$300,000 Class-Action Settlement at California Jail Includes Policy Changes; Agreements with Aramark and Wellpath Reached Confidentially
by Chuck Sharman
On February 10, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted approval to a settlement resolving claims against Alameda County for unconstitutional conditions of confinement imposed upon a Class of detainees at its Santa Rita Jail (SRJ). The agreement included a $300,000 payment split between 12 named plaintiffs, as well as policy changes to benefit a larger class of jail detainees, which was also granted certification.
As PLN reported, the complaint was filed in 2019 against the County and former Sheriff Greg Ahern, alleging that his jailers at SRJ denied them adequate sanitation, food and medical care. The complaint also named Aramark Correctional Services LLC and Wellpath Management, Inc., the profiteers contracted to provide the jail’s food and healthcare services, respectively. However, the district court declined to grant class certification to those claims in the same May 2023 order that granted provisional class certification to claims against the County. [See: PLN, July 2023, p.22.]
Shortly after that, Plaintiffs’ Oakland attorney, Yolanda Huang, complied with a directive from Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley and secured additional class representation from attorneys Richard A. Brody of Sebastopol and Thomas E. Nanney of Leawood, Kansas. The parties then proceeded to settlement negotiations, which produced an agreement with Aramark in May 2024 and with Wellpath in October 2024; both included a confidential payout.
In its settlement, the County agreed to a $285,000 payment for the benefit of original Plaintiff Daniel Gonzalez and 10 fellow detainees also named in the complaint: Lawrence Gerrans, Shedrick Henry, Randy Harris, Eric Rivera, David Misch, Tikisha Upshaw, Eric Wayne, James Mallett, Rasheed Tucker and Timothy Phillips. Those payouts included costs and fees for their attorneys. An additional $15,000 payment was accepted by detainee Plaintiff Darryl Geyer, who was proceeding pro se.
The agreement with the County also included policy changes to address allegations that detainees were required to maintain sanitation of their cells and jail common areas without an accompanying policy governing access to necessary cleaning supplies and equipment. Their complaint also accused the jail of lacking any policy that would keep from overburdening detainees placed in a cell with others who were functionally incapable of participating in maintenance duties, owing to their health or mental health limitations; another set of policy changes resolved that part of the complaint. An additional allegation that the jail provided no bathrooms in common areas for use during detainee’s out-of-cell time was also settled with an appropriate set of changes.
The district court then conducted a fairness hearing, finding that the agreement adequately balanced the strength of the Plaintiffs’ case against the “risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation.” Accordingly, approval was granted to the agreement, and certification was granted to a Class benefitting from its injunctive relief, consisting of all male detainees held at SRJ between August 31, 2023, and December 17, 2026, “who were or are subjected to” the complained-of policies. See: Gonzalez v. Cty. of Alameda, USDC (N.D. Cal.), Case No. 3:19-cv-07423.
While the agreement is a victory against the County for the detainee Class, it was unclear how much was wrested from Aramark and Wellpath. Class certification was denied to claims against the food service provider after the district court found that the jail kitchen passed health inspections and that Aramark had a plan to combat pest infestations there. No class certification was granted to claims against Wellpath either, after the district court found that Plaintiffs failed to tie their claims—that the firm was denying healthcare in order to save money—to a specific policy at the jail.
“Despite the many years this case has proceeded, and the considerable leeway the court has given plaintiffs, they have failed to identify evidence sufficient to support a finding in any plaintiff’s favor on the [Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.] claim,” the presiding juge wrote, referring to the 1978 decision by the Supreme Court of the U.S. which first recognized a claim for damages against a municipality for civil rights violations caused by its employees. See: Gonzalez v. Cty. of Alameda, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123141 (N.D. Cal.).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Gonzalez v. Cty. of Alameda
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123141 (N.D. Cal.) |
| Level | District Court |