Montoya v. City of San Diego ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALEX MONTOYA; REX SHIRLEY; Case No.: 19cv0054 JM(BGS) PHILIP PRESSEL; and WYLENE 11 HINKLE, individually, and on behalf of ORDER ON MOTION FOR 12 all others similarly situated, JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; and DOES 1-100, 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter comes before the court on Defendant City of San Diego’s (City) motion 19 for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. No. 151.) The motion has been fully briefed and the 20 court finds the matter suitable for submission on the papers and without oral argument in 21 accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, City’s motion 22 is denied. 23 I. Background 24 In the operative Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that City violated the 25 Americans with Disabilities Act, 29 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., section 504 of the 26 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., California Civil Code section 51, et seq., (the 27 “Unruh Act”), California Civil Code section 54, et seq., (the “DPA”), California 28 Government Code section 4450, et seq., and California Code section 1135, et. seq. (Doc. 1 No. 97.) All of the claims stem from Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding their access to San 2 Diego’s sidewalks being diminished by the proliferation of dockless electric vehicles 3 currently in use in the city. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 2, 12-15.) 4 On June 25, 2021, City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 151). 5 On July 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition, (Doc. No. 160) and City 6 duly filed its reply, (Doc. No 164). 7 II. Legal Standard 8 Rule 12(c) provides that a party may move for judgment on the pleadings “after the 9 pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (c). “Judgment 10 on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the 11 pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to 12 judgment as a matter of law.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 13 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990). Like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must assume the 14 truthfulness of the material facts alleged in the complaint and all inferences reasonably 15 drawn from the allegations must be construed in favor of the responding party. See Gen. 16 Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational 17 Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989); Hal Roach Studios, Inc, 896 F.2d at 1550. A 18 defendant is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings if the complaint raises issues of fact, 19 which, if proved, would support the Plaintiffs’ legal theories. See id. 20 III. Discussion 21 In its motion, City seeks judgment on the pleadings on two of Plaintiffs’ causes of 22 action, those brought under California Government Code section 4450, et seq. and Unruh. 23 (Doc. No. 151). 24 a. Unruh Claim 25 City moves for judgment on the pleadings on the Unruh claim asserting that it is not 26 a “business establishment” as defined in the Act. In making its motion, City acknowledges 27 that it made the same argument in its earlier motion to dismiss, but claims the law has since 28 been clarified by a California Court of Appeal decision, Brennon B. v. Superior Court, 1 57 Cal. App. 5th 367 (2020) . City contends that the conclusion reached in Brennon B. 2 applies to all governmental bodies. Plaintiffs oppose. 3 In Brennon B., the California Court of Appeal looked at the historical context of 4 Unruh before determining that “public school districts are not business establishments 5 under the Unruh Act.” However, the California Supreme Court granted review of Brennan 6 B. in February 2021. See 480 P.3d 1199. During review, the Court of Appeal decision has 7 no binding or precedential effect, see Cal. Rules of Court Rule 8.115(e)(1). Considering 8 these circumstances, this court declines to reopen the Unruh issue at this time. 9 In a recent filing, Plaintiffs Montoya, Pressel and Hinkle each waived their claims 10 to monetary damages (see Doc. No. 179 at 3). Accordingly, the motion for judgment on 11 the pleadings on their claims is DENIED AS MOOT. With respect to Plaintiff Shirley, 12 City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 13 b. California Government Code section 4450 et seq. claim 14 City moves for judgment on the pleadings on the California Government Code 15 section 4450 et seq. claim on the grounds that this section of the code “relates to building 16 standards and does not create a cause of action for obstructions placed on top of sidewalks.” 17 (Doc. No. 151-1 at 7.) In their opposition, Plaintiffs “agree[d] to withdraw their third 18 claim for relief under California Government Code section 4450.” Accordingly, the 19 motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiffs’ third claim is DENIED AS MOOT. 20 This claim is hereby STRICKEN from the Second Amended Complaint. 21 /// 22 /// 23 24 25 26 1 City asks the court to take judicial notice of the California Supreme Court’s docket in 27 Brennon B. v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court No. S266254. (Doc. No. 164-1.) Finding the docket unnecessary for analysis of this motion, the court DENIES City’s 28 1 IV. Conclusion 2 For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES City’s motion for judgment on the 3 || pleadings. (Doc. No. 151.) 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: October 27, 2021 Piel 7 n. Jeffrey. Miller nited States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28