IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 7, 2010
SCOTT N. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
JANICE M. CONROY, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A WHISKEY DICKS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On August 6, 2010, plaintiff filed this action, which as a general
matter seeks recovery pursuant to Title III of the Americans With
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the California Civil Code.*fn1
(Dkt. No. 1.) On October 22, 2010, defendant Raymond W.
Hadley filed an "Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference
Pursuant to [California] Civil Code
55.54" on what appears to be a Judicial Council of California form. (Dkt. No. 12.) Mr. Hadley's filing seeks a stay of proceedings because the site in question has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist and an inspection report has been issued.
As a general matter, this court follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which do not provide for the stay and Early Evaluation Conference procedures available under California Civil Code § 55.54. See O'Campo v. Chico Mall, LP, No. CIV. S-10-1105 LKK/CMK, 2010 WL 3220141, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010) (unpublished) (concluding that the ADA preempts the stay and Early Evaluation Conference procedures provided for in California Civil Code § 55.54 insofar as federal ADA claims were concerned and denying motion to the extent it would seek application of those procedures to supplemental state law claims). Accordingly, Mr. Hadley's request for a stay and Early Evaluation Conference is denied.
However, the undersigned construes Mr. Hadley's request as an initial ex parte application for an extension of time to file an answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's complaint filed pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 144(c).*fn2 The undersigned grants Mr. Hadley an additional 14 days in which to file an answer or other responsive document.*fn3 Any further stay or extension should be sought through a noticed motion that conforms with the requirements of this court's Local Rules, or through a stipulation and proposed order that conforms with the court's Local Rules.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Raymond W. Hadley's motion for a stay (Dkt. No. 12) is denied.
2. Defendant shall have 14 days from the date of service of this order in which to file an answer or other responsive pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED.