United States District Court, E.D. California
Placer ARC's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint
under Rule 12(b)(6) is before the court. For the reasons set
out below, the court GRANTS defendant's motion.
Kimiko P., a conserved adult with autism, filed this suit
through her conservators against defendants Alta California
Regional Center, On My Own Independent Living Services, Inc.,
and Placer ARC, alleging, inter alia, violations of
§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
Placer ARC moved to dismiss the complaint on March 28, 2019,
Mot., ECF No. 12, and plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint (FAC)on April 18, 2019, ECF No. 18. In response,
the court ordered the parties to file a joint statement
addressing whether the motion to dismiss was rendered moot by
the First Amended Complaint (FAC). ECF No. 19. The parties
filed a report stating they agreed “[t]he only portion
of the Motion to Dismiss that was not made moot by the First
Amended Complaint is Section C, which is entitled
'DEFENDANT PLACER ARC'S MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION CHARGING RETALIATION
UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT SHOULD BE
GRANTED.'” ECF No. 22 at 2. There are two errors in
this statement: first, the quoted text is the title of
Section B, not Section C, of defendant's motion to
dismiss, Mot. at 5; second, plaintiff's original
complaint, the subject of the motion to dismiss, only
contained a claim for violation of § 504, not
retaliation, ECF No. 1 at 1. This creates some confusion,
because the operative complaint contains both a claim for
retaliation under § 504 and a claim for violation of
§ 504. FAC at 14, 16. Based on the parties'
representations at hearing, and because defendant's
argument goes to the viability of any § 504 claim, the
court treats defendant's motion as a challenge to
plaintiff's first and second claims under § 504.
opposes defendant's motion, ECF No. 27, and defendant has
replied, ECF No. 30. The court heard oral argument on the
motion on June 28, 2019, and resolves it here.
may move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
The court may grant the motion only if the complaint lacks a
“cognizable legal theory” or if its factual
allegations do not support a cognizable legal theory.
Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.,
707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). A
complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), though it need not include
“detailed factual allegations, ” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). But
“sufficient factual matter” must make the claim
at least plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted). “Threadbare recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, ” and conclusory
statements do not suffice. Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In a Rule 12(b)(6)
analysis, the court must accept well-pled factual allegations
as true and construe the complaint in plaintiff's favor.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (citations omitted).
plaintiff requests leave to amend a claim subject to
dismissal, the federal rules mandate that leave “be
freely given when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a). Before granting leave, a court considers any potential
bad faith, delay, or futility regarding the proposed
amendment, and the potential prejudice to the opposing party.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see
also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101
(9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
Placer ARC argues plaintiff's claims against it for
violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act should be
dismissed because plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts
to show defendant receives federal financial assistance, a
necessary element of a § 504 claim. Mot. at 5 (citing
Drawsand v. F.F. Props., L.L.P., 866 F.Supp.2d 1110
(N.D. Cal. 2011)); see also U.S. Dep't of Transp. v.
Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597, 607 (1986),
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in
Anderson v. USAir, Inc., 818 F.2d 49, 53 (D.C. Cir.
1987). In opposition, plaintiff maintains it has sufficiently
pled defendant is the recipient of federal funds, and points
to the following facts alleged in its First Amended
1. Alta California Regional Center is a recipient of federal
funds. FAC ¶ 5.
2. Alta California Regional Center purchased services with
state and federal dollars from private businesses and private
non-profit entities such as Placer ARC to support individuals
served under California Welfare and Intuitions Code section
4500 et seq. Id.
3. Placer ARC is contracted with Alta California Regional
Center to provide adult day program ...