Tamara v. El Camino Hospital et al

Filing 22

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte granting 19 Motion for Leave to File. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. C-12-01032-RMW

ABIGAYIL TAMARA,
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
EL CAMINO HOSPITAL; DAVID DIGANT;
and DOES 1-20, Inclusive,

[Re Docket No. 19]

Defendant.

18
19
20

On December 21, 2012, plaintiff Abigayil Tamara filed a motion to amend her complaint

21

to add factual allegations and drop a request for injunctive relief under Civil Code section 55,

22

replacing it with a new cause of action under California Unfair Competition Law. Pl.'s Br. 2, Dkt.

23

19. Defendants, who have filed an answer to plaintiff's original complaint, have neither stipulated

24

to the amendment nor filed an opposition to plaintiff's request. Def.'s Resp., Dkt. 11; Pl.'s Br. 2.

25

The court will decide the issue without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-1(b). Having

26

considered all written materials submitted, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.

27
28
ORDER
CASE NO. C-12-01032-RMW
SG

-1-

1
I.

2
3

A.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard
Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, once an answer has been filed, a

4
5

party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. See

6

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). A court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Id.

7

10

The United States Supreme Court has stated:
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue 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
allowing the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the
rules require, be “freely given.”

11

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).

8
9

This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon,

12
13

Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Absent prejudice or a strong

14

showing under one of the other Foman factors, “there exists a presumption under rule 15(a) in

15

favor of granting leave to amend.” Id.

16
17

B.

Analysis
Plaintiff, a person with disability, had alleged in her original complaint that defendants

18

unlawfully prohibited her service dog from entry into the psychiatric ward of the hospital.

19

Compl., Dkt. 1. The proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC) makes new allegations of

20

physical barriers to access, limited to guest rooms only. Pl.'s Br. 3. In addition, the proposed

21

FAC drops claims under Civil Code section 55 and replaces it with claims under California

22

Business and Professions Code section 172000 et seq., the Unfair Competition Law. Pl.'s Br. 4.

23

Although defendants refused to stipulate, records indicate that they were informed of the

24

proposed amendments as early as November 7, 2012. Decl. of Celia McGuiness, Dkt. 20.

25

Furthermore, plaintiff contends that defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendment and that

26

it will not cause undue delay. Pl.'s Br. 6.

27
28

Because defendants have not filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion, the court's decision
is based on its review of the pleadings and docket in this matter. Having considered the
ORDER
CASE NO. C-12-01032-RMW
SG

-2-

1

applicable factors, the court concludes that permitting the amendment will not cause undue delay

2

or prejudice, nor is plaintiff's request futile or made in bad faith.
II.

3
4

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First

5

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file her amended complaint by February 1, 2013. The

6

January 25, 2013 hearing on the motion is VACATED. The case management conference

7

scheduled for January 25, 2013, will be held as scheduled.

8
9
10

Dated: January

2013
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Court Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
CASE NO. C-12-01032-RMW
SG

-3-