Johnson v. Orlando Investments LLC et al

Filing 27

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Denying 10 Motion to Stay.(lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 18-CV-00277-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY AND EARLY EVALUATION
CONFERENCE

v.

15

ORLANDO INVESTMENTS LLC, et al.,

16

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 10

17
18

On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff Scott Johnson (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against

19

Defendants Orlando Investments LLC and Joy Luck Flowers LLC for (1) violation of the

20

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; and (2) violation of the

21

California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et seq. Before the Court

22

is Joy Luck Flowers’ motion to stay the action and for an early evaluation conference pursuant to

23

California Civil Code § 55.54. ECF No. 10 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff opposed this motion on March 20,

24

2018. ECF No. 16. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Joy Luck Flowers’ motion

25

for a stay and an early evaluation conference.

26
27
28

As discussed above, Joy Luck Flowers moves for a stay and an early evaluation conference
pursuant to California Civil Code § 55.54, which is a provision within California’s Construction1
Case No. 18-CV-00277-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AND EARLY EVALUATION CONFERENCE

1

Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 55.51–55.54. See Lamark v.

2

Laiwalla, 2013 WL 3872926, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2013). However, § “55.54’s provisions are

3

preempted by the ADA and cannot be applied to [a] plaintiff’s ADA claim.” Lamark, 2013 WL

4

3872926, at *1 (citing O’Campo v. Chico Mall, LP, 758 F. Supp. 2d 976 (E.D. Cal. 2010)). This

5

is because “the ADA has no provision for mandatory stays and early settlement conferences” like

6

§ 55.54, and thus § 55.54 “clearly conflicts with federal law” by “impos[ing] an[] additional

7

procedural hurdle[] to a plaintiff bringing a claim under the ADA.” O’Campo, 758 F. Supp. 2d at

8

984–85. Because § 55.54 “is preempted to the extent it applies to [P]laintiff’s ADA claim,” id. at

9

985, the Court cannot apply it to Plaintiff’s ADA claim.

10

Additionally, under Erie Rail Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), and its progeny, the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Court cannot apply § 55.44 to Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. “[A]ll California federal courts to have

12

considered the issue have found that” under the Erie doctrine, “a federal court should not apply the

13

procedures of California Civil Code section 55.54 to supplemental state law claims . . . because its

14

provisions are not outcome determinative.” Lamark, 2013 WL 3872926 at *1 (citing Moreeno v.

15

Town & Country Liquors, 2012 WL 2960049, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2012); O’Campo, 758 F.

16

Supp. 2d at 985; Oliver v. Hot Topic, Inc., 2010 WL 4261473, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)).

17

Finally, although the Court can stay this action under its inherent power “to control the

18

disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and

19

for litigants,” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936), Joy Luck Flowers does not

20

articulate any reason—let alone a persuasive reason—for why a stay would be appropriate in the

21

instant case. See Mot.

22

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Joy Luck Flowers’ motion for a stay and an

23

early evaluation conference pursuant to California Civil Code § 55.54.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 18-CV-00277-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AND EARLY EVALUATION CONFERENCE

1
2
3

Dated: August 7, 2018
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

4
5
6
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

3
Case No. 18-CV-00277-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AND EARLY EVALUATION CONFERENCE