Case: Betancourt-Colon v. City of San Juan

3:19-cv-01837 | U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Filed Date: Sept. 6, 2019

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about a lack of accessible curb ramps in the City of San Juan for people with mobility disabilities. On September 6, 2019, four individuals seeking to represent a class of people with mobility disabilities who used or would use the pedestrian right of way in San Juan filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The plaintiffs sued the City of San Juan under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”). Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs asked the court to issue a permanent injunction requiring the City to cure past violations of the ADA and Section 504 by constructing and altering ramps as necessary to ensure that they complied with those statutes. The plaintiffs alleged that by not providing accessible curb ramps and by not remediating and repairing current ramps, the City had discriminated against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further alleged that the City had engaged in discrimination by allowing numerous parts of the city to be inaccessible to people with mobility disabilities. The case was assigned to Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi.

The City moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on November 14, 2019. On December 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added two named plaintiffs, as well as details about specific occurrences when a lack of proper sidewalks served as a barrier to plaintiffs accessing facilities like government buildings and medical services.

The City moved to dismiss the amended complaint on December 27, 2019. The City argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they had not shown an injury-in-fact or harm that could be traced to the conduct of the City. The City also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because they had not established exclusion from participation in or denial of the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity.

On September 1, 2020, the court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and had sufficiently stated a claim under which relief could be granted. The plaintiffs had shown injury-in-fact through the lack of accessibility to sidewalks which denied them access to accommodations and services available to the general public. The court further found that the plaintiffs had standing through the ADA and Section 504, as it was not disputed that they were individuals with disabilities. The court noted, however, that the question of whether sidewalks were considered “services” under Title II of the ADA required further briefing. Under Title II, the plaintiffs would need to prove that they were either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities or were otherwise discriminated against. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The court ordered the parties to provide further memoranda regarding the issue. 2020 WL 5221713.

On November 12, 2020, after further briefing by the parties, the court resolved the contested "services" issue. The court reviewed the statements provided by the parties, as well as a statement of interest submitted by the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. The DOJ statement laid out the United States’ interest in ensuring that the ADA was properly enforced and explained its long-held position that sidewalks qualify as a service, program, or activity under the ADA. Based on the arguments and precedent finding that sidewalks were covered services under the statute, the court found that a public entity's provision and maintenance of sidewalks is a covered "service, program, or activity" under Title II. See Mote v. City of Chelsea, 252 F. Supp. 3d 642, 655 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (“[any] sensible reading of ADA Title II compels the conclusion that maintaining public pedestrian thoroughfares for citizens to get around a city—and access the many public services and businesses located within—is the archetypal example of the most fundamental of public services”).

On December 2, 2020, the court stayed all proceedings in the case until January 15, 2021 because a new municipal government was scheduled to be sworn in in January of 2021. The court said it was "important that the new Municipal government [had] an opportunity to evaluate the case." The court urged the parties to seek settlement once the stay concluded.

On February 12, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting court-ordered mediation in response to the court's December 2, 2020 order. The court granted the motion, stayed all other deadlines, and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler for mediation. The first mediation session was held on May 21, 2021. The United States was ordered to attend the mediation session in order to discuss its previously submitted statement of interest. Another mediation session was held a month later, after which the parties were ordered to file a status report regarding the outcome of the City’s efforts to engage a contractor specializing in ADA compliance and to retain an ADA coordinator. At the next mediation session, a schedule was set for the plaintiffs to submit a settlement demand. On November 3, 2021, the case was reassigned to Judge Jay A. Garcia-Gregory after Judge Gelpi was appointed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Further mediation hearings were held in November and December of 2021 as well as in March, June, and July of 2022.

On May 27, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to lift the stay as they had been unable to reach a settlement and the City had rejected the plaintiffs' proposed settlement agreement. The United States requested to participate in the hearing on the joint motion. Because neither party had objected to the United States’ participation thus far, the court allowed the request to participate in the hearing and further mediation. On June 8, 2022, the court denied the motion to lift the stay. At a mediation session the following day, the parties notified the court that they had been able to work through their impasse and that mediation would continue.

On July 9, 2022, the City moved for sanctions after the plaintiffs' attorney failed to attend a mediation meeting that had already been rescheduled because of a request by the plaintiffs' attorney.

On September 12, 2022, the United States formally moved to intervene as a plaintiff, which the court granted on the same day. In its intervenor complaint, the federal government asserted that the plaintiffs could not properly represent their interests as the federal government represented the public interest and any remedial plan the parties agreed on would impact the United States’ responsibility in ensuring that the relevant statutes were properly enforced. The United States further noted that the USDOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had also investigated the sidewalks in a specific San Juan neighborhood after receiving a complaint alleging violations of accessibility issues with pedestrian rights-of-way submitted to the DOJ in April of 2017. The FHWA had issued a Letter of Findings in March of 2019 detailing numerous violations which they tried to reconcile with the City over the course of three years. In March of 2022, FHWA referred its findings of noncompliance to the United States for appropriate action. The United States then conducted its own investigation of the City's sidewalk system and found many violations of the relevant statutes. The United States sought to intervene in this case in order to properly address the FHWA's findings and to ensure that Title II of the ADA and Section 504 would be properly enforced.

The parties continued to engage in mediation.

On June 6, 2023, the parties jointly filed a proposed stipulated order requesting the court to maintain a stay of proceedings for court-ordered mediation and approve a settlement agreement. The parties requested a stay for 36 months with specific compliance actions to be taken by the City. These include training for all municipal employees that supervise construction, repair, or maintenance work related to the sidewalks, the development of a barrier reporting process by individuals with disabilities, the retention of a third-party Accessibility Consultant to conduct comprehensive assessments and produce reports, ongoing compliance and remediation for new projects and maintenance, and the retention of an ADA Coordinator and the adoption of an ADA Grievance Procedure. Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler granted the order the next day.

On August 16, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting an order and a determination that the plaintiffs as prevailing parties were entitled to an award of interim attorneys fees pursuant to the fee-shifting provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12205. The court has not yet ruled on this motion.

Mediation continued and the parties continued to discuss and implement the compliance actions. On February 5, 2026, the court granted a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs’ counsel. The court emphasized that it has repeatedly forewarned the plaintiffs' counsel that settlement efforts undertaken in the course of mediation are confidential, and plaintiffs’ counsel’s decision to make the plaintiffs' settlement demand to the Municipality public was a blatant disregard of the court's orders. The plaintiffs’ counsel was ordered to pay a monetary sanction of $1,500.

As of March 23, 2026, this case is ongoing. The plaintiffs and the Government are required to submit a settlement proposal to the Municipality by March 18, 2026. The Municipality will review the proposal and provide a counterproposal by April 1, 2026.

Summary Authors

Rhea Sharma (10/12/2022)

Liat Sinclair (3/23/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16166818/parties/betancourt-colon-v-city-of-san-juan/

Judge(s)

Garcia-Gregory, Jay A. (Puerto Rico)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Attorney for Defendant

Burgos-Vargas, Ricardo (Puerto Rico)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Colon, Michele (Puerto Rico)

Gardner, David K. (Puerto Rico)

Knight, David W. (Puerto Rico)

Judge(s)

Garcia-Gregory, Jay A. (Puerto Rico)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Velez-Colon, Jose Carlos (Puerto Rico)

Attorney for Defendant

Burgos-Vargas, Ricardo (Puerto Rico)

Mariani-Franco, Raul S. (Puerto Rico)

Rodriguez-Munoz, Teichka M. (Puerto Rico)

Valencia-Aponte, Angel A. (Puerto Rico)

Other

Colon, Michele (Puerto Rico)

Gardner, David K. (Puerto Rico)

Knight, David W. (Puerto Rico)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

1 3:19-cv-01837	Complaint	Sept. 6, 2019	Sept. 6, 2019 Complaint
11 3:19-cv-01837	Amended Complaint	Dec. 5, 2019	Dec. 5, 2019 Complaint
17 3:19-cv-01837	Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction AND Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim	Sept. 1, 2020	Sept. 1, 2020 Order/Opinion 2020 WL 5221713
3:19-cv-01837	Statement of Interest of the United States of America	Nov. 9, 2020	Nov. 9, 2020 Statement of Interest (DOJ)
89 3:19-cv-01837	United States' Unopposed Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff	Sept. 12, 2022	Sept. 12, 2022 Pleading / Motion / Brief
181 3:19-cv-01837	Stipulated Order	June 6, 2023	June 6, 2023 Settlement Agreement
204 3:19-cv-01837	Stipulated Order	Aug. 1, 2023	Aug. 1, 2023 Order/Opinion

show / hide documents

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16166818/betancourt-colon-v-city-of-san-juan/

Last updated July 28, 2026, 9:10 p.m.

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	Sept. 6, 2019	COMPLAINT against City of San Juan ( Filing fee $400 receipt number 0104-6576785.), filed by Virgen Negron-Villegas, Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon. Service due by 12/5/2019, (Attachments: # 1 Category Sheet, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Summons)(Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 09/06/2019) 1 Category Sheet View on PACER 2 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 3 Summons View on PACER	Clearinghouse
2	Sept. 9, 2019	NOTICE OF JUDGE ASSIGNMENT Case has been assigned to Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi (arg) (Entered: 09/09/2019)	RECAP
3	Sept. 9, 2019	Summons Issued as to City of San Juan (Attachments: # 1 Summons) (arg) (Entered: 09/09/2019) 1 Summons View on PACER	RECAP
4	Sept. 9, 2019	STANDING ORDERS: (1) DISCOVERY DISPUTES, (2) COURTESY COPIES, (3) DEPOSITIONS IN CIVIL CASES, (4) CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE, (5) COMMUNICATIONS BY COUNSEL OR THEIR STAFF WITH JUDGE GELPI'S CHAMBERS' STAFF, (6) CODE OF CIVILITY. (gmm) (Entered: 09/09/2019)	RECAP
	Sept. 9, 2019	Notice of Judge Assignment
5	Sept. 12, 2019	SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs upon City of San Juan served on 9/11/2019, answer due 10/2/2019. (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 09/12/2019)	RECAP
6	Sept. 30, 2019	NOTICE of Appearance by Raul S. Mariani-Franco on behalf of City of San Juan (Mariani-Franco, Raul) (Entered: 09/30/2019)	RECAP
7	Sept. 30, 2019	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer the Complaint or Otherwise Plead filed by Raul S. Mariani-Franco on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 10/15/2019. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Mariani-Franco, Raul) (Entered: 09/30/2019)	RECAP
8	Sept. 30, 2019	RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs Re: 7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer the Complaint or Otherwise Plead filed by City of San Juan filed by All Plaintiffs. (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 09/30/2019)	RECAP
9	Sept. 30, 2019	ORDER: Granting as requested 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 9/30/2019. (AGF) (Entered: 09/30/2019)	RECAP
	Sept. 30, 2019	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
10	Nov. 14, 2019	MOTION to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) as to Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon, Virgen Negron-Villegas filed by Raul S. Mariani-Franco on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 12/2/2019. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Mariani-Franco, Raul) (Entered: 11/14/2019)	RECAP
11	Dec. 5, 2019	AMENDED COMPLAINT (as a matter of course under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15) against City of San Juan, filed by Virgen Negron-Villegas, Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon, A.V.R., William Rodriguez-Burgos.(Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 12/05/2019)	Clearinghouse
12	Dec. 19, 2019	MOTION for extension of time until December 27, 2019 to File Responsive Pleading, MOTION for Extension of Time until December 27, 2019 to File Answer filed by Raul S. Mariani-Franco on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 1/2/2020. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Mariani-Franco, Raul) (Entered: 12/19/2019)	RECAP
13	Dec. 19, 2019	ORDER: Granting as requested 12 Motion for extension of time; Granting as requested 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 12/19/2019. (AGF) (Entered: 12/19/2019)	RECAP
	Dec. 19, 2019	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
	Dec. 19, 2019	Order on Motion for Extension of Time
14	Dec. 27, 2019	MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Amended Complaint, MOTION to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction Amended Complaint as to A.V.R., Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon, Virgen Negron-Villegas, William Rodriguez-Burgos filed by Raul S. Mariani-Franco on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 1/10/2020. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Mariani-Franco, Raul) (Entered: 12/27/2019)	RECAP
15	Jan. 13, 2020	RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs Re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Amended ComplaintMOTION to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction Amended Complaint as to A.V.R., Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon, Virgen Negron-Villegas, William Rodriguez-Burgos filed by City of San Juan filed by All Plaintiffs. (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 01/13/2020)	RECAP
16	Jan. 30, 2020	NOTICE of Appearance by Teichka M. Rodriguez-Munoz on behalf of City of San Juan (Rodriguez-Munoz, Teichka) (Entered: 01/30/2020)	RECAP
17	Sept. 1, 2020	OPINION AND ORDER: Denying 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Denying 14 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court notes that whether sidewalks are indeed considered services under Title II of the ADA requires further briefing. Both parties have until October 30, 2020 to provide the Court with further simultaneous memoranda regarding this issue. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 9/1/2020. (AGF) Modified on 9/2/2020 to edit title (gmm). (Entered: 09/01/2020)	Clearinghouse
18	Sept. 1, 2020	ORDER: Finding as moot 10 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 9/1/2020. (AGF) (Entered: 09/01/2020)	RECAP
	Sept. 1, 2020	Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
19	Oct. 30, 2020	Motion In Compliance with Order at Docket 17 and Memorandum of Law filed by Raul S. Mariani-Franco on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 11/13/2020. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Mariani-Franco, Raul) Modified on 11/2/2020 to edit text (gmm). (Entered: 10/30/2020)	RECAP
20	Oct. 30, 2020	Motion In Compliance as to 17 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,, filed by Jose Carlos Velez-Colon on behalf of All Plaintiffs Responses due by 11/13/2020. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Related document(s) 17 ) (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 10/30/2020)	RECAP
21	Oct. 31, 2020	Amended Motion In Compliance with 17 Order re: 20 Motion filed by Jose Carlos Velez-Colon on behalf of All Plaintiffs Responses due by 11/16/2020. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Velez-Colon, Jose) Modified on 11/2/2020 to edit text (gmm). (Entered: 10/31/2020)	RECAP
22	Nov. 9, 2020	NOTICE of filing of Satement of Interest by the United States by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (Bhatia-Gautier, Lisa) (Entered: 11/09/2020) 1 Attachment View on PACER	RECAP
23	Nov. 12, 2020	ORDER: Noted 22 Notice of filing of Statement of Interest by the United States by United States of America; Noted 21 Amended Motion In Compliance with 17 Order re: 20 Motion; Noted 20 Motion In Compliance as to 17 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Noted 19 Motion In Compliance with Order at Docket 17 and Memorandum of Law. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 11/12/2020. (CRH) (Entered: 11/12/2020)	RECAP
24	Nov. 12, 2020	ORDER: After reviewing the parties' submissions and applicable law, notably the Statement of Interest submitted by the United States, the Court rules that a public entity's provision and maintenance of sidewalks is a covered "service, program, or activity" under Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The Court is persuaded by the reasoning in Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) and Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002), which thoroughly explain why this ruling is supported by the statute's plain language and its implementing regulations. See also 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104; 35.150(d)(2); 28 C.F.R. Part 35, App. B at § 35.150. Finally, the Court highlights that recent district court decisions have also found that sidewalks are covered services under Title II of the ADA. See American Council of the Blind of the City of New York v. City of New York, Civil No. 18-5792 (PAE), 2020 WL 6151251 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); Hamer v. City of Trinidad, 441 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (D. Colo. 2020); Mote v. City of Chelsea, 252 F. Supp. 3d 642 (E.D. Mich. 2017). The undersigning judge firmly decides that: "[a]ny sensible reading of ADA Title II compels the conclusion that maintaining public pedestrian thoroughfares for citizens to get around a city - and access the many public services and businesses located within - is the archetypal example of the most fundamental of public services." Mote, 252 F. Supp. 3d at 655. Accordingly, Defendant is hereby ordered to answer the Amended Complaint at Docket No. 11 by December 10, 2020. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 11/12/2020. (CRH) (Entered: 11/12/2020)	RECAP
	Nov. 12, 2020	Order
25	Dec. 2, 2020	ORDER re: Stay of Proceedings. The Court hereby stays all proceedings in this case until January 15, 2021. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 12/2/2020. (CRH) (Entered: 12/02/2020)	RECAP
26	Dec. 2, 2020	MOTION requesting Order filed by Jose Carlos Velez-Colon on behalf of All Plaintiffs Responses due by 12/16/2020. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 12/02/2020)	RECAP
27	Dec. 3, 2020	ORDER: Denying without prejudice at this time 26 Motion requesting Order. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 12/3/2020. (CRH) (Entered: 12/03/2020)	RECAP
	Dec. 3, 2020	Order on Motion requesting Order
28	Feb. 12, 2021	MOTION requesting Order (court-ordered mediation) filed by Jose Carlos Velez-Colon on behalf of All Plaintiffs Responses due by 2/26/2021. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 02/12/2021)	RECAP
29	Feb. 12, 2021	ORDER: Granting 28 Motion requesting Order (court-ordered mediation). As per the order at Docket No. 25 this case is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler for mediation. All other deadlines are STAYED. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 2/12/2021. (CRH) (Entered: 02/12/2021)	RECAP
	Feb. 12, 2021	Order on Motion requesting Order
30	April 9, 2021	MOTION requesting Order filed by Jose Carlos Velez-Colon on behalf of A.V.R., Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon, Virgen Negron-Villegas, William Rodriguez-Burgos Responses due by 4/23/2021. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 04/09/2021)	RECAP
31	April 12, 2021	ORDER: Mediation Session to be held on May 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. before VTC Bridge GLS before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. A representative of each party with binding authority to settle the matter should be present. The parties are ordered to submit their ex parte Confidential Mediation Statements by May 14, 2021 to the following email address: heidi_pantoja@prd.uscourts.gov. Parties are advised that, in compliance with Local Rule 83J(e)(2)(B), mediation statements are not briefs but rather an outline of key facts and legal issues, and should not exceed ten (10) double-spaced pages. As part of the mediation statements, the parties must include a summary of past settlement efforts, if any, and their expectations regarding settlement. Counsel for non-party, the United States of America, is ordered to attend the Mediation Session in order to discuss the Statement of Interest at Docket No. 22-1. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on 4/12/2021. (hgp) (Entered: 04/12/2021)	RECAP
	April 12, 2021	~Util - Set Hearings AND Order
32	April 30, 2021	NOTICE of Appearance by Adam F. Lewis on behalf of United States of America (Lewis, Adam) (Entered: 04/30/2021)	RECAP
33	May 10, 2021	ORDER finding as moot 30 Motion requesting Order. See Docket No. 31. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on 5/10/2021. (NV) (Entered: 05/10/2021)	RECAP
	May 10, 2021	Order on Motion requesting Order
34	May 17, 2021	ORDER: On April 12, 2021, the Court entered an Order establishing that the parties had to submit their ex parte Confidential Mediation Statements by 5/14/2021 (Docket No. 31). Defendant has failed to comply with this deadline and is thus ordered to submit its Mediation Statement tomorrow by close of business. In the alternative, Defendant must submit a motion showing cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the Courts order. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on 5/17/2021.(NV) (Entered: 05/17/2021)	RECAP
	May 17, 2021	Order
35	May 20, 2021	NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa E. Bhatia-Gautier on behalf of United States of America (Bhatia-Gautier, Lisa) (Entered: 05/20/2021)	RECAP
37	May 21, 2021	Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler: A Mediation Session was held on May 21, 2021. The parties expressed their expectations regarding mediation. The Court suggested, and Plaintiffs agreed to share their long-term plan with Defendant and the United States to help establish an initial framework in this mediation and a baseline for negotiations. During the hearing, Plaintiffs counsel sent the proposed long-term plan to Defendant and the United States via e-mail. The Court set action items and a schedule in furtherance of negotiations. Joint motion under seal informing as to the status of all matters addressed during the mediation due by June 18, 2021. Mediation Hearing set for June 24, 2021 at 10:00 AM in VTC Bridge GLS before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. (hgp) (Entered: 05/25/2021)	RECAP
36	May 24, 2021	*Filed in Error- Wrong Entry See Dkt. #37* Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler: A Mediation Session was held on May 21, 2021. The parties expressed their expectations regarding mediation. The Court suggested, and Plaintiffs agreed to share their long-term plan with Defendant and the United States to help establish an initial framework in this mediation and a baseline for negotiations. During the hearing, Plaintiffs counsel sent the proposed long-term plan to Defendant and the United States via e-mail. The Court set action items and a schedule in furtherance of negotiations. Joint motion under seal informing as to the status of all matters addressed during the mediation due by June 18, 2021. Mediation Hearing set for June 24, 2021 at 10:00 AM in VTC Bridge GLS before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. (hgp) Modified on 6/22/2021 (mg). (Entered: 05/24/2021)	RECAP
	June 22, 2021	NOTICE of Docket Text Modification by Deputy Clerk re: 36 Minute, Set Hearings. *Filed in Error- Wrong Entry See Dkt. #37* (mg)
	June 22, 2021	Notice of Docket Text Modification
38	June 24, 2021	CASE PARTICIPANTSSTATUS REPORT by A.V.R., Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon, Virgen Negron-Villegas, William Rodriguez-Burgos. (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 06/24/2021)	RECAP
39	June 24, 2021	Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler: A mediation session was held on June 24, 2021, by VTC before U.S. Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. The Court set the following schedule in furtherance of negotiations: The parties must file a Status Report to inform the Court as to the result of the meeting between Plaintiffs and Defendant by July 15, 2021. By July 26, 2021, Defendant must file an informative motion regarding the outcome of its efforts to engage a contractor specialized in ADA compliance and to retain an ADA Coordinator. By August 20, 2021, Plaintiffs and Defendant will file a joint motion under seal informing the status of all matters as to that date. A further mediation session is scheduled for August 23, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in VTC Bridge GLS before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. (hgp) Modified on 7/1/2021 to edit filing date (rom). (Entered: 06/30/2021)	RECAP
40	July 15, 2021	Joint Motion In Compliance with Order filed by Raul S. Mariani-Franco on behalf of City of San Juan, Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon, Virgen Negron-Villegas, A.V.R. and William Rodriguez-Burgos. Responses due by 7/29/2021. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Mariani-Franco, Raul) Modified on 7/16/2021 to add filers (mg). (Entered: 07/15/2021)	RECAP
41	July 16, 2021	ORDER noted 40 Motion In Compliance. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on July 16, 2021. (Lopez-Soler, Giselle) (Entered: 07/16/2021)	RECAP
	July 16, 2021	Order on Motion In Compliance
42	Aug. 11, 2021	NOTICE of Withdrawal from Participation in Mediation by United States of America (Lewis, Adam) (Entered: 08/11/2021)	RECAP
43	Aug. 20, 2021	Motion In Compliance with Order filed by Raul S. Mariani-Franco on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 9/3/2021. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Mariani-Franco, Raul) (Entered: 08/20/2021)	RECAP
44	Aug. 23, 2021	ORDER noted 43 Motion In Compliance filed by City of San Juan. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on August 23, 2021. (hgp) (Entered: 08/23/2021)	RECAP
45	Aug. 23, 2021	Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler: a Mediation Hearing was held on August 23, 2021 via VTC. By September 22, 2021, Defendant must file an informative motion as to the status of the self-assessment and the grievances procedure, and inform whether the corrective action plan adopted by the MSJ will be available to the public. Within the next twenty (20) days, Plaintiffs will send Defendant a settlement demand, and Defendant must respond on or before October 22, 2021. Further mediation session scheduled for November 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in VTC Bridge GLS before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. (hgp) (Entered: 08/23/2021)	RECAP
	Aug. 23, 2021	Order on Motion In Compliance
46	Sept. 22, 2021	Motion In Compliance with docket no. 45 filed by Raul S. Mariani-Franco on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 10/6/2021. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Mariani-Franco, Raul) Modified on 9/23/2021 to edit docket text (mg). (Entered: 09/22/2021)	RECAP
47	Sept. 23, 2021	ORDER noted and granted 46 Motion In Compliance. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on 9/23/2021. (NV) (Entered: 09/23/2021)	RECAP
	Sept. 23, 2021	Order on Motion In Compliance
48	Oct. 25, 2021	ORDER. Due to a calendar conflict, Mediation Hearing is reset for 11/10/2021 at 3:30 PM in VTC Bridge GLS before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on October 25, 2021. (hgp) (Entered: 10/25/2021)	RECAP
	Oct. 25, 2021	~Util - Set Hearings AND Order
49	Nov. 3, 2021	MEMORANDUM OF THE CLERK. This case having been previously assigned to Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi, recently appointed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, it has been reassigned within the Case Assignment System to the docket of Judge Jay A. Garcia-Gregory. Signed by Clerk on 11/03/2021. (gr) (Entered: 11/03/2021)	RECAP
	Nov. 3, 2021	Memorandum of the Clerk
50	Nov. 10, 2021	Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler: Mediation Session was held on November 10, 2021 by VTC. Further Mediation Session is scheduled for 12/14/2021 at 3:30 p.m. in VTC Bridge GLS before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. (hgp) (Entered: 11/15/2021)	RECAP
51	Nov. 19, 2021	Emergency MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Ricardo Burgos-Vargas on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 12/3/2021. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Removal, # 2 Exhibit A, Complaint Translation, # 3 Exhibit B, Attachement Complaint Translation)(Burgos-Vargas, Ricardo) (Entered: 11/19/2021)	RECAP
52	Dec. 14, 2021	Minute Entry for proceedings held before U.S. Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler: Mediation session held on 12/14/2021. Further Mediation session scheduled for 3/3/2022 at 2:30 p.m. in VTC Bridge GLS before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. (NV) (Entered: 12/15/2021)	RECAP
53	Dec. 28, 2021	RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion filed by A.V.R., Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon, Virgen Negron-Villegas, William Rodriguez-Burgos Re: 51 Emergency MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by City of San Juan filed by A.V.R., Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon, Virgen Negron-Villegas, William Rodriguez-Burgos. (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 12/28/2021)	RECAP
54	Dec. 30, 2021	MOTION to Strike Gonzlez-Rivera's Motion Opposing the MSJ's Emergency Motion for Consolidation filed by Ricardo Burgos-Vargas on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 1/13/2022. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Burgos-Vargas, Ricardo) Modified on 1/3/2022 to remove italics (gav). (Entered: 12/30/2021)	RECAP
55	Jan. 4, 2022	RESPONSE to Motion filed by Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon Re: 54 MOTION to Strike Gonzlez-Rivera's Motion Opposing the MSJ's Emergency Motion for Consolidation filed by City of San Juan filed by Faustino Xavier Betancourt-Colon. (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 01/04/2022)	RECAP
56	March 3, 2022	Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler: Mediation session held on 3/3/2022 by VTC. Further Mediation Session set for 5/12/2022 at 4:00 p.m. in VTC Bridge GLS before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. (hgp) .Modified on 3/28/2022 to replace with corrected minute as per GLS' Chambers(ecc). (Entered: 03/04/2022)	RECAP
57	March 22, 2022	NOTICE OF IMPASSE by All Plaintiffs (Velez-Colon, Jose) (Entered: 03/22/2022)	RECAP
58	March 22, 2022	ORDER re 57 Notice of Impasse. Defendant to submit its position within five (5) days. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on 3/22/2022. (NV) (Entered: 03/22/2022)	RECAP
	March 22, 2022	Order
59	March 24, 2022	Motion In Compliance as to 58 Order filed by Teichka M. Rodriguez-Munoz on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 4/7/2022. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Related document(s) 58 ) (Rodriguez-Munoz, Teichka) (Entered: 03/24/2022)	RECAP
60	March 28, 2022	ORDER noted 59 Motion In Compliance. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on 3/28/2022. (NV) (Entered: 03/28/2022)	RECAP
61	March 28, 2022	ORDER re 57 Notice of Impasse. The parties must comply with all the deadlines established by the Court at Docket No. 56. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on 3/28/2022. (NV) (Entered: 03/28/2022)	RECAP
	March 28, 2022	Order on Motion In Compliance
	March 28, 2022	Order
62	May 5, 2022	Joint INFORMATIVE Motion regarding in Compliance with Order and Requesting an Extension of Time to Comply with the Order at Docket No. 56 No. 56, MOTION to Continue the Mediation Session filed by Teichka M. Rodriguez-Munoz on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 5/19/2022. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Rodriguez-Munoz, Teichka) Modified on 5/6/2022 to remove all caps(gav). (Entered: 05/05/2022)	RECAP
63	May 10, 2022	ORDER noted 62 INFORMATIVE Motion in Compliance with order; granting 62 Motion for extension of time. Informative Motion due by 5/27/2022. Mediation session rescheduled for 6/9/2022 at 4:00 p.m. in VTC Bridge GLS before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on 5/10/2022. (hgp) (Entered: 05/10/2022)	RECAP
	May 10, 2022	Order on Informative Motion
64	May 27, 2022	Joint MOTION to lift stay, Motion In Compliance filed by Jose Carlos Velez-Colon on behalf of All Plaintiffs and City of San Juan. Responses due by 6/10/2022. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Velez-Colon, Jose) Modified on 5/31/2022 to add filer(gav). (Entered: 05/27/2022)	RECAP
65	June 8, 2022	ORDER noted and denied 64 Motion In Compliance. Matters to be addressed at the hearing scheduled for tomorrow. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on 6/8/2022. (NV) (Entered: 06/08/2022)	RECAP
66	June 8, 2022	NOTICE of Request to Participate in Hearing by United States of America (Lewis, Adam) Modified on 6/9/2022 to remove italics (gav). (Entered: 06/08/2022)	RECAP
	June 8, 2022	Order on Motion In Compliance
67	June 9, 2022	Minute Entry for proceedings held before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler: Mediation Hearing held on 6/9/2022 by VTC. Further Mediation Hearing set for 7/13/2022 at 10:30 a.m. in person in GLS Chambers before US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler. (hgp) Modified on 7/1/2022 to edit hearing information(ecc). (Entered: 06/10/2022)	RECAP
68	June 10, 2022	ORDER re 66 Notice (Other) filed by United States of America. The parties have not objected to the participation of the United States of America in the mediation in this case. The United States of America may continue to participate. Nonetheless, the parties and the United States of America are reminded that, pursuant to Local Rule 83J(g), all mediation proceedings are to remain confidential and may not be disclosed for any purpose unrelated to the ongoing mediation process. The Court expects strict compliance with this order and the Local Rules. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on June 10, 2022. (Lopez-Soler, Giselle) (Entered: 06/10/2022)	RECAP
	June 10, 2022	Order
69	June 17, 2022	ORDER denying 54 MOTION to Strike Gonzlez-Rivera's Motion Opposing the MSJ's Emergency Motion for Consolidation; and denying 51 Emergency MOTION to Consolidate Cases. In deciding whether to consolidate two cases, a Court must first determine "whether the two proceedings involve a common party and common issues of fact or law. Once this determination is made, the trial court has broad discretion in weighing the costs and benefits of consolidation to decide whether that procedure is appropriate. A motion for consolidation will usually be granted unless the party opposing it can show 'demonstrable prejudice.'" Seguro de Servicio de Salud de Puerto Rico v. McAuto Sys. Grp., Inc., 878 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1989)). While the two cases involve the Municipality of San Juan and share claims pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, the Court finds Plaintiffs would suffer a demonstrable prejudice if the case were consolidated with Civil No. 21- 01537. Both cases involve different plaintiffs, different issues, and find themselves at different stages of litigation. While both sets of plaintiffs are "individuals with mobility-related disabilities", Docket No. 55 at 3, and both cases implicate the same laws, the maintenance of public sidewalks and the design, construction, and operating of a coliseum are wholly different issues. As such, consolidating both cases would be prejudicial to the plaintiffs in both cases. Signed by Judge Jay A. Garcia-Gregory on 6/17/2022. (ERC) (Entered: 06/17/2022)	RECAP
	June 17, 2022	~Util - Terminate Motions AND Order
	June 17, 2022	Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions
70	June 22, 2022	Motion In Compliance with Order filed by Raul S. Mariani-Franco on behalf of City of San Juan Responses due by 7/6/2022. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Mariani-Franco, Raul) (Entered: 06/22/2022)	RECAP
71	June 22, 2022	ORDER noted 70 Motion In Compliance. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Giselle Lopez-Soler on 6/22/2022. (NV) (Entered: 06/22/2022)	RECAP
	June 22, 2022	Order on Motion In Compliance
72	July 6, 2022	NOTICE of Appearance by Paula Rubin filed by Adam F. Lewis on behalf of United States of America (Lewis, Adam) Modified on 7/7/2022 to remove italics (gav). (Entered: 07/06/2022)	RECAP
73	July 9, 2022	NOTICE of intent to move for continuance by All Plaintiffs re 67 Mediation Hearing,, Set Hearings, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I (Email Dated Jul 9, 2022)) (Velez-Colon, Jose) Modified on 7/11/2022 to remove italics (gav). (Entered: 07/09/2022)	RECAP

show / hide docket entries

Case Details

State / Territory:

Puerto Rico

Case Type(s):

Disability Rights

Public Accommodations/ Contracting/ Organizational Discrimination

Special Collection(s):

DOJ Civil Rights Division Statements of Interest

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 6, 2019

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All persons with mobility disabilities who use or will use the pedestrian right of way in the City of San Juan

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

City

City of San Juan

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Other Dockets:

District of Puerto Rico 3:19-cv-01837

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Relief Granted:

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Access to public accommodations - governmental

Disability and Disability Rights:

Mobility impairment

Sidewalks

Discrimination Area:

Accommodation / Leave

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Recommended Citation

Case Summary of Betancourt-Colon v. City of San Juan, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43521/ (last updated 3/23/2026).