Michael Harrison v. Auto Detail Supply Pros et al

Filing 36

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SANCTIONS AND STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT 32 by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. The Court also orders Plaintiff to show cause by October 2, 2024, why he and his counsel should not be sanctioned for filing the amended complaint . In responding, Plaintiff shall explain the nonfrivolous legal basis for filing an amended complaint that (1) includes a dismissed claim (i.e., the Unruh Act claim); (2) includes original defendants in the caption without any allegations against them; (3) includes new defendants and a new location (such that the pleading appears to be the functional equivalent of a new lawsuit that should have been brought separately). Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HARRISON,

Case No. 8:24-cv-01088-SB-KES

Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
SANCTIONS AND STRIKING
AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT.
NO. 32]

v.
AUTO DETAIL SUPPLY PROS et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff filed a complaint May 23, 2024, raising claims under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act based on allegations that
Defendants—Auto Detail Supply Pros, Britos Transportation Inc., Alma Alejandra
Brito, Bertha Prado, and Ramon Prado—failed to maintain adequate parking
facilities at a premises located at 1117 S. Main St. #D, Santa Ana, California
92707 that impeded Plaintiff’s access. Dkt. No. 6. The Court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissed it. Dkt. No. 19.
After Defendants failed to respond to the complaint as required, the clerk entered
default against them on August 30 at Plaintiff’s request. Dkt. Nos. 22–27. The
Court then ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment by October 4.
Dkt. Nos. 28–30.
Instead, on September 24, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed two defendants (Bertha
Prado and Ramon Prado), Dkt. No. 31, and filed an amended complaint that adds
two defendants (OC Select Auto Sales and OC Select, Inc. (OC Select
Defendants)) and brings ADA and Unruh Act claims, Dkt. No. 32. Beyond
disregarding the Court’s order dismissing the Unruh Act claim in the original
complaint, the amended complaint includes no allegations about the premises at
1117 S. Main St. or any conduct by Defendants named in the original complaint.
Id. Rather, it alleges only that the newly added OC Select Defendants did not
provide ADA-compliant parking at a different premises, located at 1731 W. 1st St.,
1

Santa Ana, California 92703. Id. ¶¶ 8–10. The complaint does not allege any
relationship between the original and new Defendants or any relationship between
the original and new premises.
The Court strikes the amended complaint as improper. First, the amended
complaint appears to bring a new lawsuit in an existing case—it keeps the original
Defendants in the caption but raises allegations only against new defendants of
ADA violations at a different location. Cf. Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google
LLC, No. 5:20-CV-04700, 2024 WL 1973486, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2024)
(denying leave to amend because “the amended complaint would essentially
constitute a new lawsuit”). Second, to the extent the original Defendants remain in
this case, the OC Select Defendants appear to be improperly joined under Rule 20
because the claims against the original and new Defendants arise out of barriers to
access at distinct premises. See Welk v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:18-CV-3008,
2019 WL 4745272, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 2:18-CV-3008, 2020 WL 568888 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2020) (finding
ADA claims challenging denial of accommodations at different facilities
improperly joined); Richardson v. Diaz, No. 2:20-CV-8030-JLS, 2021 WL
4773175, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2021) (same as to claims challenging conditions
at separate facilities).
The Court also orders Plaintiff to show cause by October 2, 2024, why he
and his counsel should not be sanctioned for filing the amended complaint. In
responding, Plaintiff shall explain the nonfrivolous legal basis for filing an
amended complaint that (1) includes a dismissed claim (i.e., the Unruh Act claim);
(2) includes original defendants in the caption without any allegations against
them; (3) includes new defendants and a new location (such that the pleading
appears to be the functional equivalent of a new lawsuit that should have been
brought separately). Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Moreover, because the amended
complaint abandons the allegations against the original Defendants, Plaintiff’s
failure to file a motion for default judgment on the original complaint by October
4, 2024, will be deemed consent to dismissal of this action with prejudice.
___________________________
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
United States District Judge

Date: September 26, 2024

2