Rodgers v. Chevys Restaurants, LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 17 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file First Amended Complaint within two (2) days. Defendants shall respond within 14 days of the filing of the First Amended Complaint. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2014)

1

*E-Filed: May 22, 2014*

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

JOHN RODGERS,
Plaintiff,

12
v.
13
14
15

CHEVY’S RESTAURANTS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a
CHEVY’S; A.C.D. INVESTMENTS, INC.,
a California corporation; and DOES 1-10,
Inclusive,

No. C13-03923 HRL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
[Re: Docket No. 17]

16
17

Defendants.
____________________________________/

18

Plaintiff John Rodgers sues Chevy’s Restaurants, LLC and A.C.D. Investments, Inc.

19

(collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged denial of access under the Americans with Disabilities Act

20

(ADA). Pursuant to General Order 56 and the operative Scheduling Order, the parties held a joint

21

inspection but discovery is otherwise stayed, they engaged in mediation although the case did not

22

settle, and Rodgers requested a case management conference, which the Court set for June 10, 2014.

23

Concurrent with his request for a case management conference, Rodgers filed the instant motion for

24

leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”). See Dkt. No. 17. Defendants did not respond to

25

the motion.1 The Court finds this matter suitable for determination without oral argument and

26

vacates the hearing set for May 27, 2014. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Based on the moving papers and

27

the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Rodgers’ motion.

28

1

Defendants did not oppose this motion or file a statement of nonopposition pursuant to Civil L.R.
7-3.

1

If more than 21 days have passed since a responsive pleading was served, “a party may

2

amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court

3

should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Four factors are

4

commonly used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend. These are: bad faith,

5

undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment. These factors, however,

6

are not of equal weight in that delay, by itself, is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend.”

7

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). “The party

8

opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” Id. at 187.

9

Rodgers asserts that he has timely sought leave in good faith, Defendants will not be

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

prejudiced, and amendment is not futile. The proposed FAC adds forty-two (42) alleged

11

accessibility barriers revealed as a result of the joint inspection. Although the report on the joint

12

inspection was completed in January 2014, Rodgers maintains he did not seek leave to amend

13

sooner because he was confident the case would settle through mediation in April. When it became

14

apparent mediation would be unsuccessful, Rodgers immediately sought a stipulation from

15

Defendants, who failed to substantively respond over the course of a month. Thus, the Court finds

16

that Rodgers has moved for leave to amend in good faith, without undue delay. Additionally, the

17

Court does not believe that Defendants will be prejudiced by the amendment, and in any case, they

18

have failed to meet their burden to show that it would. Finally, adding new alleged barriers

19

discovered through the inspection that support Rodgers’ denial of access claim is not futile.

20

Accordingly, the four Leighton factors all weigh in Rodgers’ favor.

21

The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file the first amended complaint. Rodgers’ shall

22

file the FAC as attached to his motion within two (2) days from the date of this order. Defendants

23

shall respond within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the FAC.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 22, 2014
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

2

1

C13-03923 Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Alana Rika Chimes

3

Gregory F. Hurley [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

4
Irene Lenislav Karbelashvili

[e-mail]

5
6
7

Michael Chilleen [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3