Hernandez v. Taqueria El Grullense et al
Filing
55
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge William Alsup [granting 53 Motion for Leave to File]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
GERARDO HERNANDEZ,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
No. C 12-03257 WHA
v.
TAQUERIA EL GRULLENSE; JUAN
FRANCISCO GAMEZ GARCIA dba
TAQUERIA EL GRULLENSE; OSCAR PANG
CHENG LIU and CHU CHING LIU as Trustees
of the OSCAR PANG CHENG LIU and CHU
CHING LIU TRUST; and DOES 1–10,
inclusive,
ORDER GRANTING
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants.
18
/
19
On February 28, 2013, plaintiff Gerardo Hernandez filed a motion for leave to file a
20
second amended complaint. The motion was made on the last permissible date to seek leave
21
to amend set by the case management order (Dkt. No. 43). The proposed pleading makes two
22
changes: (1) it adds one paragraph referencing Exhibit A, and (2) it adds Exhibit A, which is an
23
inventory of barriers found in defendants’ parking lot, entrance, transaction counter, dining area,
24
and restrooms that allegedly limit access to people who are disabled.
25
Plaintiff amends the complaint to include Exhibit A because, citing Oliver v. Ralphs
26
Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2011), “for purposes of Rule 8, a plaintiff must identify
27
the barriers that constitute the grounds for a claim of discrimination under the ADA in the
28
complaint itself” and not solely in the expert report. Exhibit A was the result of a joint site
1
inspection conducted by the parties in November 2012 and is an excerpt from plaintiff’s access
2
consultant report dated February 4, 2013. Plaintiff asserts that he requested defendants to
3
stipulate to the second amended complaint, but because defendants refuse to do so, plaintiff
4
filed the present motion for leave.
5
Defendants’ opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion was due on
6
March 14. That date has come and gone, and no response has been received. Accordingly, and
7
for good cause shown, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is
8
GRANTED. Plaintiff must file the amended pleading by MARCH 20. The hearing scheduled for
9
April 4 is VACATED.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated: March 19, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?