B. v. City of Oakland
- Donna Ryu
- 4:21-cv-07078
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In B. v. City of Oakland, Judge Ryu granted OUSD’s dismissal motion, dismissing claims and allowing some ADA claims to be amended.
The ruling directly affected the plaintiffs’ claims against Oakland Unified School District. It dismissed the specified state-law and ADA claims in the ways described above, allowed three plaintiffs’ ADA claims to be amended, and did not decide the claims against the City of Oakland or LaRichea Smith.
What happened
In B. v. City of Oakland, the plaintiffs alleged that Oakland Unified School District employee LaRichea Smith mistreated them at a high school basketball game, including by using a racial slur and confronting people with disabilities. The plaintiffs sued under several civil-rights laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a state emotional-distress claim.
Oakland Unified School District asked the court to dismiss all claims against it or require a clearer complaint. The court ruled that the state-law claims were barred by constitutional immunity. It also found that some plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded disability claims, while the plaintiffs who alleged physical disabilities had stated enough facts about discrimination but had not adequately alleged the District’s responsibility for Smith’s conduct. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to send the claims to state court and denied their request for judicial notice of three documents.
Judge Donna Ryu granted the District’s motion to dismiss. The opinion’s discussion says the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice, but its conclusion says those same claims were dismissed with prejudice; the opinion therefore contains an internal inconsistency. The conclusion says some ADA claims were dismissed with leave to amend, while other ADA claims were dismissed with prejudice, and allowed an amended complaint within 14 days.
The detailed version
- B. v. City of Oakland · No. 4:21-cv-07078
- Donna Ryu
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs Phyllis A. Thomas and Charles A. Thomas, Sr., their adult children, and two minor grandchildren alleged that they experienced constitutional and other legal violations while attending a basketball game at McClymonds High School on February 15, 2020. The complaint alleged that Phyllis A. Thomas, Charles A. Thomas, Sr., and Racheal D. Colston have physical disabilities and sat in a section reserved for people with disabilities. Near the end of the game, LaRichea Smith allegedly berated them, demanded that they leave the section, used a racial slur referring to the plaintiffs, and denigrated them based on their African-American ancestry. The complaint further alleged that Smith later attacked Charles A. Thomas, Sr. and knocked his phone from his hand.
The complaint asserted six claims: a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Smith; claims under California’s Ralph Civil Rights Act, Bane Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act against Smith and Oakland Unified School District (OUSD); an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim against the City of Oakland and OUSD; and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Smith and OUSD. OUSD moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss all claims against it and alternatively moved under Rule 12(e) for a more definite statement.
Judicial-notice request and request for remand
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of three documents. It found that the documents were not properly authenticated and that the plaintiffs had not explained how the documents met the requirements for judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
The plaintiffs also asked the court to send their claims against OUSD to state court. The court denied that request because the plaintiffs had filed the complaint in federal court and had identified no procedural rule or other authority allowing the court to carry out the requested remand.
Eleventh Amendment immunity
OUSD argued that the Eleventh Amendment barred the Ralph Act, Bane Act, Unruh Act, and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. The court relied on Ninth Circuit authority treating OUSD as a state agency for Eleventh Amendment purposes. The plaintiffs did not oppose dismissal of the Ralph Act, Bane Act, and Unruh Act claims, and did not respond to OUSD’s argument concerning negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court’s discussion states that claims two, three, four, and six were dismissed without prejudice.
The conclusion, however, states that those same claims against OUSD were dismissed with prejudice. Because the discussion and conclusion use different dispositions, the opinion is internally inconsistent on whether these claims may be refiled.
ADA claim
The court explained that a Title II ADA claim requires allegations that the plaintiff has a disability, was otherwise qualified to receive a public entity’s services or benefits, was excluded or discriminated against, and experienced that exclusion or discrimination because of the disability.
The court held that the complaint alleged physical disabilities only for Charles A. Thomas, Sr., Phyllis A. Thomas, and Racheal D. Colston. It found that the complaint did not allege the required ADA elements for the other identified plaintiffs. The conclusion identifies those other plaintiffs as “Thomas, Zelda G., and Cynthia M.” and says their ADA claims against OUSD were dismissed with prejudice. The opinion’s caption identifies one minor plaintiff as Zelda B., while another portion refers to Zelda G.; the text is inconsistent on that name.
For Charles A. Thomas, Sr., Phyllis A. Thomas, and Racheal D. Colston, the court found that the allegations were sufficient to plead that they were qualified to attend the public-school basketball game and that they were excluded, harassed, or denied access because of their disabilities. But the court found the allegations insufficient to establish that OUSD could be held responsible for Smith’s conduct. The complaint alleged that Smith was an Oakland employee and an authorized OUSD agent, that an OUSD employee ratified her actions, and that Oakland and/or Smith had an agency relationship with OUSD. The court found those allegations conclusory and dismissed these plaintiffs’ ADA claims with leave to amend. The conclusion states that an amended complaint could be filed within 14 days and must plead the plaintiffs’ best case.
Disposition
Judge Donna Ryu granted OUSD’s motion to dismiss. The opinion’s conclusion states that the Ralph Act, Bane Act, Unruh Act, and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against OUSD were dismissed with prejudice; that Charles A. Thomas, Sr., Phyllis A. Thomas, and Racheal D. Colston’s ADA claims against OUSD were dismissed with leave to amend; and that the other identified plaintiffs’ ADA claims against OUSD were dismissed with prejudice. The order did not resolve the claims against the City of Oakland or LaRichea Smith, which the opinion says were not involved in this motion.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.