Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00734/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00734-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

Case No. 13-CV-00734-LHK 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT KALANI,

Plaintiff,

v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-CV-00734-LHK 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 110

Before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Kalani’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Relief From 

Judgment (“Motion”). ECF No. 110. On July 28, 2015, the Court entered a final Judgment in this 

matter in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Defendant”). ECF No. 

102. After Defendant’s notice of appeal from the Judgment was filed and docketed, Plaintiff filed

the instant Motion, which seeks to amend the Judgment to reflect the specific monetary and 

injunctive relief granted by the Court’s February 25, 2015 Order Granting In Part and Denying In 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“February 25, 2015 Order”), see ECF No. 82, at 

22, and July 28, 2015 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ECF No. 101, at 18–19. 

Defendant opposed the Motion, ECF No. 113, and Plaintiff filed a Reply. ECF No. 114. 

On January 29, 2016, the Court entered an Order Issuing Indicative Ruling on Motion for 

Case 5:13-cv-00734-LHK Document 129 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 13-CV-00734-LHK 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Relief From Judgment Under Rule 60(a) (“Indicative Ruling Order”). ECF No. 123. The Court 

held that it could not correct the Judgment while a docketed appeal was pending, but that it would

likely grant Plaintiff’s Motion and amend the Judgment to include the specific relief provided by

the Court’s February 25, 2015 Order and July 28, 2015 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

if the case were remanded by the Court of Appeals. Indicative Ruling Order, at 4–5. The Court 

also explained the specific form of amended judgment that it would enter on remand. Id., at 8.

On February 16, 2016, after receiving notice of this Court’s Indicative Ruling Order, the 

Court of Appeals remanded this case “for the limited purpose of the district court issuing an order 

on the plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment.” See Kalani v. Starbucks Coffee Co., No. 15-

16710, ECF No. 15, at 1 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2016).

Having considered the parties’ papers, the applicable law, and the record in this case, for 

the reasons set forth in the Court’s Indicative Ruling Order, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

The Court will enter an Amended Judgment as set forth in the Indicative Ruling Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-00734-LHK Document 129 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 2