Garnik Blkhoyan v. Healthforce Superfoods, Inc.
This text of Garnik Blkhoyan v. Healthforce Superfoods, Inc. (Garnik Blkhoyan v. Healthforce Superfoods, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case 2:22-cv-01678-DSF-AFM Document9 Filed 06/02/22 Pagelof1 Page ID #:43
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GARNIK BLKHOYAN, CV 22-1678 DSF (AFMx) Plaintiff, Order REMANDING Case to v. State Court HEALTHFORCE SUPERFOODS, INC., Defendant.
Defendant removed this case based on federal question jurisdiction. However, Plaintiff alleges only violation of the California Unruh Act and explicitly disclaims any claim under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Compl. § 23. References to the ADA as the source of obligations under the Unruh Act does not transform the state law claim into a federal one. Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff also fails to demand any injunctive relief— the only relief available under the ADA. The case is REMANDED tothe Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
()o Y fe 4 Date: June 2, 2022 Koo fp. acre Dale S. Fischer United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Garnik Blkhoyan v. Healthforce Superfoods, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garnik-blkhoyan-v-healthforce-superfoods-inc-cacd-2022.