Wolanyk v. Sweetwater Union High School District et al

Filing 12

ORDER Granting Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 8 ) and Denying Petition for Tort Claim Relief (Dkt. 3 ). Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/5/2018. (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MADISON WOLANYK, a minor, by and
through her guardian ad litem,
EUGENE WOLANYK,
Plaintiff,

13
vs.

14
15

CASE NO. 17cv2415-LAB (MDD)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS [Dkt. 8] AND DENYING
PETITION FOR TORT CLAIM RELIEF
[Dkt. 3]

SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

Madison Wolanyk couldn’t travel to Disneyland with her Hilltop Middle School

18

classmates the past two years because the school bus didn’t have a wheelchair ramp. When

19

her father found out, he sued the Sweetwater school district for violating the ADA and two

20

California laws that protect disabled students like his daughter. Sweetwater moves to

21

dismiss the state claims for lack of jurisdiction. Wolanyk agrees the Eleventh Amendment

22

bars these claims against Sweetwater. The Court dismisses her two state claims without

23

leave to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Her request for punitive damages is also stricken.

24

Cal. Gov't Code § 818; see Gallagher v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 2009 WL 2781553,

25

at *11 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2009).1

26
27
28

1

Wolanyk asks the Court to keep her state claims and punitive damage allegations alive in
case she substitutes a Doe defendant. But she has a remedy for that: seek leave to amend.

-1-

1

Wolanyk also asks the Court to approve a petition for relief from the California

2

Government Tort Claims Act. This petition must be filed in California superior court. Cal.

3

Gov. Code § 946.6; see Hill v. City of Clovis, 2012 WL 787609 at *12 (E.D. Cal. March 9,

4

2012). Since Wolanyk concedes her two state claims aren’t actionable, this issue doesn’t

5

much matter. The only action remaining in this case is Wolanyk’s federal ADA claim—she’s

6

“not required to comply with California's claims filing requirements when asserting violations

7

of federal rights.” Diaz v. State, 1995 WL 138594, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 1995). Since the

8

ADA claim in this case borrows California’s three year statute of limitations, both trips to

9

Disneyland are actionable. Sharkey v. O'Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2015). The

10

petition is denied.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 5, 2018
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-