Dominguez v. Bachofer
- Lin
- 3:24-cv-02904
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dominguez v. Bachofer, Judge Lin dismissed the ADA claims with leave to amend and denied the motion to strike.
Elijah Dominguez’s ADA claims were dismissed with leave to amend; the defendants prevailed on the motion to dismiss and on the motion to strike, subject to Dominguez’s opportunity to amend by April 13, 2026.
What happened
In Elijah Dominguez v. Mark Bachofer, et al., the defendants asked the court to dismiss Dominguez’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and to strike his filing. The opinion provides limited factual details, but it refers to allegations involving Dominguez’s presence and conduct in a library.
The court ruled that the claim under Title III of the ADA failed because the defendants were not private entities. It also ruled that the retaliation claim under Title V failed because Dominguez had not adequately alleged an underlying ADA violation or a reasonable belief that he was opposing one.
Judge Rita F. Lin granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend and denied the motion to strike. Dominguez may file an amended complaint by April 13, 2026; otherwise, the claims will remain dismissed with prejudice and judgment will be entered for the defendants.
The detailed version
- Dominguez v. Bachofer · No. 3:24-cv-02904
- Lin
- Mar. 12, 2026
Background
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and Dominguez moved to strike the motion to dismiss. The opinion refers to an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) dispute involving criteria imposed on Dominguez’s being in a library. The opinion does not provide additional factual details about the underlying events.
Title III claim
The court explained that Title III of the ADA applies to private entities that open themselves to the public. It dismissed Dominguez’s Title III claim because, according to the court, the defendants were not private entities.
Title V retaliation claim
The court also dismissed Dominguez’s Title V retaliation claim. It reasoned that Dominguez had not adequately alleged an unlawful act or practice under Title III and had identified no other ADA provision that was violated. The court further found that he had not adequately alleged a reasonable belief that he was opposing an unlawful act or practice under the ADA.
Leave to amend
The court granted dismissal with leave to amend. It stated that the record did not establish that amendment would necessarily be futile, particularly because Dominguez was representing himself. The court cautioned that any amended ADA claim must adequately allege facts showing that the criteria imposed on his being in the library were not necessary to provide the library’s services.
Motion to strike and disposition
The court denied Dominguez’s motion to strike. It explained that his arguments concerned reasons to deny the motion to dismiss, rather than reasons to strike it, and stated that it had considered those arguments when deciding the motion to dismiss.
The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed by April 13, 2026. If no amended complaint is filed by that deadline, the claims will remain dismissed with prejudice and judgment will be entered in favor of the defendants. Judge Rita F. Lin issued the order on March 12, 2026.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.