Johnson v. Jding Properties LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued Jding Properties LLC and Starbucks Corporation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that he encountered barriers involving transaction counters and entrance-door hardware at a Starbucks store.

Starbucks was also defending two related appeals in the Ninth Circuit involving the same counter practices. In both underlying district-court cases, the courts had ruled in Starbucks’s favor on the counter-space issue. Johnson argued that the appeals could control the resolution of his case and moved to stay, or pause, this action.

Analysis

The court applied the discretionary standard from Landis and CMAX, which considers potential harm from a stay, hardship or unfairness from continuing the case, and whether a stay would promote an orderly and efficient resolution of the issues.

The court concluded that the appeals would affect any decision on the merits in this case and that the relevant factors strongly favored a stay. Starbucks argued that the appeals concerned only the counter-space claim, not the door-hardware claim, and that staying the entire action would cause unnecessary delay. The court found that delay alone did not constitute prejudice. It also noted that approximately sixteen other cases in the district involving the same counter practice, and in some instances the same door-hardware practice, were already stayed pending the appeals.

Disposition

Judge Gilliam granted Johnson’s motion to stay and vacated the October 31, 2019 hearing. The case was stayed until completion of the two Ninth Circuit appeals. The parties were directed to submit a joint status report within two court days after an opinion or memorandum disposition in either appeal. If neither appeal had been resolved within 120 days, they were directed to submit a status report updating the court on the appeals’ status. The court did not decide the merits of Johnson’s claims.