Michael Sandoval v. Ace Hardware Corporation
5:25-cv-00765
C.D. Cal.Aug 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Michael Sandoval sued Ace Hardware in San Bernardino Superior Court alleging violations of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA) based on inaccessibility of www.acehardware.com; Complaint initially included an ADA claim but First Amended Complaint asserts only a UCRA claim seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
- Ace Hardware removed the action to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction (incorporation of the ADA) and diversity jurisdiction (amount in controversy exceeds $75,000); Plaintiff moved to remand.
- Defendant submitted a Request for Judicial Notice of a State Bar disciplinary notice and an unrelated federal Rule 11 order; the Court found those documents unnecessary and denied the RJN.
- The FAC limits statutory damages to $24,999 and injunctive relief to $50,000 (total $74,999) but also seeks attorneys’ fees and alleges ongoing deterrence/visits and statutory per-violation minima.
- The Court concluded no federal-question jurisdiction exists because the UCRA claim is not necessarily dependent on federal law, but found diversity jurisdiction satisfied because statutory minimums, potential injunctive-compliance costs, and attorneys’ fees likely push the amount in controversy over $75,000.
- The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand, denied Plaintiff’s request for remand-related attorneys’ fees, denied Defendant’s RJN, and vacated the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial notice of unrelated court documents | RJN unnecessary; documents irrelevant | Documents admissible as public records | Denied RJN as unnecessary; Court may still consider them as nonbinding authority |
| Federal-question jurisdiction (state claim incorporating ADA) | Sandoval: FAC asserts only UCRA claim; referencing ADA doesn’t create federal question | Ace: UCRA claim premised on ADA violation, so federal jurisdiction exists | No federal-question jurisdiction; UCRA claim can stand independently of ADA (Rains/Wander reasoning) |
| Diversity jurisdiction / amount in controversy | Sandoval: capped relief <$75,000; seeks limited damages | Ace: statutory per-violation minima, injunctive-relief compliance costs, and attorneys’ fees likely push controversy >$75,000 | Diversity jurisdiction satisfied; amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 based on reasonable assumptions about statutory damages, injunctive costs, and fees |
| Remand-related attorneys’ fees | Requests fees if remand granted | Opposes fees | Denied because remand denied (no fees awarded) |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (removal proper where federal court would have original jurisdiction)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (U.S. 2013) (federal courts possess only constitutionally and statutorily authorized jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statute strictly construed; defendant bears burden to show removability)
- Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (tests when state-law claim raising federal issues supports federal jurisdiction)
- Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (U.S. 1986) (federal issue in state-law claim must be substantial and necessarily raised)
- Olguin v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 740 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1984) (plaintiff cannot evade federal jurisdiction by omitting federal law essential to claim)
- City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Servs., Inc., 854 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2017) (ADA does not preempt state-law disability claims)
- Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2002) (state-law claim does not become federal merely because it incorporates a federal violation)
- Molski v. Rapazzini Winery, 400 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (each visit or deterred attempt can constitute a separate UCRA offense)
- In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2001) (either-viewpoint rule for amount in controversy)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (U.S. 2014) (when amount in controversy is contested, proponent must prove by preponderance and may submit evidence)
- Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018) (future attorneys' fees recoverable by statute count toward amount in controversy)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1938) (plaintiff may limit recovery to avoid federal jurisdiction)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (U.S. 2013) (plaintiff cannot bind absent class members by stipulating to limit recovery to avoid federal jurisdiction)