Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ronald Sedano v. Master Plastics

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 31, 2011

RONALD SEDANO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MASTER PLASTICS, INC. AND DOES 1 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL CLAIM, DECLINING OVER STATE CLAIMS, AND DENYING REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES*fn1

Plaintiff moves for an order remanding this case to the Superior Court of California in the County of Solano, from which this case was removed. Plaintiff argues removal was improper since the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his Complaint. Defendant Master Plastics, Inc. ("Master Plastics") opposes Plaintiff's motion.

Master Plastics relies only on Plaintiff's second claim in its Notice of Removal as the basis of its contention that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Specifically, Master

Plastics argues in its Notice of Removal that this Court has jurisdiction since Plaintiff "alleges that Defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq." (Notice of Removal ¶ 1.)

Plaintiff argues he "does not plead a single claim under federal law." (Mot. for Remand 5:25.) However, Plaintiff's second claim is titled: "FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT AND AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990[.]" (Compl. 9:16-18.) Plaintiff does not allege facts under the ADA in the body of this claim, but he does request attorneys' fees "as provided by Cal. Govt. Code § 12965(b) and the ADA." Id. 11:9. Plaintiff argues "[b]oth references to the ADA are mere artifacts from a master form used in the creation of the subject complaint; artifacts that were overlooked during the editing process." (Mot. for Remand 6:9-11.) Since Plaintiff argues he did not intend to allege an ADA claim, to the extent Plaintiff's second claim could be construed as alleging an ADA claim, the portion of Plaintiff's second claim in which Plaintiff alleges an ADA claim is dismissed.

Since no federal claim is involved in this case, the Court will not continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state claims. Therefore, Plaintiff's remaining state claims are remanded to the Superior Court of California in the County of Solano.

Plaintiff also argues he is entitled to attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), premising the request on Master Plastics' alleged improper removal. (Mot. to Remand 8:1-2.) "[T]he standard for awarding fees should turn on the reasonableness of the removal. Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney's fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal." Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Here, Defendant's removal was objectively reasonable, since Plaintiff indicated he was pleading an ADA claim. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is denied.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.