The ACLU of Southern California today filed a second amended complaint to expand a federal lawsuit (Beauchamp vs Los Angeles County MTA) as a class action on behalf of more than 5,000 disabled bus riders in Los Angeles County. The lawsuit was originally filed last January against the Metropolitan Transit Authority and Ryder/ATE Inc., a bus company contracted to provide bus service in the Long Beach area of Los Angeles County. The ACLU and cooperating attorneys Stanley Fleishman and David Warshaw charge that the MTA and Ryder Inc. discriminate against disabled riders by failing to maintain wheel chair lifts and other equipment.

In papers filed this morning, the ACLU says that the class is made up of all persons who have physical disabilities that limit their mobility, use a wheelchair or other assistive device, and use or attempt to use the fixed route public bus services provided by the MTA or Ryder in the Los Angeles County area.

Further, the ACLU says that the MTA and Ryder/ATE are in violation of federal and state laws which require equal access and accommodation for disabled individuals. These statutes include Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the MTA and Ryder/ATE have violated federal and state law and an injunction requiring defendants to give equal access to disabled passengers and to eliminate any discrimination against persons with disabilities who use their buses.

The MTA was created by the California State Legislature to administer, plan, and provide transportation services for Los Angeles County. Ryder/ATE, Inc., a Delaware corporation, operates at least seven bus lines for the Metropolitan Transit Authority, including bus lines regularly used by plaintiffs.

This morning Superior Court Judge Ricardo Torres rejected a landlord's attempt to dismiss constitutional and civil rights claims in the crosscomplaint filed on behalf of five tenants of a HUD-subsidized housing complex, two tenant organizers and three tenant organizations.

The cross complaint was filed in response to a state lawsuit, L.A. Gardens vs Coalition for Economic Survival (BC 184443), filed by a landlord to stop tenant organizers from meeting with residents regarding conditions.

Judge Torres rejected all of the landlord's arguments and said at the morning hearing that tenants have a constitutional right to invite whomever they want into their own homes, and that tenant organizers who have been invited also have a constitutional right to meet in the homes of tenants who have invited them. These rights are guaranteed by California's constitutional protections of the right to privacy and to freedom of association.

The judge also said that the tenants and tenant organizers gave sufficient facts to show that the landlord had attempted to interfere with the tenants constitutionally-protected right of assembly and speech by enlisting the help of Los Angeles Police Department officers to stop them from meeting with people in their own homes. The judge said such actions, if proved, violate California's civil rights statute Civil Code ﾌ_ 52.1, the Bane Civil Rights Act, that prohibits threats, intimidation or coercion to prevent the exercise of protected rights.

Last week, in a related case, federal district judge Dickran Tevrizian rejected the landlord's bid to assess lowincome tenants with over $23,000 in attorneys fees allegedly incurred by the landlord in defending the tenants' federal civil rights suit. The tenants had voluntarily dismissed their civil rights claims and consolidated them in the alreadypending state court case that had been initiated by the landlord.

Last February, the ACLU of Southern California went to court on behalf of defendants in L.A. Gardens vs Coalitions for Economic Survival to stop the landlord of a HUD-subsidized building complex from restricting their right to meet with organizers to discuss building conditions. On February 20, Judge Torres denied a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by the landlord which would have restricted tenants from organizing to improve building conditions. The ACLU filed a cross-complaint in this case to reveal the true reasons for the landlord's lawsuit which the ACLU says is part of the landlord's campaign to harass and intimidate tenants so they will cease efforts to take an active role in improving conditions in the HUD-subsidized complex, to ensure building safety and to establish a democratic mechanism of airing grievances.

Jason Kaldani and California Highway Patrol Officer Richard Gibson today entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims between them. Mr. Kaldani, who is deaf, filed a citizen complaint with the CHP against Officer Gibson in May 1997 as a result of an encounter with Officer Gibson during a traffic stop. After investigating the complaint, the CHP exonerated Officer Gibson. Officer Gibson believed that Mr. Kaldani's citizen complaint to the CHP was false and defamatory, and sent Mr. Kaldani a letter stating his intention to sue Mr. Kaldani pursuant to California Civil Code ﾌ_ 47.5 for damages in small claims court.

In response, Mr. Kaldani filed his federal lawsuit, alleging that Officer Gibson's letter was in retaliation for Mr. Kaldani's exercise of his civil rights and seeking damages, an order preventing Officer Gibson from proceeding with a small-claims lawsuit and a determination by the court that California Civil Code ﾌ_ 47.5 was unconstitutional.

After several weeks of pre-trial discovery proceedings in the federal case, the parties each concluded that justice would be served by both sides dropping their respective claims. In the settlement, Mr. Kaldani has agreed to dismiss his federal lawsuit, and Officer Gibson has agreed not to pursue his defamation claim against Mr. Kaldani.

Mr. Kaldani is pleased that the defamation suit will not be pursued against him. Officer Gibson is pleased that Mr. Kaldani is dismissing his claims against Officer Gibson and his claim challenging the constitutionality of California Civil Code ﾌ_ 47.5.