SAI v. Smith
| Decision Date | 24 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-01024-JST |
| Parties | SAI, Plaintiff, v. DAVID SMITH, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by the United States, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), David Smith, and James Adams (collectively, the "Federal Defendants"). ECF No. 118.
The Court first addresses the Federal Defendants' request for judicial notice. ECF No. 129. "As a general rule, [the Court] may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion." United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, "[t]he [C]ourt may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The Court "must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information." Fed. R. Evid. 201(c).
The Federal Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of two documents filed in other federal courts: (1) Defendants' Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss in Sai v. Department of Homeland Security et al., No 14-1876 (RDM), 149 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.D.C. 2015), and (2) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of a Request for an Extension in Sai v. Pekoske, No. 15-2356, ECF No. 1 (1st Cir. 2017). The Court may take judicial notice of court filings such as these. Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (). Accordingly, the Court grants the Federal Defendants' request and takes judicial notice of the documents.
Sai suffers from "multiple, permanent, episodic neurological disabilities." ECF No. 109 (Second Amended Complaint, or "SAC") ¶ 11. Symptoms of these disabilities include "painful, uncontrollable muscle spasms of the arm, neck, leg, or entire body, sometimes resulting in bruising and other injuries"; mutism; "extreme light sensitivity"; and "temporary, full-body paralysis, which completely prevents communication with most people." Id. The intake of food and liquid, and certain liquids in particular, helps Sai avoid the onset of these symptoms. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. For that reason, Sai "is careful to always have [food and drink] within immediate reach, especially while traveling." Id. ¶ 14. "Because muscle spasms can make drinking from a light container difficult and sometimes dangerous," Sai "normally uses heavier, shatterproof vessels (e.g., large plastic bottles), which provide more stability." Id. ¶ 15. Sai prefers to travel with liquids that can serve multiple purposes at once: "hydration, nourishment, electrolyte replacement, and nausea reduction." Id. ¶ 16. One such liquid is aloe juice. Id.
On March 1, 2013, Sai underwent passenger screening at San Francisco International Airport ("SFO"). Id. ¶ 26. Consistent with his usual practice, his carry-on luggage contained "medically necessary liquids—namely two transparent, plastic, 50.7-ounce bottles of aloe juice which contains electrolytes, including sugar and sodium." Id. Sai declared the aloe juice to a TSArepresentative, but was told by the initial screener that the bottles were too large. He requested to speak with a manager, but that person also told him the bottles were too large. (Although both individuals worked for Covenant Aviation Security, LLC ("Covenant"), a TSA contractor, Sai describes them as "TSA representatives.") This was frustrating to Sai, who believed that he had complied with TSA procedures and that he had the right to carry the containers with him pursuant to TSA's medical liquids policy.
As the screening process extended for more than twenty minutes, Sai "began to experience onset symptoms, such as visible hand and arm tremors." When Sai reached for a bottle of aloe juice to address the spasms, a TSA representative "put his hand on top of Sai's hand and physically prevented Sai from picking up the bottle." Id. ¶ 37. Sai asked to drink some of the juice to treat Sai's escalating medical needs, but the agent offered Sai only a small paper cup of water, and two small paper cups full of the aloe juice, which Sai struggled to drink and spilled because of the muscle spasms. Id. ¶¶ 49-58. TSA representatives treated Sai's medical condition lightly and did not believe that Sai required juice for treatment. Id. ¶¶ 40-41.
TSA representatives tested Sai's liquids for explosives, and the tests registered negative. Id. at 14. TSA representatives ultimately instructed Sai to either transfer the juice into 32 individual 3.2 ounce bottles, abandon the juice, or place the juice in checked luggage, to which Sai would not have access during the flight. Id. ¶¶ 51-58. Sai ultimately abandoned the aloe juice. Id. The incident took place over nearly one hour. Id. ¶ 82.
Sai alleges that the actions of the TSA representatives violated TSA's medical liquid policy as set forth in a September 25, 2006 memorandum from Sandra Cammaroto, Division Manager, TSA Office of Screening of Persons with Disabilities, entitled "Changes in Allowances for Persons with Disabilities at Airport Security Checkpoints." ECF No. 109-1. Pursuant to that memo, which Sai attaches to his complaint, passengers with disabilities are not required to place their liquids in 3 ounce containers, as other passengers are required to do. Instead, Saialleges that he complied with this policy. The same memo provides that while "it is recommended . . . that passengers bring along any supporting documentation . . . regarding their medication needs," it is not required. It also states that "[t]o ensure a smooth screening process, passengers are encouraged to limit quantities to what is needed for the duration of the flight."
As a result of the actions of the TSA representatives, Sai suffered a financial loss of the value of the juice (approximately $6.00), muscle tremors during the screening, worsened tremors for the hours following the screening, and a general medical deterioration, which contributed to Sai's loss of a job. ECF No. 109 ¶¶ 62-70. In sum, Sai suffered a medical "episode that could have been prevented, or at least ameliorated, if TSA . . . had obeyed TSA's medical liquid policy." Id. ¶ 4.
Sai's SAC alleges that the Federal Defendants and Covenant violated TSA policy and various federal laws and tort protections when they refused to allow Sai to fly with medically necessary liquids. ECF No. 109. Sai asserts claims for negligent supervision under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, against the Federal Defendants; assault, battery, and negligence against Covenant; denial of rights under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, against the Federal Defendants2; denial of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, against Covenant; and violations of the Administrative Procedures Act against unspecified defendants (but presumably against the Federal Defendants). Id. ¶¶ 77-135. Sai seeks injunctive relief, damages, civil penalties, and fees and costs. Id. ¶ 146.
The Federal Defendants now move to dismiss the claims against them. ECF No. 118.3 With regard to Sai's FTCA claim, they argue that Sai has sued defendants who are not subject to the FTCA; that the United States is not liable for intentional torts committed by independent contractors under the FTCA; and that any negligent supervision claim falls within thediscretionary function exception to the FTCA. They argue that Sai's Rehabilitation Act claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata; that if it not so barred, the claim can only be pled against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who is the only proper defendant; and that Sai cannot recover money damages under the Rehabilitation Act. Finally, the Federal Defendants argue that to the extent that plaintiff seeks to challenge TSA's procedures for screening liquids under the Rehabilitation Act, that challenge may only be presented in a Court of Appeals in the first instance.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate . . . where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory." Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). For purposes of the motion to dismiss, "all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party," here Sai. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). "While a complaint . . . does not need detailed factual allegations, [it] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In other words, a pleading must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570.
As for the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(...
To continue reading
Request your trial