Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02454/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02454-4/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a 

Washington Corporation, and DOES 1–10, 

Defendants. /

No. C 17-02454 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

TO AMEND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

In this action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, plaintiff moves to

amend a prior order. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED. 

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Scott Johnson initiated this matter in April 2017 against defendant Starbucks

Corporation, alleging violations of the Americans with Disability Act and the Unruh Civil

Rights Act at a Starbucks store in Danville, California. In an August 8 discovery letter brief,

defendant argued that plaintiff had withheld evidence related to plaintiff’s standing to sue in this

action. An August 16 order set an evidentiary hearing related to the parties’ discovery dispute. 

Specifically, the August 16 order explained that the evidentiary hearing would cover (1) any

pattern or practice by plaintiff of bringing ADA lawsuits without visiting the businesses sued,

and (2) the number of times plaintiff visited the Starbucks location at issue in this case. On

September 10, the Court held a three-hour evidentiary hearing at which five witnesses testified. 

A September 11 order made certain factual findings based on the evidence presented at the

Case 3:17-cv-02454-WHA Document 83 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff now moves to correct the September 11 order under Rule 60(a),

proposing three changes (Dkt. Nos. 1, 58, 64, 71, 76). 

This order follows full briefing. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), this order finds plaintiff’s

motion suitable for submission without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing

scheduled for October 25.

ANALYSIS

Under Rule 60(a), “[t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from

oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” 

While the rule allows for correction of clerical errors and oversights, it does not permit

correction of substantive mistakes. In Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 n.2 (9th Cir.

1987) (emphasis in original), our court of appeals explained:

The basic distinction between “clerical mistakes” and mistakes that

cannot be corrected pursuant to Rule 60(a) is that the former consist of

“blunders in execution” whereas the latter consist of instances where

the court changes its mind, either because it made a legal or factual

mistake in making its original determination, or because on second

thought it has decided to exercise its discretion in a manner different

from the way it was exercised in the original determination.

Plaintiff moves to correct the September 11 order in three ways. First, the September 11

order found:

Plaintiff’s investigatory practices have also included authorizing his

assistants to look for violations of disability laws while traveling on

personal vacations, even though plaintiff was not himself present, so

that plaintiff could send demand letters to those establishments.

Plaintiff argues that because he did not receive money as a result of these letters, the

phrase “demand letters” is an unfair characterization. Plaintiff further argues that describing

these letters as having been sent “even though plaintiff was not present” suggests that plaintiff

did something “illicit.” Second, without pointing to any particular language, plaintiff argues that

the September 11 order “gives the impression” that the testimony presented at the September 10

hearing surrounded his current business practices. Third, plaintiff argues that use of the term

“drive-by” is pejorative in the context of ADA lawsuits and “implies a behavior that was not

established or explored at the hearing.” 

Case 3:17-cv-02454-WHA Document 83 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

The September 11 order’s findings are fully supported by the record. These requested

changes, in any event, are based on purportedly factual or legal mistakes. As such, the changes

fall beyond the scope of clerical mistakes and oversights permitted under Rule 60(a). See

Blanton, 813 F.2d at 1577. Given that plaintiff moves to correct the September 11 order only

under Rule 60(a), his motion must be DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion under Rule 60(a) is DENIED. The

October 25 hearing is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2018. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-02454-WHA Document 83 Filed 10/16/18 Page 3 of 3