Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02671/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02671-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 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 06cv2671 BTM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURIZIO ANTONINETTI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 06cv2671 BTM (WMc)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. REIMPOSE STAY

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,

Defendant.

On August 19, 2010, the Court lifted the stay on this case, which had been stayed

pending the resolution of a related case, 05-cv-1660, filed by Plaintiff individually, involving

similar issues. (Dock. 38) Defendant moves to reimpose the stay. For the following

reasons, this motion is DENIED.

Defendant originally asserted two grounds to reimpose the stay: (1) because the

Ninth Circuit could modify or vacate its Order in response to Defendant’s petition for a

rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc; and (2) because the Ninth Circuit had not

yet issued a mandate pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 41. (Dock. 41) Neither of these grounds

are now salient. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc

on September 22, 2010 and filed the mandate on October 14, 2010. Nevertheless, following

the issuance of this opinion and mandate, Defendant filed a supplemental memorandum

asserting that the stay should be reimposed “until the district court issues its final rulings” on

issues that the Ninth Circuit held should be determined on remand. (Dock. 51)

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 54 Filed 10/27/10 Page 1 of 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

2 06cv2671 BTM (WMc)

Defendant’s supplemental memorandum is not persuasive. In the Joint Motion for

Stay, the Parties agreed that a stay was necessary because the Ninth Circuit was to rule on

two issues that would be binding on the Court and outcome-determinative: “whether the wall

in front of Chipotle’s food preparation counters is compliant with the requirements of Title

III of the Americans With Disabilities Act. . . , and whether ‘Chipotle’s Customers With

Disabilities Policy’ constitutes an equivalent facilitation under ADAAG Sections 2.2 and

7.2(2)(iii).” (Dock. 31) These two issues have now been decided by the Ninth Circuit.

Although two of the three issues to be decided on remand (the scope of an injunction against

Chipotle and additional damages under the California Disabled Persons Act) may be binding

on the Parties in the instant action, at the very least, their resolution will not impact class

certification issues. Accordingly, a reimposed stay will not be in the interest of judicial

economy. 

Thus, the stay shall remain lifted and discovery shall be conducted such that there is

no duplication of effort on issues to be determined on remand in the related single-plaintiff

case. The Magistrate Judge shall schedule a telephonic status conference. The Parties may

discuss their discovery plans at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 27, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB Document 54 Filed 10/27/10 Page 2 of 2