Williams v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
| Decision Date | 01 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 19-cv-00576-YGR |
| Parties | MONIQUE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Plaintiff Monique Williams brings this tort action against the City of Richmond (the "City") alleging negligence for dangerous condition of public property arising from a train collision. 1 Specifically, plaintiff alleges the City negligently caused a train collision that struck the plaintiff on the train tracks by failing to warn pedestrians adequately of the dangerous conditions or take due care to prevent collisions in an area popular for pedestrian crossings, including by failure to post appropriate warnings via signage or erect barriers to limit pedestrian access. (Id. ¶¶ 13-30.) Defendant Amtrak removed the case to this Court on February 1, 2019. (Dkt. No. 1 ("Removal").)
Now before the Court is the City's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 31 ("Dismiss")) and plaintiff's related motion that the claim filed is in substantial compliance and petition for relief (Dkt. No. 27 ("Substantial Compliance")). Having carefully considered the pleadings and the papers submitted, the Court DENIES the City's motion to dismiss and GRANTS plaintiff's motionthat claim filed is in substantial compliance.2
This action arises from a train accident that occurred on January 10, 2018 at "approximately 11:30 a.m." (Compl. ¶ 13.) The accident occurred "at or near the location of MP 13 of the Union Pacific Railroad Martinez Division, Richmond, California, 94801" and involved an accident with a train operated by Amtrak. (Id.) The collision occurred when "Amtrak Train 535 collided with the Plaintiff while she was walking and crossing the railroad tracks to get to a store on the other side of the tracks." (Id. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff claims "there is a fence surrounding [the train tracks] with a gate which is unsecured and is associated with a well worn path and thus can be opened and encourages residents living near [the train tracks] and pedestrians to open the gateand cross the tracks to get to a store rather than walk around the property." (Id. ¶ 28.)
Following the accident, plaintiff filed a claim with the City and engaged in correspondence with the City about this accident. The following facts are undisputed:
On November 8, 2018, plaintiff filed this action against Amtrak, Union Pacific, and the City in the Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, captioned Williams v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., et al, Case No. C18-02144. (See Compl.) Plaintiff's complaint asserts tort claims against defendants arising from a collision in which a train operated by Amtrak struck plaintiff causing physical injuries "at or near the location of MP 13 of the Union Pacific Railroad Martinez Division, Richmond, California, 94801" on January 10, 2018 at "approximately 11:30 a.m." (Id. ¶ 13.) Specifically, plaintiff asserts claims against the City for: (1) negligently operating, designing, maintaining, and/or repairing the train tracks, as well as the surrounding and adjacent property; (2) failing to warn the public of dangerous conditions where the accident took place, including failing to maintain proper signs and pedestrian markings designating the area as unsafe; (3) failing to erect barriers to prevent pedestrian access to the train tracks; and (4) negligently encouraging pedestrians to cross the tracks and in that area by placing a fence and gated area that allowed pedestrian access to the tracks in the area where the accident occurred. (Id. ¶¶ 14-17.)
\\
\\ Plaintiff did not specify an amount of damages, but sought relief for general, non-economic damages including "physical, mental and emotional pain" and suffering; special, economic damages including medical expenses, professional expenses, loss of wages and earning capacity, and incidental expenses; costs of the suit; and statutorily permitted damages. (Id. at 20.)
Amtrak filed a notice of removal on February 1, 2019, asserting jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that plaintiff's complaint may be removed to this Court by Amtrak pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1349. (Removal ¶ 3.)
On June 25, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion that the claim is in substantial compliance, citing her tort claim filed with the city on March 22, 2018, or in the alternative a petition for relief from the claim reporting requirements. (Substantial Compliance at 3-6.) On June 28, 2019, the City filed its motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with the claim presentation requirements of the California Tort Claims Act ("CTCA"), and that failure to comply with these requirements "subjects a plaintiff's complaint to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." (Dismiss at 8.)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper if there is a "lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988)).
The complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the facts alleged do not support a reasonable inference of liability, stronger than a mere possibility, the claim must be dismissed. Id. at 678-79; see also In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) ().
A complaint that falls short of the Rule 8(a) standard may be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only 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 ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court "accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to a nonmoving party." Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Mere "conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss." Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004). If a court dismisses a complaint, it should give leave to amend unless "the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In making this determination, a court must bear in mind "the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decisions on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The CTCA "requires a plaintiff to file a written claim stating the date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted . . . within six months of the accrual of the cause of action." Mackovski v. City of Garden Grove, 666 F. App'x. 649, 654 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Cal. Gov't Code §§ 910, 911.2. The purpose of these claim presentation requirements "is to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation." Mackovski, 666 F. App'x. at 654.
Under the CTCA, a complaint may be subject to dismissal if the plaintiff fails to file with the public entity a timely claim that substantially complies with the claim presentation requirements. "Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is a condition precedent to plaintiff's maintaining an action against defendant . . . and thus an element of the plaintiff's cause of action." Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201, 209 (2007) ().
The parties do not dispute that plaintiff filed a claim with the City within the required six-month accrual period. Instead, the instant motions raise two issues: (A) whether the claim filed on March 22, 2018 complied with the claim presentation requirements; and (B) whether the claim fairly reflects the factual allegations in the complaint.
An individual filing a claim under the CTCA...
To continue reading
Request your trial