Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01154/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01154-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv1154

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUISA C. WILDEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1154 JM(JMA)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS; GRANTING LEAVE TO

AMEND

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Defendants Department of Rehabilitation and Department of Industrial Relations

(“Moving Defendants”) move to dismiss all claims asserted against them in Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff Luisa C. Wildey opposes the motion.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate for decision without oral

argument. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted with 30

days leave to amend from the date of entry of this order.

DISCUSSION

Among other arguments, Moving Defendants assert that the FAC fails to comply

with Rule 8. Rule 8 requires that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The

complaint must "set forth enough details so as to provide defendant and the court with

a fair idea of the basis of the complaint and the legal grounds claimed for recovery."

Self Directed Placement Corp. v. Control Data Corp., 908 F.2d 462, 466 (9th Cir.

Case 3:07-cv-01154-JM-JMA Document 22 Filed 04/02/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is based upon federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.

§1331, and the court allegedly has supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claims, 28

U.S.C. §1367. The court declines to reach Plaintiff’s state law breach of contract claims until she

states a valid federal claim. 

- 2 - 07cv1154

1990). The court concludes that the FAC fails to sufficiently inform Defendants of the

nature of the claims asserted against them such that they can prepare an adequate

responsive pleading. See McHenry v. Rennue, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). The

court dismisses the complaint and highlights a few of the FAC’s deficiencies.

On October 19, 2007 Plaintiff filed the operative FAC broadly alleging two

claims against Defendants: breach of contract and violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act.1

 Defendants are the

Rehabilitation Appeals Board, Health and Human Services Agency, Department of

rehabilitation, Client Assistance Program, the Dayle McIntosh Center for the disabled,

Access to Independence, Sharp Memorial Hospital, Workers’ Compensation appeals

Board, and Bureau of Rehabilitation. (FAC at p.2, ¶2). Plaintiff also appears to allege

claims against what Plaintiff characterizes as “classes of Defendants.” The “classes of

defendants” referred to by Plaintiff are the alleged individual members of the state

agencies. For example, Plaintiff identifies all seven members of the State of California

Rehabilitation Appeals Board as defendants. (FAC at p.6, ¶1). However, it is unclear

whether Plaintiff seeks to join the individually named “classes of Defendants” as

defendants to this action as they are not named in the caption nor identified under the

“Parties” section of the FAC. (FAC at pp. 4-5). 

The 58 page FAC also sets forth overly detailed allegations of questionable

relevance to Plaintiffs ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Plaintiff also appears to

allege 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims against the multitude of individuals loosely characterized

as “classes of Defendants.” (FAC at p.55, ¶28). However, as set forth above, the

individuals comprising the “classes of Defendants” are not named in the caption as

required by Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The failure to identify

the state actors as defendants is fatal to Plaintiff’s §1983 claim against them. See Baker

Case 3:07-cv-01154-JM-JMA Document 22 Filed 04/02/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv1154

v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140, (1979) (the Civil Rights Act provides a cause of

action against state and local officials who, acting within the scope of their duties,

have deprived an individual of a cognizable federal right). 

In order to state either an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim, Plaintiff must satisfy

the elements of each statute:

To prove a public program or service violates Title II of the ADA,

a plaintiff must show: (1) he is a “qualified individual with a disability”; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of

a public entity's services, programs or activities, or was otherwise

discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability. See 42

U.S.C. § 12132 (emphasis added); Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150,

1154-1155 (9th Cir.1996). Similarly, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is an “individual with a

disability”; FN3 (2) he is “otherwise qualified” to receive the benefit; (3) he was denied the benefits of the program solely by reason of his disability; and (4) the program receives federal financial assistance. See

29 U.S.C. § 794 (emphasis added); Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 562-63

(9th Cir.1988); Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 862 F.2d 570,

573 (6th Cir.1988).

Weinrich v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th

Cir. 1997). Furthermore, a “plaintiff proceeding under Title II of the ADA must,

similar to a Section 504 plaintiff, prove that the exclusion form participation in the

program was ‘solely by reason of disability.’” Id. (quoting Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83

F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1996)). Here, given the somewhat rambling nature of the

FAC’s allegations, the court cannot determine whether Plaintiff has stated a claim under

either the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. The court highlights these elements to assist

Plaintiff in any future amendment. 

Next, the court is concerned that the genesis for Plaintiff’s claims arises from a

rehabilitation counselor’s assessment that Plaintiff participate in a medical evaluation

and assessment. In re Matter of Luisa Wildy, Rehabilitation Appeals Board, Case No.

XXX-XX-7565 (350) (Moving Defendants’s Exh. 1). If so, whether Plaintiff’s denial

of benefits was “solely by reason of disability” may better be resolved on an

evidentiary-based motion rather than a motion to dismiss. As set forth in the Board’s

Decision, Plaintiff initially appeared for the medical evaluation (including

Case 3:07-cv-01154-JM-JMA Document 22 Filed 04/02/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 07cv1154

psychological testing) and vocational assessment but failed to appear for the third

appointment or to otherwise make arrangements to complete the assessment. Among

other things, the Appeals Board determined that the Rehabilitation Board acted

consistent with applicable law when it determined that Plaintiff failed to cooperate with

the medical evaluation and assessment and closed Plaintiff’s case. 

Finally, the court grants Plaintiff 30 days leave to file a second amended

complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to set forth a short and plain

statement of her claims in the SAC, may result in the dismissal of her claims without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 2, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-01154-JM-JMA Document 22 Filed 04/02/08 Page 4 of 4