Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports US, et al

Filing 156

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/16/2011 GRANTING 151 plaintiff's Motion to file an amended complaint; Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within 7 days of the issuance of this order; Further Status Conference set for 7/11/2011 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; the parties shall file status reports 14 days before the status conference. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BYRON CHAPMAN,
NO. CIV. S-04-1339 LKK/DAD

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
O R D E R

14
15

PIER 1 IMPORTS, INC., et al
Defendants.
/

16
17

Plaintiff Byron Chapman (“Chapman”) seeks leave to amend his

18

complaint for disability discrimination against the defendant Pier

19

1 Imports (“Pier 1"), following remand from the Ninth Circuit,

20

which vacated this court’s summary judgment order and instructed

21

the court to dismiss Chapman’s claim for lack of standing. The

22

court instructed plaintiff to seek clarification from the Ninth

23

Circuit as to the nature of its ruling, which the Circuit denied.

24

Nonetheless, it explained that this court may, in its discretion,

25

grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. For the reasons

26

described below, the court grants plaintiff’s motion to file an
1

1

amended complaint and to correct paragraph 12 of his proposed

2

amended complaint.

3

The court must admit that it was surprised that defendant

4

filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion in light of the Ninth

5

Circuit’s order and this court’s March 18, 2011 order. Most of

6

defendant’s arguments are premature or procedural arguments, which

7

hardly justify delaying determination on the merits.

8

A.

Premature Arguments

9

Many of defendant’s concerns are appropriately raised under

10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and not in opposition to a motion to file an

11

amended complaint. This is of particular importance given that the

12

Ninth Circuit reviews this court’s application of Rules 12(b)(1)

13

and 12(b)(6) de novo, but reviews its decision to allow or disallow

14

an amended complaint for abuse of discretion. These issues are the

15

following: (1) whether plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to

16

demonstrate standing and (2) whether plaintiff has stated a claim

17

upon which relief may be granted.

18

Furthermore, defendant raises several concerns about the

19

sufficiency of the evidence. These concerns are appropriately

20

raised at summary judgment or trial. Additionally, defendant’s

21

contention that plaintiff’s claims do not relate back to the

22

original filing date are also evidentiary questions concerning the

23

scope of any potential liability. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24

15(c) does not prohibit a court from allowing an amended complaint

25

where such claims may not relate back, but rather describes the

26

test to apply when determining whether a claim relates back.
2

1

Defendant’s concerns here are best addressed in a motion for

2

summary judgment or a trial on how to apply the statute of

3

limitations to the instant case.

4

B.

Technical Procedural Arguments

5

Defendant

also

raises

several

objections

to

plaintiff’s

6

proposed amended complaint that appear to be distractions from the

7

actual issues in this case. First, they contend that plaintiff

8

failed to follow local rules requiring him to attach a proposed

9

amended complaint to the instant motion. Plaintiff, however, had

10

already filed his proposed amended complaint. The proposed filing

11

was already on the record and, thus, there is no reason to find

12

that plaintiff failed to comply with local rules.

13

Further,

defendant

contends

that

the

court

should

deny

14

plaintiff’s motion because the 2007 settlement agreement and some

15

of the allegations in plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint

16

occurred after the filing of the original complaint and, thus,

17

plaintiff should have moved to file a supplemental complaint under

18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) and not an amended complaint under Rule

19

15(a). This distinction is without merit. As the Ninth Circuit has

20

held, “[T]he erroneous characterization of [a] corrected pleading

21

as a ‘second amended complaint’ as opposed to a supplemental

22

pleading is immaterial.” Cabrerea v. City of Huntington Park, 159

23

F.3d 374, 382 (9th Cir. 1998). The Circuit has consistently

24

reasoned that, “This interpretation of Rule 15(d) is supported by

25

the general purpose of the Rules to minimize technical obstacles

26

to a determination of [a] controversy on its merits.” Id. (quoting
3

1

United States v. Reiten, 313 F.2d 673, 674 (9th Cir. 1963)). In

2

light of this precedent, the court construes plaintiff’s motion as

3

under Rules 15(a) and 15(d).

4

C.

Undue Delay

5

Defendant

further

contends

that

the

court

should

deny

6

plaintiff’s motion because of undue delay. Specifically, it argues

7

that granting plaintiff leave to amend would be an abuse of

8

discretion because of precedent that a district court did not abuse

9

its discretion in denying leave to file an amended complaint where

10

plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause. This argument is entirely

11

without merit. Initially, this case has been on appeal since 2007

12

making defendant’s contention of undue delay quite odd to say the

13

least. Moreover, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit ordered that

14

it did not limit the district court’s discretion to grant leave to

15

amend. Under these circumstances, the court does not find that the

16

delay in filing the proposed amended complaint was undue.

17

D.

Alternate Paragraph

18

Plaintiff requests that this court allow him to correct

19

paragraph 12 in his proposed amended complaint when filing his

20

amended complaint. The court grants this request.

21

E.

Conclusion

22

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion

23

to file an amended complaint with the correction to paragraph 12

24

explained in plaintiff’s briefs. Plaintiff shall file his amended

25

complaint within seven (7) days of the issuance of this order. The

26

court further sets a status conference for July 11, 2011 at 3:00
4

1

p.m. The parties shall file status reports fourteen (14) days

2

before the status conference.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED:

June 16, 2011.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5