Christopher Martinez v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 25, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-06867
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

September 25, 2020 Case No. 2:20-cv-06867-SVW-KS Date

Martinez v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino et al Title

Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul M. Cruz N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND [9] AND ORDERING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE.

Christopher Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on June 4, 2020 against Hawaiian Gardens Casino (“Defendant”) asserting that Defendant violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), California Civil Code §51. Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff only seeks statutory damages; he does not seek injunctive relief. Id. Defendant removed the case to federal court on July 30, 2020. Dkt. 1. The asserted basis of removal is federal question jurisdiction. Id.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for remand to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Dkt. 9. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

In Wander v. Kaus the Ninth Circuit expressly held that federal courts lack federal question jurisdiction over a state law damages suit for violations of California’s Disabled Person’s Act even if one of elements of the state law claim is a violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 304 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, Plaintiff is asserting a state-law damages suit based on disability-based discrimination in violation of the Unruh Act. Dkt. 1-1. Accordingly, even if Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is premised upon a violation of the ADA, this court lacks federal-question jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s claim is solely for damages. See Wander, 304 F.3d at 859.

: CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Defendant’s argument to the contrary is entirely baseless and premised upon false assertions. Defendants cite to a number of cases that interpret Wander as not foreclosing federal-question jurisdiction where a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under a state law claim that includes, as an element, a violation of the ADA. Dkt. 11 at 4–6. Indeed, throughout its opposition, Defendant repeatedly claims that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and, at one point, states as follows: “Unlike Wander, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and his Unruh Act claim is based exclusively upon violations of the ADA. Indeed, it is undisputed that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.” Id. at 7 (emphasis added).

This is undisputedly false. Plaintiff’s complaint only seeks statutory damages: “Pursuant to Civil Code section 52(a), Plaintiff prays for $4,000 in damages, reasonable attorneys fees, and costs.” Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff affirms the lack of injunctive relief in his remand motion: “Plaintiff prays for statutory damages under the [Unruh Act]; he does not seek injunctive relief or any relief under the ADA.” Dkt. 9 at 5.

In light of these unambiguous statements by Plaintiff, the argument in Defendant’s opposition lacks any evidentiary support and is frivolous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, and the case is remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court. Additionally, Defendant’s counsel is ordered to show cause on or before October 5, 2020 why it should not be sanctioned for advancing an argument lacking any evidentiary or legal support in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. See Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 943 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining district court can impose sanctions sua sponte following “order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed to give the lawyer or party an opportunity to explain his or her conduct”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: