Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191219_0009866.CCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 15:36:00
Document Index: 131787373

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1446', '§ 51', '§ 1447', '§ 1441', '§ 12181', 'art, 2014', '§ 1331']

FindACase™ | Bores v. Lime Crime, Inc.
Bores v. Lime Crime, Inc.
On November 12, 2019, defendant Lime Crime, Inc. (“defendant”) removed this action on federal question jurisdiction grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶¶ 3-4). Defendant, however, failed to comply with the procedures for removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (“A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.”). Specifically, defendant did not file a copy of the state-court complaint with its Notice of Removal. (See, generally, Dkt.). Pursuant to the court's order, (see Dkt. 15, Court's Order of December 9, 2019), defendant submitted a copy of the state court complaint. (See Dkt. 16-1, Complaint). Plaintiff Guadalupe Bores's (“Bores” or “plaintiff”) complaint asserts a single claim for violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, et seq. (See id. at ¶¶ 37-51). Having reviewed the pleadings, the court hereby remands this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(c).
For purposes of removal based on federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule “provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Smallwood v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 660 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987)). “As the master of the complaint, a plaintiff may defeat removal by choosing not to plead independent federal claims.” ARCO Envt'l Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep't of Health & Envt'l Quality of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000).
The court's review of the NOR and the attached Complaint makes clear that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. In other words, plaintiff could not have originally brought this action in federal court, in that plaintiff does not competently allege facts supplying federal question jurisdiction, and therefore removal was improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);[2] Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S.Ct. at 2429 (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”) (footnote omitted).
The Complaint asserts only one state-law claim under the Unruh Act. (Dkt. 16-1, Complaint at ¶¶ 37-51). Defendant, however, asserts in conclusory fashion that federal question jurisdiction exists because “it appears from the Complaint that this is a civil rights action premised on and alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act [(“ADA”)], 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq.” (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 4). However, the fact that plaintiff relies in part on ADA violations as the basis for her state claim, (see Dkt. 16-1, Complaint at ¶¶ 37-51); Bell v. Retail Servs. & Sys., Inc., 2018 WL 3455811, *2 (N.D. Cal.) (“[T]he Unruh Act . . . incorporate[s] the ADA, such that the ADA may serve as a ‘hook' for an alleged violation of state law.”), is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. See Pizarro v. CubeSmart, 2014 WL 3434335, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (remanding action asserting Unruh Act. . . claim[] for lack of federal question jurisdiction); Bell, 2018 WL 3455811, at *2 (same); Rios v. New York and Company, Inc., 2017 WL 3575220, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (finding plaintiff's reliance on ADA violations as a hook for violation of the Unruh Act did not confer federal question jurisdiction); Thurston v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., 2017 WL 3034333, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (granting plaintiff's motion to remand Unruh Act claim premised on ADA violations); see also Franchise Tax Bd. of the State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2856 (1983), superseded by statute on other grounds, as recognized in DB Healthcare, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc., 852 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”).
In short, given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, the court is not persuaded, under the circumstances here, that defendant has met its burden. Therefore, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.