Mayall v. USA Water Polo, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2016
• Docket Number: CASE NO. SACV 15–0171 AG (KESx)
• Citation: Mayall v. USA Water Polo, Inc., 174 F.Supp.3d 1220 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Alice Mayall, as parent and guardian of minor H.C., on behalf of H.C. and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USA Water Polo, Inc., Defendant.

174 F.Supp.3d 1220

Alice Mayall, as parent and guardian of minor H.C., on behalf of H.C. and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.USA Water Polo, Inc., Defendant.

CASE NO. SACV 15–0171 AG (KESx)

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed March 30, 2016

Daniel J. Kurowski, Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Chicago, IL, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA, Thomas E. Ahlering, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Oak Park, IL, Elaine T. Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff.

Jeffrey M. Lenkov, Steven J. Renick, Vi Applen, Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Steven C. Amundson, Manning and Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge

From Ancient Greece and before to the twenty-first century, sports enrich our society.For spectators, sports bring people from all walks of life together in a coliseum or in front of a big-screen TV.For athletes, sports promote the lifelong values of team work, good health, athletic excellence, fair play, and robust competition.For young athletes, sports may be the ticket to college.

This case raises a significant question facing society about how best to maintain those values, while also ensuring the safety of athletes.Film writers, news pundits, and athletes themselves have recently raised similar questions in other contexts and for other sports.In this case, PlaintiffAlice Mayall raises the question for her minor daughter, H.C., who suffered head injuries while playing water polo under Defendant USA Water Polo's rules and policies.Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) challenges whether Defendant struck the proper balance between promoting vigorous competition and ensuring the safety of its competitors.

Defendant moves to dismiss and strike portions of the FAC.The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.Defendant's Motion to Strike portions of the FAC is therefore MOOT.

The Court's decision is by no means a panacea to the policy question lying beneath the action.Nor should the decision result in limiting efforts, voluntary or otherwise, to prevent concussions in water polo or other sports.Those safety efforts may be laudable and even necessary to adequately ensure the well being of athletes.But the facts alleged in this case do not present this federal District Court applying California common law with the opportunity to judicially require those safety efforts.The Court reaches this decision sensitive to the continued pain and suffering of H.C. and recognizing the conflicting interests of not discouraging athletes from going “faster, higher, stronger.”

1.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court assumes facts alleged in the FAC as true for these Motions that attack standing and the sufficiency of the claims on the face of the allegations in the FAC.SeeLeite v. Crane Co.,749 F.3d 1117, 1121(9th Cir.2014);Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp.,669 F.3d 1005, 1014(9th Cir.2012).Plaintiff sues on behalf of her sixteen-year-old daughter, H.C., and others similarly situated, seeking compensatory and injunctive relief.Plaintiff's claims arise from a concussion H.C. suffered while playing water polo for a team governed by Defendant's rules and policies.On February 15, 2014, H.C. was playing in a water polo tournament when she suffered a concussion after a ball hit her in the face.Neither the referee nor the coach stopped the game.Her coach, who was not trained or educated in concussion management, allowed her to continue playing.No athletic trainer or medical professional was at the game.H.C. continued to play in other games that day and took additional hits to the head that aggravated her initial injury.

After the tournament, H.C. suffered physical symptoms, including headaches, excessive sleepiness, and dizziness.H.C. was eventually diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome.H.C. continues to experience physical symptoms and to struggle socially and academically.The thrust of Plaintiff's allegations is that Defendant's lack of policies regarding concussions aggravated H.C.'s initial injury.

2.STANDING

A plaintiff must show the plaintiff has standing for each form of relief sought.Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt'l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 185, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610(2000).Defendant here doesn't challenge standing to seek simple monetary relief or medical monitoring for H.C. on the gross negligence claim.Instead, Defendant challenges standing to seek other injunctive relief for H.C. and the class.Specifically, Defendant challenges standing to seek injunctive relief requiring Defendant to (1) implement systemwide return-to-play guidelines for athletes who have sustained concussions, (2) implement systemwide guidelines to screen and detect head injuries, (3) implement substitution rules for medical evaluation purposes, and (4) provide medical monitoring for players' injuries.

Standing to bring these challenged claims requires that (1) H.C. suffers an “injury in fact” that is not “conjectural or hypothetical,”(2)“a causal connection [exists] between the injury and conduct complained of,” and (3) it is “likely” rather than “speculative” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351(1992).The Court now reviews these three requirements.

2.1 Injury in Fact

Although H.C. has suffered a medical injury, Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that H.C. suffers an “injury in fact” that supports standing under Article III.“Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.”O'Shea v. Littleton,414 U.S. 488, 495, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674(1974).Instead, plaintiffs“must demonstrate that they are realistically threatened by a repetition of the violation.”Gest v. Bradbury,443 F.3d 1177, 1181(9th Cir.2006)(citations and alterations omitted).Plaintiffs must also show that the threatened injury is “certainly impending.”Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1147, 185 L.Ed.2d 264(2013)(citingWhitmore v. Arkansas,495 U.S. 149, 158, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135(1990) ).

The FAC does not allege sufficient facts that H.C. is realistically threatened by a repetition of a violation.

Gest,443 F.3d at 1181.To start, if H.C. is not playing water polo for a team governed by Defendant's rules and policies, she is not exposed to the types of “continuing, present adverse effects” needed to have standing to bring claims against Defendant.O'Shea,414 U.S. at 495, 94 S.Ct. 669.Portions of the FAC raise that concern.For instance, the FAC alleges that “H.C. has played water polo for the LARPD Lazers Water Polo Club.”But that allegation doesn't provide that H.C. is currently playing for a team governed by Defendant's rules and policies.Indeed, the single allegation in the FAC that Plaintiff currently plays water polo for any team is questionable.In her opposition, Plaintiff states that it is a plausible inference H.C. will continue to play water polo if Defendant implements Plaintiff's requested concussion policies.At the hearing for these Motions, Plaintiff's counsel confirmed that H.C. “wants to play again.”Both statements suggest that H.C. is not currently playing the game, much less for a team governed by Defendant's rules and policies.

Nor has Plaintiff adequately shown that an injury is “certainly impending.”Clapper,133 S.Ct. at 1147.The bare assertion that Plaintiff has an “improper risk of injury caused by the misconduct of Defendant which goes above and beyond the risks inherent in water polo” is unsupported by any alleged facts.

Finally, Plaintiff's bare statistical assertions describing the heightened risk of concussions for young people are not enough to show that H.C. faces an imminent risk of harm.The Court must not base the likelihood of threatened harm to H.C. on “naked statistical assertion[s],” but instead must make an “individualized inquiry into whether there is a credible threat that [H.C.] will again suffer the harm that allegedly occurred” to her.Nelsen v. King Cty.,895 F.2d 1248, 1251–52(9th Cir.1990).Plaintiff's allegations therefore don't persuade the Court that H.C. suffers the required “injury in fact” to have standing to seek injunctive relief other than for medical monitoring of H.C.

2.2 Causal Connection

Plaintiff has also inadequately shown that Defendant's conduct caused any increased risk of injury.As noted, Plaintiff hasn't alleged that H.C. is currently playing on a team governed by USA Water Polo's rules and policies.Any risk of injury is therefore not fairly traceable to Defendant.

Nor has Plaintiff adequately shown that Defendant increased the risk of head injuries “above and beyond the risks inherent in water polo.”That vague, legal conclusion in the FAC is not enough to show that Defendant's failure to implement (1) return-to-play guidelines, (2) guidelines to screen and detect head injuries, or (3) substitution rules for medical evaluation purposes increased the risks of head injuries beyond those inherent in the game.Indeed, Plaintiff acknowledges that “head and facial injuries are common” in water polo.Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant failed to minimize the risks that arise after suffering a concussion.But, as discussed later in Section 3.1, a failure to minimize a risk doesn't equate to increasing that risk.

Plaintiff has thus not persuaded the Court that Defendant caused any injury in fact fairly traceable to Defendant to support standing to seek injunctive relief other than for medical monitoring of H.C.

2.3 Redressability

Even if Plaintiff satisfied the first two elements to confer standing, Plaintiff has...