Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01223/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01223-0/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

27

28

Plaintiff makes a passing reference to the ADA in her 1

seventh cause of action, a request for declaratory relief, but

only insofar as it was “adopted by and incorporated into the

Unruh Act.” (Notice of Removal Ex. B at 18.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA VAUGHN, )

) 2:06-cv-1223-GEB-DAD 

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BROKERAGE )

HOLDINGS INC.; VICTORY PARKING; )

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendant Washington Mutual Brokerage Holdings, Inc.’s

Notice of Removal, which includes Plaintiff’s Complaint, reveals

removal was ostensibly based on federal question jurisdiction since

Plaintiff alleges “claims purporting to arise under [the Americans

with Disabilities Act] . . . .” (Notice of Removal at 3.) But the

only reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in

Plaintiff’s Complaint is in Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the

Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Notice of Removal Ex. B. at 10-13.) 1

Plaintiff explains in that claim that the Unruh Civil Rights Act

Case 2:06-cv-01223-GEB-DAD Document 15 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

“expressly incorporates the ADA, and a violation of the right of a

disabled individual under the ADA also constitutes a violation of the

Unruh Act.” (Notice of Removal Ex. B at 11.) This allegation does

not justify removal since “[f]ederal-question jurisdiction is not

created merely because a violation of federal law is an element of a

state law [statutory] claim.” Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 857 (9th

Cir. 2002). 

Therefore, this case is remanded to the Superior Court of

California, located in the County of Sacramento.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01223-GEB-DAD Document 15 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 2