1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-07704-SVK

6 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY

7 v. Re: Dkt. No. 38 8 DEANZA SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, L.P., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed this lawsuit on October 1, 2021, alleging that barriers at a 12 restaurant owned by Defendant Kalika Foods LLC, which is located on property owned by 13 Defendants Deanza Square Shopping Center, L.P. and John T. Vidovich, violate the federal 14 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Act. Dkt. 1. The Defendants 15 have each filed an answer to the Complaint. Dkt. 10, 17, and 24. All Parties have consented to 16 the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkt. 7, 11, 20, 25. 17 Now before the Court is the motion of Defendants Deanza Square Shopping Center, L.P. 18 and John T. Vidovich (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) to stay this case pending the 19 resolution of a case pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San 20 Francisco, styled People of the State of California v. Potter Handy, LLP, et al., No. CGC-22- 21 599089, 2022 WL 1102496 (the “Potter Handy action”). Dkt. 38. This motion is suitable for 22 determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). After considering the parties’ briefs, the 23 applicable law, and the case file, the Court DENIES the motion to stay for the reasons discussed 24 below. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 The Court has the inherent power to stay proceedings before it. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 27 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936). In considering whether a stay is appropriate, a court may consider 1 moving party if a stay is denied, and “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the 2 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to 3 result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Landis, 299 4 U.S. at 254-55). “Granting a motion to stay is within the sound discretion of the Court.” Calvary 5 Chapel San Jose v. Cody, No. 20-cv-03794-BLF, 2022 WL 1693679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 6 2022) (citation omitted). 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 The Moving Defendants argue that this Court should stay this case pending resolution of 9 the Potter Handy action in state court. Dkt. 38. As described by the Moving Defendants, the 10 Potter Handy action was brought by the District Attorneys for the City and County of San 11 Francisco and the County of Los Angeles, alleging that the law firm of Potter Handy, LLP has 12 violated various state statutes by bringing serial, boilerplate ADA/Unruh Act complaints based on 13 false allegations that the serial-filer plaintiffs personally encountered barriers at the defendant 14 businesses, were deterred or prevented from accessing the business because of the barriers, and 15 intended to return to the businesses after the violation is cured. See id. at 6. The Potter Handy 16 firm represents Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff is one of the serial filers identified in the complaint 17 in the Potter Handy action, although he is not a party in that case. See id. at 7. According to the 18 Moving Defendants, “Plaintiff’s Complaint closely parallels the physical-barrier ADA/Unruh Act 19 complaints at issue in Potter Handy.” Id. at 9. 20 The Moving Defendants have failed to demonstrate that a stay would serve the interests of 21 judicial efficiency. “A stay should not be granted unless it appears likely the other proceedings 22 will be concluded within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the 23 court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 64 (9th Cir. 1979). The Potter 24 Handy case is in its early stages . The complaint in that case was filed on or about April 11, 2022. 25 See Dkt. 38-1. In his opposition to the motion to stay, Plaintiff asserts that the complaint in Potter 26 Handy has not yet been served (Dkt. 39 at 1), and the Moving Defendants have not refuted that 27 assertion. In arguing that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a stay, the Moving Defendants 1 prejudicial.” Dkt. 38 at 11-12 (citing cases). However, the Moving Defendants have provided no 2 reason to believe that the Potter Handy action will be resolved in that timeframe. 3 Moreover, although the Moving Defendants argue that the Potter Handy action will 4 “provide guidance on legal issues presented in Plaintiff’s Complaint” (id. at 2), they have failed to 5 explain how the various remedies that might be obtained by the District Attorney plaintiffs in the 6 state court action would directly affect this case. None of the Parties in this case are parties in the 7 Potter Handy action (although, as noted, the Potter Handy firm represents Plaintiff here). Thus, it 8 is at best unclear whether allowing the Potter Handy action to resolve first would promote judicial 9 economy. 10 An evaluation of the competing interests of the Parties with respect to a stay weighs 11 slightly in favor of denying a stay. The Moving Defendants emphasize that this is one of hundreds 12 of ADA cases brought by Plaintiff now pending in this District. Dkt. 40-2. However, looking 13 specifically at this case, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, not just monetary damages (see Dkt. 1), 14 and Moving Defendants have not met their burden to show that Plaintiff would not be harmed if 15 the litigation is delayed. See American Motor Co., Inc. v. Coast Distrib. Sys., Inc., No. C 06- 16 04752, 2007 WL 672521, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2007). Without a stay, the Moving Defendants 17 will be forced to defend this lawsuit, but “being required to a defend a suit, without more, does not 18 constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.” Lockyer v. Mirant 19 Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, this case is subject to this District’s 20 General Order 56, which “encourage[s] the parties to cooperate to resolve ADA claims quickly 21 and efficiently with minimal cost.” Johnson v. Reimal Family Ltd. P’ship, No. 20-cv-01192- 22 WHO, 2021 WL 428631, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2021); see also Dkt. 5 (Initial Case Management 23 Scheduling Order). Here, all Defendants have already answered the complaint, and the Moving 24 Defendants acknowledge that the joint site inspection has taken place. Dkt. 38 at 12. Thus even if 25 the Moving Defendants’ burden of defending the case was a proper consideration, that burden is 26 alleviated given the stage of the case and the General Order 56 procedures. 27 After weighing the relevant considerations, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to 1 Wl. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the motion to stay is DENIED. The deadlines under General 3 Order 56 remain in place. 4 SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 23, 2022 6 Sessen veto

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28