Johnson v. Fresh Squeezed Akash, LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-05822
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Fresh Squeezed Akash, LLC, Judge Rogers denied dismissal and a stay, ruling California’s high-frequency-litigant procedures do not apply in federal court.
Scott Johnson and Fresh Squeezed Akash, LLC; the court denied the defendant’s requests to dismiss the complaint or stay the action under the cited California procedures.
What happened
In Johnson v. Fresh Squeezed Akash, LLC, Fresh Squeezed Akash, LLC asked the court to dismiss Scott Johnson’s complaint or pause the case. The requests were based on California procedural requirements for certain high-frequency litigants and a state-law stay provision.
The court held that the state pleading requirements are procedural rules that do not apply in federal court. It also stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act prevents applying the state-law stay provision to disability claims in federal court, and that the defendant had not shown why this case should be different.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the motion to dismiss and the alternative request to stay the action. The order terminated the motion and vacated the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Fresh Squeezed Akash, LLC · No. 4:21-cv-05822
- Yvonne Rogers
- Oct. 12, 2021
Background
Fresh Squeezed Akash, LLC moved to dismiss Scott Johnson’s complaint or, alternatively, to stay the action. The motion argued that Johnson had not complied with California procedural requirements for “high-frequency litigants,” citing California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(a)(4)(A) and 425.55(b)(1)–(2). The defendant also requested a stay under California Code of Civil Procedure section 55.54.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied the requested dismissal because the California pleading requirements are state procedural rules and do not apply in federal court. The court relied on decisions holding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern proceedings in federal court, regardless of whether the claims arise under state or federal law.
The court also denied the request for a stay. It explained that several Ninth Circuit courts had held that the Americans with Disabilities Act preempts the state stay provision when applied to disability claims, and that the stay provision is a procedural rule that does not apply in federal court. The defendant did not show why a different result should apply here.
Disposition
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the motion to dismiss and denied the alternative request to stay the action. The order terminated Docket No. 15. The court also vacated the hearing scheduled for October 26, 2021, finding that the motion was suitable for decision without oral argument.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.