Koussa v. Ibrahim et al

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 11 Administrative Motion for Stay of proceedings and early evaluation conference under California Civil Code section 55.54 (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PAMELA KOUSSA,

Case No. 16-cv-05189-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

NADIA G. IBRAHIM,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
APPLICATION FOR STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS AND EARLY
EVALUATION CONFERENCE
Docket No. 11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff in this case asserts construction-related accessibility claims under the American

15

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) of 1990 and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant

16

Nadia Ibrahim has filed an Application for Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference

17

pursuant to California Civil Code section 55.54(a)(1) (“Application”), asserting that she is entitled

18

to a stay of proceedings and early evaluation because Plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant as

19

defined under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b). Defendant has offered no

20

basis for applying a state procedural rule to federal proceedings. See O'Campo v. Chico Mall, LP,

21

758 F. Supp. 2d 976, 985 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (finding that California Civil Code section 55.54 is a

22

procedural rule and therefore that it does not apply in federal court under Erie R. Co. v. Tomkins,

23

304 U.S. 64 (1938)). The Court further notes that to the extent section 55.54 provides for a stay of

24

enforcement as to ADA claims, it is likely preempted. Id. at 984; see also Lofton v. Wasserman,

25

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 12-cv-06312 PSG, Docket

26

No. 24 (denying application for stay and early evaluation where plaintiff asserted construction-

27

related accessibility claim under the ADA based, in part, on the conclusions that section 55.54 was

28

likely preempted to the extent it created “additional procedural hurdles” not present under the

1
2
3

ADA). Accordingly, the Application is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2016

4
5
6

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2