1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL SANDOVAL, Case No. 5:25-cv-00206-JWH-DTBx 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINITFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND [ECF No. 10] 14 DON ROBERTO JEWELERS, INC., and 15 DOES 1-10, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Michael Sandoval to remand 2 this action to San Bernardino County Superior Court.1 The Court concludes 3 that this matter is appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the papers filed in support and in 5 opposition,2 and in light of Sandoval’s Amended Complaint,3 the Court 6 GRANTS Sandoval’s Motion. 7 I. BACKGROUND 8 Sandoval commenced this action against Defendant Don Roberto 9 Jewelers, Inc. in San Bernardino Superior Court in November 2024.4 Sandoval, 10 who has disabilities that limit his sight, originally asserted two claims for relief: 11 (1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. 12 §§ 12101-12189; and (2) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code. 13 §§ 51-53.5 Both of those claims arise from a visit that Sandoval made to the Don 14 Roberto Jewelers website, during which Sandoval discovered “unlabeled 15 buttons, lack of Alt-text, [insufficient navigational] structure of the headings and 16 Website, cursor traps, and other barriers.”6 17 18 19 1 Pl.’s Corrected Mot. to Remand Case to San Bernardino County Superior 20 Court (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 10]. 21 2 The Court has considered the documents of record in this action, 22 including the following papers: (1) Notice of Removal (the “Notice”) [ECF No. 1]; (2) Compl. (the “Complaint”) [ECF No. 1-1]; (3) Motion; (4) Def.’s 23 Opposition to the Motion (the “Opposition”) [ECF No. 12]; and (5) First 24 Amended Compl. (the “Amended Complaint”) [ECF No. 15]. 25 3 See Amended Complaint. 26 4 See id. 27 5 See generally id. 1 In January 2025, Don Roberto Jewelers removed this action to this Court 2 on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.7 Sandoval then filed the instant 3 Motion, in which he argues that although the ADA claim arises under federal 4 law, the action should be remanded to state court because Sandoval lacks 5 Article III standing.8 Don Roberto Jewelers opposes Sandoval’s Motion.9 In 6 March 2025, Sandoval filed his Amended Complaint, removing his ADA claim 7 for relief.10 The Court issued an Order to Show Cause in an effort to determine 8 whether Sandoval’s amendment was allowable under the Federal Rules of Civil 9 Procedure.11 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Accordingly, “[t]hey 12 possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. 13 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). In every federal case, the 14 basis for federal jurisdiction must appear affirmatively from the record. See 15 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

, 342 n.3 (2006). “The right of 16 removal is entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state court 17 must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of 18 Congress.” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson,

(2002) (internal 19 quotation marks omitted). When Congress has acted to create a right of 20 removal, those statutes, unless otherwise stated, are strictly construed against 21 removal jurisdiction. See

22 23

24 7 See Notice. 25 8 See Motion. 26 9 See Opposition. 27 10 See Amended Complaint. 1 To remove an action to federal court under

, the 2 removing defendant “must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction 3 lies in the federal courts.”

. As such, a defendant may remove a civil 4 action in which either (1) a federal question exists; or (2) complete diversity of 5 citizenship between the parties exists and the amount in controversy exceeds 6 $75,000. See

& 1332. 7 The right to remove is not absolute, even when original jurisdiction exists. 8 The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. 9 See Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (noting 10 the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the 11 removing defendant”); Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) 12 (“The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the 13 defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”) 14 (quotation marks omitted). Any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter 15 jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand. See

(“Federal jurisdiction 16 must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 17 instance.”). 18 III. ANALYSIS 19 Sandoval amended his Complaint as a matter of course, pursuant to 20 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(1)(B). Although he made that amendment more than 21 21 days after effecting service of the original Complaint, Don Roberto Jewelers 22 has not filed a responsive pleading. As such, Sandoval’s right to amend his 23 pleading as a matter of course has not lapsed. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(1)(B) 24 2023 Advisory Comm. Notes (“the right to amend continues without 25 interruption until 21 days after the earlier of the events described in 26 Rule 15(a)(1)(B).”). Accordingly, Sandoval’s Amended Complaint is the 27 operative pleading. 1 Sandoval’s operative Amended Complaint does not allege a claim in which a federal question exists, so this Court no longer has jurisdiction over this 3|| action. See Royal Canin U.S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger,

(2025) 4|| (“When a plaintiff amends her complaint following her suit’s removal, a federal 5|| court’s jurisdiction depends on what the new complaint says. If (as here) the 6|| plaintiff eliminates the federal-law claims that enabled removal, leaving only 7 || state-law claims behind, the court’s power to decide the dispute dissolves. With &|| the loss of federal-question jurisdiction, the court loses as well its supplemental 9|| jurisdiction over the state claims.”). Pursuant to the foregoing, this action must || be remanded to San Bernardino County Superior Court. 11 IV. DISPOSITION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 13 1. Sandoval’s Motion to Remand [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED. 14 2. This case is REMANDED to San Bernardino County Superior Court. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. VU 18\| Dated: April 9, 2025 .

19 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28