2:25-cv-06069
C.D. Cal.Aug 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Lorraine Perez, a California resident with physical disabilities, sued ZF Investments, Inc. in state court for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act related to Night Cap Liquor in Monrovia, CA.
- Perez alleged she encountered barriers relating to parking, travel routes, and signage during visits in January and April 2025, which deterred her from returning.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court, invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to supposed lack of Article III standing.
- The court denied Perez's remand motion, finding her allegations sufficient for standing.
- The court found Plaintiff's remand motion frivolous and sanctioned her attorney with an award of $2,600 in defendant's fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal subject matter jurisdiction | No Article III standing; case must remand | Complaint shows ADA claim, confers standing | Jurisdiction proper; remand denied |
| Article III standing for injunctive relief | No intent to return, so no standing | Complaint alleges deterrence & intent | Standing found; allegations sufficient |
| Frivolous motion/sanctions | No basis for sanctions | Motion frivolous, merits sanctions | Sanctions justified against plaintiff's counsel |
| Amount/reasonableness of attorney fees | Dispute over hours/rate unnecessary | Fees request reasonable: 4 hours @ $650/hr | Fees approved: $2,600 against counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (requiring removing defendant to establish federal jurisdiction)
- Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal question)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (establishing Article III standing requirements)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (standing requirements for ADA injunctive relief)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (immediacy requirement for injunctive standing)
- Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989 (court's inherent authority for sanctions)
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (sanctions for abuse of judicial process)
- Haynes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 688 F.3d 984 (district courts' discretion for sanctions)