136 F. Supp. 3d 1125
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiffs sue Santa Clara County, SCCSO deputies Groba and Anderson, and other defendants for alleged rights violations related to the December 10, 2013 death of Decedent, a Roku employee.
- Decedent suffered from alleged mental health issues; paramedics and deputies responded to a call seeking medical help, with no witness reporting a threat of violence by Decedent.
- Deputies arrived after paramedics; alleged knowledge of psychiatric condition and need for specialized care is asserted by Plaintiffs.
- Decedent was shot by Groba after an interaction during which he brandished a keychain; deputies later restrained his legs with zip ties and medical treatment allegedly delayed.
- Plaintiffs filed multiple claims including §1983, ADA, Bane Act, wrongful death, and IIED; Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
- Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss, with two claims (ADA and Bane Act) dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA applicability to arrests | Bresaz argues Title II applies to arrests. | Defendants contest applicability to arrests or that the Decedent had a qualifying impairment. | ADA applies to arrests; dismissal/claims depend on impairment showing. |
| Decedent’s ADA disability status | SAC alleges substantial limitation in major life activities due to mental illness. | Decedent lacked a qualifying mental impairment; insufficient factual specificity. | SAC finds substantial limitation but fails to plead a qualifying impairment; Bresaz’s ADA claim granted with prejudice. |
| Bane Act standing of Hayes and Marshall | Hayes and Marshall allege interference with familial rights; claim cognizable per BART. | Bane Act requires personal injury to plaintiff; derivative claims barred. | Hayes and Marshall’s Bane Act claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| County liability under §1983 | County liable for Sheriff’s policies and training when acting as county actor. | County lacks direct control; Sheriff is a state actor for §1983. | Jackson controls; County §1983 claims survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinreich v. L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 1997) (ADA disability definition scope)
- Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2014) (ADA claims apply to arrests)
- Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2014) (ADAAA broadened disability coverage; lenient substantial limits standard)
- Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2015) (sheriffs as county actors for §1983; Venegas distinguished)
- Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal.4th 820 (Cal. 2004) (state actor determination for sheriffs (distinguished))
- BART v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.App.4th 141 (Cal. App. 1995) (Bane Act requires personal rights violation; derivative claims barred)
- E.E.O.C. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 306 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002) (pre-ADAAA framework for disability analysis)
- Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (pre-ADAAA factors for substantial limitations)
- O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (need for factual specificity in ADA pleadings)
- Puckett v. Park Place Entm’t Corp., 332 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (D. Nev. 2004) (illustrates disability pleading standards)