Simmons v. Doane

Background

Roberta E. Simmons, proceeding without a lawyer, sued John Doane for alleged disability discrimination and other injuries. Simmons and Doane were neighbors at a condominium complex, and Doane was a board member of the homeowners’ association. Simmons alleged that Doane placed a letter under her car’s left windshield wiper on October 23, 2014, breaking the wiper blade from its connection. She further alleged that, on or about October 31, 2014, the letter and wiper came off while she was driving in the rain, blocked her vision, and caused a car accident.

The complaint referred generally to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and stated that Simmons had been trying for five years to obtain a disabled parking space. Doane moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Simmons did not file an opposition or other response.

ADA Claim

The court noted that the complaint did not identify which ADA provision Simmons relied on. The court found nothing suggesting that the claim arose under the ADA provisions concerning employment, public services by state or local governments, telecommunications, or miscellaneous enforcement matters. The court therefore considered whether the complaint could state a claim under Title III, which addresses disability discrimination by private entities operating places of public accommodation.

Even assuming Title III was the intended basis of the claim, the court found that the complaint lacked facts supporting a plausible claim for relief. The allegations about the letter under the windshield wiper, the homeowners’ association letter concerning parking-space exchanges, and Simmons’s effort to obtain a disabled parking space were too vague and disconnected to show discrimination because of a disability. The court dismissed the ADA claim.

The court also addressed timeliness. Title III does not state an express limitations period, and the court explained that the potentially applicable periods discussed in the relevant authorities were two or three years. Assuming without deciding that a three-year period applied, the court found that Simmons’s allegations focused on events from October 2014, more than five years before she filed this case.

Negligence and Personal Injury Claim

To state negligence under California law, a complaint must allege a duty of reasonable care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damage. The court found that Simmons’s allegation that Doane broke the windshield wiper by placing a letter under it, standing alone, did not adequately show that Doane breached a duty or that his conduct legally caused the car accident or resulting injuries.

The court also found the negligence claim untimely under California’s two-year limitations period. The allegations were based on events occurring more than five years before the lawsuit, and the complaint did not indicate that Simmons was unable to discover the essential facts later than October 31, 2014. The court dismissed the negligence or personal-injury claim.

Ruling

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted Doane’s motion to dismiss the complaint and gave Simmons leave to amend. The court instructed her to title any amended pleading “First Amended Complaint” and file it by October 8, 2020. The court warned that failure to meet the deadline could result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.