Tapia v. Moughamian

Background

Janet Tapia, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Alice Moughamian, Felicia Houston, and other defendants. The opinion states that Houston was erroneously sued as “Felizia Housthong.” Tapia’s operative pleading was her Second Amended Complaint, which alleged an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim and state-law claims.

Tapia alleged that she underwent surgery on her right foot after contracting an infection at a homeless shelter and then stayed at Community Forward SF Inc. for post-operative care. She alleged that employees refused requests to change her dressings or provide other assistance, that medical care and medicines were withheld after she complained about an employee, and that she was later removed from the facility and allegedly blacklisted from other programs. She also alleged that she was sent to another homeless shelter instead of being notified about transitional housing and a caregiver.

The action began in state court and was removed to federal court by Moughamian, with Houston joining the removal, because the complaint included an ADA claim. The court previously dismissed several claims, including the ADA claim, but allowed amendment. Tapia then filed the Second Amended Complaint, realleging the ADA claim.

ADA Claim

The court reviewed the ADA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally recognized claim. The court explained that a claim under either Title II or Title III of the ADA requires facts showing that the defendant denied services or accommodations because of the plaintiff’s disability.

The court had previously found that Tapia’s allegations did not support an inference that she was discharged or blacklisted because of her disability. Instead, the allegations indicated that she was discharged because she complained about an employee. The court also previously explained that failing to consider or disregarding Tapia’s medical needs did not, by itself, show that she was excluded because of her disability.

The Second Amended Complaint alleged that Tapia was improperly discharged and that defendants refused to help with dressing changes and bathing assistance. The court found that these allegations still did not show that her discharge was motivated by her disability. The court also noted that Tapia’s response to the order to show cause did not directly address the ADA claim or its deficiencies. Because Tapia had already received notice of the deficiency and an opportunity to amend, and had not cured the problem, the court concluded that the ADA claim could not succeed.

Remand and Unserved Defendants

After dismissing the sole federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in light of the case’s early pleading stage. The court stated that the remaining claims appeared to be based solely on state law and that Tapia could seek to assert any additional state-law claims in state court. Tapia did not oppose remand.

The court also addressed defendants who had not been served. It found that Tapia made a colorable argument that Community Forward SF Inc. had been served or had notice of the action, but she did not adequately support that argument. Because the case was being sent back to state court, the court left the unserved-defendant issue to the state court and discharged its order to show cause on that issue.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the Seventh Cause of Action for violation of the ADA without further leave to amend. It REMANDED the action to Alameda County Superior Court, directed the clerk to close the federal file and terminate pending matters, and left the issue involving unserved defendants to the state court.