Johnson v. Fresh Squeezed Akash, LLC

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 7 — SCOTT JOHNSON, 8 Case No. 4:21-cv-05822-YGR Plaintiff, — 9 — v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR 10 TO STAY THE ACTION FRESH SQUEEZED AKASH, LLC, 11 Re: Dkt. No. 15 Defendant. — 12 — — 13 — 14 Defendant Fresh Squeezed Akash, LLC has filed its motion to dismiss, or alternatively, to 15 stay the action. (Dkt. No. 15.) Having read and considered the papers, the motion is DENIED. 16 The Court DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to 17 comply with California’s procedural requirements for high-frequency litigants. See Cal. Code 18 Civ. Proc. §§ 425.55(a)(4)(A), 425.55(b)(1)-(2). Plaintiff’s complaint does not need to meet these 19 state pleading requirements because those requirements are state procedural rules and are not 20 applicable in this Court. Johnson v. Mariani, No. 17-cv-01628-BLF, 2017 WL 2929453 , *2 (N.D. 21 Cal. July 10, 2017) (citing Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in federal court, ‘irrespective of the source of the subject 23 matter jurisdiction, and irrespective of whether the substantive law at issue is state or federal.’” 24 (citation omitted)); Cullen v. Netflix, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (applying 25 federal rules of civil procedure in evaluating a motion to dismiss a disability discrimination 26 complaint); Oliver v. In-N-Out Burgers, 286 F.R.D. 475, 477 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (noting that the 27 provisions of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50 conflict with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) ] The Court also DENIES defendant’s request to stay proceedings pursuant to California Civil 2 || Code section 55.54. Several courts in the Ninth Circuit have held that the ADA preempts the stay 3 || provision applied to ADA claims and that the stay is a procedural rule that does not apply in 4 federal court. See, e.g., Johnson v. Orlando Invs. LLC, Case No. 18-CV-00277-LHK, 2018 U.S. 5 || Dist. LEXIS 133039, at * 2-3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2018) (collecting cases and applying Evie Rail 6 Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)). Defendant has made no showing that a different result 7 || should be reached here.! 8 This Order terminates Dkt. No. 15. 9 IT Is SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 12, 2021 1] YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGER 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — Z 18 — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — %6 ' Counsel is advised to consult General Order Number 56. 07 ? Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that this motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court 9g || VACATES the hearing set for October 26, 2021.