Independent Living Center v. City of Los Angeles
973 F. Supp. 2d 1139
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Nonprofit plaintiffs sued City of Los Angeles and CRA/LA under Section 504, Title II of the ADA, and Cal. Gov. Code § 11135, alleging systemic failure to ensure accessible federally funded housing; 61 private multifamily property owners were joined under Rule 19 as necessary parties.
- City and CRA/LA filed crossclaims against the owner-defendants seeking indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief to the extent the government defendants are found liable to plaintiffs; owners moved to dismiss those crossclaims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The crossclaims relied solely on plaintiffs’ allegations against the government defendants (i.e., derivative claims), and also asserted contractual indemnity based on written agreements with owners.
- Owners argued no express or implied federal right to indemnity or contribution exists under Section 504 or Title II and that state-law indemnity/contribution claims are preempted; government defendants argued federal regulations and HUD guidance contemplate indemnity and that state-law claims are not preempted.
- The court analyzed (1) whether federal law implies a right to indemnity/contribution or creates such a right under federal common law/regulations, and (2) whether state-law indemnity/contribution or contractual indemnity claims are preempted as conflicting with the federal remedial scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 504 or Title II imply a federal right to indemnity or contribution | Federal statutes/regulations and remedial scheme allow government defendants to seek contribution/indemnity | No express or implicit right exists in the statutes; Congress did not authorize such remedies | No implied federal right to indemnity or contribution under Section 504 or Title II; dismissed |
| Whether federal common law or agency regulations/manuals create such a federal right | HUD regulations and HUD guidance (assurances/manuals) support implied indemnity/contribution rights | Agency manuals are nonbinding guidance and cannot create private federal causes of action | Regulations/manuals and HUD guides do not create an enforceable federal right to indemnity/contribution |
| Whether state-law indemnity or contribution claims are preempted by the federal statutes (conflict preemption) | State claims merely allocate responsibility and further federal goals by holding primary violators accountable | Allowing state indemnity/contribution would conflict with the federal remedial scheme and undermine independent duties imposed on recipients | State-law indemnity and contribution claims are preempted/obstacle to federal statutes and thus barred |
| Whether contractual indemnity (agreements between city/CRA and owners) may be enforced despite the federal scheme | Contract terms requiring owners to indemnify otherwise permit enforcement of contractual indemnity | Contract-based indemnity is an end-run around unavailability of indemnity under federal law and conflicts with federal remedial structure | Contractual indemnity claims are preempted/derivative and therefore barred; crossclaims dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and plausibility analysis)
- Northwest Airlines v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 451 U.S. 77 (limits on implying contribution/indemnity from federal statutes)
- Bowers v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 346 F.3d 402 (analysis rejecting contribution under Title II/Section 504)
- Sandoval v. Alexander, 532 U.S. 275 (regulations cannot create private cause of action absent congressional authorization)
- Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 508 U.S. 286 (limited circumstances for implying contribution where remedy created by courts)