Rosario Rodriguez v. Genesco, Inc. et al

Filing 15

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (iv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 21-1505 FMO (SHKx)

Title

Rosario Rodriguez v. Genesco, Inc.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 26, 2021

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff:

Attorney Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order Remanding Action

On November 30, 2020, Rosario Rodriguez (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint (“Complaint”) in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court (“state court”) against Genesco, Inc. (“defendant”), asserting
a single cause of action under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§
51, et seq.. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 1); (Dkt. 1-2, Complaint). On February
18, 2021, defendant removed the instant action on federal question jurisdiction grounds pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a). (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 4). Having reviewed the pleadings, the
court hereby remands this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1447(c).
Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, “any civil action brought in a State court
of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The right of removal
is entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state court must remain there until
cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson,
537 U.S. 28, 32, 123 S.Ct. 366, 369 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where Congress
has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes, unless otherwise stated, are strictly
construed against removal jurisdiction.1 See id. “The strong presumption against removal
jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is
proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam) (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the
removing defendant”). Moreover, if there is any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts in favor of remanding the action to state court.
See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the
right of removal in the first instance.”).

1

For example, an “antiremoval presumption” does not exist in cases removed pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC
v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 21-1505 FMO (SHKx)

Title

Date

Rosario Rodriguez v. Genesco, Inc.

April 26, 2021

For purposes of removal based on federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint
rule “provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face
of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Smallwood v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 660 F.3d 1115,
1120 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429
(1987)). “As the master of the complaint, a plaintiff may defeat removal by choosing not to plead
independent federal claims.” ARCO Envt’l Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health & Envt’l Quality
of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000).
The court’s review of the Complaint and the NOR makes clear that this court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally
could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”)
(footnote omitted). In other words, plaintiff could not have originally brought this action in federal
court, as plaintiff does not competently allege facts supplying federal question jurisdiction.2
Therefore, removal was improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392, 107
S.Ct. at 2429.
The Complaint asserts only a state-law claim under the Unruh Act. (See Dkt. 1-2,
Complaint at ¶ 2). Defendant, however, asserts in conclusory fashion that federal question
jurisdiction exists because the Unruh Act “incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq.” (Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 4). However, the fact that plaintiff relies in part
on ADA violations as the basis for her state law claim, (see Dkt. 1-2, Complaint at ¶¶ 62); Bell v.
Retail Servs. & Sys., Inc., 2018 WL 3455811, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“[T]he Unruh Act . . .
incorporate[s] the ADA, such that the ADA may serve as a ‘hook’ for an alleged violation of state
law.”), is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.3 See, e.g., Pizarro v. CubeSmart, 2014
WL 3434335, *2-3 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (remanding action asserting Unruh Act . . . claim[] for lack of
federal question jurisdiction); Bell, 2018 WL 3455811, at *2 (same); Rios v. New York and
Company, Inc., 2017 WL 3575220, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (finding plaintiff’s reliance on ADA
violations as a hook for violation of the Unruh Act did not confer federal question jurisdiction);
Thurston v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., 2017 WL 3034333, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (granting plaintiff’s
motion to remand Unruh Act claim premised on ADA violations); see also Franchise Tax Bd. of
the State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28, 103 S.Ct. 2841,
2856 (1983), superseded by statute on other grounds, as recognized in DB Healthcare, LLC v.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc., 852 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Congress has given
the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court, only those

2

Defendant seeks only to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction. (See Dkt. 1, NOR
at ¶ 4).
3

Defendant asserts that the district court recently entered a Consent Decree addressing the
same accessibility issues, (see Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 5), but does not explain how that confers subject
matter jurisdiction in this case. (See, generally, id.).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 21-1505 FMO (SHKx)

Date

Title

Rosario Rodriguez v. Genesco, Inc.

April 26, 2021

cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of
action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial
question of federal law.”).
In short, given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be
resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, the court is
not persuaded, under the circumstances here, that defendant has met its burden. Therefore, there
is no basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
This order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or
submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
2. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court.
3. Any pending motion is denied as moot.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

vdr

Page 3 of 3