Acosta v. Ruiz Jr. et al

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR STAY UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 55.54, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/11/2017. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JOSE ACOSTA,

9
10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-0230 AWI SKO
Plaintiff
ORDER DENYING APPLICTION FOR
STAY UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL
CODE § 55.54

v.
ALONZO FAVIO RUIZ, JR. d/b/a
Ventura Tire Shop, et al.,

(Doc. No. 10)
Defendants

14
15

This is a disability discrimination lawsuit that alleges claims under the Americans with

16

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal.

17

Civ. Code § 51 et seq.), and the California Health and Safety Code § 19955 et seq. Currently

18

before the Court is Defendant J.L. Marquez Properties, LLC’s application for a stay pursuant to

19

California Civil Code § 55.54 (“§ 55.54”).

20

Under California law, the Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act

21

(Cal. Civ. Code §§ 55.51-55.54) “entitles some defendants in construction-related accessibility

22

suits to a stay and [an early] evaluation conference for the lawsuit.” O’Campo v. Chico Mall, LP,

23

758 F.Supp.2d 976, 983 (E.D. Cal. 2010). However, courts in this Ninth Circuit have held that

24

§ 55.54’s stay and early evaluation provisions are preempted by the ADA. See Johnson v. GDRR

25

Props., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176156, *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016); Owens v. Ishihara-

26

Liang, Inc.¸ 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59511, *2 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2016); Daubert v. City of

27

Lindsay, 37 F.Supp.3d 1168, 1179-80 (E.D. Cal. 2014); O’Campo, 758 F.Supp.2d at 985. Further,

28

courts in the Ninth Circuit have found, pursuant to Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938),

1

that federal courts should not apply § 55.54 to supplemental state law claims because that statute’s

2

provisions are not outcome determinative. See Johnson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176156 at *2-*3;

3

Owens¸ 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59511 at *2; Daubert, 37 F.Supp.3d at 1180; O’Campo, 758

4

F.Supp.2d at 985. In light of this law, Defendant’s application will be denied. See id.

5
6
7
8

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s application for a stay pursuant
to California Civil Code § 55.54 (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2