United States District Court, C.D. California
PRESENT: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
ACTION TO ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (Doc. 9)
Defendant
Spectrum Wine Auctions, LLC removed the instant action to
this Court on September 12, 2019. (Notice of Removal, Doc.
1.) The Notice of Removal asserts federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and therefore
removability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a),
1443. (Id. ¶ 3.) Although Plaintiff pleads only
a state-law cause of action-violation of California's
Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.-
Defendant asserts that such claim necessarily raises a
federal question because Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim
appears predicated on an underlying violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. § 12182 et seq. (Id. ¶ 4.)
On October 15, 2019, noting that this Court as well as
numerous others in this district have rejected removal in
similar circumstances, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to
Remand this case to Orange County Superior Court. (Mot., Doc.
9.) Defendant has not filed an opposition[1]. Having
considered the Motion, for the reasons given below, the Court
REMANDS the action to Orange County Superior Court, Case No.
30-2019-01093003-CU-CR-CJC.
“When
a claim can be supported by alternative and independent
theories-one of which is a state law theory and one of which
is a federal law theory-federal question jurisdiction does
not attach because federal law is not a necessary element of
the claim.” Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80
F.3d 339, 346 (9th Cir. 1996). In the present context, a
predicate ADA violation may serve as one avenue for liability
under the Unruh Act, but alternate avenues to Unruh Act
liability exist as well; the Unruh Act wholly incorporates
the ADA alongside independent proscriptions on other
discriminatory conduct. See generally Cal. Civ. Code
§ 51. Therefore, where a plaintiff pursues a non-ADA
theory of liability-even if she pursues a concurrent theory
premised on an ADA violation-no federal question is a
necessary element of her Unruh Act claim, and
federal jurisdiction does not attach. See Rios v. New
York & Co., Inc., No.17-CV-04676-ODW-AGR, 2017 WL
3575220, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2017); Bell v. Retail
Servs. & Sys., Inc., No. 18-CV-02825-PJH, 2018 WL
3455811, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2018).
Plaintiff
argues that her Complaint states a non-ADA theory of
liability: to wit, that Defendant's conduct
amounts to intentional discrimination, and remand is
therefore required. (Mot. at 3-8; Complaint, Doc. 1-1 ¶
24.) “[A] violation of the Unruh Act may be maintained
independent of an ADA claim where a plaintiff pleads
intentional discrimination in public accommodations in
violation of the terms of the [Unruh] Act.” Earll
v. eBay, Inc., No. 5:11-CV-00262-JF-HRL, 2011 WL
3955485, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2011) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Considering the strong presumption against
removal jurisdiction, the Court sees no issue with Plaintiff
strategically avoiding federal jurisdiction where she is
otherwise entitled to do so. See Hunter v. Philip Morris
USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009).[2] Indeed,
“the plaintiff is ‘the master of [her]
complaint' and may ‘avoid federal jurisdiction by
relying exclusively on state law.'” Id.
(quoting Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film
Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000)). Moreover,
“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.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). Here, as it is clear from the face of the Complaint
that its Unruh Act cause of action involves no
necessary federal questions, remand is appropriate.
Accordingly,
the action is REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court, Case
No. 30-2019-01093003-CU-CR-CJC
---------
Notes:
[1] Defendant's failure to oppose may
be deemed consent to the granting of the Motion. See
C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.
[2] Under the “artful pleading
doctrine, ” however, a plaintiff is not entitled to
avoid federal jurisdiction simply “by omitting to plead
necessary federal questions in a complaint.”
JustMed, Inc. v. Byce, 600 F.3d 1118, 1124 ...