Delacruz v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc.

Background

Daniel Delacruz represented himself in this lawsuit. He alleged that he has Fabry Disease and regularly receives enzyme-replacement therapy to prevent serious health consequences. The complaint named Tanimura & Antle, Inc., Mike Antle, Carmen Ponce, and Claudia Quirarte as defendants. This order addressed only Quirarte’s motion; the court stated that it would address the other defendants’ motion in a separate order.

Quirarte was identified as a registered nurse who worked at the medical facility where Delacruz received treatment. Delacruz alleged that Quirarte made remarks such as “you don’t look disabled,” interfered with his treatment, mishandled a blood-stained medical pillow, accessed his medical file, and tried to remain his nurse after he changed providers. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and California law.

Rule 8

Quirarte argued that the complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it was not a short and plain statement of the claims. The court denied that part of the motion. Although the complaint described events and proceedings spanning about three decades, the allegations against Quirarte were comparatively focused and made reasonably clear connections between her, the alleged conduct, and the claims.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims

The court understood the parties’ arguments to focus on Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which addresses discrimination by public entities, although the complaint did not identify the medical facility’s nature and did not specify which ADA provisions applied. The court assumed, without deciding, that Delacruz was a qualified individual with a disability.

The court nevertheless held that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that Quirarte’s conduct constituted discrimination by a public entity or that her conduct was because of Delacruz’s disability. According to the allegations, Quirarte’s conduct was motivated by her supposed belief that Delacruz was not disabled and by hostility related to his comment about Rick Antle’s death. The court also found that Delacruz’s allegation that Quirarte was an agent of the other defendants was conclusory. The ADA disability discrimination and retaliation claim against Quirarte was dismissed, but Delacruz received leave to amend because the court could not determine from the briefing that amendment would be futile.

Section 1983 claim

Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by a person acting under color of state law, meaning with the authority or involvement of state government. The court held that Delacruz had not alleged sufficient facts showing that Quirarte acted under color of state law.

Delacruz argued that Quirarte jointly acted with the California State Bar through the other defendants. The court found that his allegations that Quirarte was an agent of the other defendants were conclusory, and that similarities between remarks allegedly made by different defendants decades apart did not plausibly establish state action. The court also found no facts connecting Quirarte’s alleged conduct to the State Bar. It dismissed the Section 1983 claim against Quirarte without leave to amend.

Section 1981 claims

The court explained that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 protects against race-based discrimination in making and enforcing contracts. Delacruz stated that he is Latino, but the complaint did not allege facts suggesting that Quirarte acted because of his race. The court dismissed both of Delacruz’s Section 1981 claims against Quirarte without leave to amend.

State-law claims

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Delacruz’s remaining state-law claims unless and until he adequately pleaded a viable federal ADA claim. It dismissed those state-law claims without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Quirarte’s motion to dismiss under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6), with leave to amend only as to the identified deficiencies in the ADA claim against Quirarte. Any amended complaint was due by November 3, 2023, and the court instructed that it be titled “First Amended Complaint.”