Simmons v. Doane

Background

Roberta E. Simmons, proceeding without a lawyer, sued John Doane over alleged disability discrimination and personal injuries. The complaint appeared to assert a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and a personal-injury claim based on an alleged incident in which Doane placed a letter under the windshield wiper of Simmons’s vehicle.

The court had previously granted Doane’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court found that Simmons’s original complaint did not allege enough facts to support a plausible claim and appeared to be untimely. The court allowed her 30 days to amend and later gave her a 60-day extension. Simmons timely filed an amended complaint. Doane then moved to dismiss it under Rule 12(b)(6). Simmons did not file an opposition, although she sent letters repeating her allegations and requesting a six-month stay.

Discussion

The court concluded that the amended complaint did not cure the deficiencies in the original complaint. Even assuming that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act was the intended basis for Simmons’s disability claim, the allegations about the letter, a homeowners association letter concerning residents exchanging assigned parking spaces, and Simmons’s effort to obtain a disabled parking space were too disparate and vague to support a plausible claim.

The court also discussed the possible time limit for an Americans with Disabilities Act Title III claim. It stated that the applicable limitations period had not been definitively established, but that the Ninth Circuit had identified two- or three-year periods as the only conceivable options. Assuming without deciding that a three-year period applied, the court found that Simmons’s allegations indicated that the events occurred more than five years before the lawsuit was filed.

As to the personal-injury claim, the court relied on its earlier finding that Simmons had not adequately alleged that Doane owed and breached a duty of care or that Doane’s conduct was the legal cause of Simmons’s car accident or resulting injuries. The court also noted that Simmons had not alleged facts showing that she could not discover the essential facts and file a negligence claim within California’s two-year limitations period. The amended complaint simply repeated the original allegations.

Disposition

The court granted Doane’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Simmons’s amended complaint, without leave to amend. It found that further amendment would be futile because Simmons had provided no basis to conclude that additional facts could state a plausible claim. The court ordered the clerk to enter judgment and close the file. It also denied as moot Simmons’s requests for a six-month stay.