Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06842/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06842-0/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, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06842-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 29

Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed the instant case against Defendants Starbucks Corporation, 

440 Geary Owner, L.P., and 440 Geary Owner GP, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as to the transaction counters and entrance door hardware. 

(Amended Compl. ¶¶ 30, 34, Dkt. No. 13.) Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay 

the case, pending resolution of the appeals filed in Johnson v. Blackhawk Centercal and Kong v. 

Mana Investments Company, LLC, which concern the same counter issue as in the instant case. 

(Plf.’s Mot. to Stay, Dkt. No. 29.)

Having considered the parties’ filings and the relevant legal authority, the Court deems this 

matter suitable for disposition without hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS 

the motion to stay.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a disabled individual who alleges that between June 2017 and March 2018, he 

visited the Starbucks at 442 Geary Street, San Francisco. (Amended Compl. ¶¶ 1, 27.) There, 

Defendants placed merchandise and displays on the transaction counters, narrowing the clear 

width of the counters to less than 36 inches. (Amended Compl. ¶¶ 30-31.) Plaintiff also alleges 

that the entrance door hardware had a pull bar style handle that required tight grasping to operate. 

Case 4:18-cv-06842-KAW Document 34 Filed 07/17/19 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

(Amended Compl. ¶ 34.)

On November 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant suit. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On June 

6, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to stay in light of the Blackhawk Centercal and Mana 

Investment appeals, both of which concerned the same counter issue. (Plf.’s Memorandum ISO 

Mot. to Stay, Dkt. No. 29-1.) On June 20, 2019, Defendant Starbucks filed an opposition, on the 

ground that the entrance door hardware was not at issue in the pending appeals. (Starbucks Opp’n, 

Dkt. No. 30.) Defendants 440 Geary Owner, L.P. and 440 Geary Owner GP, L.L.C. did not file an 

opposition. On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed his reply. (Plf.’s Reply, Dkt. No. 31.)

On July 3, 2019, the Court requested supplemental briefing from Defendant Starbucks

regarding whether the case could be settled if the Court was to stay the case as to the countertop 

issue only. (Dkt. No. 32.) On July 9, 2019, Defendant Starbucks filed its supplemental brief, 

stating that “[s]ettlement is not tenable” and “would be futile.” (Def. Starbucks’s Supp., Dkt. No. 

33 at 2.) Defendant Starbucks also stated that it wished to conduct discovery as to Plaintiff’s 

standing to bring both claims, and “would be unfairly prejudiced if it had to wait possibly years 

for the counter issue to be resolved by the Ninth Circuit . . . .” (Id. at 3.) Defendant Starbucks 

thus requested that the Court “relieve the parties of their obligation to participate in mediation and 

allow both claims to proceed simultaneously.” (Id.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental 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.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Whether to stay 

proceedings is entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See id. at 254-55. In deciding 

whether to stay proceedings pending resolution of another action, a district court must weigh 

various competing interests, including the possible damage which may result from granting a stay, 

the hardship a party may suffer if the case is allowed to go forward, and “the orderly course of 

justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 

which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 

(9th Cir. 2005). “If there is ‘even a fair possibility’ of harm to the opposing party, the moving 

Case 4:18-cv-06842-KAW Document 34 Filed 07/17/19 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

party ‘must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to move forward.’” 

Edwards v. Oportun, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1096, 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. 

at 255.) The burden is on the movant to show that a stay is appropriate. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 

U.S. 681, 708 (1997).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court finds that a stay of this case will result in considerable efficiency and 

simplification of the issues, weighing in favor of a stay. See Bay Area Surgical Grp., Inc. v. Aetna 

Life Ins. Co., Case No. 13-cv-5430-EJD, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83152, at *19 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 

2014) (“Efficiency and simplification resulting from the abatement of a federal action may weigh 

in favor of a stay.”). Specifically, there is a pending appeal on the precise issue of Defendant 

Starbucks’s counter practices, which would directly affect any merits determination in the instant 

case. Despite the pending appeal, Defendant Starbucks requests that the entire case go forward, 

which would require discovery and motion practice -- and associated attorney’s fees and costs, as 

well as judicial resources -- on an issue that would almost certainly be resolved by the Ninth 

Circuit’s decision. Moreover, while the instant case concerns the additional issue of the alleged 

door hardware barrier, Defendant Starbucks has made clear that “[a]ttempting to settle Plaintiff’s 

door hardware claim separately from his counter claim is not feasible . . . .” (Def. Starbucks’s 

Supp. at 2.) Thus, while the door hardware issue could be settled should the Court stay the case 

pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit, not staying the case would require that the door hardware 

issue proceed through litigation that could otherwise be avoided.

In contrast, Defendant Starbucks has not demonstrated that it will suffer harm from a stay. 

In its opposition, Defendant Starbucks only states that staying the case would “needlessly delay 

the investigation and adjudication of one of the two barriers that [Plaintiff] allegedly encountered 

in this case,” without identifying any specific harm beyond delay. (Def. Starbucks’s Opp’n at 3.) 

Delay alone is typically insufficient where there is no showing of irreparable damage or injury, 

such as problems with preserving evidence. See CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268-69 (9th 

Cir. 1962) (finding delay in obtaining relief insufficient to show irreparable injury or a miscarriage 

of justice).

Case 4:18-cv-06842-KAW Document 34 Filed 07/17/19 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

In its supplemental brief, Defendant Starbucks for the first time raises its “wish[] to 

conduct discovery while witnesses’ recollection are fresh,” including on whether Plaintiff actually 

visited the stores. (Def. Starbucks’s Supp. at 3.) Defendant Starbucks, however, does not suggest 

that there is a risk that evidence would be lost as a result of a stay. Defendant Starbucks is not 

prohibited from investigating the standing issue on its own, including interviewing its own 

employees. Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff has multiple cases against Starbucks 

regarding the counter issue, and that he has moved to stay those cases pending the Ninth Circuit 

appeal. Defendant Starbucks, in turn, has agreed to stay many of those cases, even though those 

cases present the same standing issue. (E.g., Johnson v. Goodhue, Case No. 16-cv-724-DMR, 

Dkt. No. 162 (Starbucks’s non-opposition to motion to stay); Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., Case 

No. 16-6792-SK, Dkt. No. 77 (same); Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 18-5170-SK, Dkt. 

No. 31 (joint stipulation to stay case pending Blackhawk Centercal appeal); Johnson v. Starbucks 

Corp., Case No. 17-6836-JSC, Dkt. No. 50 (same); Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 18-cv1134-TSH, Dkt. No. 56 (same); Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 18-2782-CRB, Dkt. No. 35 

(same); Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 18-cv-3122-BLF, Dkt. No. 43 (same).)1 Thus, it is 

unclear what irreparable harm Defendant Starbucks will suffer from a delay in discovery when it 

has agreed to stays in similar cases.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that a stay is appropriate in this case. Defendant 

Starbucks’s claimed harm is outweighed by the efficiency and simplification of the issues from a 

stay because the Ninth Circuit decision will likely be determinative of the counter issue. 

Requiring the case to proceed will result in the parties engaging in discovery that may be avoided, 

as well as the expenditure of limited judicial resources for a merits rulings that may be abrogated 

by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

///

///

///

 

1 This is not an exhaustive list. There appear to be five other cases in which Defendant Starbucks 

has stipulated to a stay or filed a non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to stay.

Case 4:18-cv-06842-KAW Document 34 Filed 07/17/19 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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to stay. Within 

fourteen days of a resolution of the appeals, the parties shall submit a joint status report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-06842-KAW Document 34 Filed 07/17/19 Page 5 of 5