Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00382/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00382-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AMI Winepress, L.P.
Defendant
Edo-Ya Tokyo Cuisine
Defendant
Ishihara-Liang, Inc.
Defendant
Arthur Owens
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR OWENS,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ISHIHARA-LIANG, Inc., dba EDO-YA 

TOKYO CUISINE and AMI WINEPRESS, 

L.P.,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-00382 LJO SMS

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

ISHIHARA LIANG’S APPLICATION 

FOR STAY AND EARLY 

EVALUATION CONFERENCE (Doc. 7)

This is a civil rights action by Plaintiff Arthur Owens for discrimination that allegedly occurred 

at Edo-Ya Tokyo Cuisine, located at 3050 West Shaw Avenue in Fresno, California. Plaintiff brings this 

action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and 

related California statutes.

Before the Court is Defendant Ishihara-Liang’s application for a stay of proceedings and early 

conference pursuant to California Civil Code § 55.54. Doc. 7. Under California law, the Construction–

Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 55.51–55.54, “entitles some 

defendants in construction-related accessibility suits to a stay and [an early] evaluation conference for 

the lawsuit.” O’Campo v. Chico Mall, LP, 758 F. Supp. 2d 976, 983 (E.D.Cal.2010) (citing Cal. Civ.

Code § 55.54(b)(1)). However, section 55.54’s provisions are preempted by the ADA and cannot be 

applied to Plaintiff’s claim, “to the extent that it imposes any additional procedural hurdles to a plaintiff 

bringing a claim under the ADA.” See id. at 984; see also Lamark v. Laiwalla, No. CIV. 2:12-3034 

WBS, 2013 WL 3872926, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2013); and Moreno v. Town & Country Liquors, No. 

2:12–CV00729 JAM KJM, 2012 WL 2960049, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2012).

Case 1:16-cv-00382-LJO-SMS Document 9 Filed 05/04/16 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

2

It further appears that all California federal courts to have considered the issue have found that, 

under Erie Rail Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), and related cases, a federal court should not apply 

the procedures of California Civil Code section 55.54 to supplemental state law claims because its 

provisions are not outcome determinative. See Moreno, 2012 WL 2960049, at *4; O’Campo, 758 

F.Supp.2d at 985; Oliver v. Hot Topic, Inc., 10CV1111 BEN AJB, 2010 WL 4261473, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 

July 27, 2010). Further, Defendants would be subjected to the same discovery and other processes with 

or without the stay as Plaintiff’s ADA claim proceeds, making a stay of the state claims meaningless.

Moreno, 2012 WL 2960049, at *4.

Although the court may also stay an action under its inherent power “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), Defendant has not made a sufficient showing that a stay would 

be appropriate in this case. The court will accordingly deny Defendants’ motion to stay plaintiff’s ADA 

and state law claims.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s application for a stay and early 

evaluation conference, Doc. 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00382-LJO-SMS Document 9 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2