Hunter v. Intown Lessee Services, LLC
3:12-cv-00315
S.D. Miss.Jul 25, 2012Background
- Hunter, a resident of InTown Suite in Jackson, Mississippi, sues several hotel entities for negligence; he requested a handicap room and daily checks due to health problems.
- April 12, 2009, Hunter allegedly fell in an InTown bathroom, trapped between toilet and tub, with no in-room alarm or timely assistance.
- Hunter alleges multiple failures by Defendants including failing to check daily, maintain sanitation, and properly maintain guest-room bathrooms.
- In 2011, Hunter filed suit in state court; in 2012, he designated an expert (Marva) to testify on ADA standards and hotel industry practices.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court arguing federal-question jurisdiction based on ADA testimony; Hunter moved to remand, arguing no federal-question jurisdiction exists.
- The magistrate judge granted remand, concluding no substantial federal question embedded in the state-law negligence claim and no denial of the balance of federal-state responsibilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists based on the ADA in a state-law negligence claim. | Hunter argues no federal question dictated by ADA controls the case. | Defendants contend ADA issues are embedded in the negligence claim and confer jurisdiction. | No federal-question jurisdiction; remaind granted. |
| Whether any ADA issue is necessary, substantial, and embedding federal jurisdiction under Singh factors. | ADA issue is not necessary or dispositive to the negligence claim. | ADA relevance could be disputed and substantial for jurisdiction. | ADA issue not sufficiently substantial or dispositive; jurisdiction not proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California, 463 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1983) (establishes that arises-under jurisdiction requires a substantial federal issue and not merely a federal element)
- Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (Supreme Court 1983) (absence of private federal remedy weighs against federal-question jurisdiction)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court 2005) (recognized standard for when federal issues are substantial in state-law claims)
- Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (Supreme Court 2006) (federal-question jurisdiction requires more than a federal element)
- Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 538 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2008) (articulates factors for federal-question jurisdiction in embedded-federal-issue contexts)
- Jairath v. Dyer, 154 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 1998) (no private right of action under ADA; limits substantiality for jurisdiction)