Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00519/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00519-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JAMES SANFORD,

CASE NO. CIV. 05-0519 WBS JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CAPITAL CITY RESTAURANTS, INC.

dba TGI FRIDAY’S #1725; JOHN

A. FORSTER; RICHARD M. FORSTER

TRUST; DANIEL S. FORSTER and

DONNA J. FORSTER, Trustees of

the FORSTER FAMILY TRUST.

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff James Sanford alleges that defendants Capital

City Restaurants, Inc., dba TGI Friday’s #1725, and John A.

Forster and Linda Forster, Trustees of the Forster Family Trust,

violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act

("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12300, and various California

statutes, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §

51 et seq., (“Unruh Act”), and state statutes providing for

access to public facilities, Cal. Civ. Code, § 54 et seq.; Cal.

Case 2:05-cv-00519-WBS -JFM Document 40 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Health & Saf. Code, § 19955 et seq. Defendants move to stay the

proceedings, on the ground that their existing plans to demolish

and rebuild the building that is the subject of this lawsuit will

inevitably render the controversy moot.

Before plaintiff’s complaint was filed in this action,

defendants had previously settled a lawsuit involving ADA

violations at the same restaurant, brought by another plaintiff. 

(Corfee Decl. ¶ 6.) Pursuant to that settlement agreement,

defendants are now in the process of finalizing plans to demolish

the building and to rebuild it to provide disability

accommodation in accordance with the ADA and California law. 

(Id.) However, because defendants have not yet received final

approval of their plans from the Sacramento County Building

Department, and because defendants do not want to begin the

process of demolition and construction until weather conditions

are favorable, it is estimated that construction will not

commence until April. (Id.) (Defs.’ Reply 2.) Defendants

further anticipate that a new restaurant will be open in November

2006 at the earliest. (Id.) 

The court has discretion to stay this action pending

the demolition and reconstruction of the restaurant at issue. In

Landis v. North America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936), the

Court noted that “the 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.” See also Bureerong v.

Uvawas, 167 F.R.D. 83, 87 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (“As a general rule, a

court has the inherent power, in its discretion, to stay civil

Case 2:05-cv-00519-WBS -JFM Document 40 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 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

Although the caselaw providing the standard for 1

granting a stay relates to granting a stay pending the resolution

of other proceedings, the same principle is at work in this case:

a stay would allow the court to postpone decision-making pending

other action that will resolve at least some, if not all, of the

issues in the case. Furthermore, the discretionary authority

courts have in granting stays has been applied to stay an action

simply because it appeared that settlement discussions between

the parties might prove fruitful. EEOC v. Canadian Indemnity

Co., 407 F. Supp. 1366, 1368 (C.D. Cal. 1976). 

3

proceedings ‘when the interests of justice seem[ ] to require

such action.’” (internal citation omitted)).1

In deciding to grant a stay by weighing the competing

interests of the parties, the court should consider the following

factors: (1) the possible damage that may result from the grant

of a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity a party may suffer in

being required to go forward with the case, and (3) the orderly

course of justice—in terms of simplifying or complicating the

issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to

result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th

Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). First, the court

can anticipate no possible damage that would result from the

grant of a stay of such limited duration in this case. Second,

plaintiff conceded in oral argument that a stay of two months is

reasonable; thus, plaintiff clearly does not anticipate that he

will suffer inequity or hardship as the result of a stay. 

Third, the orderly course of justice will clearly be

served by the grant of a stay. Defendants have submitted

declarations that the demolition of the building that is the

subject of the lawsuit will have begun by April 2006. Thus, in

two months, if the restaurant is closed and the building at least

Case 2:05-cv-00519-WBS -JFM Document 40 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 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

4

partially demolished, the federal ADA claims that provide for

injunctive relief will no longer be at issue. When the building

is being demolished and rebuilt, plaintiff will have no legally

cognizable interest in obtaining an injunction against defendants

to do what they are already doing—i.e., ensuring that their

restaurant is in compliance with the ADA. See Powell v.

McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969) (An action is moot “when the

issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a

legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay

proceedings be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and no discovery

shall be conducted in this case until further order of this

court. On or before April 10, 2006, the parties shall submit a

joint status report discussing, inter alia, the progress of the

demolition and/or reconstruction of the premises; and this matter

is set for status conference on April 17, 2006, at 1:30 p.m.

DATED: January 11, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-00519-WBS -JFM Document 40 Filed 01/12/06 Page 4 of 4