Mossburg v. Home Depot, U.S.A, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00739
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER M. MOSSBURG, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00739-JAH-JLB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION FOR REMAND

13 HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., Inc., [ECF No. 8] 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Mossburg’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand 17 the above-titled case to state court filed on April 16, 2025. ECF No. 8 (“Motion” or 18 “Mot.”). On May 1, 2025, Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant”) filed its 19 opposition to the motion. ECF No. 12 (“Opposition” or “Opp.”). Plaintiff has replied. 20 ECF No. 13 (“Reply). Because the Court retains diversity jurisdiction over the matter as 21 discussed further below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff originally filed a case in Superior Court of California, County of San Diego 24 on December 21, 2023 entitled Mossburg v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 3:24-cv-00266- 25 JAH-JLB. See Notice of Removal, Ex. A (ECF No. 1-2 at 9).1 In this complaint, Plaintiff 26 27 1 The record cited in this section can be found in the separate docket for the original 28 1 alleged that he had “neurological learning disabilities” and was refused accommodations 2 by Defendant in 2018 and 2023. Id. at 16-22. Plaintiff’s complaint included claims against 3 the Defendant under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the California 4 Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). Id. at 43. 5 On February 9, 2024, Defendant removed the original case to this district under 6 federal question jurisdiction given Plaintiff’s ADA claims. ECF No. 1 at 2. Defendant 7 moved to dismiss the complaint on February 16, 2024. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion 8 for remand and motion to disqualify Defendant’s counsel. This Court issued its order (1) 9 denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand, (2) granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (3) 10 denying Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel, and (4) denying Plaintiff’s motion to 11 strike, or in the alternative, motion for leave to file a sur-reply. ECF No. 22 at 19-20. In 12 its order, the Court found that Plaintiff’s ADA claims, as a matter of federal law, provided 13 the Court with federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Id. at 9 (finding that, “[a]s 14 a threshold matter, there is no dispute that the Complaint alleges a question of federal 15 jurisdiction over the ADA claims.”). In the same order, the Court also granted Plaintiff 16 leave for twenty-one days to file an amended complaint. Id. at 19. 17 On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant in the 18 Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, seeking relief for the same events 19 solely under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act in 2018 and 2023. See Notice of 20 Removal, Ex. A (ECF No. 1-2 at 2).2 On March 28, 2025, Defendant removed the case to 21 district court, and shortly thereafter Defendant filed its motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 1 & 22 5. On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed the present motion to remand the case to state court 23 which is opposed by the Defendant. ECF Nos. 8 & 12. 24 25 26 Unless otherwise stated, page numbers referenced herein refer to page numbers generated 27 by the CM/ECF system. 2 The record hereafter comes from the docket of the present case, Mossburg v. Home 28 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 3 of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have original jurisdiction over all 4 civil actions that arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal courts also have 5 jurisdiction over all civil actions where diversity of citizenship exists between the parties 6 and where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. 7 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The defendant bears the burden of proving federal subject-matter 8 jurisdiction when a case is removed from state court. Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 9 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). 10 DISCUSSION 11 Plaintiff argues that this case should be remanded to state court because the Court 12 does not have federal question jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims in the new 13 complaint, given that Plaintiff only alleges violations of state law. Mot. at 6. Plaintiff 14 argues that all claims in the present complaint arise under the California Unruh Civil Rights 15 Act. Id at 7. Defendant presents two arguments in its opposition, (1) that federal questions, 16 under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), remain inherent in Plaintiff’s Unruh 17 Act claims, and (2) that diversity jurisdiction exists, given that Plaintiff is a California 18 citizen, Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and Georgia, and the amount in controversy 19 exceeds $75,000. Opp. at 12-19. 20 A. Federal Question Jurisdiction 21 Plaintiff argues that no federal question jurisdiction exists because the second 22 complaint “asserts twenty-one causes of action under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, 23 California Civil Code § 51 et seq., and does not state a single federal cause of action.” 24 Mot. at 3 (emphasis added). Defendant contends that the complaint still alleges violations 25 of the ADA because Plaintiff factually alleges that he specifically requested a Title III ADA 26 accommodation from the Defendant and because Plaintiff’s claims under Unruh Act are 27 premised on violations of the ADA. Opp. at 15-19. 28 1 Federal question jurisdiction exists either when the plaintiff asserts a federal claim 2 in the complaint, or in the alternative, when the plaintiff asserts a state law claim where 3 “the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of 4 federal law.” Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808-809 5 (1986) (citation omitted). Before exercising federal question jurisdiction over state law 6 claims that involve federal law, courts must assess the underlying federal law at issue and 7 analyze whether Congress intended the law to provide the remedy being sought. Id. at 810- 8 811. 9 Here, Plaintiff correctly argues that the second complaint includes no federal law 10 claims. Mot. at 3. Plaintiff exclusively relies on claims under the California Unruh Act in 11 the complaint. ECF No. 1-2 at 30-66. Because there is no federal claim pleaded within 12 the complaint, the Court reviews whether Plaintiff’s claims under the Unruh Act 13 necessarily involve resolution of a federal question in a manner consistent with the 14 intention of Congress. The Court finds Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2002) 15 dispositive on this issue. 16 In Wander, the Ninth Circuit was presented with a state law, the California Disabled 17 Person’s Act, that provided a cause of action with monetary damages for violations of the 18 ADA. See Wander, 304 F.3d at 857. The court found that the state law’s incorporation of 19 a federal standard did not confer federal question jurisdiction over the claim, because the 20 claims under the California Disabled Person’s Act do not “arise under federal law.” Id. at 21 859. As the court explained, Congress’s ability to delineate the jurisdiction of the federal 22 courts would be flouted if federal courts exerted jurisdiction over state law claims when 23 those claims provide remedies for violations of federal law inconsistent with the remedies 24 afforded by Congress. Id. Because Congress did not intend to provide monetary damages 25 to claimants for violations of the ADA involving public accommodations, state laws that 26 provide such remedies for ADA violations do not confer federal question jurisdiction to 27 the federal courts. Id. (finding that “it is clear that the exercise of federal-question 28 jurisdiction under these circumstances would fly in the face of clear congressional intent.”). 1 Here, California Unruh Act § 52(a) provides monetary damages to the claimant on 2 the basis of an ADA violation, whereas the ADA provides exclusively for injunctive relief 3 alone. See CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51(f), 52(a), and see 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1). A state law 4 claim that provides monetary damages for violations of the ADA by public 5 accommodations does not “‘arise under federal law’ even though it is premised on a 6 violation of federal law.” Wander, 304 F.3d at 859. Because federal courts do not have 7 federal question jurisdiction over state law claims that incorporate federal statutes but that 8 provide inconsistent remedies than those selected by Congress, this Court does not have 9 federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claims. See Wander, 304 F.3d at 10 859. 11 Defendant argues that caselaw exists allowing courts to exercise federal question 12 jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims when plaintiff seeks injunctive relief because those 13 claims are identical to claims for injunctive relief under the ADA. Opp. at 18-19. See e.g. 14 Pickern v. Best W. Timber Cove Lodge Marina Resort, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1132 n.5 15 (finding when plaintiff brings claims for both injunctive relief and damages under the 16 Unruh Act, “federal courts would have original jurisdiction over state claims for injunctive 17 relief, and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims for damages.”). While Defendant is 18 correct in noting that Plaintiff’s petition for injunctive relief in this case, standing alone, 19 would mirror the relief contemplated by Congress in the ADA, Plaintiff’s claims trigger 20 mandatory statutory damages under the Unruh Act that present a dramatic remedy not 21 permitted under the ADA. Because Congress clearly intended that “ADA violations not 22 give rise to a federal cause of action for damages,” exerting federal question jurisdiction 23 over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claims would represent an unwarranted expansion of 24 jurisdiction. See Wander, 304 F.3d at 859 (finding that “[f]ederal-question jurisdiction 25 over a state-law claim is not created just because a violation of federal law is an element 26 of the state law claim.”), and see id. at 860 (reviewing Pickern and concluding that “the 27 presence of an ADA violation as an element of the [state law] is insufficient to confer 28 federal question jurisdiction.”). Because Plaintiff’s complaint seeking injunctive relief 1 rests entirely on claims that require monetary damages for ADA violations, this Court may 2 not find original jurisdiction in Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claims. See in accord. Rutherford v. 3 La Jolla Riviera Apartment House LLC, 2019 WL 6125255, *3 (S.D. Cal. November 19, 4 2019) (collecting cases where “district courts have frequently found that Unruh Act claims 5 premised on ADA violations do not create federal question jurisdiction.”), and see id. at 6 *4 (concluding “none of these cases found that federal question jurisdiction existed over 7 Unruh Act claims for injunctive relief premised on ADA violations, or that supplemental 8 jurisdiction should be exercised over related state claims for damages.”). 9 B. Diversity Jurisdiction 10 As provided by Congress, federal courts may also exercise jurisdiction over a case 11 when (1) there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and (2) the amount at issue 12 exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The citizenship of a person is the location where the 13 person is domiciled, or where the person has established a fixed home with the intent to 14 remain there permanently. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986). A person’s 15 domicile is not changed unless a person maintains a physical presence at a new location 16 with the intent to remain at the new location indefinitely. Id at 750. The citizenship of a 17 corporation may be found in two locations, (1) the state in which the corporation is 18 incorporated, and (2) the state in which the corporation has its principal place of business. 19 Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 85, 92-93 (2010). When evaluating the principal place 20 of business for a corporation, courts look to the location of the corporation’s “nerve center,” 21 or the location at which the corporation is managed and directed. Id at 92-93. 22 Here, Defendant argues that removal is proper because diversity of citizenship exists 23 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ECF No. 1 at 3, Opp. at 12-14. Defendant asserts, and Plaintiff 24 states, that Plaintiff is “an individual residing in San Diego County, California.” Opp. at 25 13, ECF No. 1-2 at 3. Defendant asserts that it is a corporation incorporated under the laws 26 of the State of Delaware, and that its principal place of business is located in the State of 27 Georgia. ECF No. 1 at 3, Opp. at 13. Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s citizenship, 28 and Plaintiff does not address Defendant’s arguments for diversity jurisdiction as presented 1 in the removal notice. Because Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California and does not 2 contest the citizenship of Defendant, a key element of diversity jurisdiction has been met. 3 The second element of diversity jurisdiction requires that the amount in controversy 4 between the parties exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Under the Unruh Act, each 5 offense of discrimination provides a minimum of $4,000 in damages. CAL. CIV. CODE 6 § 52(a). Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint includes “21 counts of violations 7 under the Unruh Civil Rights Act,” ECF No. 1-2 at 82, which amounts to a minimum 8 damages award of $84,000 under the requirements of the California Civil Code. ECF No. 9 1 at 3-4, Opp. at 13-14. Because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the second 10 requirement for diversity jurisdiction has been met. As a result, this Court has jurisdiction 11 over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and Plaintiff’s motion to remand the matter to state 12 court must be denied. 13 CONCLUSION 14 “The plaintiff is the master of his or her complaint” and may avoid federal 15 jurisdiction by pleading accordingly. Easton v. Crossland Mortg. Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 16 982 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has evinced a desire to prosecute his claims 17 in state court by twice filing the action against Defendant in state court, and Plaintiff has 18 subsequently removed questions of federal law from his complaint by alleging only state 19 law violations in the present action. While Plaintiff’s new complaint provides this Court 20 with no grounds for federal question jurisdiction, this Court still retains diversity 21 jurisdiction over the matter because Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states 22 and because Plaintiff asserts multiple counts under the Unruh Act that require statutory 23 damages above $75,000. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 || DATED: May 15, 2025 VU 6 J JOHN A. HOUSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28