United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of CaliforniaIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GEORGE S. LOUIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
HILTON,
Defendant.
/
No. C 07-00833 CRB
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court making state law claims under the California
Disabled Persons Act, the California Unruh Act, and Health and Safety Code Part 5.5. Now
pending before the Court is defendant Hilton’s Notice of Removal based on federal question
jurisdiction.
A district court may sua sponte raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. See Galt
G/S v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, 60 F.3d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir. 1995). Removal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. section 1441(a), as defendant purports to execute here, is only appropriate if the
“complaint contains a cause of action that is within the original jurisdiction” of this court.
Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 653 (9th Cir. 1998). Defendant’s Notice of Removal
contends that this Court has original jurisdiction “because the “relief Plaintiff seeks is
exclusive to, and requires interpretation and enforcement of federal law,” namely, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Notice of Removal at 2. As defendant concedes,
Case 3:07-cv-00833-CRB Document 3 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
Louie v. Hilton, 39900 Balentine Drive, Newark, CA
Doc. 3
Dockets.Justia.com
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
G:\CRBALL\2007\0833\ordertoshowcause.wpd
the complaint does not make any reference to the ADA. The Notice of Removal is bereft of
any caselaw that suggests that the complaint’s reference to certain relief which defendant
contends is only available under the ADA is sufficient to warrant removal.