On August 4, 2025, the Court granted final approval to a comprehensive settlement agreement to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and related state law in Dunsmore et al. v. San Diego County Sheriff’s Department et al., No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL, a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, against the County of San Diego, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department (now known as the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office), and San Diego County Probation Department over unconstitutional and unlawful conditions at the San Diego County Jail facilities. Seven other claims in the case remain ongoing and in active litigation. The Court’s order is here.
“This settlement is a tremendous step forward for our clients, members of the disability subclass. We are grateful to Magistrate Judge David Leshner for the many hours he devoted to working with the parties to achieve this excellent resolution. The settlement demonstrates the foresight and dedication of Sheriff Martinez and the Board of Supervisors, who are making a significant commitment to improve the lives of incarcerated people by investing the time and money necessary to bring their facilities and policies into compliance with the ADA and California state law. We look forward to working with the Sheriff’s Office and the independent experts to ensure expeditious and effective implementation of all terms of the agreement,” said Gay Grunfeld, a partner of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP and counsel for the Plaintiffs and the disability subclass.
On December 11, 2024, the San Diego Board of Supervisors approved a comprehensive settlement agreement to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and related state law. On March 3, 2025 Judge Battaglia granted preliminary approval to the settlement. That order is here.
The final settlement agreement follows an initial ADA settlement agreement reached in 2023, after the Plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion to seek accessible housing for people with mobility disabilities at the downtown San Diego Central Jail, as well as access to sign language interpreting services. As a result of that initial settlement, the Sheriff’s Office has undertaken renovations to Central Jail to make it more accessible to people who use wheelchairs or have other mobility disabilities. The Sheriff’s Office has also begun offering sign language interpretation to deaf people through video remote interpreting, and other methods.
After extensive fact discovery and the exchange of expert reports, the Sheriff’s Office agreed to enter into a more comprehensive settlement agreement to resolve the remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims for disability discrimination and denial of access to programs, services and activities. Plaintiffs’ expert reports on ADA issues are here and here. The settlement of the disability claim requires additional significant changes to the Jail’s policies, procedures, and practices for accommodating individuals with disabilities including those with mental health needs and intellectual disabilities. The settlement also requires physical construction at several Jail facilities to provide accessible housing to people with disabilities.
The March 3, 2025 order granting preliminary approval and approving Plaintiffs’ proposal for class notice is important because this case included an unusual situation where the parties had competing proposals for the distribution of the class notice, as opposed to agreeing on the method of distribution. The order therefore includes analysis about the effectiveness of competing proposals for distributing a notice of settlement to a class, particularly an incarcerated class. Judge Battaglia’s order approving Plaintiffs’ proposed method for distribution sets forth clear principles about how to ensure effective class notice for an incarcerated population, including posting the notice in large font and on white paper (as opposed to transparencies) and handing the notice directly to incarcerated people entering the jail. The approved class notice is here.
As to the seven other claims that remain ongoing and in active litigation, highly qualified experts have opined on each of the claims; those reports can be found under the ‘Expert Declarations’ tab on the case page. The Court has held a hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to 6 of those 7 claims, as well as Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude opinions of Defendants’ experts. The parties await a ruling. Pre-trial procedures will begin 30 days after the Court rules on the motion for summary judgment.