Koch v. California Water Service Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PHILIP A. KOCH, No. 25-2148 D.C. No.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.

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 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.