Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Background

Cyrus Hazari filed the complaint on June 3, 2021, naming Mandy Brady; the Superior Court of Santa Clara County; the Court of Appeal for the Sixth District; the California Supreme Court; the Judicial Council; and the State of California. Hazari said he could not fully document his claims because he has multiple sclerosis and filed the complaint to toll statutes of limitations. He sought a stay under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Hazari also attempted to remove several cases from California state court. He alleged that state-court judges had systematically and deliberately violated the ADA by failing to accommodate his disability, causing the cases to be decided before he could fully participate. One attempted removal involved a property dispute between Hazari and Brady. The state superior court had struck Hazari’s complaint and cross-cross complaint and entered judgment in Brady’s favor. Hazari appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a claim for relief. Because Hazari was representing himself, the court read his pleadings liberally, but it could not supply essential facts that he had not alleged.

The court explained that a plaintiff cannot remove a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); that procedure allows a defendant, not a plaintiff, to remove a case. The court also stated that most, if not all, of the state cases Hazari referenced had already ended before he filed the federal complaint. To the extent Hazari sought to have the federal court relitigate those cases, the court dismissed the complaint against all named defendants.

As to Brady, the court found that Hazari alleged no facts supporting a claim that Brady violated his rights under the ADA. Arguments in Hazari’s opposition brief did not identify conduct that could support a federal claim. The court therefore concluded that amendment would be futile as to Brady.

As to the Judicial Defendants, the court held that Hazari could amend to plead claims based on direct violations of his ADA rights. The court required any amended complaint to identify when the alleged violations occurred, the individual or entity responsible for failing to accommodate his alleged disability, and the specific conduct that allegedly failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that Hazari could face potential statute-of-limitations or judicial-immunity issues but did not decide that amendment would be futile.

Disposition

The court granted Brady’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against Brady with prejudice. It entered judgment as to Brady under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which permits judgment on fewer than all claims or parties when the court finds no just reason for delay. The court gave Hazari leave to amend claims against the other defendants on the terms stated in the order. The amended complaint and proposed summons were due no later than April 17, 2023, and service was due within 90 days after that filing.