Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01948-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCES MURILLO, dba MURILLO’S

RESTAURANT; and DOES 1-10,

inclusive,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-05-1948 DFL JFM

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

On December 13, 2005, and again on May 18, 2006, the court

questioned whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over this

case and asked for further briefing from the parties. (See Order

12/13/2005; Order 5/18/2006.) Defendant Frances Murillo, dba

Murillo’s Restaurant (“Murillo”) argues that plaintiff Ron Wilson

(“Wilson”) has raised a claim for a violation of the ADA. 

(Objection to Minute Order at 3 (citing Compl. ¶ 54).) Wilson

denies that he brings federal claims. (See Frankovich Decl. ¶¶

2-3.) 

Wilson’s complaint does not, on its face, state a claim for

Case 2:05-cv-01948-DFL-PAN Document 48 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Although Wilson generally mentions the ADA to establish 1

violations of California state law, twice he makes an

inconsistent allegation. First, he states “plaintiffs [sic] seek

relief pursuant to remedies set forth in § 204(a) of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000(a)-3(a)), and pursuant to

federal regulations adopted to implement the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 and states codes.” (Compl. ¶ 54.) 

Second, he states “[p]laintiff accordingly incorporates the

entirety of his above cause of action for violation of the

Americans With Disabilities Act at § 63 et seq., as if replead

herein.” (Compl. ¶ 67.) These allegations are inconsistent with

the rest of the complaint. 

2

a violation of the ADA. He raises two state causes of action:

(1) violation of California Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1, and 54.3; and

(2) violation of California Civil Code § 51, et seq. While

Wilson mentions the ADA, and related regulations, a number of

times in the complaint, he only does so to establish violations

of California statutes. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 54.1(d) (“A

violation of the right of an individual under the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . also constitutes a violation of

this section, and nothing in this section shall be construed to

limit the access of any person in violation of that act.”). 

These references to the ADA do not grant the court jurisdiction

because “[f]ederal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim

is not created just because a violation of federal law is an

element of the state law claim.” Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856,

859 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Even if Wilson’s references to the ADA could be interpreted

as stating a claim under the ADA, he has specifically denied that

he brings a federal claim. (See Frankovich Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) The 1

court construes that denial as a concession of any federal claims

Case 2:05-cv-01948-DFL-PAN Document 48 Filed 05/30/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

that Wilson may have raised. Therefore, the court dismisses

Wilson’s federal claims, if any, with prejudice and declines

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (the district court may decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the claim raises a novel or

complex issue of state law); Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant,

359 F.Supp.2d 924, 936 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (finding that the law for

recovering damages under state disability statutes is poorly

defined). The state law claims are remanded to the Solano County

Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2006 

/s/ David F. Levi 

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01948-DFL-PAN Document 48 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3