Fortyune v. CITY OF LOMITA
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125194
| C.D. Cal. | 2011Background
- Fortyune, disabled California resident, sues City of Lomita alleging ADA and DPA violation for lack of handicap-accessible on-street diagonal parking.
- Plaintiff claims city public services are not readily accessible to disabled individuals.
- Action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 1, 2011 and removed to federal court on August 12, 2011.
- City moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing no ADA regulation requires on-street parking accessibility.
- Court discusses broad ADA mandate and absence of a pinpoint regulation, concluding plaintiff states a plausible claim and denies dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA requires accessible on-street parking despite no specific regulation | Fortyune relies on broad ADA mandate for accessibility | Lomita contends no explicit regulation covers on-street parking | Plaintiff's claim survives; ADA requires accessible services despite absence of specific regs. |
| Whether proposed regulations affect liability at 12(b)(6) stage | Regulations are not prerequisites for ADA compliance | Without specific rules, no liability | (Regulations not required) Court declines to dismiss. |
| Whether denial of accessible on-street parking constitutes discrimination under ADA §12132 | Access to public services must be readily accessible | City may lack duty if no regulation existed | Yes, broadly interpreted, violates §12132. |
| Whether ADA requires reasonable access to services beyond curb ramps context | Disability access extends to entire service areas | Ramps alone may be insufficient to grant access | Public entities must provide reasonable access even without specific regulations. |
| Whether dismissal should be granted given procedural posture | Factual development may support liability | Record insufficient to show liability | Motion denied; facts may support relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hason v. Medical Bd. of Cal., 279 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2002) (courts construe ADA broadly to fulfill its mandate)
- Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002) (public sidewalks fall under Title II even without specific regs)
- Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2000) (access to parking/reentry considerations under ADA)