 21 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 60
approved or implemented; (b) oppose class certification in the Litigation should this Settlement Agreement be altered or modified in any material way by the Court; or (c) to oppose certification of any other proposed or existing class arising out of the claims asserted herein. X. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS
A. Scope of Dispute Resolution. 1. The dispute resolution process set forth in this Section X applies solely
and exclusively to enforcement of the terms set out in Section II(A)-(C) herein. Nothing in this Section X is intended to or shall be interpreted to nullify or diminish the Parties’ rights and obligations under the pre-litigation procedures described in Section II(D).
B. Conferral. 1. If any Party believes that a dispute exists relating to the performance or
interpretation of the provisions in Section II(A)-(C) of this Settlement Agreement, it shall notify the undersigned counsel for all other Parties in writing, describing the dispute and clearly identifying that they are invoking the dispute resolution process under this Section X.
2. The Party receiving the notice shall respond in writing to such notice within ten (10) business days of receipt of the notice.
3. Within ten (10) business days of receipt of the response, Class Counsel and RTD’s Counsel shall meet and confer by telephone or in person, and attempt in good faith to resolve the issue informally.
C. Alternative Dispute Resolution. 1. If, after completing the steps set out in Section X(B), either Party believes
that a dispute still exists relating to the performance or interpretation of Section II(A)-(C) of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties shall participate in good faith in at least one mediation session, which the Parties agree should, if possible, be conducted by Magistrate Judge Kristen L.
Page 22 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 60
Mix. The Parties agree to cooperate in filing a motion under Local Rule 16.6(a) requesting that the dispute be referred to mediation before Magistrate Judge Mix, each Party to pay its own attorneys’ fees and costs. If Magistrate Judge Mix is unavailable, the Parties shall request that the Court select an alternative Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to conduct the mediation.
2. If the mediation is unsuccessful, either Party may seek further relief from the Court. However, complete satisfaction of the provisions in this Section X shall be conditions precedent to any Party seeking Court intervention.
3. Should any matter proceed to Court under this Section X, attorneys’ fees and costs will be awarded in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 12205. XI. RELEASES.
A. Release of Claims. 1. Effective upon the Final Settlement Date, Plaintiffs and all Settlement
Class Members shall release, acquit, and forever discharge RTD from any and all liability arising from the Released Claims, and shall not institute, maintain, or assert any claims against RTD based on the Released Claims, which are defined as follows:
(a) If the Court certifies the Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), as requested by the Parties, “Released Claims” shall mean any and all claims or causes of action (including, but not limited to, claims for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, actual or other damages, attorneys’ fees and costs other than specifically provided in Sections VI and X hereof, and any penalty, exemplary or punitive damages, or fine) under Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, including without limitation any regulations implementing all or a portion of the ADA or Section 504 or any similar local or state law, related to or arising out of RTD’s Light Rail Service to individuals who use Wheelchairs, including without
Page 23 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 60
limitation any and all vehicles, platforms (including high blocks, mini-high platforms and ramps thereto), and operator conduct, whether known or unknown, liquidated or unliquidated, accrued or unaccrued, fixed or contingent, that were, or could have been, alleged or asserted, now or in the future, by Plaintiffs or any Settlement Class Member against RTD in the Litigation. The Released Claims specifically do not include: (1) claims under Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that arise from RTD Light Rail station parking lots, ticket vending machines, or an accessible path of travel to the station; (2) tort claims for personal injury arising under common law; or (3) claims for employment discrimination.
(b) The Released Claims do not constitute a relinquishment or waiver of any Settlement Class Member’s right to utilize RTD’s ADA grievance and complaint procedure to report their experiences of RTD’s daily operations, including any specific instances of operator conduct.
(c) If the Court certifies the Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(2) only, “Released Claims” shall have the same meaning as defined above, except that it shall exclude claims or causes of action for actual damages.
(d) Plaintiffs agree not to assert any Released Claim against RTD, or encourage any third party to assert a Released Claim against RTD.
2. Effective upon the Final Settlement Date, RTD shall release, acquit, and forever discharge Plaintiffs from any and all liability arising from RTD’s counterclaim for breach of contract, as detailed in the Litigation.
B. Release of Unknown Claims. In connection with this Release and limited to the Released Claims, Plaintiffs acknowledge, for themselves and the Settlement Class Members, that they are aware that they may hereafter discover claims presently unknown or unsuspected, or facts in addition to or
Page 24 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 60
different from those that they now know or believe to be true with respect to the Released Claims. Nevertheless, it is the intention of Plaintiffs in executing the Release, for themselves and the Settlement Class, that they fully, finally, and forever settle and release all such matters, and all claims relating thereto, which exist or might have existed (whether or not previously or currently asserted in any action or proceeding) with respect to the Released Claims. To the extent that any applicable statutes or principles of law limit the Release of unknown claims, such statutes and principles shall be knowingly and voluntarily waived to the maximum extent permitted by law by Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class.
C. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. The Release shall cover, without limitation, any and all claims for attorneys’ fees, costs, or disbursements incurred by Class Counsel or any other counsel representing Plaintiffs or any Settlement Class Member, or by Plaintiffs or any Class Member in connection with or related in any manner to the Litigation, the Settlement, and/or the Released Claims, except to the extent otherwise specified in this Settlement Agreement. XII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Best Interests of the Class. Class Counsel and Plaintiffs represent that they are seeking to protect the interests of the entire Settlement Class and believe that this Settlement Agreement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs agree not to request exclusion from the Class or to encourage others to do so. B. Choice of Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by federal procedural law and the substantive laws of the State of Colorado, except to the extent otherwise specified in this Settlement Agreement.
Page 25 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 60
C. Communications Regarding Settlement. The Settlement Agreement is not confidential. At a mutually agreeable time after Class Notice, the Parties shall issue a joint press release regarding this Settlement in substantially the form of Exhibit G hereto and the Parties shall ensure that any other mass and/or generalized statements to the media or press will be consistent with this press release or will have the prior approval of the other party. D. Communications with Class Members. Communications relating to this Settlement Agreement with Persons who have received Class Notice will be handled by Class Counsel, provided that nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to prevent RTD from communicating with Settlement Class Members in the normal course of business, or from resolving any given complaint by a Settlement Class Member, even if they otherwise fall within the scope of the Settlement Agreement, before the Settlement Agreement is finally approved. E. Continuing Jurisdiction of the Court. The Parties agree that the Court shall retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction for the limited purpose of resolving disputes that require Court intervention as set forth in Section X. F. Cooperation. The Parties shall take all reasonable action to support and defend this Settlement Agreement and obtain final Court approval of the same. The Parties further commit to a broader partnership to enhance policies for accommodating the needs of passengers on RTD vehicles. To that end, no Party shall publicly take a position contrary to the substance of this Settlement Agreement with respect to access to Light Rail Service for Settlement Class Members. Furthermore, CCDC shall update its website page discussing the Litigation in a manner consistent with the terms and spirit of this Settlement Agreement, including as reflected in
Page 26 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 60
Section IV, and will take any reference to Geoff Ames relating to this Litigation off of its website.
G. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute a duplicate original. H. Effective Date. The effective date of this Settlement Agreement shall be the first day upon which all Parties have executed this Settlement Agreement. I. Entire Agreement. This Settlement Agreement and its exhibits set forth the entire Agreement between the Parties relating to the Settlement of the Litigation and may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by Class Counsel and RTD’s Counsel. Unless such notification or amendment materially alters any portion of Section II(A)-(C), or unless otherwise ordered by the Court, it can be made without notice to Class Members. There are no other representations or warranties between the Settling Parties relating to the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement that are not contained in this Settlement Agreement or that are being relied upon by either party to this Settlement Agreement. J. Extensions. The Parties, through their counsel, may agree to any reasonable extensions of time in connection with provisions of this Settlement Agreement. Such extensions must be in writing to be enforceable. However, to the extent a requested extension of time is material to the rights and benefits of the Settlement Class Members, the Parties shall seek the Court’s approval of any such requested extensions.
Page 27 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 60
K. Further Assurances. The Parties agree that upon the request of any one of them, they will execute and deliver such further documents and undertake such further action as may reasonably be required to effect any of the agreements and covenants contained in this Settlement Agreement. L. Mutually Drafted. This Settlement Agreement is the product of negotiations between the Parties and shall be given fair interpretation. Each of the Parties hereto expressly acknowledges that this Settlement Agreement was, and shall be deemed to have been, mutually prepared, drafted, and negotiated, such that the rule of construction that ambiguities are resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Settlement Agreement. M. No Admissions. This Settlement Agreement shall in no event be construed or deemed to be evidence or an admission or a concession on the part of any Party with respect to any claim of any fault or liability or damages. N. Parties Bound. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, the Class Members, Releasees, and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. O. Postmarks. Whenever a Class Member is required to provide notice or submit materials by a certain date, the notice or submission shall be timely only if it is postmarked on or before the date it is due and is in fact received by the intended recipient within ten days thereafter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, objections to the Settlement Agreement and notices of appearance must be actually delivered to and received by the intended recipient on or before the date they are due.
Page 28 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 60
P. Tax Obligations. By virtue of this Settlement Agreement, RTD and its counsel express no advice, belief, or opinion regarding the tax consequences, if any, of any payment made in connection with this Settlement Agreement. Q. Term. The term of this Settlement Agreement shall be five (5) years from the Final Settlement Date or the date on which all disputes raised pursuant to Section X hereof shall be resolved, whichever is latest. R. Unambiguous Contract. This Settlement Agreement was drafted by counsel for the Parties at arm’s length and its terms are clear and unambiguous. No parol or other evidence may be offered to explain, construe, contradict, or clarify its terms, its intent, or the circumstances under which it was made or executed.
Page 29 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 60
I, the undersigned, have fully read and understand the terms of the foregoing Settlement Agreement, have had ample opportunity to consult with my legal counsel regarding the scope and meaning of this Settlement Agreement, and being fully advised, freely and voluntarily execute and agree to this Settlement Agreement. I represent and warrant that I am authorized and have legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement, and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement that is binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms. JULIE REISKIN
Date: JON JAIME LEWIS
Plaintiff Date: WILLIAM JOE BEAVER
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: DOUGLAS HOWEY
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date:
Page 30 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 60
I, the undersigned, have fully read and understand the terms of the foregoing Settlement Agreement, have had ample opportunity to consult with my legal counsel regarding the scope and meaning of this Settlement Agreement, and being fully advised, freely and voluntarily execute and agree to this Settlement Agreement. I represent and warrant that I am authorized and have legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement, and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement that is binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms.
JULIE REISKIN
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date:
JON JAIME LEWIS
Plainti Date:
WILLIAM JOE BEAVER
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date:
DOUGLAS HOWEY
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date:
Page 30 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 60
I, the undersigned, have fully read and understand the terms of the foregoing Settlement Agreement, have had ample opportunity to consult with my legal counsel regarding the scope and meaning of this Settlement Agreement, and being fully advised, freely and voluntarily execute and agree to this Settlement Agreement. I represent and warrant that I am authorized and have legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement, and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement that is binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms.
JULIE REISKIN
_________________________________________ Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: ___________________________________
JON JAIME LEWIS
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
WILLIAM JOE BEAVER
_________________________________________ Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: ___________________________________
DOUGLAS HOWEY
_________________________________________ Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class
2016-10/26 Date: ___________________________________
Page 30 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 60

DIANA MILNE

I )- 6- Plaintif
Date:

J
L.C

TINA MCDONALD

Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the §ettl~~ent Class Date:
JOSE TORRES-VEGA

Plaintiff Date:
RANDY KILBOURN

Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date:
JOHN BABCOCK

Plaintiff Date:

Page 31 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 60
DIANA MILNE
Plaintiff Date: TINA MCDONALD
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: 10/28/2016 JOSE TORRES-VEGA
Plain tiff Date: RANDY KILBOURN
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: JOHN BABCOCK
Plaintiff Date:
Page 31 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 60
DIANA MILNE
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
TINA MCDONALD
_________________________________________ Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: ___________________________________
JOSÉ TORRES-VEGA
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: _10/27/2016_________________________
RANDY KILBOURN
_________________________________________ Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class Date: ___________________________________
JOHN BABCOCK
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
Page 31 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 60
KIMBERLEY JACKSON
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ______1_0__/3_1_/_1_6______________________
PAULINA BLACK
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
RUTHIE MCNAIR
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
VRLINA NOZLIÇ
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
CHRIS QUINLAN
_________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
Page 32 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 60

KIMBERLEY JACKSON

Plaintiff Date:
PAULINA BLACK

Plaintiff Date:
RUTHIE MCNAIR

Plaillftiff

'

Date: ///?//V )

VRLINA NOZLI<;

Plaintiff Date:
CHRIS QUINLAN

Plaintiff Date:

Page 32 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 60
CHERYL QUINLAN Plaintiff Date: ELAINE CULPEPPER
Date: KEVIN GRIMSINGER Plaintiff Date: Approved as to Legal Form for Plaintiffs: Class Counsel
Page 33 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 60
CHERYL QUINLAN Plaintiff Date: ELAINE CULPEPPER Plaintiff Date:
Date: Oc+- 3 11 2._ot6
Approved as to Legal Form for Plaintiffs:
Class Counsel
Page 33 of34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 60
CHERYL QUINLAN _________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________ ELAINE CULPEPPER _________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________ KEVIN GRIMSINGER _________________________________________ Plaintiff Date: ___________________________________
Approved as to Legal Form for Plaintiffs: ________________________________ Class Counsel
Page 33 of 34

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 60

Case 1:14-cv-03111-CMA-KLM Document 151-1 Filed 11/14/16 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 60


[CONTENT] November 18, 2014 | Colorado | Regional Transportation District | RTD ||| the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program | the Civil Rights Education | Enforcement Center ||| Title II | Americans | ADA | section 504 | the Rehabilitation Act ||| Christine Arguello | the U.S. District Court | Colorado |||  ||| two ||| Firstly ||| ADA ||| Secondly | RTD |||  |||  ||| policies-- |||  |||  ||| November 14, 2016 ||| Court | April 3, 2017 ||| July 11, 2017 ||| three ||| Firstly | 172 |||  ||| at least two ||| Secondly ||| thirdly ||| 375,000 ||| five years [SUMMARY] On November 18, 2014, the plaintiffs, persons with disabilities that require the use of a wheelchair, brought this class action lawsuit against the defendant, Colorado's Regional Transportation District (RTD). The plaintiffs were represented by the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program and the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center. The plaintiffs alleged disability discrimination under Title II of  the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  Judge Christine Arguello presided over this case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. 

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants did not make their transportation services readily accessible for persons using wheelchairs and in that light rail operators repeatedly denied persons who require the use of wheelchairs access to the light rail.

The plaintiffs, in particular, alleged that the defendant discriminated in two ways. Firstly, the walkways within their light rail vehicles had narrow walkways that restricted the mobility of persons using wheelchairs. This equated to the vehicles not being readily accessible for wheelchairs which was required under the ADA. And Secondly, despite RTD designating seating locations for persons using wheelchairs, in practice, those locations were often unavailable.  Oftentimes, the light rail operators would allow non-disabled persons that had either a stroller or bicycle to occupy designated wheelchair seating location. And if a person with a stroller or bicycle occupied those areas, the light rail operator sometimes denied transportation services to a person using a wheelchair. Instead of giving priority to persons using wheelchairs--as required by their own policies-- the operator would often refuse access to the person with the wheelchair if someone onboard with a stroller or bicycle already occupied that space. 

The plaintiffs sought class certification, attorney fees and costs, declaratory relief, and an injunction. 

After a period of discovery and the like, the parties settled.  Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for certification of the class for settlement purposes, and for approval of the preliminary settlement on November 14, 2016.  The Court agreed on April 3, 2017. After a hearing on the settlement, the court finally approved it, along with attorneys fees, on July 11, 2017.

The settlement agreement had three terms. Firstly, the agreement called for 172 of the light rails vehicles to be retrofitted to accommodate persons that use wheelchairs. The retrofit would make it so that persons using wheelchairs have more mobility within the transportation vehicles. This would allow for wheelchair users to not obstruct other passengers, and that at least two people with wheelchairs can board the vehicles.

Secondly, the settlement agreement required policies that both direct light rail operators to not discriminate against persons with disability the use of a wheelchair, and to train/retrain these operators to ensure that these anti-discriminatory measures are upheld.

And thirdly, the agreement required that the defendant pay the plaintiffs’ attorney fees and costs. The court approved the agreed amount of $ 375,000 for attorney fees and costs.

The court maintains limited jurisdiction over the case for five years to resolve disputes that require court intervention as set forth in the settlement agreement. 
