Rutherford v. JC Resorts, LLC

Opinion

oe FILED NOV 05 2019 sola bap Ocala 5 6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9]] SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual, | Case No.: 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS 2 ———-Plaintitt,) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 13 || v. MOTION TO STAY 14 || JC RESORTS, LLC, a Delaware limited 15 || liability company, and DOES 1 to. 50, | Poe No- I 16 Defendants. . . □ 17 18 Before the Court is Defendant JC Resorts, LLLC’s (“Defendant”) motion to stay the 19. proceedings in this matter pending resolution of State of California v. James Rutherford, 20 et al (RIC 1902577)(San Diego Superior Court) and Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gil, (2017 21 |lU.S. Dist. LEXIS 90204)(S.D. Fla. June 13, 2017). Plaintiff James Rutherford 22 ||(“Plaintiff’) filed a brief in opposition. (Doc. No. 10.) For the reasons set forth below, 23 the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. 24 BACKGROUND On February 27, 2019, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant to enforce 26 the public accommodation accessibility requirements (“Title IIT”) of the Americans with 27 || Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (“ADA”). (Doc. No. 1-2.) Based on his January 10, 2019, attempt to use Defendant’s website to view the accessible features of the Rancho 1 1 Bernardo hotel and guest rooms in San Diego, California, Plaintiff seeks entry of 2 |}injunctive and declaratory relief and an award of his attorney fees and costs. /d. at 10-12. 3 April 9, 2019, Defendant removed the suit to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant 4 |j filed its answer on April 10, 2019, denying its website violates the ADA and alleging this 5 ||/action is “moot” because it’s website complies with all applicable standards (ifany 6 || exists), and it is usable/accessible to persons with disabilities. (Doc. No. 2 at 9.) 7 Furthermore, even if it is not compliant, Plaintiff’s claims are moot due to unclean hands 8 numerous other legal/procedural defects in the case. Id. The Defendant also filed a 9 ||motion to stay this action on July 10, 2019. (Doc. No. 9.) Defendant seeks to stay this 10. || action pending resolution of a lawsuit filed by the State of California against Plaintiff and 11 j|his counsel for intentionally and fraudulently engaging in a scheme to extort money from 12 120 Riverside County Businesses and individuals by filing illicit ADA lawsuits 13 against them. Id. at 5. Additionally, Defendant seeks to stay this action pending 14 ||resolution of an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals case dealing with the applicability of 15 ||the ADA to websites. Jd. at 9. Plaintiff filed a response opposing the motion to stay. 16 ||(Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff argues a stay will unfairly prejudice him and result in needless 17 || delay in resolving the claims at bar. See Id. 18 : LEGALSTANDARD 19 A court’s decision to grarit a stay is discretionary, “dependent upon the 20 ||circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 432 (2009). The 21 |)movant bears the burden of showing the circumstances justifying a stay. Jd. at 433-34; 22 Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). A court may stay proceedings incidental 23 ||to its power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time 24 and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 US. 248, 25 (1936). 26 To determine if a stay should be granted, the court weighs “the competing interests 27 || of the parties, considering: (1) the possible damage that may result from the grant of a 28 || stay, (2) the hardship or inequity a party may suffer in being required to go forward with 5 □ 1 ||the case, and (3) the orderly course of justice.” Wallis v. Centennial Ins. Co., No. 2:08- 2 ||cv-02558 WBS, 2012 WL 292982, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012) (citing CMAS, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). □□ 4 While judicial economy is a factor, the decision to issue a stay “does not hinge” on 5 ||case management concerns alone. ASUSTek Comput. Inc. v. Ricoh Co., No. 07-cv-01942 6 || MHP, 2007 WL 4190689, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2007) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 7 ||255). Moreover, if there is “‘even a fair possibility’ of harm to the opposing party, the 8 moving party “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to 9 |\|move forward.’” Edwards v. Oportun, Inc., 193 F, Supp. 3d 1096, 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2016) 10 || (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.) . DISCUSSION 12 |] | The Defendant argues that a stay of this action will promote the “interests of 13 justice, fairness, and efficiency” because awaiting resolution of (1) The People of the 14 State of California v. James Rutherford et al., Case No. RIC 1902577 (Riverside Civil 15 || Action”), could limit the triable issues or completely moot the present litigation, and (2) || Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gil, an Eleventh Circuit case dealing with the applicability of 17 ||the ADA to websites would provide significant guidance on what is required under the 18 ADA.' Defendant further argues that unnecessary, repetitive, and. “costly litigation” will 19 || be avoided—particularly unnecessary attorneys” fees and expert costs—if the action is 20 |) stayed “pending completion” of the State’s case against Plaintiff. 21 In response, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s motion is nothing more than the 22 \|efforts of a desperate tortfeasor to draw attention away from its unlawful conduct, and 23 |/instead an attempt to put the aggrieved disabled plaintiff and his counsel on trial because 24 ||(1) the unverified Riverside Civil Action Defendant references in its motion has already 25 || been fully disposed of on Demurrer (without leave to amend), and (2) to stay this matter 27 08 I Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gil, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90204 (S.D. Fla June 13, 2017), Court of Appeals Case No. 1:16-cv-23020-RNS.

pending the outcome of an Eleventh Circuit case related to issues already addressed by 2 || binding 9th Circuit case law in Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 3 ||2017), is meritless and inapposite. (Doc. No. 20 at 3-4.) . 4 After considering all of the relevant factors, the record, and the parties’ arguments, ‘5 Court declines to stay the action at this stage in the proceedings. Plaintiff's 6 || opposition convincingly refutes the motion. In light of this, a stay of the action is not 7 || appropriate at this time. 8 CONCLUSION. 9 ||. For the reasons set forth above, the motion-to stay the litigation is DENIED. 10 |} IT IS SO ORDERED. . . pac Sb asm a We 3 | AH ER T. Z nited States District Jdge 14 . 15 16 18 19 oe □ 20 21 22 || - 23 24 25 26 .

27 28 4 oe