Martin Vogel v. W.K.S. Restaurant Corporation et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: denying 14 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (shb)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARTIN VOGEL,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
W.K.S. RESTAURANT
CORPORATION dba EL POLLO
LOCO #3545; MENG LIN ZHANG,
TRUSTEE OF THE ZHANG FAMILY
TRUST DATED AUGUST 6, 2013,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-02992 DDP (PLAx)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
[Dkt. No. 14]

18
19
20

Plaintiff alleges certain architectural/design deficiencies at

21

Defendants’ restaurant that constitute barriers to access for the

22

disabled, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

23

(“ADA”) and state disability laws.

24

Jurisdiction is premised solely on the presence of a federal

25

question (allowing supplemental jurisdiction over the state law

26

claims).

27

complaint, arguing that there is no longer a case or controversy

28

because the alleged deficiencies have been corrected and the ADA

(Id. at ¶¶ 3-5.)

(Compl. generally.)

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s

1

allows only for prospective injunctive relief.

2

(Dkt. No. 14.)

At the motion to dismiss stage, a court must normally assume

3

that “all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if

4

doubtful in fact).”

5

(2007).

6

jurisdiction, however, the court may resolve the issue by reference

7

to extrinsic evidence – but only if the factual inquiry is not

8

“intertwined” with the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.

9

v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987).

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

Where a defendant attacks the underlying facts supporting

Roberts

Dismissals as

10

to federal question jurisdiction, in particular, are “exceptional”

11

and will only be justified where “the alleged claim under the . . .

12

federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely

13

for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction or where such

14

claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

15

Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946)).

16

Id. (quoting Bell v.

Here, the jurisdictional question of whether the architectural

17

barriers to disabled access exist is not just “intertwined” with

18

the merits of Plaintiff’s ADA claim – it is the claim.

19

Court to resolve the key questions of fact at this stage is

20

therefore inappropriate.

21

solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction, or

22

frivolous.

23

go on to determine the relevant jurisdictional facts on either a

24

motion going to the merits or at trial.”

25

///

26

///

27

///

For the

Nor is it apparent that the claim is made

In such cases, “the court may assume jurisdiction and

28
2

Roberts, 812 F.2d at 1178

1

(citing Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th

2

Cir.1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

3

The motion is therefore DENIED.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: August 18, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3