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

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 01/12/16 ORDERING that the 55 Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED; plaintiffs have 3 days to file the proposed SAC. The Sc heduling Order is MODIFIED as follows: Discovery completed by 3/15/2016; Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 4/15/2016; all motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications are to be filed by 6/15/2016. (Benson, A)

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,

16
17
18
19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

14
15

CIV. NO. 2:15-00002 WBS AC

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

20
----oo0oo----

21
22

Plaintiff Robert Levine, who is disabled, and his

23

fiancée, plaintiff Veronica Guzman, brought this action under the

24

American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101

25

et seq., and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“UCRA”), Cal.

26

Civ. Code §§ 51-53.

27

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order that prohibited further amendments to

28

the pleadings “except with leave of court, good cause having been

On May 5, 2015, the court issued a Status

1

1

shown under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).”

2

27.)

3

file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

4

Plaintiffs now seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint

5

(“SAC”).

6

(Docket No.

On August 20, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs leave to
(Docket No. 41.)

(Docket No. 55.)
Plaintiffs’ proposed SAC differs from their FAC in

7

several respects.

8

full and equal access to public facilities in a public

9

accommodation under California Health and Safety Code section

10

19955, plaintiffs allege in greater detail the involvement of

11

defendant Coastal Breeze Limousine, LLC (“Coastal Breeze”) and

12

the difficulties plaintiffs faced in recovering their towed car.

13

(See Docket No. 55-2 ¶¶ 17, 21-25.)

14

identify a number of new interior barriers that were not

15

previously alleged in the original Complaint or FAC.

16

27.)

17

that within the amphitheater “the slope up to the lawn was too

18

steep” to manage and had no accessible seating; the accessible

19

route of travel through public areas within the amphitheater

20

contained slope areas exceeding 2.0% and grates with openings

21

greater than one-half inch wide; the semi-ambulatory toilet

22

stall, toilet, and toilet paper dispenser were not in compliance;

23

and the slope of the ramps between levels of the amphitheater

24

exceeded 8.33% slope and 2.0% cross-slope, had non-compliant

25

handrails, and landings more than thirty feet apart.

26

In the first cause of action for denial of

More importantly, plaintiffs

(Id. ¶¶ 20,

For example, the proposed SAC alleges for the first time

(Id.)

The proposed SAC also restricts the third cause of

27

action for violation of Title III of the ADA to defendant Live

28

Nation Entertainment, Inc. and adds two separate causes of action
2

1

for violations of Title III and Title IV of the ADA against

2

defendant Coastal Breeze.1

3

(Id. ¶¶ 43-60.)

Generally, a motion to amend is subject to Federal Rule

4

of Civil Procedure 15(a), which provides that the “court should

5

freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”

6

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

7

filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of

8

Civil Procedure 16[,] which establishe[s] a timetable for

9

amending pleadings[,] that rule’s standards control[ ].”

Fed. R.

However, “[o]nce the district court ha[s]

Johnson

10

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir.

11

1992).

12

meet the requirements of Rule 16(b).

13

Here, the Scheduling Order controls and plaintiffs must

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

14

demonstrate “good cause.”

15

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the

16

party seeking amendment.”

17

party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”

18

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

19

existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the

20

modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion.”

21

Id.

22

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

“Rule 16(b)’s

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

“If that
Although

Although defendants Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and

23

The Sleep Train, Inc. argue plaintiffs were careless in not

24

alleging interior barriers earlier, plaintiffs contend they were

25
26
27
28

1

According to plaintiffs’ motion, plaintiffs and
defendant Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. agreed to stipulate to
the dismissal without prejudice of defendant The Sleep Train,
Inc. but defendant has not yet filed the stipulation. (Pls.’
Mot. at 3.)
3

1

unable to confirm the interior barriers until reviewing the 1,124

2

pages of the building records they received from the Yuba County

3

Building Department.

4

(Docket No. 56).)

5

pursuant to subpoena on July 8, 2015 but the County allegedly

6

failed to certify that the records were complete until August 20,

7

2015--after the Scheduling Order had been issued and plaintiffs

8

had already filed their motion for leave to file the FAC.

9

Given that plaintiffs discovered new information regarding

(Pls.’ Mot. at 3; see Defs.’ Opp’n at 6

These records were given to plaintiffs

(Id.)

10

interior barriers from the County records and that they have an

11

obligation to identify all underlying barriers in their

12

complaint, the court finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently

13

demonstrated “good cause” for modifying the Scheduling Order.

14

See Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir.

15

2011) (“[A] plaintiff must identify the barriers that constitute

16

the grounds for a claim of discrimination under the ADA in the

17

complaint itself.”).

18

With respect to the two new causes of action against

19

Coastal Breeze, plaintiffs diligently sought to amend their FAC

20

as soon as the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for default

21

judgment against Coastal Breeze due to plaintiffs’ failure to

22

sufficiently allege a violation of the ADA or UCRA by Coastal

23

Breeze.

24

of the Order, plaintiffs asked defendants to stipulate to their

25

filing of the SAC.

26

motion.

27

plaintiffs were reasonably diligent in alerting Coastal Breeze of

28

their intentions and proceeding with a formal motion.

(Pls.’ Mot. at 4; see Docket No. 54.)

(Id.)

Within two days

Within nine days, plaintiffs filed this

Given this timeframe, the court is satisfied the

4

1

If good cause is found, the court must then evaluate

2

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

3

liberal standard.

4

“leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would cause

5

prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is

6

futile, or creates undue delay.”

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608.

Under Rule 15(a),

Id. at 607.

7

Defendants argue they would be prejudiced by expanding

8

the scope of the case to include interior barriers--issues about

9

which no discovery has been performed and no investigation

10

conducted.

(Defs.’ Opp’n at 2, 4.)

11

will not be prejudiced by the amendments given that it is in

12

default and has yet to answer plaintiffs’ original Complaint or

13

FAC.

14

the other defendants by broadening the scope of potential

15

discovery, the court will extend the discovery cutoff date and

16

corresponding dates for expert disclosure as well as the deadline

17

for dispositive motions.

(See Docket No. 22.)

18

Defendant Coastal Breeze

In order to avoid undue prejudice to

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for

19

leave to file a Second Amended Complaint be, and the same hereby

20

is, GRANTED.

21

Plaintiffs shall have three days from the date this

22

Order is signed to file the proposed SAC.

23

The Scheduling Order

is modified as follows:

24

(1)

Discovery shall be completed by March 15, 2016.

25

(2)

The parties have until April 15, 2016 to disclose

26
27
28

experts and produce expert reports.
(3)

All motions, except motions for continuances,

temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications,
5

1

shall be filed on or before June 15, 2016.

2

Dated:

January 12, 2016

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
6