Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00724/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00724-1/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

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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00724-DMR 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

STARBUCK CORPORATION'S 

MOTION TO STAY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 83, 88

Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) moves to stay this case pending the 

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”)’s decision on its motion to transfer this case, 

along with 20 other similar lawsuits filed by Plaintiff Scott Johnson, to a single district court as a 

multidistrict litigation (“MDL”). [Docket Nos. 83, 88]. Johnson opposes. [Docket No. 98]. This 

matter is suitable for resolution without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, 

the court grants Starbucks’s motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

On February 12, 2016, Johnson filed this action against a number of defendants including 

Starbucks alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the 

Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh”) in connection with the Starbucks facility located in Danville, 

California. Compl. [Docket No. 1]. It is one of 20 federal lawsuits Johnson has filed against 

Starbucks alleging ADA and Unruh violations in connection with California Starbucks facilities.

This case is set for a short bench trial commencing August 27, 2018. Case Management 

and Pretrial Order for Court Trial (“Pretrial Order”) [Docket No. 49]. The parties have completed

fact and expert discovery, aside from expert depositions. [Docket No. 111]. Johnson’s summary 

judgment motion, which was filed on April 19, 2018, is now fully briefed. [Docket Nos. 81, 96, 

97, 103, 104, 105, 106]. 

Case 4:16-cv-00724-DMR Document 115 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 5
2

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

On April 23, 2018, Starbucks filed a motion with the JPML to transfer this action and the 

20 others to a single district for coordination as an MDL. [MDL No. 2849 Docket No. 1]. The 

JPML will hear the motion to transfer on July 26, 2018. [MDL No. 2849 Docket No. 13 (Hearing 

Order)].

Starbucks now moves to stay this action pending a JPML decision. [Docket Nos. 83, 88]. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Although a case is not automatically stayed upon the filing of a motion for transfer and 

coordination before the JPML, a district court has discretion to stay the case through exercise of its 

inherent power. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Rules of 

Procedure of the U.S. J.P.M.L. 2.1(d) (A pending motion before the JPML “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1407 does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial proceedings in any pending federal district 

court action and does not limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that court.”). The court’s discretionary 

power to issue a stay is “ʻincidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition 

of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for 

litigants.’” Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at 1360 (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 

(1936)).

In determining whether to grant a stay pending a JPML motion to transfer, courts consider 

three factors: “(1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the 

moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by 

avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated.” Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at 1360.

III. DISCUSSION 

Applying the Rivers factors, the court finds that they support the issuance of what will 

likely be a brief stay. 

A. Prejudice to Johnson

Johnson does not argue that he will suffer any prejudice as a result of a stay. Moreover, 

any delay resulting from a stay will be minimal because the JPML will hear the transfer motion in 

several weeks, and in “most cases the [JPML] decides the matter before it within a short period 

after arguments are held or after the briefing is completed if the parties waive oral argument.” 

Case 4:16-cv-00724-DMR Document 115 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Multidistrict Litig. Manual § 4:27; see, e.g., Johnson v. Monterey Fish Co., Inc., No. 18-CV01985-BLF, 2018 WL 2387849, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2018) (granting stay where “Johnson 

ha[d] not argued that he would be prejudiced if this Court granted Starbucks[’s] motion”); 

Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., No. 18-CV-01134-MEJ, 2018 WL 2938548, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 

2018) (same). 

B. Hardships to Starbucks

Starbucks initially contends that it will suffer hardship because it will have to respond to 

written discovery before the JPML rules on the transfer motion. [Docket No. 83-1 at 5]. This 

argument does not make sense because the parties have already completed written discovery. In 

its reply, Starbucks clarifies that it will suffer hardship because a ruling on the pending summary 

judgment motion will frustrate the purposes of the JPML transfer motion and create the potential 

for inconsistent rulings with the MDL court. [Docket No. 100 at 4]. 

Johnson contends that no hardship exists because the summary judgment motion is fully 

briefed, so there is no further work required of the parties at this time. He also asserts that there is 

no possibility of inconsistent rulings if this court denies his summary judgment motion. 

The court finds that this factor also supports the issuance of a stay. While the briefing on 

Johnson’s summary judgment is complete, Starbucks asserts that it faces 20 other lawsuits in 

which it must litigate factually identical claims and face the possibility of inconsistent rulings on 

the same or similar pretrial matters. See Segovia v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. CV. NO. 15-

00519 DKW-RLP, 2016 WL 7007482, at *3 (D. Haw. Nov. 30, 2016) (“The potential burden on 

Defendants of having to defend in multiple fora favors entry of a stay pending the decision of the 

JPML.”). Additionally, Starbucks may be forced to re-litigate common issues of liability 

presented by Johnson’s summary judgment before the MDL court if this court denies summary 

judgment. Id.; see also Ann. Manual Complex Litig. § 20.132 (“The transferee [MDL] judge may 

vacate or modify any order of a transferor court including protective orders . . . .”) (4th ed.) 

C. Judicial Economy 

“The most important [stay] factor is judicial economy.” Stuart v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 

No. 1:08-CV-0632 OWW GSA, 2008 WL 11388470, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2008); Rivers, 980 

Case 4:16-cv-00724-DMR Document 115 Filed 06/28/18 Page 3 of 5
4

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

F. Supp. at 1362 n.5 (“[E]ven if a temporary stay could be characterized as a delay that would be 

prejudicial to Defendant, there are still considerations of judicial economy that outweigh any 

prejudice to Defendant.”).

“[I]t is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer 

and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel because of the judicial resources that are 

conserved.” Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at 1362; 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) (Transfers made by the JPML 

“will be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient 

conduct of such actions.”).

The court finds that a brief stay will serve judicial economy. The JPML will soon hear and

decide Starbucks’s transfer motion. A stay will preserve judicial resources if the case is 

transferred for coordinated MDL treatment. If the case is not transferred, this court will simply

resume its work on the case. If Johnson’s summary judgment motion is denied and the case 

proceeds to trial, the court will be able to reset the short bench trial without significant delay. 

Courts that are presiding over two other cases that are part of Starbuck’s motion before the JPML 

have reached a similar conclusion. See, e.g., Johnson, 2018 WL 2387849, at *2 (“[g]ranting a stay 

pending a resolution on Starbucksʼ[s] motion to transfer and consolidate will promote consistency 

and judicial economy”); Johnson, 2018 WL 2938548, at *2 (same).

Additionally, Johnson’s pending summary judgment motion presents common issues of 

liability that may be more efficiently addressed by the MDL court. See Bernstine v. Merck & Co., 

No. S-07-0034 WBS KJM, 2007 WL 1217589, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2007) (“[A] stay, and 

deference to the MDL transferee court, is particularly appropriate when the parties contest issues 

that are ‘likely to arise in other actions pending’ in the consolidated proceedings.”) (citing Conroy 

v. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2004)); see also Ann. 

Manual Complex Litig. § 20.131 (“[T]he pendency of motions raising questions common to 

related actions can itself be an additional justification [to] transfer [a case to the MDL court].”). 

At issue in Johnson’s summary judgment motion is the inaccessibility of the entrance door 

hardware and transaction counters in the Danville Starbucks facility. Mot. for Summ. J. at 1-2, 6-

8 [Docket No. 81-1]. He makes identical allegations about the San Jose and Oakland Starbucks 

Case 4:16-cv-00724-DMR Document 115 Filed 06/28/18 Page 4 of 5
5

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

facilities that are the subject of two of the other lawsuits against Starbucks that are part of the 

JPML transfer motion. See Compl. in Johnson v. Monterey Fish Co., No. 5:18-cv-01985-BLF 

(N.D. Cal.) ¶¶ 23-27 (transaction counter inaccessibility); ¶ 29 (door hardware inaccessibility); 

Compl. in Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., No. 3:18-cv-01134-MEJ (N.D. Cal.) ¶¶ 14-19 (transaction 

counter inaccessibility). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The court grants Starbucks’s motion and stays this case pending the JPML’s resolution of 

Starbucks’s motion to transfer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2018

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:16-cv-00724-DMR Document 115 Filed 06/28/18 Page 5 of 5