1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-00627-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY 9 v. CLOSING CASE

10 QIA SR SAN FRANCISCO OPERATING Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 18 LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff Brian Whitaker alleges that Defendant QIA SR San Francisco Operating LLC 14 violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

et seq. and California’s 15 Unruh Civil Rights Act,

. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which is 16 pending. [Docket No. 8.] At issue in this case is the scope of the regulations implementing the 17 ADA, specifically with respect to reservations systems for lodging facilities. See

36.302(e)(1)(i),

(e)(1)(ii). Those regulations are collectively referred to as the 19 “Reservations Rule.” The Ninth Circuit has yet to interpret the Reservations Rule, but appeals are 20 currently pending in at least two cases. See Love v. Marriott Hotel Srvcs., Inc., No. 20-cv-07137- 21 TSH,

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 21- 15458 (9th Cir. Mar. 22 15, 2021); Garcia v. Gateway Hotel L.P., No. CV 20-10752 PA (GJSx),

(C.D. 23 Cal. Feb. 25, 2021), appeal docketed, No 21-55227 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2021). As the cases on 24 appeal squarely concern the issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint, on September 3, 2021, the court 25 issued an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be stayed pending a Ninth Circuit ruling in one or more of the foregoing cases. [Docket No. 16.] 26 Plaintiff does not oppose a stay of the case pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit 27 1 defeats already suffered by Plaintiff in similar cases shows that he is not likely to prevail, and a 2 loss in this case may deter Plaintiff and his firm from filing similarly weak cases. Defendant also 3 asserts that issuance of a stay will cause it to suffer substantial injury because an open case will be 4 a cloud on its business and must be reported as a contingent liability. Pausing the litigation in 5 order to receive appropriate guidance from the Ninth Circuit is warranted. The pending appeals 6 address the exact issue presented here, and a decision by the Ninth Circuit will “likely … provide 7 substantial guidance, if not new law, that will materially impact the Court’s decision in the instant 8 case.” Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., No. 13-cv-4537-LHK,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9 10, 2014). Putting the case on hold will also serve judicial economy by conserving party and court 10 resources. It will not prejudice Defendant in any meaningful way, especially because for 11 docketing reasons, the court will administratively close this case rather than impose a stay. Any 12 party may reopen this case by filing a notice within 14 days after the Ninth Circuit issues its first 13 mandate in Love and/or Garcia, or any other currently pending Ninth Circuit appeal interpreting the Reservations Rule. 14

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: October 19, 2021 17 ______________________________________ 18 Donna M. Ryu 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27