Jo-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:20-cv-02664-RGK-PJW Date March 26, 2020 Title Nazik Bikhoyan v. Moncler USA, Inc. et al

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Sharon L. Williams Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court

Plaintiff Nazik Blkhoyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Montcler USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) on January 30, 2020 in state court. Plaintiff's Complaint asserts one claim for violation of California’s Disabled Person’s Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, 54.1 (the “DPA”). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On March 20, 2020, Defendant removed the action to this Court, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff pleads only a state-law claim, Defendant contends that this claim necessarily raises a federal question because it is predicated on an underlying violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq. In Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 857 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit held “that there is no federal-question jurisdiction over a lawsuit for damages brought under California’s Disabled Person’s Act, even though the California statute makes a violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act a violation of state law.” In Wander, the plaintiff brought a claim for injunctive relief under the ADA, and a claim for damages under the DPA. Jd. When the federal claim became moot, the district “court ruled that federal question jurisdiction was not present and it specifically declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state DPA claim.” Jd. at 858. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, explaining that “[f]ederal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim is not created just because a violation of federal law is an element of the state law claim.” Jd. at 859.

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2

Jo-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:20-cv-02664-RGK-PJW Date March 26, 2020 Title Nazik Bikhoyan v. Moncler USA, Inc. et al

Based upon the reasoning set forth in Wander, the Court finds that remand is appropriate. Plaintiff does not allege a freestanding claim for violation of the ADA, nor does he seek injunctive relief. Although violation of the ADA may be an element of Plaintiff's state-law claim, this is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case is hereby REMANDED to state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2