Lloyd Mosley v. Hastings Village Investment Company LP

DISCUSSION

The court’s review of the NOR and the attached Complaint makes clear that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. 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. Therefore, removal was improper. 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). The Complaint asserts only state-law claims under the Unruh Act. (See Dkt. 1-1, Complaint). Defendant, however, asserts in conclusory fashion that federal question jurisdiction exists because “it appears from the Complaint that this is a civil rights action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act[.]” (Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 4). However, the fact that plaintiff relies in part on ADA violations as the basis for his state claims, (see Dkt. 1-1, Complaint at ¶¶ 16, 17, 20); Bell v. Retail Servs. & Sys., Inc., 2018 WL 3455811, *2…