Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00833/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00833-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE S. LOUIE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HILTON,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00833 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court making state law claims under the California

Disabled Persons Act, the California Unruh Act, and Health and Safety Code Part 5.5. Now

pending before the Court is defendant Hilton’s Notice of Removal based on federal question

jurisdiction. 

A district court may sua sponte raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. See Galt

G/S v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, 60 F.3d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir. 1995). Removal pursuant to 28

U.S.C. section 1441(a), as defendant purports to execute here, is only appropriate if the

“complaint contains a cause of action that is within the original jurisdiction” of this court. 

Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 653 (9th Cir. 1998). Defendant’s Notice of Removal

contends that this Court has original jurisdiction “because the “relief Plaintiff seeks is

exclusive to, and requires interpretation and enforcement of federal law,” namely, the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Notice of Removal at 2. As defendant concedes, 

Case 3:07-cv-00833-CRB Document 3 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\0833\ordertoshowcause.wpd 2

the complaint does not make any reference to the ADA. The Notice of Removal is bereft of

any caselaw that suggests that the complaint’s reference to certain relief which defendant

contends is only available under the ADA is sufficient to warrant removal. Defendant is

therefore ORDERED to show cause as to the Court’s original subject matter jurisdiction in

this matter. Defendant must file a memorandum that demonstrates that the Court has 

jurisdiction no later than Friday, February 23, 2007. Plaintiff’s response, if any, shall be

filed on or before March 9, 2007. The Court will take the matter under submission at that

time and advise the parties if oral argument is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Feb. 14, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00833-CRB Document 3 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 2