Notice of Hearing
This notice is given pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the Court’s order of February 25, 2016. A hearing on the matters hereinafter set forth is scheduled before the Honorable Mark A. Pizzo, United States District Magistrate Judge, on the 11th day of July 2016, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11B, in the Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida 33602, (813) 301-5400. Any person objecting to the notice that wishes to appear by telephone shall, prior to the start time of the hearing, call AT&T Toll Free Meeting Number, 1-888-684-8852, and enter the access code 7593847 followed by the # key. You will be asked to press the # key once again to join the conference as a participant, and then placed on hold until the Court Host activates the conference call. You will be asked to enter the security code 0100787 followed by the # key. The system will confirm the number entered and ask you to either accept (press 1) or re-enter (press 2). All participants must enter the security code followed by the # key and accept (press 1) to be entered into the conference call. The security code needs to be entered only once unless it is entered incorrectly the first time.
Notice Of Proposed Settlement And HearingNotice Website For
MICHAEL YELAPI, et al. v. ST. PETERSBURG SURGERY CENTER, LTD., et al.,Civil Action No. 8:01-CV-787-T-MAP, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Description of the Litigation.
This lawsuit is to require the Defendants to bring the Facilities into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq.) (the "ADA") and/or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794) (the "Rehab Act"). No monetary damages of any sort are being sought in this action.
Description of Class.
All persons in the United States with disabilities as that term is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)) and the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(b)) who have been and who were, prior to the filing of the above-captioned Class Action Complaint and through the pendency of the action, entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of, or participation in, the goods, services, programs, benefits, activities, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations at Defendants' facilities located in the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the "Facilities").
Description of the Consent Decree.
The parties to this lawsuit have entered into a Second Amended and Restated Class Settlement Procedure Agreement and Consent Decree, effective February 12, 2009 (the "Consent Decree"), under which the Facilities were inspected in order to devise a plan by which Defendants will modify the Facilities and their policies and practices in order to enhance their accessibility to qualified individuals with disabilities. These proposed modifications are set forth in a document called an Accessibility Compliance Report (“ACR”) and are subject to the tolerances and equivalent facilitations approved by the Court in the Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment (Tolerance Order) located under Documents and Court Filings. ACRs for the Facilities have been prepared and submitted to the Court for approval. The Consent Decree permits the Plaintiffs to inspect the Facilities' modifications upon completion and resolve any disputes that might arise with respect to whether the modifications conform to the ACRs. Class counsel's fees and costs will be paid by Defendants, not by class members. The Plaintiffs have agreed that they will not, now or in the future, seek further modifications of the facilities. If the Court approves the proposed ACRs, you will be forever barred from contesting the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of these proposed modifications, or from pursuing the claims against Defendants. Counsel for the Plaintiffs believes that the proposed modifications set forth in the ACR are fair, reasonable, and adequate.