Luis Licea v. Reebok International Ltd

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 23, 2019
• Docket: 5:19-cv-00970
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 nited States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Division 11 ED 1211 LUIS LICEA, CV 19-00970 TJH (Ex) 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. Orser 15 | REEBOK INTERNATIONAL LTD, 16 Defendants. JS-6 17 18 19 The Court has considered Plaintiff Luis Licea’s motion to remand and request 20 || for attorneys’ fees, together with the moving and opposing papers. 21 Defendant Reebok International Ltd [“Reebok”] removed this case based on 22 || federal question jurisdiction, asserting that the alleged California Unruh Civil Rights 23 || Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f) [“Unruh Act”], violation was premised on Reebok’s 24 || alleged Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seg. [SADA”], 25 || violations. 26 Generally, a state law claim gives rise to a federal question only when a federal 27 || law is a necessary element of the state claim. Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 857-858 28 || (9th Cir. 2002). Federal law is a necessary element when there is a substantial,

Order -— Page 1 of 3

1 disputed question of federal law. Armstrong v. N. Mariana Islands, 576 F.3d 950, 955 2 (9th Cir. 2009). However, the “mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of 3 action does not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction.” Merrell Dow 4 Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). 5 Licea is seeking both damages and injunctive relief for his Unruh Act claim, and 6 that claim is based on Reebok’s alleged ADA violations. Wander held that there is no 7 federal question raised when money damages are sought for a state law claim when an 8 element of that claim is satisfied by an ADA violation because the ADA does not 9 provide for money damages. Wander, 304 F.3d at 857. However, Wander did not 10 address whether a federal question is raised when the state law claim seeks injunctive 11 relief and an element of the claim is satisfied by an ADA violation. Wander, 304 F.3d 12 at 857. 13 If the state law claim can be violated for reasons independent of an incorporated 14 federal statute, then there is no substantial, disputed question of federal law. 15 Armstrong, 576 F.3d at 956. This is true even when the state law’s language mirrors 16 the language of a federal law, and when the state law provides for the same type of 17 relief afforded under the federal law. Armstrong, 576 F.3d at 956. The Unruh Act 18 may be violated in a number of ways, with an ADA violation being just one of those 19 ways. Cal. Civ. Code § 51. Thus, the Unruh Act’s incorporation of the ADA is 20 insufficiently substantial to make the ADA a necessary element. 21 The Court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of an 22 unreasonable removal. See Fong v. Beehler, 624 F. App’x. 536, 537 (9th Cir. 2015). 23 Here, Reebok did not unreasonably remove this action given that some district courts 24 in California have denied motions for remand on similar facts. See e.g. Fontano v. 25 Little Caesar Enter., No. CV 10-6707 GAF (FFMx), 2010 WL 4607021 (C.D. Cal. 26 Nov. 3, 2010). Moreover, Licea failed to meet his burden of substantiating the 27 reasonableness of the requested $875.00 per hour rate. See Chaudhry v. City of L.A., 28 751 F.3d 1096, 1110-1111 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, Licea’s attorneys’ fees request must 1 || be denied. 2 3 Accordingly, 4 5 At is Oryered that the motion to remand be, and hereby is, ranted. 6 7 At is further Ordered that Licea’s request for attorneys’ fees be, and hereby 8 | is, Denied, 9 10 11 | Date: August 23, 2019 12 Lau □□ Mp Claws | bu 13 ty J. Hatter, Ar. 14 Senior Cited States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Order -— Page 3 of 3