Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02617/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02617-1/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

14-cv-2617-L-JLB

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

SCOTT SCHUTZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES 

CALIFORNIA, LLC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14-cv-2617-L-JLB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

JOINT MOTION TO STAY ACTION

On February 17, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings. 

("Stay Order," doc. no. 34). This action was stayed while related cases were pending 

before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Stay Order required 

the parties to file a joint status report addressing good cause for the stay to continue. The 

status report was due no later than seven (7) calendar days after the mandate issued by the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in any one of the five cases -- Karczewski v. K Motors, 

Inc., case no. 15-55588; Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley LLC, case no. 15-55633; 

Schutza v. Courtesy Chevrolet Center, case no. 15-55631; Schutza v. FRN of San Diego, 

case no. 15-55704; or Karczewski v. Conant Auto Retail, San Diego, Inc., case no. 15-

55893, but no later than one (1) year from the date the Stay Order was signed. 

Case 3:14-cv-02617-L-JLB Document 45 Filed 10/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

14-cv-2617-L-JLB

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

Upon timely filed status report showing good cause, the stay was extended on 

February 28, 2017 ("Second Stay Order," doc. no. 41). The Second Stay Order required 

he parties to file another joint status report no later than seven (7) calendar days after the 

mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in any one of the five cases, but no 

later than six (6) months from the date the order was signed. The Second Stay Order 

advised the parties that the stay would automatically terminate in the absence of a timely 

status report showing good cause for the stay to continue.

On August 1, 2017, mandate was issued in three of the cases -- Karczewski v. K 

Motors, Inc., Schutza v. FRN of San Diego, and Karczewski v. Conant Auto Retail, San 

Diego, Inc. In the absence of a timely status report, the stay was lifted on August 16, 

2017. (See Order, doc. no. 42.)

On October 30, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay Action (doc. no. 44) 

seeking to reinstate the stay. They offer no reason for failing to comply with the Second 

Stay Order, but request to reinstate the stay because in two of the cases, Karczewski v. 

DCH Mission Valley LLC, and Schutza v. Courtesy Chevrolet Center, the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals granted motions to stay the mandate pending petition for writ of 

certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The stay issued by the Ninth Circuit is set 

to expire on November 15, 2017, unless a timely petition for certiorari is filed.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Joint Motion to Stay Action (doc. no. 44) is granted in part.

2. This action is stayed and all court dates are vacated through November 20, 

2017.

3. No later than November 20, 2017, the parties shall file a joint status report 

either informing the Court that the stay should be lifted or showing good cause to 

continue the stay. The showing of good cause shall include a discussion of how the 

issues presented to the Supreme Court in Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley LLC, and 

Schutza v. Courtesy Chevrolet Center, are relevant to the disposition of claims asserted 

herein.

Case 3:14-cv-02617-L-JLB Document 45 Filed 10/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

14-cv-2617-L-JLB

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

4. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in sanctions pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 83.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-02617-L-JLB Document 45 Filed 10/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3