Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04708/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04708-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—No. C-05-04708 RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 2/21/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, EX REL. BILL LOCKYER,

Attorney General of the State of California,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ; GAIL

PELLERIN in her Official Capacity as County

Clerk and Registrar of Voters of the County of

Santa Cruz, and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

No. C-05-04708 RMW

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;

GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

REMAND FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

[Re Docket Nos. 17, 19, 23, 24, 38, 40]

Defendants County of Santa Cruz and Gail Pellerin move to dismiss both causes of action

against them. Plaintiff Bill Lockyer, in his capacity as Attorney General of California, moves to

remand to state court only his first cause of action, for violation of California Elections Code

§ 11280. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the defendants' motion to dismiss in part

and grants the plaintiff's motion to remand.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 21, 2005, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, on behalf of all

Californians, instituted proceedings against the County of Santa Cruz and its County Clerk, Gail

Case 5:05-cv-04708-RMW Document 42 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 6
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—No. C-05-04708 RMW

JAH 2

Pellerin. Lockyer sought (1) a writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1085

requiring the defendants to comply with California Elections Code § 12280 and the California

Secretary of State's guidelines for accessibility by individuals with physical disabilities and

(2) injunctive relief preventing defendants from violating portions of the Americans with Disabilities

Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131-12134, and regulations promulgated thereunder, the ADA

Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"), 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A. On November 16, 2005, the

defendants removed the action to this court. 

The defendants move to dismiss both causes of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Lockyer moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to remand his first cause of action—in which

he seeks a writ of mandate—to state court, claiming that it raises a novel issue of state law.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Jurisdiction

The complaint contains a cause of action for violation of a federal statute, the ADA. This

court would thus have had original jurisdiction over that cause of action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and

supplemental jurisdiction over the other cause of action in the complaint, for violation of California

Elections Code § 12280, as it is part of the same controversy, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). "[A] claim

involving federal constitutional rights may be joined to a California mandamus action." 

Manufactured Home Comtys. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1027 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). This

court therefore has jurisdiction over the removed action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). 

Lockyer is pursuing this action on behalf of the people of California in his capacity as

Attorney General of the state. Compl. at 2. The defendants do not challenge Lockyer's ability to

bring this action as parens patriae. Def.'s Mem. of Points & Authorities in Supp. of their Mot. to

Dismiss Compl. at 12 n.4. The court will accept Lockyer's standing to bring his claim under the

ADA at this time. See New York ex rel. Spitzer v. County of Delaware, 82 F. Supp. 2d 12 (N.D.N.Y.

2000).

B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ADA Cause of Action 

The defendants attack Lockyer's ADA cause of action as insufficiently pled and seek

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

Case 5:05-cv-04708-RMW Document 42 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 6
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—No. C-05-04708 RMW

JAH 3

cannot be granted unless "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957). 

Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts

alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990).

Lockyer alleges that defendants have violated Title II of the ADA. See Compl. ¶ 39. The

complaint contains specific details of polling sites that do not comply with the ADAAG. Id. ¶¶ 19-

27. "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." Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978

(1997). 

Defendants claim that the ADA cause of action should be dismissed because (1) the ADAAG

applies only to buildings constructed or altered after 1992, and the complaint does not specify which

(if any) of the polling sites surveyed were constructed or altered after 1992; and (2) there is no

allegation that the Santa Cruz voting program as a whole is inaccessible to disabled voters. While

the complaint is lacking in certain specifics that would clarify Lockyer's ADA cause of action, this

does not render dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) appropriate. The complaint does not foreclose

Lockyer from proving qualified individuals were prevented from voting by the ADAAG violations

he enumerates. It is not "beyond doubt that" Lockyer "can prove no set of facts in support of his

claim" that the defendants have violated the ADA. See Conley, 355 U.S. at 45. Defendants' motion

to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. 

These are, however, sophisticated parties litigating a complex cause of action. The court

therefore orders the plaintiff to provide the defendants with the information they seek: (1) a list of

which buildings were built or modified after 1992 and (2) the scope of the plaintiff's claim (if any)

that the Santa Cruz voting program was inaccessible to disabled voters as a whole.

Case 5:05-cv-04708-RMW Document 42 Filed 02/21/06 Page 3 of 6
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—No. C-05-04708 RMW

JAH 4

C. Lockyer's Motion to Remand California Elections Code Cause of Action

Lockyer moves to remand his cause of action for violation of California Elections Code

§ 12280 (over which this court has supplemental, rather than original, jurisdiction) to the California

Superior Court. Lockyer claims remand is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). A district court

has broad discretion to remand a claim over which is has only supplemental jurisdiction if

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the

district court has original jurisdiction,

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,

or

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining

jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. 1367(c); see also City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172-74 (1997);

O'Connor v. Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 362 (9th Cir. 1997). When considering whether to remand a

cause of action, a court must consider whether remand will promote "the values of economy,

convenience, fairness, and comity." Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist.

of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545, 1553 (1994).

Whether Lockyer even has standing to pursue his § 12280 claim appears to be a novel issue

of California law. The defendants have moved to dismiss this claim, asserting that California

Government Code § 12172.5 grants the California Secretary of State exclusive authority to enforce

California's election laws. Lockyer claims that the California Constitution (specifically Article V,

§ 13) gives him standing to assert his § 12280 claim. Other courts have found that the California

Attorney General lacks standing to enforce certain laws when such authority had been delegated to

other officials. See, e.g., California v. Altus Fin., 36 Cal. 4th 1284, 1302-09 (2005). Because there

is no case law on whether California Government Code § 12172.5 precludes the California Attorney

General from instigating suits under Elections Code § 12280, this is a novel issue of state law under

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

This cause of action also qualifies as an "exceptional circumstance" under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(c)(4). The case is essentially an internal dispute between two segments of the California

Case 5:05-cv-04708-RMW Document 42 Filed 02/21/06 Page 4 of 6
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—No. C-05-04708 RMW

JAH 5

state government, the Attorney General and the County of Santa Cruz. Although economy and

convenience favor having Lockyer's two causes of action heard before the same court, comity

overwhelmingly favors allowing California to handle its internal disputes in its own court system. 

Remand of the Elections Code § 12280 cause of action is appropriate here.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court

1. denies the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's ADA cause of action;

2. orders the plaintiff to, within thirty days of this order and as an initial required

disclosure,

a. provide the defendants with a list of which buildings were built or modified

after 1992 and 

b. indicate the scope of the plaintiff's claim (if any) that the Santa Cruz voting

program was inaccessible to disabled voters as a whole;

3. and does not consider the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's Elections Code

§ 12280 cause of action, and instead grants plaintiff's motion to remand that claim to

the Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz.

The clerk of this court shall, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), mail a certified copy of this order to

the clerk of the Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz.

DATED: 2/21/06 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04708-RMW Document 42 Filed 02/21/06 Page 5 of 6
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—No. C-05-04708 RMW

JAH 6

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Angela Sierra 

Nancy A. Beninati nancy.beninati@doj.ca.gov 

Counsel for Defendants:

Jason Michael Heath Jason.Heath@co.santa-cruz.ca.us 

Dana McRae

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 2/21/06 /s/ JH 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-04708-RMW Document 42 Filed 02/21/06 Page 6 of 6