Dalfio v. Secvd & I, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-929-MMA (AGS) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | VICTOR DALFIO, Plaintiff, v. SECVD & I, INC. and DOES 1-10, Defendant. |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 4]
On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff Victor Dalfio ("Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against SECVD & I, Inc. and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, "Defendant") pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 41 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. ("ADA") and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. ("Unruh Act"). See Doc No. 1 ("Compl"). Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 4. Plaintiff filed an opposition, to which Defendant replied. See Doc. Nos. 6, 7. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion.
Plaintiff has had two hip replacements and as a result, has difficulty walking and standing, and requires a cane or walker for mobility. See Compl. at ¶ 1- Plaintiff asserts that he is a disabled person under the ADA and the Unruh Act. See Id. According to Plaintiff, Defendant owns the real property located at 360 Bolton Hall Road, San Diego, California, 21173 (the "Premises") which operates as "ABC Money Exchange" (the "Business"). Id. at ¶¶ 2-3. Plaintiff states that the Premises is newly constructed or otherwise underwent remodeling or repairs after January 26, 1992, yet fails to comply with California access standards which were in effect at the time of construction. See Id. at ¶ 12.
Plaintiff alleges that he visited the Premises on two separate occasions—in December 2020 and March 2021—with the intent to patronize the Business. See Id. ¶ 13. However, Plaintiff claims he was unable to do so because Defendant "did not offer persons with disabilities with equivalent facilities, privileges, and advantages offered by Defendant[] to other patrons." See Id. at ¶¶ 13-15. Namely, Plaintiff alleges twenty-four separate violations of the ADA and the California Building Code. For example, in the parking area, Plaintiff draws attention to the faded paint, lack of signage, uneven asphalt, and improper slope gradient of the disabled parking spots. See Id. at ¶¶ 14-20. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the Business's entrance ramps and access routes violate federal and state requirements. See Id. at 5-20.[1]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows for dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "[F]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as recognized in LaSalle Nat 7 Trust, NA v. Schaffner, 818 F.Supp. 1161, 1165 (N.D. 111. 1993). "A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Cal. ex rel. Younger v. Andrus, 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1979)). Subject matter jurisdiction must exist when the action is commenced. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Mollan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. 537, 538, 6 L.Ed. 154 (1824)). Further, subject matter jurisdiction may be raised "at any stage of the litigation." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ().
A facial attack on jurisdiction asserts that the allegations in a complaint are insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. See Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In resolving a facial challenge to jurisdiction, a court accepts the allegations of the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Doe v. Holy See, 557 F.3d 1066, 1073 (citing Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004)).
Based on the twenty-four alleged accommodation deficiencies, Plaintiff brings two causes of action: (1) violation of the ADA; and (2) violation of the Unruh Act. See Doc. No. 1 at 22-28. The parties appear to agree that the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. See Compl. at ¶ 8; Doc. No. 4 at 3. Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), "in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Plaintiff alleges that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim because it arises from the same nucleus of operative facts and transactions as his ADA claim. See Compl. at ¶9.
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Specifically, Defendant asks the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if one of the following exceptions applies:
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Defendant argues that Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim substantially predominates over his ADA claim, and additionally contends there are compelling reasons to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 4 at 4-10.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim substantially predominates over his ADA claim because of the stark difference in available remedies, namely, the substantial monetary damages available under the Unruh Act. See Doc. No. 4 at 4. Plaintiff argues in opposition that the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction because both the federal and state law claims involve identical alleged facts, and the availability of monetary damages under the Unruh Act does not alone indicate predominance. See Doc. No. 6 at 4-5.
State law claims may "substantially predominate" over federal claims "in terms of proof of the scope of the issues raised, or of the comprehensiveness of the remedy sought . . . ." United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also Acri v. Varian Assocs, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (). As Defendant highlights, several courts in this circuit have found that Unruh Act claims substantially predominate over ADA claims where a plaintiff alleges numerous violations, due to the more expansive remedies available under the Unruh Act. See e.g., Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F.Supp.3d 1025, 1030 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (); Org. for Advancement of Minorities with Disabilities v. Brick Oven Rest., 406 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1131 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (); Molski v. Hitching Post I Rest., Inc., No. CV 04-1077 SVW (RNBx), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39959, at *23 (CD. Cal. May 24, 2005) (). While the Ninth Circuit has never directly addressed this issue, c.f Armstrong v. Nan, Inc., 679 Fed.Appx. 582 (9th Cir. 2017) (), the Court finds that a damages-focused approach to determining predominance is appropriate here. The only available remedy under the ADA is injunctive relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1); see also Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (). However, in addition to injunctive relief, the Unruh Act provides for statutory damages "in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4, 000)," for each violation. Cal. Civ. Code § 52. Plaintiff asserts a total of twenty-four violations. See Compl. at ¶ 20. Thus, a minimum of $96, 000 in statutory damages is available to Plaintiff under state law should he prevail. The mere availability of monetary damages under the Unruh Act, coupled with the magnitude of potential recovery available to Plaintiff based on the number of violations he alleges, strongly indicates that Plaintiffs predominant focus is recovering financially under state law. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim substantially predominates over his ADA claim due to the disparity in available remedies available, and thus falls within the exception of § 1367(c)(2).
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial