Smith v. Watanabe
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-07872
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Smith v. Watanabe, Judge Gilliam ordered supplemental briefing on whether DMHC waived sovereign immunity for disability-discrimination claims seeking injunctions.
Grace Smith and the other plaintiffs, and defendants Mary Watanabe and the California Department of Managed Health Care.
What happened
In Grace Smith, et al. v. Mary Watanabe, et al., Mary Watanabe and the California Department of Managed Health Care asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint. They argued that the court lacked authority over the claims against the department because the Eleventh Amendment protected it from suit.
At a hearing, the court asked whether a Ninth Circuit decision controlled the question. That decision held that an agency did not waive immunity for disability-discrimination claims during periods when it was not receiving federal funds. Defense counsel argued that the decision was different because the plaintiffs here seek only an injunction, rather than money damages, but provided no supporting authority.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the parties to file simultaneous briefs by June 3, 2022, addressing whether the immunity inquiry depends on past periods of federal funding or on whether the agency currently receives federal funds. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Watanabe · No. 4:21-cv-07872
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 20, 2022
Background
On May 19, 2022, the court held a hearing on Mary Watanabe’s and the California Department of Managed Health Care’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The motion argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the power to hear the case—over the claims against the department because the Eleventh Amendment gave the department sovereign immunity from suit.
Question Before the Court
The court asked whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sharer v. Oregon controlled. In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that an Oregon agency had not waived its immunity for claims brought against it because the agency was not receiving federal financial assistance during the relevant period. The decision stated that Section 504’s coverage reaches an agency during periods when it accepts federal funds.
Defense counsel argued that Sharer was distinguishable because the plaintiffs in this case seek injunctive relief—an order requiring or prohibiting conduct—rather than monetary damages. Counsel suggested that an agency waives sovereign immunity for disability-discrimination claims when a plaintiff seeks an injunction, but the opinion states that counsel provided no authority supporting that distinction or the broader proposition that immunity can depend on the relief requested.
Order
The court directed the parties to submit simultaneous supplemental briefs of no more than four pages by June 3, 2022. The briefs must address whether an agency that faces disability-discrimination claims seeking injunctive relief waives sovereign immunity only during periods when it receives federal funds, or remains immune unless it currently receives federal funds. The court described this as whether the funding inquiry is retrospective or prospective. No further responsive briefs were permitted, and the matter would be submitted after the simultaneous briefs were filed.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss in this order; the order directed supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.