Minnick v. City of Vacaville, 2:16-cv-00397

Background

Plaintiff A.J. Minnick is a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair and alleges he encountered inaccessible sidewalks in Vacaville, forcing him into the street where he struck a parked car door and was injured.
Minnick sued the City of Vacaville (Claims 1–3 under Title II of the ADA, §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act) and defendant Reinelda Lopez (Claim 4: negligence).
The City moved to dismiss Claims 1–3 as precluded by a 2006 judicially-approved class settlement (Nystrom) addressing sidewalks and curb cuts, and moved to dismiss Claim 4 as deficiently pleaded.
The Nystrom settlement was a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive settlement covering “Class Members” with mobility disabilities and expressly reserved individual damage claims.
The parties agreed Minnick is a member of the Nystrom class; Minnick conceded the negligence claim was insufficiently pleaded and sought leave to amend.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minnick's ADA/Rehab Act/CDPA claims are barred by res judicata from the Nystrom class settlement	Minnick argues the Nystrom settlement was a (b)(2) injunctive class and did not release or preclude individual damage claims	City argues the prior settlement covers the same nucleus of facts and therefore precludes Minnick's claims	Denied — (b)(2) injunctive settlement does not bar subsequent individual damage claims; Minnick may pursue Claims 1–3
Whether the Nystrom class provided adequate notice/representation to preclude later claims	Minnick notes Nystrom reserved damages and provided the (b)(2) procedural structure which does not preclude damages suits	City argues class membership and the settlement terms should preclude relitigation	Court held due-process concerns favor allowing individual damage suits after a (b)(2) settlement; res judicata does not apply
Whether a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is warranted for the negligence claim	Minnick concedes the negligence claim is insufficient and requests leave to amend	City does not oppose leave to amend	Granted dismissal of negligence claim with leave to amend
Whether judicial notice of Nystrom documents is appropriate	Minnick did not dispute the public records; documents are on file in federal court	City requested judicial notice of Nystrom settlement documents to show prior settlement	Court took judicial notice of the settlement documents filed in Nystrom (but denied notice for an unfiled/unclear docket item)

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state enough facts to raise claim above speculative level)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions as factual allegations)
Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes preclusive effect of Rule 23(b)(2) injunction classes on later damages claims)
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (overview of res judicata and related preclusion doctrines)
Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287 (9th Cir. 1996) ((b)(2) class action judgment does not preclude later individual damage claims)