Aderiyike Lawal v. Patagonia Global LLC
2:20-cv-07426
C.D. Cal.Nov 11, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Aderiyike Lawal is legally blind and uses screen‑reading software to access websites; she alleges Patagonia’s website is not fully accessible to that technology.
- On June 3, 2020 Lawal sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, alleging discrimination based on disability.
- The Complaint pleads two theories: (1) a standalone Unruh intentional‑discrimination claim, and (2) an Unruh claim predicated on violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Patagonia was served July 22 and removed the action to federal court on August 17, invoking federal question jurisdiction based on the ADA‑based theory.
- Lawal moved to remand, arguing that an Unruh claim that merely incorporates the ADA does not create federal jurisdiction; Patagonia disputed the sufficiency of Lawal’s independent Unruh intentional‑discrimination allegation.
- The district court granted remand, holding the complaint does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction and that challenges to the merits of the Unruh pleading are premature at the jurisdictional stage.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incorporation of the ADA into an Unruh claim confers federal‑question jurisdiction | Incorporation alone does not convert a state Unruh claim into a federal action; remand required | ADA incorporation creates a federal issue sufficient for removal | Remanded: incorporation does not give federal jurisdiction here; no federal question on the face of the complaint |
| Whether the Complaint pleads an independent Unruh intentional‑discrimination claim | Lawal alleges independent intentional discrimination under Unruh | Patagonia contends facts are insufficient so only ADA‑based theory remains | Court declined to resolve merit of pleading at jurisdictional stage; remand required |
| Proper burden and standard for removal | Removal statutes construed narrowly; doubts resolved for remand | Removal is proper only if defendant establishes federal jurisdiction | Court applied the strict removal standard and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (removal depends on whether case could originally have been filed in federal court)
- Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (1991) (case must be remanded if jurisdiction is lacking)
- Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2009) (removal statute strictly construed)
- Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (defendant bears burden to show removal proper)
- Moore‑Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2009) (doubts about removal resolved in favor of remand)
- Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (addresses when state‑law claims that rest on federal law implicate federal jurisdiction)