Armen Minassian v. Josef Essavi

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-06603
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMEN MINASSIAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-06603-FLA (AJRx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX 14 PARTE APPLICATION TO JOSEF ESSAVI, et al. 15 CONTINUE HEARING DATE Defendants. [DKTS. 11, 14] 16

28 1 RULING 2 Before the court is Plaintiff Armen Minassian’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand 3 (the “Motion”). Dkt. 11 (“Mot.”). Defendant Josef Essavi (“Defendant”) opposes the 4 Motion. Dkt. 13 (“Opp’n”). Also before the court is Defendant’s ex parte application 5 to continue hearing date. Dkt. 14. 6 The court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and 7 vacates the hearing set for October 6, 2023. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7- 8 15. 9 For the reasons stated herein, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion, 10 REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and DENIES 11 Defendant’s ex parte application as MOOT. 12 BACKGROUND 13 On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant and DOES 14 one through 50 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1, Ex. A (“Compl.”). 15 The Complaint alleges two causes of action—one under the Unruh Civil Rights Act 16 (the “Unruh Act”) and one under the California Disabled Persons Act. Id. 17 On August 11, 2023, Defendant removed the action to this court based on 18 alleged subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(1)(A). Dkt. 1 at 2. 19 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on September 5, 2023. Mot. Plaintiff argues the 20 court lacks jurisdiction because the Complaint pleads no federal cause of action. See 21 id. 22 Defendant failed to file timely an opposition by September 15, 2023, the 23 deadline by which he was required to do so. On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 24 Reply, noting Defendant’s failure to file an opposition, and requesting his Motion be 25 granted in full. Dkt. 12. On that same day, Defendant filed an Opposition. Opp’n. 26 Defendant argues this court has jurisdiction to hear the action because the “question of 27 the allegations of [the Unruh Act and the California Disabled Persons Act] is 28 inextricably bound up with the federal question of whether the defendant violated 1 federal law as stated on the face of the complaint, the American[s with] Disabilities 2 Act (‘ADA’).” Id. at 3. 3 Defendant also filed an ex parte application to continue the hearing date for 4 Plaintiff’s Motion and requesting relief for his failure to file timely an opposition. 5 Dkt. 14. Defendant’s counsel states he will be unavailable for the currently scheduled 6 Motion hearing date in observance of several religious holidays. Id. at 2. Counsel 7 also represents that he failed to file timely an opposition due to several ongoing 8 personal health concerns. Id. at 3–4. 9 The court exercises its discretion to consider Defendant’s Opposition on the 10 merits. 11 DISCUSSION 12 I. Legal Standard 13 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing only “power 14 authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 15 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Courts are presumed to 16 lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See 17 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006). “Federal jurisdiction 18 must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” 19 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1331. An action “arises under” federal law only if a federal question appears 22 on the face of the complaint. Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 23 815, 821–22 (9th Cir. 1985). 24 II. Analysis 25 Plaintiff argues that this action does not arise under federal law because the 26 Complaint does not implicate any federal question. Mot. at 3. Rather, the Complaint 27 alleges only two state law causes of action. See Compl. 28 In response, Defendant cites to Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. | | 2021), for the proposition that the “Unruh Act borrows the ADA’s substantive 2 || standards as the predicate for its cause of action, but expands the remedies available as 3 | a private action.” Opp’n at 3. Defendant, however, omits the full quotation from 4 || Arroyo, which states as follows: “Given that the Unruh Act borrows the ADA’s 5 || substantive standards as the predicate for its cause of action, a federal forum is readily 6 | available simply by pairing the Unruh Act Claim with a companion ADA claim for 7 || injunctive relief.” 19 F.4th at 1211 (citing 28 U.SC. § 1331) (emphasis added). 8 | Arroyo involved claims for both violations of the ADA (federal law) and the Unruh 9 | Act (state law), but did not require federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over a case 10 | involving solely state law. 1] The court agrees with Plaintiff that the Complaint states no federal cause of 12 | action and therefore finds that it lacks jurisdiction. 13 CONCLUSION 14 The court determines Defendant fails to defeat the presumption that the court 15 | lacks jurisdiction over the instant action. The court, therefore, GRANTS the Motion 16 | and REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 17 | 23BBCV01400. Plaintiff's request for attorney’s fees is DENIED. All dates and 18 | deadlines in this court are VACATED. Defendant’s ex parte application (Dkt. 14) is 19 | DENIED as MOOT. The clerk of court is instructed to close this action 20 | administratively. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 | Dated: September 27, 2023 25 *6 FERNANDO &. AENLLE-ROCHA 27 United States District Judge 28