Anderson v. Yolo County Social Services Department
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/14/2017 re 4 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended Complaint be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff has twenty days from the date this Order is signed to file a second amended complaint, if she can do so consistent with this Order. (Kirksey Smith, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
IVY ANDERSON,
CIV. NO. 2:16-cv-2466 WBS DB
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
15
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
TO DISMISS
YOLO COUNTY,
16
Defendant.
17
----oo0oo----
18
Plaintiff Ivy Anderson filed this action against
19
20
defendant Yolo County, alleging that defendant racially
21
discriminated against her when it reduced the in-home supportive
22
service (“IHSS”) funds of her developmentally delayed son,
23
Daytrail Swan.
24
(“FAC”) (Docket No. 1).)
25
Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended Complaint.
26
(Docket No. 4).)
27
I.
28
(Notice of Removal Ex. A, First Am. Compl.
Before the court now is defendant’s
(Def.’s Mot.
Factual and Procedural Background
The state of California provides IHSS funds to low1
1
income elderly and disabled persons to assist with their daily
2
living needs.
3
Cal. 2009).
4
the supervision of the California Department of Social Services
5
(“DSS”).
6
2010).
7
recipient, it “either obtains and pays [an IHSS] provider or pays
8
the recipient who hires one.”
9
862, 868 (1983).
V.L. v. Wagner, 669 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1109 (N.D.
The IHSS program is administered by counties under
Basden v. Wagner, 181 Cal. App. 4th 929, 934 (3d Dist.
When a county authorizes the provision of IHSS funds to a
Miller v. Woods, 148 Cal. App. 3d
In many cases, the recipient uses his or her
10
IHSS funds to pay a relative, who provides IHSS to the recipient.
11
Putz v. Schwarzenegger, No. 10-00344 CW, 2010 WL 1838717, at *1
12
(N.D. Cal. May 5, 2010).
13
Plaintiff is the IHSS provider for her 37-year-old son,
14
Swan, who has been diagnosed with developmental delay.
15
7.)
16
Until June 10, 2015, defendant had been issuing nearly 250 hours’
17
worth of IHSS funds to Swan each month, which plaintiff had been
18
keeping as income.1
Defendant administers Swan’s IHSS funds.
19
(FAC ¶
(See id. at 1-2.)
(See id. ¶ 8-9.)
On June 10, 2015, defendant sent a social worker to
20
plaintiff’s home to conduct an assessment of Swan’s IHSS needs.
21
(Id. ¶ 9.)
22
worker “was demeaning, unprofessional, and continuously wrote
23
down statements that were never spoken by either Plaintiff or her
24
son.”
25
notified plaintiff that it would be reducing Swan’s IHSS funds to
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff alleges that at the assessment, the social
(Id. ¶ 27.)
Three weeks after the assessment, defendant
Plaintiff deals directly with defendant and signs IHSS
documents on her son’s behalf. (See FAC ¶ 21; Decl. of Sean
O’Dowd Ex. 6, IHSS Recipient/Employer Responsibility Checklist
(signed by plaintiff on Swan’s behalf) (Docket No. 4-3).)
2
1
22.5 hours per month.
2
(Id. ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff challenged the reduction via the DSS’
3
administrative appeals process.
4
the matter, the DSS affirmed defendant’s reduction in large part,
5
ordering that Swan’s IHSS funds be reduced to 44 hours and 4
6
minutes per month.
7
DSS’ decision, which DSS declined to grant.
8
9
(Id. ¶ 13.)
(Id. ¶ 12.)
After a hearing on
Plaintiff sought a rehearing on
(Id. ¶ 15.)
On July 20, 2016, plaintiff filed this action in the
California Superior Court.
(Notice of Removal at 1.)
She
10
amended her complaint on September 12, 2016.
11
Plaintiff does not name her son as a plaintiff in the amended
12
Complaint, nor does she bring any claims on his behalf.
13
Instead, plaintiff, who is African-American, (see id. ¶ 45),
14
alleges that defendant racially discriminated against her by
15
reducing her son’s IHSS funds, thus in effect reducing her
16
income.
17
that her race was a factor in Defendants’ [decision to cut her
18
son’s IHSS funds] . . . .”).)
19
against defendant: (1) race discrimination in violation of the
20
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal Gov.
21
Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (2) “Negligent Failure to Prevent
22
Retaliation”; and (3) race discrimination in violation of 42
23
U.S.C. § 1981 (“section 1981”).
24
(See FAC at 7.)
(See id. ¶ 25 (“Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges
She brings the following claims
(Id. at 3-7.)
Defendant removed plaintiff’s action to this court on
25
October 17, 2016.
(Notice of Removal.)
26
dismiss plaintiff’s amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
27
28
3
Defendant now moves to
1
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).2
2
II.
(Def.’s Mot.)
Legal Standard
3
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
4
under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the allegations in the
5
pleadings as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
6
the plaintiff.
7
overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183
8
(1984); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).
9
motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead “only enough facts to
See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974),
To survive a
10
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
11
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bell
The “plausibility” standard, “asks for more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” and
2
Defendant also moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1),
arguing that plaintiff does not have Article III standing because
“she has no entitlement to welfare benefits that belong to [her
son].” (See Def.’s Mot., Mem. at 7 (Docket 4-1).)
District courts in this circuit have held, however,
that the indirect “economic harm” IHSS providers suffer as the
result of government reductions of their clients’ IHSS hours is
sufficient to confer standing. Oster v. Lightbourne, No. C 094668 CW, 2012 WL 691833, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012); see
also Martinez v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 09-02306 CW, 2009 WL
3353227, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2009) (finding that IHSS
providers have standing to challenge state reduction of IHSS
funds). The Ninth Circuit appears to have ratified that holding
sub silentio. See Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger, 596 F.3d 1087,
1098 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming district court decision in which
district court found that IHSS providers have standing to
challenge state reduction of IHSS funds), vacated on other
grounds in Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. California, Inc.,
132 S. Ct. 1204 (2012). Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that
defendant’s reduction of IHSS funds caused her “emotional
distress,” which, in itself, “can confer [Article III] standing.”
Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1039 (N.D.
Ill. 2015).
The court need not decide the standing issue in light
of other deficiencies in plaintiff’s amended Complaint.
4
1
where a plaintiff pleads facts that are “merely consistent with a
2
defendant’s liability,” the facts “stop[] short of the line
3
between possibility and plausibility.”
4
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
5
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
6
to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a
7
plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his
8
‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
9
conclusions . . . .”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation
10
omitted).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
11
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,”
12
and “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the
13
allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal
14
conclusions.”
15
III. Discussion
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
16
Of the three causes of action alleged by plaintiff in
17
her amended Complaint, only her section 1981 claim arises under
18
federal law.3
19
defendant is a municipality located in California, (FAC ¶¶ 1-2),
20
thus there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case.
21
jurisdictional basis for plaintiff’s state law claims, therefore,
22
is supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“section
23
1367(c)”).
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is a resident of California, and
The only
Plaintiff’s section 1981 claim, like her other claims,
alleges that defendant racially discriminated against her by
3
Plaintiff’s second cause of action for “negligent
failure to prevent retaliation” cites no statute. Thus, the
court construes that claim to be a negligence claim brought under
California common law.
5
1
reducing her son’s IHSS funds.
2
her claim that defendant cut her son’s IHSS funds because of her
3
race, plaintiff alleges that the social worker who conducted her
4
son’s assessment spoke to her in a “demeaning” and
5
“unprofessional” tone, “repeatedly cut[ her ]off from speaking,”
6
and “falsified . . . statements” that defendant later used to
7
justify her son’s IHSS reduction.
8
9
(See FAC ¶ 28.)
In support of
(Id. ¶¶ 27, 46.)
Section 1981 states, in relevant part: “All persons
within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same
10
right . . . to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties,
11
give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and
12
proceedings for the security of persons and property as is
13
enjoyed by white citizens . . . .”
14
United States Supreme Court explained in Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v.
15
McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (2006) that “[a]mong the many statutes
16
that combat racial discrimination, § 1981 . . . has a specific
17
function: It protects the equal right of ‘[a]ll persons within
18
the jurisdiction of the United States’ to ‘make and enforce
19
contracts’ without respect to race.”
20
brought under § 1981, therefore, must initially identify an
21
impaired contractual relationship under which the plaintiff has
22
rights.”
23
42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).
Id. at 474.
The
“Any claim
Id. at 476 (internal citation omitted).
The Ninth Circuit has held that “a prima facie section
24
1981 case, like a prima facie disparate treatment case under
25
Title VII, requires proof of intentional discrimination.”
26
Waiters’ & Dairy Lunchmen’s Union, Local No. 30, 694 F.2d 531,
27
538 (9th Cir. 1982).
28
Title VII plaintiff, must allege facts that plausibly indicate
Gay v.
Thus, a section 1981 plaintiff, like a
6
1
defendant was “motivated by a discriminatory animus.”
2
Id.
Although it is questionable whether plaintiff’s IHSS
3
arrangement with defendant constituted a “contractual
4
relationship under which [she] has rights,” even assuming that
5
such a relationship existed, plaintiff has not alleged facts that
6
plausibly indicate defendant’s conduct was motivated by “a
7
discriminatory animus.”
8
9
Plaintiff’s allegations that defendant’s social worker
spoke to her in a “demeaning” tone and falsified statements,
10
while perhaps indicative of condescension and hostility, are not
11
sufficient, in themselves, to plausibly suggest that defendant
12
had a racially discriminatory motive.
13
Inc., 84 F. App’x 863, 865 (9th Cir. 2003) (allegations that
14
employer made “condescending statements” towards plaintiff are
15
insufficient to support an “inference of [racial]
16
discrimination”); Potash v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 972 F.
17
Supp. 2d 557, 568, 592-93 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (declining to find
18
discriminatory motive despite evidence of employer’s “hostile
19
attitude” towards plaintiff) ; Soria v. Univision Radio Los
20
Angeles, Inc., 210 Cal. Rptr. 3d 59, 79 (2d Dist. 2016)
21
(“[S]howing the employer was lying [about the reason for
22
employee’s discharge] . . . is not enough to infer discriminatory
23
animus.”).4
See Berry v. Chevron USA,
24
4
25
26
27
28
The court may consider Title VII cases, such as Berry,
Postash, and Mancell, in deciding claims brought under section
1981. See Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 930 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“In analyzing . . . claims under § 1981, we apply the same legal
principles as those applicable in a Title VII disparate treatment
case.”). FEHA cases, such as Soria, are also instructive. See
Peralta v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 427 F. App’x 616 (9th
7
1
It is entirely possible, for example, that the social
2
worker was condescending and hostile towards plaintiff because
3
she is poor, or because he had a personal dislike for her.
4
“[M]ere dislike of an employee does not support a determination
5
of pretext or discriminatory intent.”
6
Supp. 3d 1190, 1201 (D.N.M. 2015).
7
that the social worker was condescending and hostile toward
8
everyone without regard to their race or any other personal
9
characteristics.
10
Mancell v. McHugh, 111 F.
It is also just as possible
Additionally, defendant appears to have conducted a
11
thorough review of Swan’s mental condition before reducing his
12
IHSS funds.
13
(providing table breakdown of Swan’s IHSS funds with explanations
14
as to why hours were being reduced) (Docket No. 4-3); id. Ex. 2,
15
ALJ Decision at 3-5 (recounting numerous tests performed by
16
social worker at Swan’s in-home assessment).5)
17
plaintiff’s appeal affirmed defendant’s decision in large part,
18
agreeing with defendant on its key finding that Swan no longer
19
needed protective supervision, (ALJ Decision at 15), which had
(See Decl. of Sean O’Dowd Ex. 1, Notice of Action
The ALJ who heard
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cir. 2011) (analyzing FEHA and section 1981 claims together).
5
As plaintiff’s Notice of Action and the ALJ’s decision
are both matters of administrative record and incorporated by
reference in plaintiff’s amended Complaint, the court hereby
takes judicial notice of them pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 201. See Smith v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 830
F.3d 843, 851 n.10 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that “courts routinely
take judicial notice of . . . records and reports of
administrative bodies”); see also Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068,
1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he incorporation by reference doctrine
. . . permits [courts] to take into account documents whose
contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no
party questions.”).
8
1
accounted for 180 of the nearly 250 IHSS hours he had been
2
receiving prior to the assessment, (see Notice of Action at 1).
3
The thoroughness of defendant’s in-home assessment and the ALJ’s
4
confirmation of its key finding suggest that the assessment, not
5
racism, was the basis for defendant’s reduction of Swan’s IHSS
6
hours.
7
In light of defendant’s assessment and plaintiff’s
8
inability to allege facts that plausibly suggest a racially
9
discriminatory motive, the court finds that plaintiff has failed
10
to state a plausible claim under section 1981.
11
at 538.
12
1981 claim.
13
See Gay, 694 F.2d
Accordingly, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s section
A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental
14
jurisdiction . . . [if it] has dismissed all claims over which it
15
has original jurisdiction.”
16
v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 n.3 (9th Cir. 1997)
17
(en banc) (explaining that a district court may decide sua sponte
18
to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction).
19
whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
20
state claims, the court must consider the principles of “judicial
21
economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”
22
Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988).
23
case in which all federal-law claims are [dismissed] before
24
trial, the balance of factors to be considered . . . will point
25
toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining
26
state-law claims.”
27
28
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Acri
In deciding
Carnegie–Mellon
“[I]n the usual
Id.
Because plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim
under federal law, and because the gravamen of her amended
9
1
Complaint is that defendant unlawfully administered a state
2
benefits program, the court will decline to exercise supplemental
3
jurisdiction over her state law claims.
4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to
5
dismiss plaintiff’s first amended Complaint be, and the same
6
hereby is, GRANTED.
7
PREJUDICE.
8
9
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
Plaintiff has twenty days from the date this Order is
signed to file a second amended complaint, if she can do so
10
consistent with this Order.
11
Dated:
February 14, 2017
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?