Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00123/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00123-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18cv123 JM (NLS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA FE SHOPPING DEPOT, LTD, a 

California Limited Partnership; 

RICHARD S. GOETZ & COMPANY, 

INC., a California Corporation; TROPHY 

PROPERTIES, INC., a California 

Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv123 JM (NLS)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

APPLICATION FOR STAY AND 

EARLY EVALUATION 

CONFERENCE

Defendants Santa Fe Shopping Depot, Ltd., Richard S. Goetz & Company, Inc., and 

Trophy Properties, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) request a stay and early evaluation 

conference.1

 (Doc. No. 10.) For the following reasons, the court denies the application. 

Plaintiff Jose Estrada initiated this action against Defendants for alleged violations 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and 

 

1 Defendants failed to obtain a hearing date for this application pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 7.1(b). The court cautions Defendants to observe all local and chambers rules 

throughout the remainder of this action or risk sanctions under Civil Local Rule 83.1. 

Case 3:18-cv-00123-JM-NLS Document 11 Filed 04/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv123 JM (NLS)

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

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51–53. Defendants request 

a stay pursuant to California Civil Code section 55.54. “This provision outlines a 

mandatory procedural requirement for a state court to order a 90–day stay of proceedings 

and set a mandatory early evaluation conference between 21 and 50 days after the order is 

issued in cases involving certain types of construction-related accessibility claims.” Oliver 

v. Hot Topic, Inc., 2010 WL 4261473, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2010) (citing Cal. Civ. 

Code § 55.54). 

California Civil Code section 55.54 does not apply to Plaintiff’s ADA claims 

because federal law preempts it. “[F]or federal law to preempt state law, it is not necessary 

that a federal statute expressly state that it preempts state law. Federal law preempts state 

law if the state law ‘actually conflicts’ with federal law.” Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, 554 

F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2009). Because the ADA does not provide for a mandatory stay 

and early evaluation conference, it conflicts with federal law. Therefore, the court denies 

Defendants’ application as to the ADA claims. 

When hearing state law claims, federal courts apply state substantive law and federal 

procedural law. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). “Whether a state law is 

procedural or substantive depends on whether the application of the state law will 

‘significantly affect the result of the litigation’—the outcome determination test.” Oliver, 

2010 WL 4261473, at *1 (citing Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 

1090 (9th Cir.2001)) (emphasis in original). Here, neither the stay of proceedings nor the 

early evaluation conference are outcome determinative, instead affecting scheduling. 

Accord Daubert v. City of Lindsay, 37 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1180 (E.D. Cal. 2014).

Accordingly, Defendants’ application for a stay of proceedings and an early 

evaluation conference is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 6, 2018 

JEFFREY T. MILLER

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00123-JM-NLS Document 11 Filed 04/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2