Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00833/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00833-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hilton, 39900 Balentine Drive, Newark, CA
Defendant
George S. Louie
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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, 39900 Balentine Drive, Newark,

CA,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00833 CRB

ORDER OF REMAND

Defendant removed this state-law disability access lawsuit to this Court on the ground

that under the “artful pleading doctrine” the complaint presents a federal question. Now

pending before the Court is defendant’s response to the Court’s order to show cause why this

lawsuit should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. After carefully reviewing

defendant’s response and plaintiff’s complaint, the Court concludes that defendant has not

met its burden of proving that removal was proper.

Plaintiff’s complaint expressly makes claims under state law only: California Disabled

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

Defendant relies on Pickern v. Best Western Timber Cove Lodge Marina, 194 F.Supp.2d

1128 (E.D. Cal. 2002) to support its assertion that plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims

nonetheless raise a federal question under the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

 In Pickern, the district court explained that a violation of the federal Americans With 

Case 3:07-cv-00833-CRB Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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\orderofremand.wpd 2

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or the California Building Code constitutes a violation of the

California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Act. Id. at 1131 and n.4 (citing Cal. Civ.

Code § 54; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 19955; Cal. Code Regs. Title 24 § 1134B.1,2); see

also Mannick v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 2006 WL 2168877 *16 (N.D. Cal. July

31, 2006) (“Under the CDPA, a plaintiff can show either that the ADA was violated, or that

the facility in question does not comply with the California Building Code requirements for

disabled access (‘Title 24')”). The court went on to opine, in dicta, that “it is possible for a

state law claim for injunctive relief to be premised solely on a violation of the ADA.” 

Pickern, 194 F.Supp. at 1131 n.5.

Such a claim would be no different from a federal ADA claim. Federal

jurisdiction must exist in those circumstances. Simply by incorporating the

ADA into state law, state legislatures cannot divest the federal courts of

original jurisdiction over state claims that are, for all intents and purposes,

federal ADA claims.

Id. Defendant argues that the language of plaintiff’s prayer for relief demonstrates that

plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief under the California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh

Act for a violation of the ADA and therefore the claim for injunctive relief under these state

statutes presents a federal question.

While plaintiff’s complaint can be read as seeking injunctive relief under state law for

a violation of the ADA, it cannot be read as seeking “injunctive relief to be premised solely

on a violation of the ADA.” Id. (emphasis added). The complaint specifically requests

injunctive relief for defendant’s alleged failure to comply with the California Building Code. 

Complaint ¶¶ 59, 63, 69. Moreover, the complaint specifically disavows any intent to seek

any injunctive relief that is beyond that required by state law. Id. ¶ 55. In sum, even

assuming the dicta in Pickern is correct, defendant has not shown that plaintiff has made such

a claim. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court for the County of

Alameda.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00833-CRB Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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\orderofremand.wpd 3

Case 3:07-cv-00833-CRB Document 6 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3