UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION
January 30, 2012
RICARDO MURILLO, PLAINTIFF,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; E JACK DALTON, TRUSTEE DALTON FAMILY TRUST; MURIEL DALTON, TRUSTEE DALTON FAMILY TRUST; E. CLARKE MOSELEY; STEPHANIE MOSELEY; AND DOES 1 - 10, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Manuel L. Real Judge OF The United States District Court
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s ("Bank") Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") Plaintiff Ricardo Murillo's First Amended Complaint ("Plaintiff") came regularly for hearing on September 12, 2011, of the above-entitled court before the Honorable Manuel L. Real. Appearances were noted for the record. The Court, having considered the Motion, the opposition, filed by Plaintiff, and the Reply filed by Bank, and the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore rules as follows.
The Court grants Bank's Motion, with prejudice, as to Plaintiff's first and federal claim for violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. In his complaint, Plaintiff essentially pleads that he is disabled and he visited Defendant's bank branch, Defendant does not have a lowered teller station, and as a result, he was denied full and equal access. This is insufficient to state a claim for violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Under Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports, 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) Plaintiff is required to allege the necessary facts to support how the purported barriers related to Plaintiff's disability and denied him "full and equal" access to store, and to sufficiently allege an injury-in-fact, of the kind and nature required for Plaintiff to have standing. Plaintiff has failed to plead these necessary facts and the facts he has alleged in his complaint are insufficient.
Further, the Court declines to assert jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and those claims are therefore also dismissed, without prejudice, for reasons as stated above and on the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.