Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04515/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04515-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LISA JOHNSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN, INC., et 

al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-04515-TEH 

ORDER RE: HEARING ON 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS, STRIKE, AND FOR A 

MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

 

Counsel shall come prepared to address the following questions at the January 25, 

2016 hearing on Defendants’ motions: 

For Both Parties: 

1. Please explain why the following allegations are or are not sufficient to state a 

claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182: 

Plaintiffs informed Defendants of “mobility issues” in 

advance of their scheduled trip, and were promised that they 

would be “accommodated” (FAC ¶¶ 25, 28); Defendants 

failed to provide attendants to “help [the Neal Plaintiffs] in 

boarding the train” when they arrived for their trip (id. ¶ 32); 

and Defendants forced the Neal Plaintiffs to “march through 

six or more Train cars” upon exiting the train (id. ¶ 44). 

Please provide case law to support your arguments, where possible. 

For Plaintiffs: 

2. Why did you choose to identify the Defendants against whom each cause of 

action is brought in your original complaint, but leave this identifying 

information out of the FAC? Do you have any objection to adding just this 

Case 3:15-cv-04515-TEH Document 40 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2 

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 

identifying information to the heading of each cause of action upon further 

amendment of the FAC? 

3. Why is your argument that “co-opt[ing] the services of local police” is enough 

for state action (Opp’n at 16) not foreclosed by Brunette v. Humane Society of 

Ventura County, 294 F.3d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002), which states that a 

plaintiff must allege “substantial cooperation” or a conspiracy between 

Defendants and police to show state action? 

In answering Question #3, please address case law stating that a private party’s 

single request for the police to perform their peace-keeping functions does not 

constitute state action, namely King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 829 (9th Cir. 

1986) and Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu, 335 F.3d 970, 980 (9th Cir. 2003). 

For Defendants: 

4. Would it be more appropriate for the Court to consider your Motion to Strike 

Paragraph 149 as a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, considering the holding in 

Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2010)? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/22/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-04515-TEH Document 40 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2