Acosta v. Gill et al

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING 22 Motion to Amend the Complaint. Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint as proposed and attached to his Motion (Doc. 22, Ex. A) within two (2) days from the date of this order; and Defendants shall file their responses to the First Amended Complaint within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The hearing on said motion set for 12/20/2017, is VACATED. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/8/2017. (Timken, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Case No. 1:17-cv-00262-LJO-SKO JOE ACOSTA, 10 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT Plaintiff, 11 (Doc. 22) v. 12 13 NIRMAL SINGH GILL, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 _____________________________________/ 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is an unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint, filed on 19 November 17, 2017, by Plaintiff Joe Acosta (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. 22.) The Court has reviewed 20 Plaintiff’s submissions and determined, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), that the matter is suitable 21 for decision without oral argument. The Court accordingly vacated the motion hearing. (Doc. 22 23.) 23 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend the complaint is 24 hereby GRANTED. 25 26 II. BACKGROUND On February 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Nirmal Singh Gill 27 dba Arco Gas & Food Mart, Navdeep Singh dba Arco Gas & Food Mart, Melvin C. Armey, and 28 Carol L. Gano (collectively “Defendants”) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act 1 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; California’s parallel Unruh Act, California Civil Code § 51 2 et seq.; and the California Health and Safety Code. (Doc. 1.) 3 On November 17, 2017, Plaintiff timely filed the “Motion for Leave to File First Amended 4 Complaint” (the “Motion”). (Doc. 22; see also Doc. 21 at 2 (setting November 17, 2017, as the 5 deadline for filing amendments in this case).) Defendants’ opposition to the Motion was due by 6 December 6, 2017. (See Doc. 22); see also L.R. 230(c). To date, Defendants have not filed any 7 opposition to the Motion, and the date for doing so has passed. III. 8 9 DISCUSSION Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if an amendment is requested 10 more than 21 days after service of a responsive pleading, “a party may amend its pleading only 11 with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The rule 12 further provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave” to amend a pleading “when justice so 13 requires.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has instructed that the policy favoring amendments “is to be 14 applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 15 (9th Cir. 1990). “In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad 16 faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 17 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of 18 the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 19 ‘freely given.’” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Leave to amend is entrusted to the 20 sound discretion of the trial court.” Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 21 1996) (citation omitted). “The district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly 22 broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Ascon Props., Inc., 866 F.2d at 23 1160 (citations omitted). 24 In this case, Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to “substantively add[] additional 25 barriers to [Plaintiff’s] access, identified during the site inspection which took place on October 26 18, 2017, which related to Plaintiff’s disabilities.” (Doc. 22-1 at 2.) The Court finds that justice 27 would be served by permitting Plaintiff to amend the complaint as specified above. Accordingly, 28 in the absence of any undue prejudice to Defendants, as evidenced by their lack of opposition to 2 1 the motion, Plaintiff’s Motion shall be granted. IV. 2 ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. 5 Plaintiff’s unopposed “Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint” (Doc. 22) is GRANTED; 6 2. 7 Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint as proposed and attached to his Motion (Doc. 22, Ex. A) within two (2) days from the date of this order; and 8 3. 9 Defendants shall file their responses to the First Amended Complaint within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 13 December 8, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 .

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?