Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02113/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

27

28

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2 In their first amended complaint, plaintiffs allege

seven causes of action: (1) violation of California’s Unruh Civil

Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) (Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.); 

(2) violation of California’s Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”) (Cal.

Civ. Code § 54 et seq.); (3) violation of California Health &

Safety Code § 19955 (denial of full and equal access to a person

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GEORGE S. LOUIE, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-06-2113 FCD DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JO-ANN STORES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion to

remand this matter to the Sacramento County Superior Court on the

grounds that plaintiffs’ complaint alleges only state-law claims

and lacks federal question jurisdiction on its face.1 Defendants

oppose the motion, arguing removal was proper as plaintiffs’

state law disability-discrimination claims,2 challenging the

Case 2:06-cv-02113-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 11/21/06 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

27

28

with physical disabilities in a public facility); (4) negligent

infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligence; (6) negligence

per se; and (7) declaratory relief. (Ex. A to Removal Not.,

filed Sept. 22, 2006.)

3 See e.g., Martinez v. Del Taco Inc., et al., Civ. S-05-

1418 WBS PAN, Order, filed February 14, 2006; Wilson v. Murillo,

et al., Civ. S-05-1948 DFL JFM, Mem. & Order, filed May 30, 2006;

Vaughn v. Washington Mutual Brokerage Holdings Inc., et al., Civ.

06-1223 GEB DAD, Order, filed Sept. 1, 2006; Sanford v. Del Taco,

Inc., et al., Civ. S-04-2154 GEB EFB, Order, filed Sept. 15,

2006.

4 The Unruh Act provides: “[a] violation of the right of

any individual under the [ADA] shall also constitute a violation

of [the Act].” Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f). The DPA provides the

same. Cal. Civ. Code 54.1(d).

2

architectural barriers at the defendant stores, are based on

violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

(the “ADA”) and seek remedies only available under the ADA.

The court summarily REMANDS the instant action to the

Sacramento County Superior Court on the basis of its prior order

in Louie v. Exide Technologies, Civ. S-06-1591, filed July 20,

2006, and the various other orders of this court addressing the

issue presented here,3 namely whether references to the ADA in a

complaint in order to establish violations of California

statutes4 confer federal question jurisdiction over such a

complaint. As the Ninth Circuit made clear in Wander v. Kaus,

304 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir. 2002), “[f]ederal-question

jurisdiction is not created merely because a violation of federal

law is an element of the state law [statutory] claim.” As such,

remand is warranted in this case as it was in Louie v. Exide

Technologies. 

Here, plaintiffs have stated only claims arising under state

law, and any reference to federal law under the ADA is made to

Case 2:06-cv-02113-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 11/21/06 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

27

28

5 Defendants also removed this action on the basis of a

settlement agreement Jo-Ann Stores entered into with the United

States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Defendants argue that

because the DOJ has determined Jo-Ann’s obligations under the ADA

and assumed the power of enforcement nationally, this action

should be adjudicated in federal court to “avoid construction of

the ADA or injunctive relief which is inconsistent with the

Settlement Agreement.” (Opp’n, filed Oct. 27, 2006, at 5.) 

Defendants, however, cite no case law, nor is the court aware of

any, to support their position that said agreement confers

jurisdiction over this action by this court.

3

establish a violation of state law, not the ADA itself. Indeed,

that plaintiffs do not seek to press an ADA claim is made

abundantly clear in their motion to remand. While plaintiffs do

request remedies in their complaint, which may be exclusively

provided by the ADA (e.g., “readily achievable” access barrier

removal), such allegations do not transform plaintiffs’ state law

claims into federal claims. If state law does not afford

plaintiffs certain remedies, then those remedies will not be

awarded by the state court, but it is for that court to decide

the issue. See Sanford v. Del Taco, et al., Civ. 04-2154 GEB

EFB, Order, filed Sept. 18, 2006, at 10-12.5

Therefore, this case is REMANDED to the Sacramento County

Superior Court. As the court cannot find that defendants had no

reasonable basis for removal, the court, in its discretion,

denies plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees incurred in

bringing the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Moore v. Permanente

Med. Grp., 981 F.2d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 1992).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: November 20, 2006

 

Case 2:06-cv-02113-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3