Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs alleged that Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. and Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. operated six California assisted-living facilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The allegations concerned accessibility for people with disabilities and Brookdale policies involving transportation, emergency evacuation, and staffing.

The court had previously certified four subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): a subclass of wheelchair and scooter users pursuing claims concerning Brookdale’s Fleet Safety Policy, and facility-specific subclasses for the San Ramon, Scotts Valley, and Brookhurst facilities. The remaining claims included individual injunctive-relief and damages claims, as well as subclass claims for injunctive relief. The parties later reached a settlement covering the subclasses’ injunctive-relief claims. They separately reached a confidential settlement resolving the eight named plaintiffs’ individual claims.

Settlement Terms

The settlement provides injunctive relief rather than a stated damages payment to the subclasses. Brookdale must bring the interior and exterior common areas of its Brookhurst, San Ramon, and Scotts Valley facilities into compliance with the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Standards within five years. It must also renovate specified residential units at those facilities to comply with the standards’ Section 223.3 requirements.

Brookdale will not change the existing transportation-policy provisions allowing residents to remain on wheelchairs, scooters, or other powered mobility aids during transit. It must update emergency evacuation plans at the San Ramon and Scotts Valley facilities, including measures concerning preparedness, transportation, and equipment. Brookdale must continue providing current or prospective San Ramon and Scotts Valley residents with information about care and services from the California Department of Social Services and must not promise that staffing levels will adjust whenever a resident is admitted or needs change. Brookdale must also provide plaintiffs’ counsel with semiannual reports on specified staffing metrics for two years.

The settlement releases covered subclass members’ claims for declaratory or injunctive relief arising from or related to the claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in this action. The release does not cover individual personal-injury claims or claims based on an alleged breach of the settlement. Three facility-subclass representatives may seek incentive awards of up to $5,000. Plaintiffs’ counsel intends to request no more than $14.5 million in fees, costs, and expenses, and Brookdale agreed not to oppose that request. Class members will have an opportunity to object to the fee request.

Court’s Analysis

The court provisionally certified the settlement class because the settlement covered the same four subclasses that had already been certified and did not change the certified claims, defenses, or issues.

For preliminary approval, the court considered whether the settlement appeared to result from serious and informed negotiations, avoided improper preferential treatment, fell within the possible range of approval, and lacked obvious deficiencies. The court found that the negotiations were conducted at arm’s length and were facilitated by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Although the agreement included a provision under which Brookdale would not oppose the fee request, the court did not find the proposed fees so disproportionate at this stage that they raised concerns requiring rejection of the settlement. The court stated that it would independently evaluate the fee request at final approval.

The court also found that the proposed incentive awards were not inherently unreasonable and that providing renovated units to Stacia Stiner and Bernie Jestrabek-Hart did not unfairly favor them because the agreement required comparable remediation for covered facilities and did not require residents to pay for disability-related renovations. The court found that the settlement’s accessibility renovations, emergency-planning changes, transportation-policy provision, staffing-communication changes, and reporting requirements placed it within the possible range of approval. It found no obvious deficiencies.

Notice and Ruling

Although notice is generally not required for classes certified under Rule 23(b)(2), the court exercised its discretion to require notice here. The proposed notices describe the subclasses, the injunctive relief, the final approval hearing, and the objection procedures. The parties must provide hard-copy notice within 30 days of the order, send electronic copies to members with designated legal representatives, and post the notice on the plaintiffs’ law firms’ websites. Subclass members may submit written objections electronically or in person, subject to the deadlines in the settlement and the court’s scheduling order.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, provisionally certified the settlement class, and directed the parties to implement the notice plan. The parties were also directed to meet and confer and submit proposed dates for fee and service-award requests, objections, the final approval motion, and the final fairness hearing. The order granted preliminary approval only; it did not grant final approval of the settlement or decide the final amount of attorneys’ fees or incentive awards.