Roman v. Acclaim Mobility, LLC

Background

The plaintiffs sued Acclaim Mobility, LLC, alleging violations of disability-access laws. The opinion refers to Roman’s dialysis appointments and to allegations that Acclaim’s violations were systemic, continuing, and intentional. Acclaim moved to dismiss.

Timeliness

The court denied Acclaim’s motion to dismiss for untimeliness, without prejudice to Acclaim raising the issue again at the summary-judgment stage. The court explained that, at the pleading stage, a claim generally should not be dismissed as untimely unless the complaint plainly shows that the limitations period expired and no tolling rule could apply. The court found at least a serious question whether the alleged continuing, systematic discrimination could overcome the statute-of-limitations defense.

Prior state-court case and claim splitting

The court rejected Acclaim’s argument that Roman’s federal lawsuit was barred because she had previously filed a similar case in state court. The court said that a pending state-court case generally does not prevent a federal court from hearing a case involving the same matter. Although the court noted that pursuing identical claims in both courts might potentially justify staying or dismissing one case, Acclaim had not clearly established that point and had not relied on the correct doctrine. The court therefore denied this part of the motion without prejudice.

Claims by Van Bronkhurst and Martinez

The court held that Van Bronkhurst and Martinez did not allege that they were denied full enjoyment of Acclaim’s services. Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a person claiming discrimination based on an association with a disabled person must allege a specific, separate injury, including exclusion from or denial of equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities. Their claims were based on the burden of transporting Roman to and from dialysis appointments, but they did not allege that they themselves were denied service or excluded from Acclaim’s vans.

For that reason, the court concluded that they could not sue under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the court found no significant difference in the relevant analysis under the Rehabilitation Act, their Rehabilitation Act claims also failed. The court further held that they had not stated independent claims under California’s Unruh Act because spending time and resources as a result of discrimination against someone else did not establish that they personally had been denied full and equal treatment by a business.

Disposition

The court granted Acclaim’s motion to dismiss as to the claims brought by Van Bronkhurst and Martinez and denied it in all other respects. The dismissal of those claims was without prejudice, and the court granted leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to be filed by July 15, 2020. Acclaim’s response was due within 14 days after an amended complaint was filed, or by July 29, 2020, whichever was earlier. The court also set a case-management conference for August 5, 2020.

The opinion’s caption spells the party’s name “Van Bronkhurst,” while portions of the body spell it “Van Bronkhorst.”