Filed Date: May 15, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about systemic discrimination against individuals with mobility disabilities in Oakland's public pedestrian pathways. On May 15, 2023, two individuals with mobility disabilities filed suit against the City of Oakland in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the City of Oakland under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and California Government Code § 11135. Represented by a coalition of attorneys specializing in civil rights and disability law, including Disability Rights Advocates, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to end the city's alleged discriminatory practices, compensatory damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and class action status on behalf s similarly situated individuals with mobility disabilities. They claimed that Oakland's failure to maintain accessible pedestrian rights of way, including sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and other walkways, has systematically denied them full and equal access, violating federal and state disability access laws.
The complaint detailed pervasive and hazardous conditions across the city's pedestrian infrastructure that allegedly violate accessibility standards required by law. These conditions include non-compliant curb ramps, obstructed or insufficiently maintained sidewalks, and other barriers that impede mobility and pose safety risks. The plaintiffs argued that Oakland's neglect of its pedestrian pathways not only violates specific provisions of federal and state disability laws but also subjects them to danger, exclusion, and diminished quality of life. Specific examples of the alleged barriers include uplifted sidewalks, inaccessible curb ramps with steep slopes, and sidewalks obstructed by various obstacles, all of which significantly impeded the plaintiffs' ability to navigate the city safely. The complaint also highlighted the city's alleged failure to address these issues despite being aware of them, accusing Oakland of failing to implement a comprehensive plan to make public walkways accessible to people with disabilities.
The lawsuit emphasized the broader impact of Oakland's inaccessible pedestrian infrastructure on the plaintiffs' independence, social inclusion, and equal participation in public life. It argued that the city's actions—or lack thereof—contributed to the isolation and segregation of people with mobility disabilities, contravening the core objectives of the ADA and related laws aimed at ensuring full and equal access to public facilities and accommodations. The plaintiffs sought judicial intervention to mandate Oakland to comply with accessibility laws, rectify the identified access barriers, and establish clear, enforceable timelines and standards for making its pedestrian rights of way fully accessible to people with mobility disabilities.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Carlos Larrauri (2/3/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67389179/parties/curran-v-oakland/
Bichell, Rosa Lee (California)
Cabalo, Catherine M. (California)
Dardarian, Linda Mary (California)
Kim, Jinny (California)
Lee, Andrew Paul (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67389179/curran-v-oakland/
Last updated Aug. 8, 2025, 4:47 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 15, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs are two individuals with mobility disabilities who allege systemic discrimination due to inaccessible public pedestrian pathways.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
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
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis: