United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND RE: DKT. NO. 10
ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint
filed by defendant City of Berkeley. Plaintiff claims her
rights under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) were
violated when she received a citation from defendant City of
Berkeley and her car was towed by defendant Berry Brothers
Towing Company. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the
Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without
oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for August 23,
2019. The Court GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss with
leave to amend.
March 29, 2019, plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed her complaint in
Alameda County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1-1. On April 15,
2019, defendant City of Berkeley removed the action to this
Court. Dkt. No. 1.
complaint alleges that plaintiff's rights under §
504 of the Rehabilitation Act were violated when (1) the City
of Berkeley issued a citation for Jane Doe's car being
parked for more than 72 hours and (2) defendant Berry
Brothers Towing Company towed her car. Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶5.
The complaint also alleges plaintiffs' rights under the
ADA were violated because Jane Doe does not have “full
and equal access to public roads and use of her car by the
wrongful towing of her car.” Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 6. The
complaint fails to include any identifying information for
Jane Doe and does not include any details regarding Jane
Doe's alleged disability.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court
must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility”
standard requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up
to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). While courts do not require
“heightened fact pleading of specifics, ” a
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570.
deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Court must assume that the
plaintiff's allegations are true and must draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See
Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th
Cir. 1987). However, the court is not required to accept as
true “allegations that are merely conclusory,
unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).
complaints are held to “less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Where a plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the Court has an obligation to
“construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the
[plaintiff] the benefit of any doubt.” Bretz v.
Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en
banc). However, pro se pleadings must still allege facts
sufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine whether a
claim has been stated. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of
Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). If the Court
dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant
leave to amend.
Plaintiff's ADA & Rehabilitation Act Claims
state a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) she is an individual with a disability; (2) she
is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the
benefit of some public entity's services, programs, or
activities; (3) she was either excluded from participation in
or denied the benefits of the public entity's services,
programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated
against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial
of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of her
disability. O'Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502
F.3d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007).
to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff
must allege: (1) she is an individual with a disability; (2)
she is otherwise qualified to receive the benefit; (3) she
was denied the benefits of the program solely by reason of
her disability; and (4) the program receives federal
financial assistance. Id.
ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims fail for several reasons.
First, plaintiff has not established that she is disabled.
Rather, she summarily states she is a “person with a
disability who owns a ...