Jon Persinger, et al. v. County of Placer

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Placer County’s motion to dismiss Jon and Nicole Persinger’s second amended complaint and denied the motion to strike portions of that complaint. The court dismissed the ADA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, denied further leave to amend the § 1983 claims, and granted leave to amend the ADA claim. The court ordered plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint or a notice of intent not to do so within 21 days.

Holdings

1. The ADA claim was dismissed because the second amended complaint merely recited the elements of an ADA claim, failed to identify a clear theory of liability or specific denied accommodations, and did not adequately allege intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference.
2. Plaintiffs' Monell claims were dismissed because the second amended complaint did not allege more than a single course of conduct or isolated incident establishing an unconstitutional municipal policy, custom, or practice.
3. To the extent plaintiffs' § 1983 claims relied on vicarious liability for constitutional violations by County employees, those claims were dismissed because a municipality is not liable under § 1983 solely because its employees or agents violated a plaintiff's rights.
4. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims and dismissed those state-law claims without prejudice.
5. The motion to strike was denied because the prior order granted leave to amend without limitation, and district courts in the Ninth Circuit generally permit new claims or parties in an amended complaint when leave to amend is unrestricted.
6. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend the ADA claim but denied further leave to amend the Monell claims because repeated failure to cure the previously identified deficiency made further amendment futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint stated a plausible ADA Title II claim.
2. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged Monell municipal liability or vicarious liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.
4. Whether portions of the second amended complaint should be stricken because they exceeded the scope of the prior leave to amend.
5. Whether plaintiffs should receive further leave to amend their claims.

Disposition

other