Tapia v. Moughamian

Background

Janet Tapia, representing herself, sued Alice Moughamian, Felicia Houston, Scott Walton, Chelsea Moon, Cristina Quarks, Janet Joy, Kathleen Murphy, Community Forward SF Inc., and several unidentified “Janet Does.” The operative pleading was Tapia’s Second Amended Complaint. The case began in San Francisco County Superior Court and was removed to federal court by Moughamian; Houston joined the removal.

Tapia alleged that she had foot surgery after contracting an infection at a homeless shelter and was referred to Community Forward SF Inc. for postoperative care. She alleged that an employee refused to help her obtain wound-care supplies, that defendants withheld medicine and wound care after she complained about the employee, and that she was later removed from the shelter, denied transitional housing and a caregiver, and blacklisted from other programs. The complaint asserted one claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and multiple state-law claims.

Earlier Proceedings

The court had previously granted in part and denied in part Moughamian’s and Houston’s motions to dismiss. It dismissed four causes of action, including the ADA claim, but allowed Tapia to amend. Tapia then filed the Second Amended Complaint and reasserted the ADA claim.

The court explained that an ADA claim under Title II or Title III requires facts supporting an inference that the defendant denied services or accommodations because of the plaintiff’s disability. The court found that Tapia’s new allegations still described an allegedly improper discharge based on her medical needs, but did not allege that the discharge was motivated by her disability. The court also noted that Tapia continued to allege that she was discharged in retaliation for complaining about an employee.

Order to Show Cause

An order to show cause requires a party to explain why a proposed action should not be taken; it is not itself the final dismissal or remand. The court ordered Tapia to show cause on two matters.

First, the court stated that Tapia had not served Walton, Moon, Quarks, Joy, Murphy, Community Forward SF Inc., or any of the unidentified “Janet Does.” Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service generally must be completed within 90 days after the complaint is filed, and in a removed case the period begins upon removal. The court stated that the service deadline was January 21, 2020, and ordered Tapia to explain why the unserved defendants should not be dismissed without prejudice.

Second, the court gave notice of its intent to dismiss the Seventh Cause of Action for violating the ADA without leave to amend. The court also gave notice that, if the ADA claim were dismissed, it intended to remand the remaining state-law claims to state court because no federal-law claim would remain within its original jurisdiction.

Tapia was ordered to file a written response of no more than 15 pages by August 28, 2020. The order warned that failure to comply fully and on time would result in dismissal of the unserved defendants without prejudice, dismissal of the ADA claim without leave to amend, and remand of the action to state court, without further notice. The appearing defendants could file a joint response, and their deadline to respond to the Second Amended Complaint was extended until 14 days after the court resolved the order to show cause.

Disposition

The court issued an order to show cause. It did not, in this order, finally dismiss the unserved defendants, dismiss the ADA claim, or remand the state-law claims.