McCourt v. City of Chaska
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-01559
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
McCourt v. City of Chaska: Judge Tostrud entered judgment approving an agreement requiring park-planning accessibility work under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Noah J. McCourt and the City of Chaska; the order concerns the accessibility of City services and programs in City Square Park.
What happened
Noah J. McCourt v. City of Chaska involved McCourt’s allegation that certain community events in City Square Park were inaccessible because of his physical and mobility limitations. The City made an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, which McCourt accepted.
The agreement required the City to work with an accessibility compliance specialist while planning improvements to City Square Park, ensure that city services and programs there complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and make necessary changes. It also allowed McCourt to seek reasonable costs and attorney fees, which the order did not decide.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud found that the court had federal jurisdiction and that the agreed terms appeared fair, reasonable, and consistent with the law. The court ordered the City to provide the agreed accessibility work and directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- McCourt v. City of Chaska · No. 0:18-cv-01559
- Eric Tostrud
- Nov. 1, 2018
Background
Noah J. McCourt filed this action against the City of Chaska under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He alleged that the City was violating the ADA by holding certain community events at a location in City Square Park that he could not access because of his physical and mobility limitations. McCourt initially filed the complaint without a lawyer, but an attorney later appeared on his behalf through the Federal Bar Association Pro Se Project.
Rule 68 offer and court review
The City filed a notice accepting McCourt’s acceptance of its Rule 68 offer of judgment. The offer included injunctive relief—an order requiring specified conduct rather than payment alone. It required the City to work with an accessibility compliance specialist during the planning process for City Square Park, which had already been scheduled in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, to ensure that all city services and programs in the park complied with the ADA and to implement necessary changes. The agreement also allowed McCourt to petition for reasonable costs and attorney fees.
Because the proposed judgment included injunctive relief, the court explained that it had to review the terms rather than enter them automatically. The court considered whether the agreement was substantively and procedurally fair, reasonable, and consistent with the governing law. It found that it had federal-question jurisdiction, that the parties wanted to resolve the case through the agreed relief, that all parties were represented by capable counsel, and that nothing in the record suggested unfair negotiations. The court concluded that the terms appeared fair, reasonable, and consistent with the ADA.
Ruling
Upon the parties’ consent, the court ordered the City of Chaska to work with an accessibility compliance specialist during the City Square Park planning process, ensure that all city services and programs there were ADA-compliant, and implement necessary changes. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment. The order did not decide whether the City had violated the ADA, and it did not rule on any request for costs or attorney fees.
Disposition
The court approved and entered the agreed injunctive relief under the accepted Rule 68 offer and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.