Orlando Garcia L&O Aliso Viejo, LLC
8:21-cv-00418
C.D. Cal.Jun 2, 2021Background
- Plaintiff (Garcia) sued hotel defendants under the ADA and California's Unruh Act, alleging the hotel reservation website failed to provide required accessibility information under 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e) (the "Reservations Rule").
- The complaint was removed to federal court; the Court sua sponte addressed whether to stay the action.
- Four substantially similar cases brought by the same counsel challenging hotel reservation websites are on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, raising the same legal question about the Reservations Rule.
- District courts in those related cases granted defendants' motions to dismiss (with prejudice), and the appeals are likely to resolve the controlling legal issue.
- The Court concluded the Ninth Circuit’s forthcoming decisions will directly affect this case and therefore ordered the parties to show cause within five days why this action should not be stayed.
- The Court vacated the scheduled June 4, 2021 scheduling conference pending the parties’ responses or a stipulation to stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay this action pending resolution of related Ninth Circuit appeals | Proceed now; merits can be resolved here and delay harms plaintiff (implicit) | Stay is appropriate because Ninth Circuit rulings will be controlling and could dispose of or narrow issues | Court ordered parties to show cause within five days why the case should not be stayed; a stipulation to stay would suffice |
| Whether to proceed with pretrial scheduling while appeals pending | Oppose delay of scheduling (implicit) | Support vacatur until appeals resolved | Court vacated the June 4, 2021 scheduling conference |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (trial court has inherent power to stay proceedings)
- Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) (district court may stay an action pending resolution of independent proceedings that bear on the case)
- CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) (stay decision is within district court's sound discretion and requires balancing competing interests)