Johnson v. Starbucks Corporation

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 15 Motion to Stay. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY
Re: Dkt. No. 15

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-01134-MEJ

12
13

On April 27, 2018, Defendant Starbucks Corporation moved to stay this Americans with

14

Disabilities Act (ADA) case pending a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

15

(JPML) in MDL No. 2849 on Starbuck’s motion to transfer and coordinate the matter. Mot., Dkt.

16

No. 15. Johnson opposes the motion. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 17. The undersigned previously vacated

17

the hearing after finding the Motion was suitable for decision without oral argument. See Dkt. No.

18

24. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Starbucks’ Motion.
BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiff Scott Johnson initiated this matter on March 14, 2018, alleging violations of the

20
21

ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act at a Starbucks store located at 801 Broadway in Oakland,

22

California. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Johnson has brought 20 other actions against Starbucks alleging

23

ADA violations in Starbucks stores throughout California. See Mem. at 2, Dkt. No. 16. On April

24

23, 2018, Starbucks filed a motion with the JPML to transfer those 21 cases to a single district for

25

coordination. Id.
DISCUSSION

26
27
28

A.

Legal Standards
The pendency of a motion before the JPML under “28 U.S.C. § 1407 does not affect or

1

suspend orders and pretrial proceedings in any pending federal district court action and does not

2

limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that court.” Rules of Procedure of JPML 2.1(d). “Whether or not

3

to grant a stay is within the court’s discretion and it is appropriate when it serves the interests of

4

judicial economy and efficiency.” Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal.

5

1997).

6

“In considering whether a stay is appropriate, the Court should weigh three factors: (1) the

7

possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a

8

party may suffer in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in

9

terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

expected to result from a stay.” Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., 2014 WL 6986421, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 10, 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; applying factors originally
articulated in Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936)).
B.

Analysis
Here, the Landis factors weigh in favor of staying the action until the JPML rules on

Starbucks’ motion to transfer.
1.

Possible Damage which May Result from Stay

Johnson articulates no possible damage that may result from staying this action pending
consideration of Starbucks’ transfer motion. See Opp’n.

18
2.

Hardship or Inequity

19
This ADA case is governed by General Order No. 56, which was adopted in the Northern
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

District of California “[t]o advance efficient and effective litigation of ADA cases and to address
defendants’ concerns about costs.” Hernandez v. Grullense, 2014 WL 1724356, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
Apr. 30, 2014). In cases subject to General Order No. 56, discovery and other proceedings are
stayed, and the parties must follow a detailed timeline for completing a joint inspection and for
participating in a mediation process.
Starbucks generally argues that a risk of inconsistent and contradictory pretrial rulings
exists (Mem. at 1, 5), but does not acknowledge General Order No. 56’s stay. In this case, the
General Order No. 56 timeline required the parties to complete initial disclosures by May 31, 2018

28
2

1

and to complete a joint site inspection by June 7, 2018.1 Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 5. The

2

parties must also meet and confer in person to discuss settlement within 28 days of the joint site

3

inspection, that is, by July 5, 2018. Id. The Rule 26 initial disclosures and the joint site inspection

4

are designed to “advance efficient and effective” litigation. See Hernandez, 2014 WL 1724356, at

5

*2. Starbucks nevertheless argues that being required to proceed at this juncture will cause

6

hardship for two reasons. First, the General Order No. 56 “clock” starts ticking as soon as the site

7

inspection occurs, and now requires the parties to participate in more time intensive proceedings.

8

Reply at 4, Dkt. No. 22. Indeed, the parties must meet and confer in person within 28 days after

9

the joint site inspection to discuss settlement. See Scheduling Order. Requiring Starbucks to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

prepare for and participate in settlement discussions while its motion to transfer this case is a type
of hardship or inequity that warrants a stay. Given Johnson’s decision to file 21 cases against
Starbucks, it is unlikely one case will be settled independently at this juncture. Second, Starbucks
argues it would be wasteful to participate in activities required by General Order No. 56 if the
matter is transferred to a district where General Order No. 56 does not apply. See id. While a site
inspection likely would be required even in districts where General Order No. 56 does not apply,
other activities required by General Order No. 56 (e.g., mediation), might not apply. Starbucks
has articulated hardships that support a limited stay.
3.

Judicial Efficiency

18
This factor also weighs in favor of granting a stay. Granting a stay pending resolution of
19

the motion to transfer and consolidate will promote consistency and judicial economy. “[A]

20
majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial
21
22
23

proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel because of
the judicial resources that are conserved.” Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at 1362 (citing cases). The
undersigned joins that majority.

24

CONCLUSION

25

For the foregoing reasons, Starbucks’ Motion to Stay is GRANTED. The case is stayed in

26
27
1

28

The parties did not seek an extension of this deadline pending resolution of this Motion. See
Docket.
3

1

its entirety pending resolution of Starbucks’ motion to transfer. Starbucks shall notify this Court

2

within seven days of the JPML’s ruling on its motion to transfer.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States 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
4