KALANI v. MOTHER LODE REAL INVESTORS, 2:12-cv-00212-MCE-EFB. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120802655
Visitors: 27
Filed: Aug. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. The Court is in receipt of the Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference (ECF No. 8) filed by Defendant Mother Lode Real Investors ("Defendant"). Plaintiff's Application is based upon the mandates included within California's Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act ("Act"), California Civil Code 55.51-55.54. However, "the Act is preempted to the extent it applies to plaintiff's ADA claim." O'Campo
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. The Court is in receipt of the Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference (ECF No. 8) filed by Defendant Mother Lode Real Investors ("Defendant"). Plaintiff's Application is based upon the mandates included within California's Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act ("Act"), California Civil Code 55.51-55.54. However, "the Act is preempted to the extent it applies to plaintiff's ADA claim." O'Campo ..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
The Court is in receipt of the Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference (ECF No. 8) filed by Defendant Mother Lode Real Investors ("Defendant"). Plaintiff's Application is based upon the mandates included within California's Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act ("Act"), California Civil Code §§ 55.51-55.54. However, "the Act is preempted to the extent it applies to plaintiff's ADA claim." O'Campo v. Chico Mall, LP, 758 F.Supp.2d 976, 985 (E.D. Cal. 2010). In addition, the Court now finds that application of the Act to Plaintiff's state claims in this federal forum is not warranted. See id. (holding that no stay or early settlement conference was warranted as to state law claims pending in federal court when state provisions were not outcome determinative under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Application is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
