Levine et al v. Sleep Train, Inc. et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 8/20/2015 GRANTING 34 Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint. Plaintiffs shall have twenty days from the date this Order is signed to file an amended complaint consistent with this Order. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12
13

ROBERT LEVINE and VERONICA
GUZMAN,

CIV. NO. 2:15-00002 WBS AC
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18

v.
THE SLEEP TRAIN, INC.; LIVE
NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;
COASTAL BREEZE LIMOUSINE,
LLC; BGE YUBA, LLC, and DOES
1-20, inclusive,

19

Defendants.

20
----oo0oo----

21

Plaintiff Robert Levine, who is disabled, and his

22
23

fiancée, plaintiff Veronica Guzman, attended a concert at the

24

Sleep Train Amphitheater on July 25, 2014. (Compl. ¶ 1 (Docket

25

No. 1).)

26

did not provide disabled accessible parking as required by

27

federal and state anti-discrimination laws. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.)

28

Defendants answered the Complaint and the court issued a Pretrial

Plaintiffs brought this action alleging the facility

1

1

Scheduling Order on May 6, 2015, which states that further

2

amendments to the pleadings are prohibited “except with leave of

3

court, good cause having been shown under Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 16(b).” (Docket No. 27.)

5

the court’s Scheduling Order so that they may file a First

6

Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

7

Plaintiffs now move to modify

Generally, a motion to amend is subject to Rule 15(a)

8

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that

9

“[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so

10

requires.”

11

district court ha[s] filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant

12

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16[,] which establishe[s] a

13

timetable for amending pleadings[,] that rule’s standards

14

control[ ].”

15

607–08 (9th Cir. 1992).

16

plaintiffs must meet the requirements of Rule 16(b).

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

However, “[o]nce the

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
Here, the Scheduling Order controls and

A party seeking leave to amend under Rule 16(b) must

18

demonstrate “good cause.”

19

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the

20

party seeking amendment.”

21

party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”

22

the focus of the inquiry is on the moving party’s diligence, “the

23

existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the

24

modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion.”

25

Id.

26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

“Rule 16(b)’s

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
Id.

“If that
Although

Plaintiffs seek to amend the Complaint to ensure that

27

the allegations give defendants fair notice of the barriers that

28

are grounds for their ADA claim, as required by the Ninth
2

1

Circuit.

2

Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011).

3

to the site for an inspection, plaintiffs now seek to amend ¶ 17

4

of the Complaint so that it alleges barriers to disabled access

5

with greater specificity.

6

FAC”) ¶ 17 (Docket No. 35-1).)

7

the amendment of a single paragraph of the Complaint will

8

prejudice defendants.

9

proposed amendment may actually benefit defendants by providing

10

(Pl.’s Mot. at 2 (Docket No. 34)); see Oliver v. Ralphs
After gaining access

(See McGuinness Decl. Ex. A (“Proposed
Defendants have not indicated how

In fact, it would appear that plaintiffs’

them with better notice regarding the alleged barriers.

11

Turning to plaintiffs’ diligence, plaintiffs conducted

12

the site inspection on May 11, 2015, six days after the court

13

issued its Scheduling Order.

14

plaintiffs received their access consultant’s preliminary draft

15

findings, which included measurements relevant to establishing

16

barriers.

17

represent that it was not until the inspection and receipt of the

18

findings that they learned of several key facts relating to the

19

access barriers at the site.

20

¶ 17 of the Complaint incorporates those new facts.

21

(Pl.’s Mot. at 2.)

(Pl.’s Reply at 3 (Docket No. 39).)

(Id.)

On June 8,

Plaintiffs

Their proposed amendment to

Plaintiffs asked defendants twice to stipulate to their

22

filing of the FAC on July 13 and 14, before defendants answered

23

the Complaint.

24

replied and filed an Answer.

25

the present motion for leave to amend on July 23, 2015.

(McGuinness Decl. Ex. A.)
(Id. Ex. B.)

Defendants never
Plaintiffs then filed

26

Approximately five weeks elapsed between the receipt of

27

the consultant’s draft findings and the request for a stipulation

28

from defendants.

Considering that time frame, the court is
3

1

satisfied that plaintiffs were reasonably diligent in alerting

2

defendants of their intentions and proceeding with a formal

3

motion.

4

If good cause is found, the court must then evaluate

5

the request to amend the Complaint in light of Rule 15(a)’s

6

liberal standard.

7

should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the

8

opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates

9

undue delay.”

10

Id. at 608.

Under Rule 15(a), “leave to amend

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607.

None of those

circumstances are present here.

11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to

12

modify the scheduling order and for leave to file an amended

13

complaint be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

14

Plaintiffs shall have twenty days from the date this

15

Order is signed to file an amended complaint consistent with this

16

Order.

17

Dated:

August 20, 2015

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4