Approximately 280,000 people with reduced mobility live in the city of Los Angeles. Several complaints were filed by persons with disabilities who claimed that the city was violating the national and federal disability discrimination law by not leaving public sidewalks, on-board ramps and other sidewalks accessible to people in restricted situations. A state court has approved a transaction deemed too weak by several disability interest associations. These groups objected to the comparison with the argument that the colony`s standards offered less protection than was prescribed by federal law and that the colony did not adequately protect absent class members from the obligation to effectively note their objections. AARP joined seven other disability rights organizations to file a letter with a friend of the court. The letter requested the annulment of the court`s agreement for the transaction by the court and states that the transaction does not protect the rights of the victims of this policy (if not done both procedurally and materially), that it requires persons with disabilities to waive significant civil rights in exchange for “illusory” facilities that many people testified at the transaction hearing to vigorously counter the comparison. , that the transaction was approved by the aforementioned applicants and not by the class as a whole and that the transaction is legally deficient because it allows for a result that does not meet the clear legal requirements of federal law. The Court of Appeal found that a provision of the transaction – a provision that did not allow people to rule on the comparison but required everyone to be bound to it – was contrary to federal procedure, although the court did not accept that the transaction itself was unfair. However, the issue of ordinary procedure required the court to reject this transaction, and therefore disabled Los Angeles residents will have the freedom to seek greater relief from the City of Los Angeles than if they had been bound by the transaction. In this case, the plaintiffs are seeking legal damages under the Civil Rights Act and the Disability Act. The question is whether such harm would constitute an individual discharge that would require termination and opt-out rights or an exemption related to equitable relief of the transaction contract, in which case none of these rights are required.