Johnson v. Starbucks Corporation

Filing 21

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/5/18 ORDERING that Defendant's Motion to Stay 14 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-02521 MCE CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

16
17

By way of this action and a number of others, Plaintiff Scott Johnson pursues

18

remedies for Defendant Starbuck Corporation’s purported violations of state and federal

19

disability protections. Defendant has since sought an order from the Judicial Panel on

20

Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to have these cases consolidated and transferred either

21

to one court within this district or to another suitable court. In the meantime, Defendant

22

also sought to stay this action until the JPML issues its decision.

23
24
25
26
27
28

As another court in this district has already pointed out:
According to Rule 2.1(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the
JPML, “[t]he pendency of a motion . . . before the
Panel . . . does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial
proceedings in any pending federal district court action and
does not limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that court.” In other
words, a court should not automatically issue a stay merely
because a party has filed a motion for transfer with the MDL
Panel.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Scott Johnson has been filing ADA cases in this court since
2004. See, e.g., Scott Johnson v. California Welding Supply,
Inc., Civ. No. 2:11-1669 WBS GGH, 2011 WL 5118599 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2011); Scott Johnson v. Leoncio Nateras Ruiz,
Civ. No. 2:14-1663 WBS AC, 2015 WL 3993144 (E.D. Cal.
June 29, 2015); Scott Johnson v. Brian Kenneth Gross, 2:142242 WBS KJN, 2016 WL 3448247 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2016).
Since that time, he has filed more than two thousand such
cases in the federal courts throughout Northern California.
They have never before gone to Multidistrict Litigation, and this
court has no reason to believe they will now.

8

Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 16-cv-02797-WBS-AC. This Court agrees, and

9

finds no reason to stay this matter either. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Stay (ECF

10
11
12

No. 14) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 5, 2018

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