Tamara v. El Camino Hospital et al

Filing 61

ORDER by Judge Ronald M Whyte granting 56 Motion for Leave to File (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2014)

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

Case No. C-12-01032-RMW

ABIGAYIL TAMARA,
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

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

17

[Re: Docket No. 56]

Defendants.

18
19
20

On December 2, 2013, plaintiff Abigayil Tamara filed a motion requesting leave to file a

21

Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to add additional factual allegations regarding physical

22

barriers to access. Dkt. No. 56 (“Pl.’s Br.”). Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s request.

23

Dkt. No. 58 (“Def’s Ans.”). Having considered all materials submitted, plaintiff’s motion is

24

GRANTED.
I.

25
26
27
28

A.

DISCUSSION

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

party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. See
ORDER
CASE NO. C-12-01032-RMW
LM

-1-

1

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

2

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.”

3
4
5
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

favor of granting leave to amend.” Id.
B.

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

13

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

14

No. 1. On January 23, 2013, with leave of the court, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint

15

(FAC) which added allegations of physical barriers to access to patient rooms. Dkt. No. 23.

16

After filing the FAC, the plaintiff conducted a site inspection on August 22, 2013. Dkt.

17

No. 57 (McGuinness Decl.) ¶ 2. On September 12, 2013, plaintiff informed the defendant of

18

additional alleged accessibility barriers uncovered during the inspection. McGuinness Decl. ¶ 3.

19

Because the defendant refused to stipulate to amending the FAC to list each alleged barrier to

20

access uncovered, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend. Pl’s Br. at 3. Plaintiff argues that

21

this amendment is necessary under Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir.

22

2011), which held that, “for purposes of Rule 8, a plaintiff must identify the barriers that

23

constitute the grounds for a claim of discrimination under the ADA in the complaint itself.” The

24

defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion on December 18, 2013. Def’s Ans. The

25

defendants do not address Oliver, but instead argue that because some of the alleged barriers are

26

not related to the issue of service animal access (for example, the lack of tactile signs in various

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

-2-

1

areas, and wheelchair-related access issues, Dkt. No. 57-1 (SAC) at ¶19), the plaintiff lacks

2

standing to raise these issues and therefore amendment would be futile. Def.’s Ans. at 2-3.

3

An amendment is futile “only if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the

4

pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton,

5

Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants make no attempt to argue that the SAC is

6

futile under this standard. Defendants may raise their standing arguments at the appropriate time.

7

Having considered the applicable factors identified in Foman, the court concludes that permitting

8

the amendment will not cause undue delay or prejudice, nor is plaintiff's request futile or made in

9

bad faith.
II.

10
11

ORDER

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

12

Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 57-1,

13

may be filed. Defendants shall respond by February 7, 2014.

14
15
16

Dated: January 10, 2014
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Court Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
CASE NO. C-12-01032-RMW
LM

-3-