Johnson v. Deanza Square Shopping Center, L.P.

Background

Scott Johnson sued Deanza Square Shopping Center, L.P., John T. Vidovich, and Kalika Foods LLC. He alleged that barriers at a restaurant owned by Kalika Foods LLC, located on property owned by Deanza Square Shopping Center, L.P. and Vidovich, violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act. All defendants had answered the complaint.

Deanza Square Shopping Center, L.P. and Vidovich—the “Moving Defendants”—asked the court to stay, or pause, this case while a case in California state court was resolved. That state case was brought by district attorneys and alleged that Potter Handy, LLP had violated state statutes through certain ADA and Unruh Act lawsuits. Potter Handy represented Johnson in this case. Johnson was identified in the state-court complaint but was not a party to that case.

Legal Standard

The court explained that it has authority to stay proceedings. In deciding whether to do so, it considered the possible hardship to the Moving Defendants if the stay were denied and whether a stay would promote the orderly and efficient resolution of the issues, evidence, and legal questions. A stay should not be granted unless the other proceeding is likely to end within a reasonable time compared with the urgency of the claims in the federal case.

Reasons for Denying the Stay

The court found that the Moving Defendants had not shown that a stay would promote judicial efficiency. The state case had been filed around April 11, 2022, and was still in its early stages. Johnson asserted that the complaint had not yet been served, and the Moving Defendants did not refute that assertion. The Moving Defendants also gave the court no reason to believe that the state case would be resolved within the period they proposed.

The court further found that the Moving Defendants had not explained how the remedies that might be awarded to the state-court plaintiffs would directly affect Johnson’s case. None of the parties in this case was a party to the state case. As a result, it was unclear whether waiting for the state case would promote judicial economy.

The court also weighed the parties’ competing interests slightly in favor of denying the stay. Johnson sought injunctive relief, meaning a court order requiring action, in addition to any monetary relief. The Moving Defendants did not show that delaying the case would not harm him. Although they argued that they would have to defend one of hundreds of ADA cases pending in the district, the court stated that the ordinary burden of defending a lawsuit was not, by itself, a clear hardship or inequity. The court also noted that the case was subject to General Order 56, which encourages cooperation and efficient resolution of ADA claims. The defendants had already answered, and a joint site inspection had occurred.

Disposition

The court declined to exercise its discretion to stay the case and DENIED the motion to stay. The deadlines under General Order 56 remained in place. The order addressed the request to pause the proceedings; it did not decide the underlying ADA or Unruh Act allegations.