Johnson v. Starbucks Corporation

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/22/2018 DENYING 22 Defendant's Motion to Stay. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

CIV. NO. 2:16-2797 WBS AC

v.

ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a
Washington Corporation, and DOES
1-10,
Defendants.

18
19
20

----oo0oo---Plaintiff Scott Johnson has initiated twenty one cases

21

against defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) currently

22

pending throughout the state, all seeking damages under the

23

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and the Unruh

24

Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51-53; penalties under

25

Unruh; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

26

This case is one of them.

On April 23, 2018, Starbucks filed with the Judicial

27

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) a motion to

28

consolidate and transfer Johnson’s ADA Actions against Starbucks.
1

1

In the MDL Motion, Starbucks requests that all those actions be

2

transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

3

District of California or, in the alternative, any single

4

district in California.

5

Motion to Stay all pretrial proceedings in this case until the

6

JPML issues a decision.

7

Presently before the court is Starbucks’

According to Rule 2.1(d) of the Rules of Procedure of

8

the JPML, “[t]he pendency of a motion . . . before the Panel . .

9

. does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial proceedings in

10

any pending federal district court action and does not limit the

11

pretrial jurisdiction of that court.”

12

should not automatically issue a stay merely because a party has

13

filed a motion for transfer with the MDL Panel.

14

In other words, a court

Scott Johnson has been filing ADA cases in this court

15

since 2004.

16

Supply, Inc., Civ. No. 2:11-1669 WBS GGH, 2011 WL 5118599 (E.D.

17

Cal. Oct. 27, 2011); Scott Johnson v. Leoncio Nateras Ruiz, Civ.

18

No. 2:14-1663 WBS AC, 2015 WL 3993144 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2015);

19

Scott Johnson v. Brian Kenneth Gross, 2:14-2242 WBS KJN, 2016 WL

20

3448247 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2016).

21

more than two thousand such cases in the federal courts

22

throughout Northern California.

23

Multidistrict Litigation, and this court has no reason to believe

24

they will now.

25

litigated for two years.

26

See, e.g., Scott Johnson v. California Welding

Since that time, he has filed

They have never before gone to

Furthermore, this particular case has been

For the foregoing reasons, the court does not find that

27

good cause exists for granting a stay of this action pending a

28

decision by the JPML.
2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT defendant’s Motion to Stay

2

(Docket No. 22) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

3

Dated:

May 22, 2018

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3