City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7111
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Two disabled individuals sued the City of Los Angeles alleging the Van Nuys FlyAway bus facility and service violated Title II of the ADA, §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and California law because the facility was inaccessible.
- The City filed third-party claims against contractors (AECOM and Tutor Perini) who designed and built the facility, alleging breach of contract and contractual indemnity/defense obligations tied to compliance with federal, state, and local laws (including the ADA).
- Contractors moved to dismiss the City’s third-party claims under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Title II and §504 preempt state-law claims for indemnity/contribution; the district court granted dismissal and denied leave to amend.
- The City appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the preemption and Rule 12(b)(6) legal issues.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether Title II/§504 (1) expressly, (2) by field preemption, or (3) by conflict/obstacle preemption, preempt the City’s state-law claims for indemnity/contribution against contractors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Title II and §504 preempt a public entity’s state-law claims for breach of contract / indemnity / contribution against contractors? | City: Not preempted; these are ordinary state-law contribution/indemnity claims for contractors’ own wrongdoing and support compliance with federal requirements. | Contractors: Preempted—either field preemption (federal occupation of disability law) or conflict/obstacle preemption (allowing indemnity/contribution undermines ADA’s regulatory purpose). | Held: Neither Title II nor §504 preempt such state-law claims. |
| Does field preemption apply because federal disability law occupies the field? | City: No; ADA expressly preserves state remedies that provide equal or greater protection, disavowing field preemption. | Contractors: Field is dominated by federal regulation of disability access. | Held: Field preemption does not apply—the ADA contains an express saving clause (42 U.S.C. §12201(b)) and does not clearly occupy the entire field. |
| Does conflict/obstacle preemption bar state indemnity/contribution claims because they frustrate ADA’s purposes? | City: No; limiting contractors’ contractual accountability would impede, not further, ADA objectives because contractors are often best positioned to ensure compliance. | Contractors: Allowing indemnity/contribution would permit shifting of responsibility and reduce incentives to comply; Equal Rights Center supports preemption. | Held: Obstacle preemption not shown—claims seeking contribution for contractors’ own negligence do not meaningfully frustrate ADA/§504 aims and may promote compliance. |
| Does the presumption against preemption apply to ADA claims? | City: Yes; states have long regulated civil rights/discrimination and presumption applies—Congress must clearly manifest intent to preempt. | Contractors: Presumption inapplicable because of significant federal regulation in the disability-rights area. | Held: Presumption applies; courts must find a clear and manifest congressional purpose to preempt, which is lacking here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (Congressional purpose is the touchstone for preemption; presumption against preemption when States traditionally regulate).
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (explains scope and limits of presumption against preemption).
- United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) (addresses when presumption against preemption may be displaced by long-standing federal presence).
- Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (1985) (field preemption occurs when federal regulation is so pervasive Congress left no room for state supplementation).
- Equal Rights Center v. Niles Bolton Associates, 602 F.3d 597 (4th Cir. 2010) (held ADA preempted indemnification claims where owner sought to shift full ADA/FHA risk to architect; relied upon in defendants’ arguments).
- Baker, Watts & Co. v. Miles & Stockbridge, 876 F.2d 1101 (4th Cir. 1989) (federal securities law preempted indemnification claims but not contribution claims; used as comparative precedent).
- Federation of African American Contractors v. City of Oakland, 96 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 1996) (discusses private causes of action against state actors for civil-rights impairments; referenced in presumption analysis).