Missud v. Oakland Coliseum Joint Venture
| Decision Date | 05 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 12-02967 JCS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | PATRICK A. MISSUD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OAKLAND COLISEUM JOINT VENTURE, et al. Defendants. |
Plaintiffs Patrick A. Missud1 ("Missud" or "Plaintiff") brought this putative class action against Defendants Oakland Coliseum Joint Venture ("OCJV"), City of Oakland, Alameda County, and SMG Corporation ("SMG") ("Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) violations of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"); (2) violations of the Resource Conservation and Reclamation Act ("RCRA"); (3) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); (4) violations of the National Highway Safety and Traffic Act ("NHSTA"); (5) violations of the requirements established by Cal-trans ("Caltrans");2 (6) negligence; (7) breach of contract; (8) fraudulent inducement; and (9) unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 ("UCL"). Presently before the Court are (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss"); and (2) Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint ("Motion to Strike"). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
On the evening of June 7, 2011, the Oakland Coliseum ("Coliseum") hosted a concert featuring the band U2 ("Concert"). Complaint, 1:24-25. Plaintiffs make the following allegations. OCJV cut services to maximize profits at the Concert. Id. at 3:3-6. Defendants were aware for approximately one year that the concert would be sold out such that 69,000 people would attend the concert. Id. at 8:21-22. Defendants were required to provide access to the venue, security, safe premises, sanitary facilities, light, ventilation, water, safety evacuation plans, ramps, walks, elevators, on-site emergency services, and parking. Id. at 8:27-9:4.
Missud purchased two tickets to the Concert. Id. at 5:1-2. Upon arrival, Missud discovered that the necessary facilities were either severely deficient or non-existent, and that only one of his tickets would be honored by Defendants. Id. at 5:2-4. Plaintiff alleges that (1) the class consists of in excess of 400 similarly situated members; (2) the issues pertaining to each of the causes of action pled in the Complaint are common to all class members; (3) Missud's claims are typical of the claims of each member of the class because each member had a ticket to see the concert, was denied access to the Coliseum, and properly planned to allow ample time to access the Coliseum; and (4) Missud will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class and will retain additional counsel that is competent and experienced in class action litigation. Id. at 5:6-8:11. Plaintiff alleges that they have citizen standing to enforce federal laws. Id. at 4:26-28. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and punitive damages. Id. at 11:12-13:17.
Plaintiffs allege nine causes of action:
(1) Violation of the CWA: Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants willfully violated the CWA with discharges of storm water, untreated sewage, and other pollutants into the Oakland Estuary, a protected state and federal wetland." Id. at 9:10-12. Plaintiff alleges that the wetland is within the overflow parking lot. Id. at 11:15-16. To support this cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants operate an "overflow parking lot" during events at the Coliseum. Id. at 5:18-21. Plaintiff alleges that the overflow parking lot generates wastewater, at least in part because "greasy, leakingcars" are parked there. Id. at 5:20-21, 5:24-25. Plaintiff alleges that the use of the overflow parking lot has created "industrial-type point-source pollution" such that it may require Defendants to perform an environmental impact report. Id. at 6:7-9. Plaintiff further alleges that the Oakland Estuary is being polluted by garbage discarded by Defendants' invitees because Defendants do not provide trash receptacles to manage the solid wastes discarded at the overflow parking lot. Id. at 6:14-19. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants should be subjected to Section 309 fines starting from the day they knew of the CWA violations, June 16, 2011. Id. at 6:20-21.
(2) Violation of the RCRA: Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants willfully violated the RCRA with discharges of storm water, untreated sewage, and other pollutants into the Oakland Estuary, a protected state and federal wetland." Id. at 9:14-17. Plaintiff alleges that the groundwater under the overflow parking lot is being contaminated by "various alkali compounds, antifreeze, and motor transmission oils." Id. at 6:4-6:6.
(3) Violation of the ADA: Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants willfully violated the ADA by failing to provide adequate walkways, railings, landings, ramps, and other components prescribed by the act." Id. at 9:20-21. Plaintiff alleges that the Coliseum is open to the public and offered for use by the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda. Id. at 6:25-26. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the ADA because they do not provide lighting, bathrooms, walkways, ramps, transitions, or safety systems at or around the overflow parking lot. Id. at 7:1-6. Plaintiff also alleges that there are no ADA compliant facilities, curbs, walks, handrails, or ramps between the overflow parking lot and the Coliseum. Id. at 11:21-22. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that minimum walk widths, ascent angles, and railings are non-existent. Id. at 11:24-25.
(4) Violation of the NHSTA: Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants willfully violated the NHSTA by failing to provide adequate walkways, railings, landings, ramps, and other components which require separation from vehicular traffic, roadways, and thoroughfares as prescribed by the Act." Id. at 9:24-26. Plaintiff elaborates that pedestrians using the overflow parking lot are forced to "share the same vehicular path" with traffic. Id. at 12:1-3.
(5) Violation of Caltrans Requirements: Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants willfully violated [Caltrans] safety codes by failing to provide adequate pedestrian walkways, railings, landings, ramps, and other components which require separation from vehicular traffic, roadways, and thoroughfares as prescribed by the state." Id. at 10:2-5. This claim appears based on the same underpinning as the NHTSA claim: That pedestrians using the overflow parking lot are forced to "share the same vehicular path" with traffic. Id. at 12:1-5.
(6) Negligence: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had a duty to provide "adequate services" to invitees. Id. at 10:7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not provide adequate services. Id. at 10:7-9. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failure to provide adequate services caused them to be "effectively barred" from attending the concert. Id. at 10:9-11. Plaintiff alleges that they were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. Id. at 10:11-13. Plaintiff alleges that the overflow parking lot lacks lighting and contains "mounds of refuse, deep water-filled potholes, cavernous ruts, collapsed chain link fencing, slick mud, assorted other trip and slip hazards, and rusted barbed wire surrounding [its] perimeter." Id. at 12:12-16. Plaintiff seeks damages for all those physically injured by the premises or barred from attending the Coliseum by "mismanagement of premises under [Defendants'] control, including their 'overflow parking lot.'" Id. at 12:20-26.
(7) Breach of Contract: Plaintiff indirectly alleges that they entered a contract with Defendants when they purchased licenses, tickets, from Defendants. Id. at 10:15. Plaintiff alleges that they performed under the contract by timely arriving at the Coliseum. Id. at 10:15-16. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the contracts by "constructively voiding" the licenses. Id. at 10:16-17. Plaintiff explains that Defendants did not provide sufficient staffing or amenities to accommodate the 69,000 invitees they knew would be attending the concert. Id. at 10:18-19. Plaintiff also alleges some tickets were not honored, and that Defendants sold more tickets than they could reasonably accommodate. Id. at 12:27-28, 13:5-7. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants made improper staffing assumptions. Id. at 7:23-25.
(8) Fraudulent Inducement: Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants knowingly oversold the Concert." Id. at 10:23. Plaintiff explains that Defendants knew they did not have sufficient amenitiesto accommodate 69,000 invitees but misrepresented that they could do so, inducing Plaintiff to buy tickets that Defendants knew would not be honored. Id. at 10:23-26.
(9) UCL: Plaintiff alleges that Id. at 11:2-7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' unfair, unlawful, and deceptive acts and practices have caused Plaintiff damages in an amount to be shown at trial. Id. at 11:7-9.
First, Defendants assert that Missud cannot act as class representative and class counsel. Motion to Dismiss, 1 n.1 (citing Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.4th 772, 774, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 575 (2006)).
Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims against the City of Oakland and Alameda County are barred by sovereign immunity. Id. at 7. Defendants assert that the Eleventh...
To continue reading
Request your trial