141 F. Supp. 3d 1038
E.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Jack Miller, a wheelchair user, sued Ceres Unified School District and individual employees after being unable to access River Oaks Golf Course facilities while attending his daughter's athletic event on Sept. 11, 2014.
- Miller's operative First Amended Complaint asserts Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (claims 4 and 5) alleging denial of access and failure to remove barriers or implement accessible policies.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (sovereign immunity/subject matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
- Defendants argued Eleventh Amendment immunity bars money damages under Title II because abrogation is only valid when a fundamental right is implicated; they relied on district court decisions and out-of-circuit authority urging a case-specific fundamental-rights inquiry.
- The court concluded Ninth Circuit precedent holds Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity under Title II, and that Miller pleaded the elements of Title II and Section 504 (disability, qualification, exclusion/denial, and causation), so both jurisdictional and merits-based dismissal were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars Miller's Title II damages claim | Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity; court has jurisdiction | Sovereign immunity remains unless a fundamental constitutional right is implicated | Denied dismissal — follows Ninth Circuit precedent that Title II abrogates immunity broadly |
| Whether Miller pled a plausible Title II claim | Miller alleged disability, qualification, exclusion at event, and disability-based causation | Allegations are conclusory/insufficient to state a prima facie claim | Denied dismissal — FAC sufficiently pleads Title II elements |
| Whether Miller pled a plausible Section 504 claim | Miller alleges same facts plus that the program receives federal funds | Allegations insufficient under Section 504 standards | Denied dismissal — federal-funding allegation undisputed; Section 504 elements pleaded |
| Whether leave to amend is required/appropriate if pleading deficient | Amend if necessary; plaintiff should get chance to cure | Dismissal appropriate without leave if futile | Court found pleading adequate; dismissal denied (no amendment required) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001) (discusses limits on Congress’s abrogation of state sovereign immunity)
- Clark v. California Dep’t of Corrections, 123 F.3d 1267 (9th Cir. 1997) (concluded Congress validly abrogated state immunity under Title II)
- Dare v. California, 191 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 1999) (reiterated Title II abrogation of sovereign immunity in Ninth Circuit)
- Phiffer v. Columbia River Corr. Inst., 384 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirmed that Title II precludes Eleventh Amendment immunity under controlling Ninth Circuit precedent)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (U.S. 2004) (analyzed Title II abrogation in the context of a fundamental right — access to courts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: plausible claims required)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (established plausibility pleading framework)
- Sheehan v. City & County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2014) (elements for Title II/Section 504 discrimination claims)