Castillo-Antonio v. Barron et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 18 Motion to Amend/Correct. The court grants the plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 18) to amend his complaint to add Bahman Emam as a defendant. The court orders the plaintiff to serve the new defendant, Ba hman Emam, and the defaulted defendant, Ali Harbi. The plaintiff need not serve the defaulted defendant, Cuauhtemoc Barron. The court directs the clerk to file the Second Amended Complaint that is attached (ECF No. 18-3) to the plaintiff's motion. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO,

12

Case No. 14-cv-03320-LB

Plaintiff,
13
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT

14
CUAUHTEMOC BARRON, et al.,

15

[Re: ECF No. 18]

Defendants.
16
INTRODUCTION

17
18

This is a case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and similar California

19

statutes. Plaintiff Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio alleges that a store in Richmond is inaccessible to

20

wheelchair occupants and violates other requirements of federal and state law. (1st Am. Compl. ‒

21

ECF No. 13 at 2-4.)1 He sues the owners of both the market itself and the property on which the

22

market is located. Defendants Mohammed Vahdatpour and Christine Vahdatpour allegedly own

23

the subject property. (Id. at 2, ¶ 3.) The market is allegedly owned by defendants Cuauhtemoc

24

Barron and Ali Harbi. (Id.) The plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add Bahman Emam as a

25

defendant. (ECF No. 11.) Emam is apparently another owner of the subject property. The plaintiff

26

explains (and has submitted evidence) that, days after she was served with the complaint in this

27
1

28

Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the tops of the documents.
ORDER 14-3320 LB

1

case, Christine Vahdatpour filed a quitclaim deed with the Contra Costa County Recorder that

2

ceded her interest in the property to Emam. (ECF No. 18 at 3 (¶ 1), 6.) The court finds this motion

3

suitable for determination without a hearing, Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and vacates the April 30, 2015

4

hearing. For the reasons stated below, the court grants the motion.
ANALYSIS

5
6

Pleading amendment is governed primarily by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil

7

Procedure. Rule 15(a)(2) provides that a “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice

8

so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.”

9

Sonoma County Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir.
2013). Rule 15 must be read in conjunction with Rule 21, which states: “On motion or on its own,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Ninth

12

Circuit has said: “Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of

13

„undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure

14

deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue

15

of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.‟” Sonoma County, 708 F.3d at

16

1117 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

17

The court finds that none of these factors (of the ones potentially relevant here) impedes the

18

sought amendment. Above all, allowing Mr. Castillo-Antonio to add Emam as an owner of the

19

subject property would not unduly prejudice any of the other parties. The plaintiff‟s lawyer

20

explains that he learned of the quitclaim deed sometime after he filed the First Amended

21

Complaint. (ECF No. 18-1 at 1, ¶ 1.) This was on December 16, 2014. (ECF No. 13.) The plaintiff

22

filed this motion to amend on March 9, 2015. (ECF No. 18.) In the context of this case, this does

23

not amount to undue delay. This is especially true given that this case is in its earliest stages. See

24

Sonoma County, 708 F.3d at 1118 (“[T]he mere fact that an amendment is offered late in the case .

25

. . is not enough to bar it.”) (quoting authorities). Delay moreover must be accompanied by the

26

movant‟s bad faith, futility in making the amendment, or prejudice to non-moving parties. Bowles,

27

198 F.3d at 758. “The consideration of prejudice” to non-moving parties “carries the greatest

28

weight.” Sonoma County, 708 F.3d at 1117 (quoting Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316
ORDER 14-3320 LB

2

1

F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)). Here, the court can see no prejudice from the proposed

2

amendment. Considering all this in light of Rule 15‟s extremely liberal amendment policy, the

3

court grants the plaintiff‟s motion for leave to amend.

4

The plaintiff also asks that he not be required to serve the Second Amended Complaint on the

5

defaulted defendants, Barron and Harbi. (ECF No. 18 at 4-5, ¶ 7.) He notes that Barron has

6

defaulted twice and Harbi had defaulted once. (See ECF Nos. 9, 17.) He observes that the new

7

complaint “changes nothing about the allegations [in this case]. It merely adds the new defendant,

8

Bahman Emam.” (ECF No. 18 at 4-5, ¶ 7.) The court acknowledges the plaintiff‟s discomfort at

9

being put to the expense of again serving defendants who have already defaulted. The court must
also be mindful, however, of the strong federal policy in favor determining cases, whenever

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

possible, on the merits. See, e.g., Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In view

12

of that policy, and the facts of this case, the court orders the plaintiff to serve the Second Amended

13

Complaint on defendant Harbi. The plaintiff need not serve Barron. Should the plaintiff move for

14

default judgment, the court will direct the plaintiff to serve copies of its motion on all defendants

15

(though, at that point, notice short of formal service may suffice).

16

CONCLUSION

17

The court grants the plaintiff‟s motion (ECF No. 18) to amend his complaint to add Bahman

18

Emam as a defendant. The court orders the plaintiff to serve, not only the new defendant, Bahman

19

Emam, but also the defaulted defendant, Ali Harbi. The plaintiff need not serve the defaulted

20

defendant, Cuauhtemoc Barron. The court directs the clerk to file the Second Amended Complaint

21

that is attached (ECF No. 18-3) to the plaintiff‟s motion.

22

This disposes of ECF No. 18.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: April 6, 2015
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
ORDER 14-3320 LB

3