Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01074/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01074-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

CHRIS LANGER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1074 JM(KSC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STAY AND FOR EARLY

EVALUATION CONFERENCE

vs.

3320 KEMPER STREET, LLC,

Defendant.

Pursuant to California Civil Code §55.54, Defendant 3320 Kemper Street, LLC

(“Kemper”) moves to stay this action and for an early evaluation conference. Plaintiff

Chris Langer opposes the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court findsthe

matters presented appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set

forth below, the court deniesthe motion to stay and for an early evaluation conference.

BACKGROUND

On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff, a California resident with physical disabilities,

commenced this federal question action against Kemper by alleging four claims for

relief: (1) violation of the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”); (2) violation of the

Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) violation of the California Disabled Persons Act; and (4)

negligence. 

In broad brush, Plaintiff alleges that he visited Kemper’s property and

encountered “inaccessible conditions [that] denied Plaintiff full and equal access and

caused him difficulty.” (Compl. ¶13). Specifically, he alleges that accessible parking

- 1 - 14cv1074

Case 3:14-cv-01074-JM-KSC Document 14 Filed 08/05/14 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

spaces once existed at the location but that the paint had faded “beyond recognition.”

(Compl. ¶11). All of Plaintiff’s claims arise from the allegation of faded paint marking

the disability parking space(s).

DISCUSSION

Kemper seeks to stay the proceedings and for an early evaluation conference. 

Under the Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act

(“CRASCA”), defendants in construction-related accessibility actions may obtain a

stay and an early evaluation conference for the lawsuit. Cal. Civil Code §55.54(b)(1). 

This provision, however, does not apply to ADA claims because it conflicts with

federal law. See Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 280-81 (1987);

O’Campo v. Chico Mall, LP, 758 F.2d 976, 984-85 (E.D. Cal. 2010). 

The state procedures identified in CRASCA are procedural in scope. Under the

Erie doctrine, the procedural provisions of CRASCA do not apply to state claims when

such claims are filed in federal court. See Moreno v. Town and Country Liquors, 2012

WL 2960049 *4 (E.D. Cal. 2012). Accordingly, the court denies the motion to stay 1

and for an early evaluation conference.

In sum, the court denies the motion to stay and for an early evaluation

conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2014

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

The court notes that Kemper’s motion for an evaluation conference is moot

1

because, pursuant to Local Rules, an early neutral evaluation (“ENE”) will be

conducted once an answer is filed. As Kemper filed an answer on June 10, 2014, the

ENE will be scheduled shortly.

- 2 - 14cv1074

Case 3:14-cv-01074-JM-KSC Document 14 Filed 08/05/14 Page 2 of 2