Delacruz v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc.

Background

Daniel Delacruz, who represented himself, sued Tanimura & Antle, Inc., Mike Antle, Carmen Ponce, and Claudia Quirarte. By the time of this order, the only remaining federal claims were against Quirarte. The second amended complaint asserted a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and a California constitutional privacy claim.

Delacruz alleged that he has Fabry Disease and regularly receives enzyme replacement therapy. He alleged that Quirarte, a registered nurse employed by Central Coast Nephrology, made comments suggesting that he did not look disabled and interfered with his treatment. He also alleged that she mishandled a blood-stained medical pillowcase and gave it to Antle and Ponce to help dispute his disability. These allegations are described as allegations in the complaint, not findings by the court.

Rehabilitation Act claim

Quirarte moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally recognized claim. A Section 504 claim requires facts showing that the plaintiff has a disability, was otherwise qualified for the benefit, was denied the benefit solely because of the disability, and that the relevant program or activity received federal financial assistance.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Delacruz’s allegations about Quirarte’s comments and handling of his medication were enough to support an inference that the alleged discrimination was solely based on his Fabry Disease. The court dismissed the claim for a different reason: the second amended complaint did not plausibly allege that Quirarte personally was a recipient of federal financial assistance.

The complaint alleged that Central Coast Nephrology received money through health insurance payments and the Paycheck Protection Program, and that Quirarte was paid from those funds. The court held that these allegations were insufficient because the Rehabilitation Act applies to programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, not to individual employees merely because they work for or receive wages from such an entity. The court also noted that Delacruz had not sued Central Coast Nephrology.

Leave to amend

The court explained that permission to amend a complaint may be denied when another amendment would be futile. Delacruz had already amended his complaint twice, and the court found no basis to conclude that he could allege additional facts curing the deficiency. The court therefore dismissed the Rehabilitation Act claim without leave to amend.

State-law claim

Because the federal claim was dismissed without leave to amend, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law privacy claim. The court dismissed that claim without prejudice to Delacruz asserting it in an appropriate state court.

Disposition

The court granted Quirarte’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint as follows:

1. Delacruz’s Rehabilitation Act claim was dismissed without leave to amend. 2. Delacruz’s state-law claim against Quirarte was dismissed without prejudice to asserting it in an appropriate state court.

The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.