Moreno v. Vohra et al

Filing 7

ORDER DENYING defendants' Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference, document 4 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/16/2014. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JUAN MORENO,

1:14-cv-00539 AWI MJS

11
12
13

Plaintiff, ORDER
DENYING
DEFENDANTS'
APPLICATION FOR STAY AND EARLY
EVALUATION CONFERENCE

v.
VIKRAM VOHRA, et al.,

14

(Doc. No. 4)
Defendants.

15
16

I.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Juan Moreno brought this action against defendants Vikram Vohra, Vinay

Vohra, Fast N ESY #17 Corporation, as well as Does 1-10, inclusive, arising from
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et
seq., as well as various California statues, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civil
Code §§ 51 et seq. Defendants now move to stay the action and refer the parties to
early neutral evaluation pursuant to California Civil Code section 55.54 and the court's
equitable powers. (ECF No. 4.)1
II.

ANALYSIS
Under

California

law,

the

Construction-Related

Accessibility

Standards

26
27
28

1

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the court orders this matter
submitted on the briefs pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 230(g).

1

1

Compliance Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 55.51-55.54, "entitles some defendants in

2

construction-related accessibility suits to a stay and [an early] evaluation conference for

3

the lawsuit." O'Campo v. Chico Mall, LP, 758 F. Supp. 2d 976, 983 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

4

(Karlton, J.) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 55.54(b)(1)). However, section 55.54's provisions

5

are preempted by the ADA and cannot be applied to plaintiff's ADA claim. See id.;

6

Moreno v. Town & Country Liquors, No. 2:12-CV-00729 JAM KJN, 2012 U.S. Dist.

7

LEXIS 100711, 2012 WL 2960049, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2012); see also Hubbard v.

8

SoBreck, LLC, 554 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2009) ("[F]or federal law to preempt state law,

9

it is not necessary that a federal statute expressly state that it preempts state law."

10

(citation omitted)); Lamark v. Laiwalla, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104526, 1 (E.D. Cal. July

11

25, 2013). Defendants admit that section 55.54's provisions are pre-empted. (See Reply,

12

ECF No. 6.)

13

It appears that all California federal courts to have considered the issue have

14

found that, under Erie Rail Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188

15

(1938), and related cases, a federal court should not apply the procedures of California

16

Civil Code section 55.54 to supplemental state law claims either because its provisions

17

are not outcome determinative. See Moreno, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100711, 2012 WL

18

2960049, at *4; O'Campo, 758 F. Supp. 2d at 985; Oliver v. Hot Topic, Inc., 10CV1111

19

BEN AJB, 2010 WL 4261473, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2010); cf. Gasperini v. Ctr. for

20

Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427, 116 S. Ct. 2211, 135 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1996)

21

("[F]ederal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural

22

law.").

23

Although the court may also stay an action under its inherent power "to control the

24

disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for

25

counsel, and for litigants", Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L.

26

Ed. 153 (1936), Defendants have not made a sufficient showing that a stay would be

27

appropriate in this case. The Court will accordingly deny Defendants' motion to stay

28

Plaintiff's ADA and state law claims.
2

1
2

III.

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' application to stay be DENIED.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 16, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3