Hernandez et al v. Vallco Shopping Mall, LLC et al

Filing 179

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 160 Motion to Amend/Correct ; Plaintiffs are required to E-FILE the amended document (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2010)

Hernandez et al v. Vallco Shopping Mall, LLC et al

Doc. 179

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. VALLCO INTERNATIONAL SHOPPING CENTER, LLC, et al. Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ALMA CLARISA HERNANDEZ, THERESA WALLEN, RONALD MOORE, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 10-CV-02848-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, on June 29, 2010. See Compl. (Dkt. No. 1). Defendants are a large number of different business entities and associated individuals, all apparently located in the Vallco International Shopping Center. Id. On October 15, 2010, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint to substitute certain incorrectly-named defendants with properly-named defendants, to correct paragraph numbering, and to cure other "miscellaneous defects" in the original pleading. See Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 160) at 2. The Court has determined that this matter is suitable for determination without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing currently set for Thursday, December 16, 2010 is hereby VACATED. Ten Defendants filed statements of non-opposition to this motion; no Defendant has filed any opposition. As Plaintiffs note in their motion, leave to amend the complaint shall be "freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Unless there is a showing of "undue 1 Case No.: 10-CV-02848-LHK ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc." then leave should be "freely given." Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). No Defendant has opposed Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint, and based on the papers submitted, it appears Plaintiffs' request is in the interest of justice as the proposed amendments will correctly name a number of parties that were previously improperly named. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint as indicated in the Motion to Amend. However, Plaintiffs are not granted leave to amend any unspecified "miscellaneous defects" beyond non-substantive changes such as formatting, paragraph numbering, and the like. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 13, 2010 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

2 Case No.: 10-CV-02848-LHK ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT