Lofton et al v. Wasserman et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR STAY AND EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 16 Motion to Stay; denying 17 Motion to Stay; denying 18 Motion to Stay (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

SYDRIAN LOFTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CHARLES A. WASSERMAN, JR., a married )
man as his sole and separate property; ORI
)
DELI, a California limited liability company;
)
PARJIT KAUR KHAIRA dba BONFARE
)
MARKETS, INC. aka BONFARE MARKET 9; )
KHAIRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
)
California corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

19

Case No.: C 12-06312 PSG
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
APPLICATION FOR STAY AND
EARLY EVALUATION
CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO
CIVIL CODE SECTION 55.54
(Re: Docket No. 16, 17, 18)

Plaintiff Sydrian Lofton (“Lofton”) has asserted violations of the Americans with

20
Disabilities Act against Defendants Charles A. Wasserman, Jr., Ori Deli, and Parjit Kaur Khaira
21

(collectively, “Defendants”). On March 8, 2013, Defendants filed an application to stay the case

22
and for an early evaluation conference pursuant to California Civil Code section 55.54. Lofton
23
opposes. Having considered the papers, the court DENIES the applications.
24
25
26

California’s Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act provides that “a
qualified defendant… may file a request for a court stay and early evaluation conference.”1 This
statute applies to defendants of a “construction-related accessibility claim,” or “any civil claim in a

27
28

1

Cal. Civ. Code § 55.54(b)(1).
1

Case No.: C 12-06312 PSG
ORDER

1

civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation.”2 If such a defendant meets certain

2

additional requirements, he is entitled to a court stay and a mandatory early evaluation conference.3

3

An ADA claim qualifies as a “construction-related accessibility claim.”4

4

There are several reasons why this statute does not apply. First, the statute may be

5

preempted because it creates “additional procedural hurdles” not present in the ADA.5 Second, the

6

statute is a state procedural law. Generally, federal courts need not adopt state procedural law,

7

even in connection with state law claims.6 When, as here, the plaintiff has brought only federal

8

ADA claims,7 the court sees no reason to adopt California procedural law. As Lofton points out,

9

the Northern District of California has its own procedure to impose a stay on discovery and to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

require the parties to engage in early resolution and mediation.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: 4/18/13

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2

21

O'Campo v. Chico Mall, LP, 758 F. Supp. 2d 976, 983 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code §
55.52(a)(1)).

22

3

See id.

23

4

Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(6).

24

5

25

O'Campo, 758 F. Supp. 2d at 983 (quoting Hubbard v. SoBreck LLC, 554 F.3d 742 (9th Cir.
2009)).
6

26

See, generally, Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 92 (1938) (“no one doubts federal power
over procedure”).

27
28

7

See Docket No. 1.
2

Case No.: C 12-06312 PSG
ORDER