Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02591/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02591-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1441ada Removal- Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

18cv2591-L(BLM)

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABELARDO MARTINEZ, JR., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SEACOAST COMMERCE BANK,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv2591-L(BLM)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 

STATE COURT

Defendant Seacoast Commerce Bank removed this disabled access action from 

state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1441. For the reasons stated below, the 

action is remanded.

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution or statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is 

to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). 

Consistent with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is 

strictly construed against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 

1992). Furthermore, "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Case 3:18-cv-02591-L-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2591-L(BLM)

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

27

28

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Defendant's notice of removal is based on 28 U.S.C. §1331, which confers "original 

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States." Defendant claims federal question exists in this case because Plaintiff 

references the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (“ADA”) in the 

complaint, although Plaintiff chose to assert only a state law claim under the Unruh Civil 

Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. (“Unruh Act”). It appears that Defendant 

removed the case because discrimination under the ADA is a possible basis for an Unruh 

Act violation. See Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 731 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 

Cal. Civ. Code § 51). Plaintiff referenced an ADA violation as one of the alternative 

bases for liability under his Unruh Act claim. (Compl. at 10.) Plaintiff did not allege a 

separate ADA claim.

"[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the wellpleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 

federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." 

Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (internal quotation marks, 

brackets and citation omitted). "[T]he plaintiff is the 'master' of [his] case, and if []he can 

maintain [his] claims on both state and federal grounds, []he may ignore the federal 

question, assert only state claims, and defeat removal." Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 

1485 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Here, Plaintiff chose to allege only a state law claim. In such cases, the claim 

"arises under" federal law only if the claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue, which 

is actually disputed and substantial, and which a federal forum may entertain without 

disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial 

responsibilities. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). Where, as here, a state law 

claim incorporates a federal standard as an element of one of alternative theories of 

liability, the federal issue is not necessarily raised, and the claim does not "arise under" 

Case 3:18-cv-02591-L-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2591-L(BLM)

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

27

28

federal law. Ultramar Am. Ltd. v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th Cir. 1990); see also 

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 810 (1988); Duncan, 76 F.3d 

at 1486. 

Accordingly, Defendant has not met its burden of establishing removal 

jurisdiction. Because the notice of removal fails to establish federal jurisdiction, this 

action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of 

San Diego.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02591-L-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3