158 F. Supp. 3d 1012
E.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Kelly Alexander and Donald Porter are profoundly deaf ASL users who sued six physicians/medical entities under the ADA, California Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, the Bane Act, negligence, and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging denial of effective communication and access.
- Alexander alleges some doctors refused to accept her as a patient once told she needed an ASL interpreter; other encounters allegedly involved scheduling without an interpreter or use of inadequate alternatives (notes/lipreading), causing delayed or impaired care.
- Porter alleges an initial interpreter was provided by Dr. Martinez but was later withheld; he also alleges staff hung up on calls placed via relay services and refused text scheduling, impeding access.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief under the ADA (the only private remedy available under the ADA), plus statutory and negligence claims grounded on alleged ADA violations; they also asserted a Rehabilitation Act claim tied to Medi-Cal federal funding.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) (lack of standing to seek injunctive relief) and Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state claims); Dr. Larsen separately moved to strike the punitive damages request.
- The court denied most dismissal motions, granted Dr. Martinez’s motion as to Alexander (who never personally saw Martinez), and refused to strike the punitive damages prayer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for ADA injunctive relief | Plaintiffs say past refusals and financial constraints create a reasonable likelihood they may have to return and face the same denial; futility exception applies so they need not attempt futile return | Defendants say plaintiffs lack intent to return to these providers, so no likelihood of future harm and no Article III standing for injunctive relief | Court: Plaintiffs have standing under the ADA (futility exception and potential future return); Alexander lacks standing to sue Dr. Martinez because she never personally encountered Martinez’s conduct |
| Adequacy of accommodations / failure to state ADA claim | Plaintiffs allege offered alternatives (notes, lipreading) were insufficient to ensure effective communication and that some were denied access altogether | Defendants contend alternatives were sufficient or that factual disputes preclude liability | Court: Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, accepted as true at pleading stage, plausibly state ADA claims; adequacy of accommodations is a factual question not resolvable on 12(b)(6) |
| Applicability of the Rehabilitation Act | Plaintiffs argue Medi-Cal/Medicaid funding constitutes federal financial assistance and defendants are covered recipients; also allege outright denial of access beyond auxiliary-aid rules | Defendants argue Rehab Act auxiliary-aid regulations apply only to recipients with 15+ employees or that recipients did not get federal funds directly | Court: Rehabilitation Act claim survives; Section 504’s general prohibition on denying services applies and Medicaid/medi-Cal payments have been treated as federal assistance in similar contexts |
| Motion to strike punitive damages | Plaintiffs seek punitive damages in the FAC | Larsen argues punitive damages are not authorized and asks to strike them under Rule 12(f) | Court: Denied. Under Ninth Circuit precedent a Rule 12 motion cannot strike a damages prayer as legally inapplicable; motion to strike denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806 (3d Cir.) (standing is jurisdictional and appropriate for 12(b)(1) analysis)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible under Rule 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court need not accept legal conclusions as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury in fact and redressability requirements for standing)
- National Wildlife Fed. v. Burlington N.R.R., 23 F.3d 1508 (plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show likelihood of future violations)
- Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi‑Craft, 618 F.3d 970 (Rule 12(f) cannot be used to strike legally inapplicable damage prayers)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (Rehabilitation Act liability principles)
- United States v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 736 F.2d 1039 (Medicare/Medicaid payments can constitute federal financial assistance under Section 504)