Koch v. California Water Service Company

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PHILIP A. KOCH, No. 25-2148 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:22-cv-01333-KES-CDB v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kirk Edward Sherriff, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2026**

Before: BUMATAY, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Philip Koch appeals the district court’s dismissal of his employment action

for failure to state a claim. Koch claims discrimination and retaliation in violation

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We apply de novo review to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir.

2019), and we “liberally” construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. Chambers v.

C. Herrera, 78 F.4th 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2023). To survive a motion to dismiss, a

complaint must plead “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)

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). We affirm a Rule

12(b)(6) dismissal where the complaint lacks “sufficient facts” or “a cognizable

legal theory.” Godecke v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 937 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir.

2019).1

Koch failed to sufficiently allege facts or a cognizable theory under the

ADA that California Water Service Company (“Cal Water”) “regarded” him as

having a disability within the meaning of the ADA, that it had “a record” that Koch

had such a disability, or that it retaliated against him because of a protected

1 To the extent Koch’s discrimination and retaliation claims are based on the implementation of his employer’s COVID-19 policy, it is unclear whether the applicable policy provisions were effective in January or October 2021, and therefore whether he properly exhausted his claims. See Josephs v. Pac. Bell, 443 F.3d 1050, 1061 (9th Cir. 2006). Construing his pleadings liberally, we find Koch’s claims exhausted except as to his termination, which occurred after he filed his June 3, 2022 EEOC complaint.

2 25-2148 activity. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)–(3), 12203(a); see Nunies v. HIE Holdings, Inc.,

908 F.3d 428, 433–34 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing the definition of “disability” and

the elements of an ADA discrimination claim); Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389

F.3d 840, 849 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring a “causal link between” a protected

activity and an adverse action). Koch alleged that Cal Water’s COVID-19 policy

applied to “all of its employees,” and his claims do not plausibly support the

inference that he is entitled to relief for discrimination or retaliation under the

ADA. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Godecke, 937 F.3d at 1208.2

AFFIRMED.

2 We reject as unsupported by the record Koch’s arguments that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard in dismissing his claims.

3 25-2148