Hernandez v. Polanco Enterprises, Inc et al
Filing
35
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 32 Motion for Leave to File An Amended Complaint; Plaintiff is required to E-FILE the amended complaint by 8/10/12. The Court VACATES the hearing set for August 21, 2012. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2012)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
ALMA CLARISA HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
Case No.: 11-CV-02247 YGR
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
vs.
POLANCO ENTERPRISES, INC. et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
Having carefully considered the Motion of Plaintiff Alma Clarisa Hernandez for leave to file
15
16
her First Amended Complaint, the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, the Court hereby
17
GRANTS the Motion.1
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend should be freely given when
18
19
justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Factors the Court should consider include the presence or
20
absence of undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
21
previous amendment or futility of the proposed amendment. Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc.,
22
885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). “Leave to
23
amend need not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore, supra, 885 F.2d
24
at 538.
Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that amendment would be futile. According to
25
26
27
28
Defendants, Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint fails to cure problems with her original
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for August
21, 2012.
1
complaint.2 First, Defendants argue that the proposed amended complaint fails to allege the date on
2
which Plaintiff visited the facility. Defendants do not provide any legal authority to support their
3
assertion that the date the Plaintiff visited the facility is an essential element of a claim under the
4
ADA. Instead, it appears that Defendants hope to be able to raise the affirmative defense that the
5
action is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations on a motion to dismiss rather than a
6
motion for summary judgment.
claims because the Proposed Amended Complaint does not identify which of the barriers Plaintiff
9
encountered or how her particular disability was affected by each barrier. “[W]hen an ADA plaintiff
10
has suffered an injury-in-fact by encountering a barrier that deprives h[er] of full and equal enjoyment
11
Northern District of California
Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege Article III standing to assert her ADA
8
United States District Court
7
of the facility due to h[er] particular disability, [s]he has standing to sue for injunctive relief as to that
12
barrier and other barriers related to h[er] disability, even if [s]he is not deterred from returning to the
13
public accommodation at issue.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 944 (9th Cir.
14
2011). Plaintiff alleges that she was confined to a wheelchair and could not enter Defendant’s facility
15
because there was no wheelchair clearance outside the entrance door. See Proposed Amended
16
Complaint, Dkt. No. 32-2, ¶¶ 8, 10. Plaintiff further alleges that this barrier prevented her from use
17
and enjoyment of the facility due to her disability. Id. ¶ 10. Accordingly, it appears that the Proposed
18
Amended Complaint establishes that Plaintiff has standing under the ADA, including standing to sue
19
for injunctive relief as to unencountered barriers related to her disability. See Chapman, supra, 631
20
F.3d at 944 (“an ADA plaintiff who establishes standing as to encountered barriers may also sue for
21
injunctive relief as to unencountered barriers related to h[er] disability.”).
Finally, Defendants argue that at least two of the more than forty violations that Plaintiff
22
23
identifies are not related to Plaintiff’s disability. Plaintiff argues that all violations are related to her
24
disability. Even if Plaintiff has identified two violations that are not related to her disability, this does
25
not make amendment futile―Plaintiff has identified approximately forty other violations related to
26
her disability.
27
28
2
The Court notes that Defendants chose to answer the Complaint rather than challenge any of those problems.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is
GRANTED.
By no later than August 10, 2012, Plaintiff shall file her First Amended Complaint, attached
as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Dkt. No. 32-2.
This Order Terminates Docket Number 32.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 8, 2012
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?