Evans v. Bird Rides, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that scooters associated with Bird, Lime, and the defendant cities were left on or near public sidewalks, blocking access. Evans, who is blind, alleged that scooters interfered with her access to sidewalks in Oakland and Richmond, including by blocking her path and causing her to trip. The opinion also refers to plaintiffs Hill, Anderson, and Duckwall, whose allegations involved encounters with electric vehicles throughout the cities.

Standing

To have standing under the Constitution, a plaintiff must allege a concrete and particular injury that was caused by the defendants and could be addressed by a court order. The court held that Hill, Anderson, and Duckwall had not described their injuries specifically enough. Their claims were dismissed for lack of standing, with leave to amend if they could allege specific incidents consistent with the rule requiring factual support for court filings.

The court held that Evans had standing to sue Oakland and Richmond because she alleged that scooters left on sidewalks denied her access and that the cities’ failure to maintain accessible sidewalks contributed to that injury. The court dismissed Evans’s claims against the other seven cities for lack of standing, with leave to amend, because she had not alleged injuries fairly traceable to those cities’ actions.

The court also held that Evans had standing to sue Bird and Lime. Although customers physically left the scooters on sidewalks, the court reasoned that this conduct was connected to the companies’ scooter-on-demand business model and was predictable rather than independent conduct breaking the causal connection.

Claims Against Oakland and Richmond

The court held that Evans adequately pleaded claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Those laws require local governments to provide accessible sidewalks. The court concluded that Evans adequately alleged that she was denied full and equal sidewalk access because of her disability and that the scooter obstructions were lasting and pervasive rather than merely temporary.

The court also held that Evans adequately pleaded derivative claims under California Civil Code section 54, known as the Disabled Persons Act, and California Government Code section 11135. The court explained that violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act constitute violations of those California statutes.

The court allowed Evans’s claims under California Government Code section 835, concerning dangerous conditions of public property, to proceed. Although the sidewalks themselves were not alleged to be damaged or in disrepair, the court stated that public property can have a dangerous condition when the location or relationship of the property increases risks created by nearby private property. Based on the allegations that the cities promoted scooter use and created conditions allowing scooters easy access to sidewalks, the court could not resolve that issue at the pleading stage.

The court also allowed Evans’s public-nuisance claims against Oakland and Richmond to proceed. It concluded that Evans might have suffered a special injury—an injury different in kind from that suffered by the general public—if the sidewalks remained accessible to people without disabilities but not to her.

The court granted Oakland and Richmond’s motion to dismiss as to Evans’s claims under Government Code section 4450. Those claims were dismissed without leave to amend because section 4450 concerns building standards and does not create a cause of action for objects obstructing sidewalks.

Claims Against Bird and Lime

The court granted Bird and Lime’s motion to dismiss as to Evans’s claims under Government Code section 11135. It held that the companies were not recipients of state funding covered by that law. The court stated that the allegations did not support a conclusion that the companies received the required amount or type of qualifying state aid and that Evans had not explained how she could plausibly allege otherwise. Those claims were dismissed without leave to amend.

The court held that Evans adequately pleaded claims against Bird and Lime under California’s Disabled Persons Act. Her allegations that scooters blocked her path and caused her to trip were sufficient at the pleading stage to support claims that the companies interfered with her full and free use of sidewalks.

The court also allowed Evans’s public-nuisance claims against Bird and Lime to proceed. Whether Evans’s denial of sidewalk access was a special injury, and how responsible the companies were for the alleged nuisance despite their rules prohibiting careless parking, were questions of fact that the court would not resolve on a motion to dismiss.

Disposition and Case Schedule

The order dismissed all claims except those brought by Evans against Oakland, Richmond, Bird Rides, and Neutron Holdings for lack of standing, with leave to amend. As to Evans’s remaining claims, Oakland and Richmond’s motion to dismiss was granted as to the Government Code section 4450 claims and denied in all other respects. Bird and Lime’s motion to dismiss was granted as to the Government Code section 11135 claims and denied as to the Disabled Persons Act and public-nuisance claims.

The court stated that any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order, and defendants had to answer or otherwise respond within 14 days after an amended complaint was filed. Discovery could proceed immediately on the claims that survived, and Evans and the relevant defendants had to exchange initial disclosures within 21 days of the order.