Shaw v. Ernie's General Store, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/7/2015 GRANTING 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12

CECIL SHAW,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

CIV. NO. 2:14-1263 WBS KJN
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
ERNIE’S GENERAL STORE, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
----oo0oo----

20
21

Plaintiff Cecil Shaw brought this action under the

22

Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et

23

seq., and related California law, alleging that defendants

24

Ernie’s General Store, Inc., and Ernest Giannecchini failed to

25

remove barriers preventing plaintiff’s access to a public

26

accommodation.

27

Plaintiff now moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

28

Procedure 15 for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
1

1

adding additional alleged barriers to his access.

2

14.)

3

party’s written consent or the court’s leave.

4

freely give leave when justice so requires.”

5

15(a)(2).

6

of non-opposition as required by Local Rule 230(c).

(Docket No.

“[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing

7

The court should
Fed. R. Civ. P.

Defendants have not filed an opposition or statement

A plaintiff who has established standing to sue under

8

the ADA regarding at least one barrier to access “may, in one

9

suit, permissibly challenge all barriers in that public

10

accommodation that are related to his or her specific

11

disability.”

12

Cir. 2008).

13

all the barriers that bar his access to the . . . store in order

14

to seek an injunction to remove those barriers.”

15

Holiday Quality Foods, Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (9th Cir.

16

2002).

17

Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th
The plaintiff “need not have personally encountered

Pickern v.

Plaintiff represents that the additional barriers he

18

seeks to add to his Complaint were not identified until after a

19

consultant conducted a site inspection on October 10, 2014, and

20

wrote a report identifying them.

21

14-1).)

22

filed by the parties on September 15, 2014, that he would seek

23

amendment after conducting this inspection.

24

No. 8).)

25

(Pl.’s Mem. at 2 (Docket No.

Moreover, plaintiff indicated in the Joint Status Report

(JSR at 2 (Docket

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED

26

that plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a FAC be, and

27

the same hereby is, GRANTED.

28
2

1

Dated:

January 7, 2015

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3